"A society in which people were compelled to perform actions that ran contrary to their deepest principles would not be a happy place to live..."

That depends on how many people have 'deepest principles' which are anti-social or just plain daft. One of my 'deepest principles' may be that all redheaded men should be executed; but it's neither reasonable nor humane for society to enforce that 'deepest principle' on others, particularly since others' own 'deepest principles' are in direct conflict with it. The best we can expect as social human beings is that principles which are rational, compassionate and in tune with broader social goals should be respected. Those which are not deserve no more respect than the flimsiest whim of any five-year-old.

//If Ashers had refused to serve Lee because he was gay it would be as guilty of discrimination as a pizzeria that refused to serve a customer because she was a Muslim. But the bakery was being asked, in this instance, to reproduce a sentiment its owners found profoundly disagreeable. It has been objected that Ashers’ owners should be able to separate their religious convictions from their fulfilment of customer orders; that Ashers is a business, not a religious organisation, and should behave accordingly.//

A lot of people with anti-Islamic sentiments are opposed to Islamic dietary laws. I've worked with chefs like this and whilst the situation has never arisen, should a chef have the right to refuse to cook a halal meal for a Muslim? Not to refuse to serve them, just to refuse to serve them what they order because it requires the chef to reproduce sentiments they find highly disagreeable? Should an anti-Semitic chef have the right to refuse to cook a kosher meal for a Jew? Should I have the right to refuse to cook a vegan meal for a herbivore? I find vegan sentiments extremely disagreeable.

"In this case the law has got it wrong. For while civil rights activists will point out (correctly) that religious ‘conscience’ could be invoked in order to justify racism and sexism – and, indeed, to facilitate them: to keep Jews and blacks out of restaurants or women out of snooker clubs – the gay cake controversy is not a case of that kind."

Except that it is...

In putting themselves in the public and secular sphere of operating a cake shop business the Asher's put themselves in the position of being subject to the applicable laws, including those of anti-discrimination. A court found them to be in breach of those in this instance.

The case would have been much more interesting had the Asher's subpoenaed God to confirm their unproven allegation of His plan!

Lol WmTrevor! I would like to see that.

If this cake shop refused to serve African Americans because of their colour, or Jews because of their religion, then there would be a definite discrimination case to answer.

There is no difference in this shop refusing to serve people because of their sexual orientation. The law is fairly straight forward as far as I can see,

If the cake shop owners are so much into their religion that they can't even serve gay people, then perhaps they should not be in such a business, but rather find a job that doesn't involve mixing with the public?

The day participation in society becomes voluntary, such society could dictate whatever laws it likes to its members, draconian as it desires.

Till then, compelling anyone to participate in the activities of a society is nothing but violence.

Churches have been doing this in the past, now the secular state takes its revenge on them - and the rest of us are caught in the cross-fire!

It is no use to claim "religious rights" as there cannot be a general agreement on what religion is. It is no use to claim "freedom of conscience" as it is impossible to tell from the outside what is motivated by conscience and what by lesser motives, say greed, envy or hate. Therefore all should have the benefit of the doubt and be free not to do anything they don't agree to do, for whatever reason or even for no stated reason.

A big "YES" to all of Tony Lavis' "should" questions, that is until such day when participation in society becomes voluntary.

---

As for the specific case, I understand that Ashers did accept the order, but then refused to follow through with their agreement: this being the case, they were in the wrong, but not had they said 'No' to begin with.

“Asher’s food will be rich; he will provide delicacies fit for a king.“ [Genesis, 49:20]

If it wasn't in God's plan, then why did God make Gays?

Nobody but nobody chooses to be born different!

Yet some folks supposedly speaking for a God of unconditional love, "CHOOSE" to believe different; and for one single reason, so they can punish some folks for daring to be born different!

And proven true, as that is the only effective result/outcome!

And Gay bashing takes many forms from the straight out assault,to withholding essential service, or your best effort?

Say when providing a medical service/treating aids?

And even where it is acquired by medical means; say needle stick or essential if contaminated blood products, they're all tarred with the same brush/judged as being the same or Queer!?

And none more at risk of both outcomes than those emergency workers who man the front line; but particularly before 86!

Some clever folks can be terribly ignorant/rigidly blinkered at times, more appropriate to a time and place when the world was flat!

