Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[ippy]

The irrational and superstitious belief in clocks and watches?

As I have said before it's only a matter of time before I make another horilogical mistake, never could spell and now at 78 years it sure aint going to get any better, be more surprised when I get them all right.

I suppose I should have checked my spell checker, mind you it was a bit of a howler that one.

Regards to all of you clock watchers, ippy 

[Roses]

As I have said before it's only a matter of time before I make another horilogical mistake, never could spell and now at 78 years it sure aint going to get any better, be more surprised when I get them all right.

I suppose I should have checked my spell checker, mind you it was a bit of a howler that one.

Regards to all of you clock watchers, ippy

Don't worry about it, do you have dyslexia? Our middle daughter who has a Mensa level intelligence has dyslexia as does her younger son, but she still got her degree. Her lad, who is 16 next month, is going to study electrical engineering. 

Although I have never been tested for it, I think I have dyscalculia, which is a problem with maths. I have never got to grips with the subject, even though I had maths tutors throughout my childhood. Thank goodness for calculators, or I would be really stuffed when checking our bank accounts as I do on a daily basis.

[Outrider]

As long as you understand that the law restricts free speech. You're obviously OK with this particular restriction. I'm not. I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject.

I don't see it as an undue restriction - these people have every right to have their say in the public sphere.  In their professional endeavours there are innumerable restrictions upon them to avoid them causing harm; food hygiene, tax codes, expectations around fire and health and safety.  Adding another restriction to their professional activities doesn't seem an undue burden to me.

O.

[jeremyp]

I don't see it as an undue restriction - these people have every right to have their say in the public sphere.  In their professional endeavours there are innumerable restrictions upon them to avoid them causing harm; food hygiene, tax codes, expectations around fire and health and safety.  Adding another restriction to their professional activities doesn't seem an undue burden to me.

O.

Forcing them to propagate messages with which they do not agree is different to forcing them to make cakes that do not poison people.

[Outrider]

Forcing them to propagate messages with which they do not agree is different to forcing them to make cakes that do not poison people.

Not allowing them to utilise their professional services to cause harm, whilst affording them the personal freedom to think, say or believe what they wish - that's free speech, without permitting free action.

They can campaign to change the law if they wish, that's free speech.  They can stand on the street corner and decry whatever immorality they see fit that's free speech.

O.

[jeremyp]

Not allowing them to utilise their professional services to cause harm, whilst affording them the personal freedom to think, say or believe what they wish - that's free speech, without permitting free action.

How does it cause harm to allow people not to bake cakes with overtly pro-gay messages?

They can campaign to change the law if they wish, that's free speech.  They can stand on the street corner and decry whatever immorality they see fit that's free speech.

Not being forced to say things with which they disagree is also free speech.

[Nearly Sane]

Not allowing them to utilise their professional services to cause harm, whilst affording them the personal freedom to think, say or believe what they wish - that's free speech, without permitting free action.

They can campaign to change the law if they wish, that's free speech.  They can stand on the street corner and decry whatever immorality they see fit that's free speech.

O.

Well on the current law as decided by the Supreme Court, Asher's were in the right. (Though an appeal may happen to the ECHR)

[Outrider]

How does it cause harm to allow people not to bake cakes with overtly pro-gay messages?

How does it hurt to be refused service because of something fundamental to who you are?  How about if you were turned away, as a black person, for a cake that celebrate Black History month?

Not being forced to say things with which they disagree is also free speech.

They aren't being forced to say anything; they are baking a cake on which someone else has asked for words.  It's not their words, it's not their ideas.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

How does it hurt to be refused service because of something fundamental to who you are?  How about if you were turned away, as a black person, for a cake that celebrate Black History month?

They aren't being forced to say anything; they are baking a cake on which someone else has asked for words.  It's not their words, it's not their ideas.

O.

They were not refused for who they ere. The cake is being produced by Asher's - so they are 'saying' it.

[Outrider]

They were not refused for who they ere. The cake is being produced by Asher's - so they are 'saying' it.

They aren't saying it, they're printing someone else's message.  The cake bakers aren't saying 'Happy Birthday, Ethel' when they back Ethel's cake, they don't know Ethel from Adam, they're printing someone else's words - it's not their speech, it's whomever's buying the cake's speech.

In this instance the decision has come down that their decision was based upon the message, not the speaker; I feel that's a misapplication of the law, and enough others in the legal community do that it was a case that went to the Supreme Court.

O.

[SteveH]

They aren't saying it, they're printing someone else's message.  The cake bakers aren't saying 'Happy Birthday, Ethel' when they back Ethel's cake, they don't know Ethel from Adam, they're printing someone else's words - it's not their speech, it's whomever's buying the cake's speech.

"Whoever". Your quibble doesn't alter the fact that they are being asked to produce a message that they feel unable to in conscience. It isn't going to noticeably affect gay rights for a few bakers to be allowed to refuse to bake cakes with certain messages on - there are plenty of other bakers.

[Outrider]

"Whoever". Your quibble doesn't alter the fact that they are being asked to produce a message that they feel unable to in conscience.