And the day will dawn when they are FINALLY JUDGED!

Before 1986 there were 142 registered Hemophiliacs in Australia, since then each and every one of them has died of medically acquired aids!

If ignorant straights knew just what it means, what has to be tolerated and how hard it is to be Gay, they'd know for sure and certain, nobody but nobody would choose to be Gay, or live in a private hell every day of a childless family free/deprived of a normal adult life, replete with marriage/kids/happiness!

And who the hell are they, to claim with unprecedented arrogance, that they personally know the mind of God; unrepresentative swill, who even yet believe they have the right to speak for the rest of us!

Around 80% of us have a sibling/child/friend who we have known all of their lives; and know as fact, they just didn't chose to be Gay, with all that then means; along with life long deprivation, some of which ends in sad and lonely suicide!
Own your own behavior and all its outcomes R soles!
Rhrosty.

Dear Rhrosty,

You are straying way off the topic:

[off-topic]

<<If it wasn't in God's plan, then why did God make Gays?>>

God did not create gays - homosexuality is old, but being gay is a very recent phenomenon. In fact, most homosexuals are not gays.

<<Nobody but nobody chooses to be born different!>>

Oh you bet! Many people choose to be born in so many different ways. Others choose to become different later in life.

<<some of which ends in sad and lonely suicide!>>

Most of those who over-emphasise and centre their lives around sex, end up this way.

[end of off-topic section]

The actual topic is the freedom of individuals to trade with those they want and not with others they don't wish to trade with - their reasons and/or justifications, if any, are completely irrelevant.

<<And Gay bashing takes many forms from the straight out assault,to withholding essential service, or your best effort?>>

I strongly believe that there is nobody here who agrees with assaults, on anyone.

Cakes with a label are not an essential service and even essential services can be provided by others who do so willingly. Nobody owes it to you.

Yuyutsu,

Your post above is very elegant and the sentiments expressed will find no argument with me.

This sentence in particular, I found especially good - "Therefore all should have the benefit of the doubt and be free not to do anything they don't agree to do, for whatever reason or even for no stated reason."

Alas, freedom is not for us today in our sectarian socialist state.

Good stuff.

As the author said,
"....that Ashers is a business, not a religious organisation, and should behave accordingly. But would we demand that a Jewish baker make a cake depicting a swastika? Or that a Muslim baker make a cake depicting Muhammad? Tedious as such comparisons are, they can serve to isolate a principle or two, and those who supported Lee’s case against Ashers should consider whether they’d be doing the same if he’d ordered a cake reading ‘Defend Straight Marriage’"

or an ultra Republican had ordered one with "God Damn the Queen"

"In fact, most homosexuals are not gays." What?

they broke the law, it simple. Would we allow a doctor to not provide blood transfusions because it was against his religious beliefs?

I am not surprised that several posters just don’t get the point. The Ashers were not fined for refusing to serve a gay man. They were fined for refusing to express an opinion in favour of same-sex marriage. Their freedom of speech was infringed. So in Northern Ireland, it is now illegal to refuse to express support for same-sex marriage when called upon to do so, even though it is a jurisdiction which does not even have same-sex marriage. It matters not one jot whether the view is to be iced on cake or printed in a pamphlet. If a person, gay or straight, demands that you express support for same-sex marriage via your relevant business and you refuse, will you be fined £500. It will be interesting to see if the reverse occurs.

I am in favour of same-sex marriage, but I think it unfair to fine the bakers for refusing to make the cake with the requested sentiment.

Since I don't know the wording of the law in the case I can't say that it wasn't in accordance with the law to fine the baker. However, law isn't always fair.

It would be interesting to see if the finding had been different had the person ordering the cake been straight. The idea that a business person should be forced to assist someone to express a political or moral view that they find abhorrent is grossly unjust. As the author points out, the bakers did not refuse to serve a gay customer because he was gay. It was the item he ordered that they refused to make, and presumably it would have made no difference if the customer was straight and ordered the same cake. They refused to write in a icing a view they found abhorrent. While it might be reasonable to protect gays from discrimination, this is actually protecting a particular moral view point rather than a person.

Dear Cobber,

<<"In fact, most homosexuals are not gays." What?>>

Most homosexuals are not gay about it, they are not particularly proud of their sexual tendencies nor rejoice about it, parade about it or in fact attribute much importance to it. It's just how they are, they get on with their lives, some have sex with their own gender, the other gender (because they value family more than satisfying their lust) or both, while others are celibate because they have more important things to do.

<<they broke the law, it simple.>>

It is not simple at all - who dared introducing laws to obstruct their life to begin with? What right have they to do so?

<<Would we allow a doctor to not provide blood transfusions because it was against his religious beliefs?>>

It's not for you or me to allow or disallow anything unless we are the doctor's employer. If the doctor works in a public hospital or receives public funds, then of course their employer, the public, can issue conditions - but not if they work privately and never hide the list of those services they provide and those they do not.

The question all those who applaud the decision should answer is the question posed by the author. Please be honest, do not shilly shally, yes or no.
But would we demand that a Jewish baker make a cake depicting a swastika? Or that a Muslim baker make a cake depicting Muhammad?

My bet is that the judge would have found differently. The cake shop does not refuse service to homosexauls, it simply refuses to perform an icing request.

Perhaps being an Athiest I do not have the problems the cake shop had, if someone wanted the depiction of the muscular Jesus on top of the cake I would willingly do so, if or whatever some one wanted I would do it, if fornication was required (Ancient Greek or Asian) let's do it, what is the problem, the world today is filled up with all of these stupid religious beliefs (man made), to not make a cake depicting gayness is ludicrous to say the least.
Suseonline you are correct, get out of cake making.

Richard
Thanks for a well-written article that carefully and fairly teases out some complex and controversial issues.

Chris C
I agree, the question here is of conflicting rights. I support gay rights and marriage equality, but I’m also a supporter of free speech and freedom of conscience, even if someone else’s conscience prompts them to do something I find repugnant.

I’m quite nervous about enshrining positive rights in legislation. They usually infringes against negative rights, and are often things I think are best addressed through social norms and sanctions, not by legislation.

Issues only become a "controversy", "crisis" or "dilemma" is because fanatical utopian leftists make it so.

They demand universal/unanimous support for their particular perspective, imposed on all citizens by compulsory laws and regulations.

So this shop won't bake your cake. Boo-hoo.
Is that the only cake shop in the universe?

Suseonline "If the cake shop owners are so much into their religion that they can't even serve gay people, then perhaps they should not be in such a business"

Or Mr Prissy Pants can just shop elsewhere.
Like the cake shop across the road with a giant rainbow flag in the damn window!

They didn't refuse to serve gays, they refused to DECORATE a cake with a particular design.

The author is right. What if that design had been a swastika or Muhammad?
Or a depiction of an aborted fetus, animal cruelty or an electric chair?
Can't the shop (not a judge) decide where to draw the line?

With customers and businesses free to exercise their "negative" liberty, cake shops can choose to bake or not bake "gay cakes" and customers can choose which shop to buy from.
No crisis.

"imagine a teacher who refused to teach Asians, or a female nurse who refused to treat men"

They can work in a school with no Asian students or a women's or children's hospital.
If they work in a general-public environment, they can get fired.

"keep Jews and blacks out of restaurants or women out of snooker clubs"

Crisis, what crisis?
Go to the restaurant that WILL serve you.
Go to the women-only snooker club (no man-germs allowed).
Or an anyone-welcome snooker club.

"My children’s right to an education..."

Doesn't exist.
Education for children is a desirable outcome or preference, not a "right".
Nor is it the government's "duty" to provide it, but yours, the parents.

"Positive" rights are imagined fantasies.
"Negative" liberty is our natural state, until overruled by the intrusions of others (including these namby-pamby "inclusiveness" laws).

Where our natural liberty is violated (e.g. "shoot you in the head") the perpetrator can and should be punished.
End of story.

Christophobes out in force. Usually the gutless bureaucrats that support and encourage this kind of discrimation would not dare try in on the Muslims. It would of been real hard for these people wanting thier perverted relationship sanctioned to cross the road and take their business elsewhere.