That's their problem; it's not an objectively offensive message, such as would fall foul of the hate crimes legislation or the Obscene Publications Act.  There is legislation in place upon which they could rely to protect them from having to create something generally offensive.  If this is the test case, then Facebook is in for a whole world of hurt because they reproduce other people's opinions every second of every day and they're not responsible because it's not their job to be editors; they aren't journalists, they're a platform.  This cake/baker scenario is the same; they aren't the editor, they're the printer.

It isn't going to noticeably affect gay rights for a few bakers to be allowed to refuse to bake cakes with certain messages on - there are plenty of other bakers.

Just like there were plenty of other landlords when the 'no blacks' signs were up?  There's part of the 'what harm' that you were talking about - why should anyone doing something perfectly acceptable have to trawl through the options rather than just rock up at the door like everyone else?

O.

[Aruntraveller]

I would agree with Outrider on this.

Newspapers frequently publish articles with disclaimers about this not being the papers view.

The bakers were clearly acting from bigotry and although I can see some of the complications in other examples a lot of those given could easily covered by hate speech legislation.

For me it still comes back to acting on your prejudice, and if they can do it over a cake, then other have the right to refuse according to their prejudices and it just becomes messy and unworkable.

Add I'm still loving the fact that some of you are still quite happy to see me discriminated against.

[Nearly Sane]

They aren't saying it, they're printing someone else's message.  The cake bakers aren't saying 'Happy Birthday, Ethel' when they back Ethel's cake, they don't know Ethel from Adam, they're printing someone else's words - it's not their speech, it's whomever's buying the cake's speech.

In this instance the decision has come down that their decision was based upon the message, not the speaker; I feel that's a misapplication of the law, and enough others in the legal community do that it was a case that went to the Supreme Court.

O.

Should a Jewish baker have to print amessage on a cake which says End The State of Israel if a Muslim customer asks him for it?

[Nearly Sane]

I would agree with Outrider on this.

Newspapers frequently publish articles with disclaimers about this not being the papers view.

The bakers were clearly acting from bigotry and although I can see some of the complications in other examples a lot of those given could easily covered by hate speech legislation.

For me it still comes back to acting on your prejudice, and if they can do it over a cake, then other have the right to refuse according to their prejudices and it just becomes messy and unworkable.

Add I'm still loving the fact that some of you are still quite happy to see me discriminated against.

So it would bd ok if the cake had a disclaimer on it?

[Aruntraveller]

So it would bd ok if the cake had a disclaimer on it?

A side of A4 in the window should cover it.

[Outrider]

Should a Jewish baker have to print a message on a cake which says End The State of Israel if a Muslim customer asks him for it?

I think so, yes.  If it's calling for the extermination of the Jewish people, no, if it's calling for political change to the status of the land, then yes.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I think so, yes.  If it's calling for the extermination of the Jewish people, no, if it's calling for political change to the status of the land, then yes.

O.

Say it's not a Muslim asking for the cake, just Joe Bloggs?

[jeremyp]

How does it hurt to be refused service because of something fundamental to who you are?

They weren't refusing service because the customer was gay, they were refusing service because of the message they were being asked to put on the cake.

How about if you were turned away, as a black person, for a cake that celebrate Black History month?

I'd note the bigotry and I would not favour them with my custom anymore. Note that, I'm not black but if a black friend had asked me to order such a cake and it was refused because of the message, my reaction would be the same. Also the same if I tried to order a cake with a pro-gay message and it was refused. If the person who refused me service, was not the owner of the business, I might consider making a complaint to the owners too.

They aren't being forced to say anything;

Yes they are.

[Nearly Sane]

A side of A4 in the window should cover it.

  Which no one who sees the cake might ever see.


Do they have the right to refuse to bake a cake with 'Fuck' as the message on it?

[jeremyp]

I would agree with Outrider on this.

Newspapers frequently publish articles with disclaimers about this not being the papers view.

Would you accept a cake with a pro-gay message on it that also had a disclaimer on it saying "this is not the view of Acme bakers"?

Add I'm still loving the fact that some of you are still quite happy to see me discriminated against.

I'm not happy to see you discriminated against. I would not be happy to see a baker refuse to bake a cake with a pro gay message and I would take my custom elsewhere.

But this is a free speech issue. Free speech is too precious to start restricting it because people are offended.

[Aruntraveller]

Then it is free speech and an action as a consequence that would allow a B&B to refuse a shared room for a gay couple. I ain't seeing a difference.

[Nearly Sane]

Then it is free speech and an action as a consequence that would allow a B&B to refuse a shared room for a gay couple. I ain't seeing a difference.

Because they are saying they would refuse to bake a cake with that message on it for anyone.

[Spud]

Just like there were plenty of other landlords when the 'no blacks' signs were up?  There's part of the 'what harm' that you were talking about - why should anyone doing something perfectly acceptable have to trawl through the options rather than just rock up at the door like everyone else?

O.

You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent. You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own. I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple. In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong. I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity. You might bar more than three children from a sweet shop at once, to prevent disruption, but you wouldn't bar children in general.

[Outrider]

Say it's not a Muslim asking for the cake, just Joe Bloggs?

Joe Bloggs isn't allowed a position on whether the existence of the Israeli state is acceptable?

O.