This bakery I gather from the "reviews" https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ashers+Baking+Co./@54.5988331,-5.9303231,16z/data=!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sbakery,+belfast!3m1!1s0x0000000000000000:0x5e2e9cd917173259

There are a number of other bakeries nearby. I don't admire their business practices but in this case in my view the issue for the law should be that they accepted the order then reneged. To many flow on effects when people are required to provide service against their conscience but once a commitment is made the responsibility to meet that commitment was theirs.

R0bert

HIDDEN CAM: #GayWeddingCakes at Muslim Bakeries?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

There is in fact a sort of equivalence here in that both religion and homosexuality are something one does rather than something one is, in the Ashers case it was two ideologies at loggerheads, not two groups of people and if anything the power differential was in the favour of the Gay Rights activist. Shopkeepers and service providers just need to be smarter, put up a sign saying "Management reserves the right to refuse service" and then flatly refuse to give a reason for denial of service if asked. Few people outside the pro Gay milieu take same sex marriage seriously enough to even see it as threat but even though we don't see it as an authentic marriage and the state does doesn't mean that taking on city hall is going to be a fruitful or pleasant excercise. The state has lots of stupid laws that we ignore or at least avoid breaking in an overt manner but there are always ways to work around them.

'I don't admire their business practices but in this case in my view the issue for the law should be that they accepted the order then reneged. '

Yeah but its fine Robert to promise to be faithful to death to a spouse and then dump her/him when someone better comes along. Fine to change your mind especially when true harm is done to the kids. I mean walking across the road is so inconvenient. Pathetic.

So, the Northern Ireland Equality Commission thinks that it is doing the right thing to go for a private business, at taxpayer expense, over such a trivial issue. The baker loses - surprise, surprise - and the gay gets 500 pounds. But the cost of the ridiculous pursuit of a private trader, who should be able to sell or not as he chooses, will have cost the public much more.

Did the gay person use the 500 to buy a cake elsewhere? Or, was he so puffed up with his small-minded bullying victory, that he forgot all about the cake?

In the past, there was no compulsion for a private business to sell to anyone. There was an offer to sell on the part of the trader, which could be withdrawn by the trader in the same way the offer to buy could be withdrawn by the potential customer.

Perhaps draconian 'rights' laws (for some) have extinguished this arrangement, and we all stand up for what we thought were our rights at our peril. Anythings seems possible these days. It just remains to be seen how much more the long-suffering majority will tolerate it.

The earlier hoo hah about a pizza shop in America not wanting to cater for a gay wedding could mean there is more of this nonsense to come from minorities and the idiotic media who stirred the pizza possum. Who said gays would settle for pizza at their weddings anyway?

I Agree with RObert!

These folk entered into a commercial arrangement for money, then found a reason to unlawfully discriminate!

Yes these customers could go across the road, as will most of their fiends and family; or around 80% of us!

We don't need a rainbow flag, just fair and equal treatment; and an ability to keep your prejudices and bigotry to yourself!

The Ashers need to understand all manner of folks and all their famlies and friends make up the shopping public/customers; and if they would avoid a particular section of them, then they can always "CHOOSE" to operate an overnight bakery and wholesale to other front line businesses?

Alternatively, they could post a sign saying we withhold the right to provide service!? And then select the target for that refusal?

Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, toothless old Crones, westernized oriental gentlemen (WOGS) or gay and lesbians? Jawol?

Incidentally, a young Jewish man in his first trip to Hitlers prewar Berlin, was very uncertain where to go to get refreshments? And so, settled tentatively for a Chinese Cafe.

He went in and asked timidly, do you serve Jews in here?

Yes sure, replied the Chinese proprietor, what kind of Jews you want? We got apple Jews, orange Jews, lemon Jews or even grape Jews.
Rhrosty.

runner I didn't expect you to get the integrity, keeping your word part.

As for "Yeah but its fine Robert to promise to be faithful to death to a spouse and then dump her/him when someone better comes along." - just where have I ever said that I'm fine with people dumping a spouse because someone better came along? I'll be interested in seeing that link thanks. Failing a link yet another example of your love of bearing false witness

I do think there are valid reasons why marriages fail (as apparently did Jesus), sometimes reasons why people do need to break commitments (mostly about the other party not keeping their part of the deal) but that does not include getting a better offer.

R0bert

' just where have I ever said that I'm fine with people dumping a spouse because someone better came along? '

nowhere Robert and I wasn't suggesting you did. My point which I thought was obvious is that some disgruntled customer uses Government agents and probably sleazy lawyers to display their Christophic natures and yet its more than ok for many to break their marriage contract/covenant. Its called no fault divorce and yet someone breaks a dubious 'contract' when asked to write something perverted and is fined for refusing.

//Please be honest, do not shilly shally, yes or no.
But would we demand that a Jewish baker make a cake depicting a swastika? Or that a Muslim baker make a cake depicting Muhammad?

My bet is that the judge would have found differently. The cake shop does not refuse service to homosexuals, it simply refuses to perform an icing request.//

I'll show you my answers if you show me yours:

//should a chef have the right to refuse to cook a halal meal for a Muslim? Not to refuse to serve them, just to refuse to serve them what they order because it requires the chef to reproduce sentiments they find highly disagreeable? Should an anti-Semitic chef have the right to refuse to cook a kosher meal for a Jew? Should I have the right to refuse to cook a vegan meal for a herbivore?//

Oh all right then, I'll go first... you tease.
a) Jewish bakers should be excused on grounds of conscience from decorating cakes with swastikas or other Nazi iconography.
b) Muslim bakers should be excused on grounds of conscience from decorating cakes with depictions of Mohammed.
c) Anti-Semitic chefs should be excused on grounds of conscience from cooking a kosher meal for Jews.
d) I should be excused on grounds of conscience from cooking a vegan meal for vegans.

Because it all boils down to the same question: should a tradesman in the food service industry have the right to refuse customers particular services on an arbitrary whim? My oath they should. If they're not worried about the lost profits and the potential for negative publicity, they should be able to serve who they like, what they like, when they like, if they like... within the bounds of the law. Isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?

Rhrosty "Yes these customers could go across the road, as will most of their friends and family; or around 80% of us!"

Yes, go ahead. You are FREE to do so.

If a business is happy to turn away potential profits, that's their concern, not yours or the government's.

"The Ashers need to understand all manner of folks and all their families and friends make up the shopping public/customers"

And Mr Prissy Pants needs to understand all manner of folks run shops.

You go to a cake shop for cake, not ideological promotional materials.
Buy the plain cake and decorate it yourself if you must.

Toni Lavis "should a chef have the right to refuse to cook a halal meal for a Muslim?"

Or management allow Muslims to dictate the menu at a KFC?
Where's my "right" to eat bacon, normally available in other KFCs?
No bacon for you!

Choose: Either everyone can refuse anybody (liberty), or nobody can refuse anybody (dictatorship).

Not the hypocrisy of one rule for the leftie-favoured special interest groups, another for the rest.

//Where's my "right" to eat bacon, normally available in other KFCs?
No bacon for you!//

I haven't been to KFC for years. Have they really taken bacon off the menu?

Both the US and Australian constitutions say that the people have a "right" to free exercise of religion. Whether or not such rights are "absolute" is the crux of the issue. I would say that no right is "absolute." Circumstances might arise where a particular right is temporarily suspended. In general a "right" may be exercised so long as public order and safety are not compromised. That is, no "harm" befalls the exerciser, other people, animals, property, among other things. If the right to free exercise of religion were absolute, human sacrifice would be allowed to those whose religion mandated it.

"Have they really taken bacon off the menu?"

Only in Muslim "neighbourhoods".
Though there's no notification of this anywhere on their corporate website.
So you won't know til you ask at the counter.
Have your camera phone ready.
Upload clerk's hysterical outburst to YouTube.

//Only in Muslim "neighbourhoods".
Though there's no notification of this anywhere on their corporate website.
So you won't know til you ask at the counter.//

Oh, I see. What you're saying is that there is possibly a KFC somewhere that has taken bacon off the menu... but I can't be certain until I've tested every KFC in the land.

I have equal uncertainty that KFC offer unicorn burgers until I've fronted up to every KFC counter in the land and requested a unicorn burger with extra bacon. I haven't got the time or patience for such a pointless quest and I don't really like KFC anyway. Why don't you just come out and tell us where these bacon-free KFC's are, if they actually exist, instead of merely suggesting the possibility of their existence?

ttbn,

>> So, the Northern Ireland Equality Commission thinks that it is doing the right thing to go for a private business, at taxpayer expense, over such a trivial issue.<<

I am afraid it could get worse:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/heads-lgbt-win-tails-christians-lose/.

The problem is you pitch us LGBTI against religion. But that is not the complete rights in play: it is their religious belief against our religious beliefs and their biology against our biology. And then there is the majority picking on the minority. Remember it is LGBTI, diverse biologies of sex, gender and sexuality, not just 'gay culture'. We want equality for our belief in the moral good of our biology, our LGBTI status. Christians can point to the Bible to say their heterosexuality is moral and we want equal right too. Anything else isn't fair.

I see your concern about difficult decisions and society adapting. But it has be this way, to get peace and harmony you have to take responsibility for your biological diversity first before culture. We already believe this but selfishly not yet willing share.

Tony I'd not heard that particular story before so went to friend Google to see if I could get a sense of the legitimacy of the claims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260286/KFC-diner-told-bacon-burger--halal.html "The branch, in Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, is one of 86 KFC restaurants which is running trials of a scheme where they sell nothing other than halal meat."

No idea on the credibility of the claims on this site (the name puts me off) but 4 KFC outlets in Melbourne are listed http://www.hotheads.com.au/halal-certification.htm

And some more on the claims for KFC in Australia http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/halal-food-dishing-out-change-in-our-fast-food-society/story-fni0cx12-1226647942182

Not exactly a comprehensive list but an alternative source which appears to provide some support for the legitimacy of the original claims http://halalmaps.com/Australia/Melbourne/KFC,UIE.html

R0bert

Dear Eric,

As you say, it's all biology.

Biology is driven by genes, which are selfish mechanisms:

According to the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, it is in the interest of those genes that a certain (relatively small) proportion of the species is homosexual. They don't do it for you, they don't care about your pleasure or satisfaction, nor about your culture, your morals or your spirit - they only care about propagating themselves: there is nothing moral about them and they drive us mad if we do not reign them, regardless whether they chose the body which carries them to be heterosexual or otherwise.

Peace and harmony will only come when we stop to define ourselves in terms of our genes in general and their sexual-inducements in particular.

Toni Lavis - very good, you have employed reductio ad absurdum. So you agree with me on the Jewish and Nusli bakers and hence the Christian baker because of conscience grounds. To answer your 3, an anti Semite refusing to cook a kosher meal is acting because of his racial discrimination, not a conscience belief. 4 of course has gone to the absurd (but in my experience a strict vegan with all the limitations tries one's patiemce in entertaining, and commercially one would have to be well organized on ingredients to serve a decent meal)

Toni Lavis "What you're saying is that there is possibly a KFC somewhere that has taken bacon off the menu."
"merely suggesting the possibility of their existence?"

Possible? No, smarty pants. I stated there WERE such stores.
But KFC won't TELL you which ones on their website (You'd think they would, just so those who want halal know where to go).

There ARE KFCs that are "halal certified " and won't cook or sell bacon, whether the customer is Muslim or not.

Ones I'm aware of are Fawkner and Flemington in Melbourne and Punchbowl and Bankstown in Sydney.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io_HLVYN37s

Even if many people in these areas are Muslim, obviously EVERY person isn't.

There would also be people traveling through (tourists, truckies, taxi drivers) who would naturally expect the menu to match that stated on the COMPANY WEBSITE and available in every other KFC.

Instead of "discriminating" against EVERY type of non-Muslim customer, it would make more sense to refuse to employ staff who won't cook the standard menu.

Of course, that "discrimination" is illegal, but not the "discrimination" against non-Muslim bacon-eating customers.

McDonald's Punchbowl is also halal.
"The Punchbowl store serves halal meat patties in ALL [my emphasis] their meat products to eliminate the chances of a Muslim customer inadvertently being served a non-halal product."
http://muslimvillage.com/2002/09/09/596/596-mcdonalds-opens-halal-store-in-sydney/

So everyone must eat halal, whether they want to or not.
Where is my "right" to eat unholy meat?

With this cake business, imagine the shoe on the other foot.
A fanatical Christian asks a gay cake shop owner for a decoration saying "God hates gays".
When he's refused, where's the media outrage, the state prosecution?
Deafening silence.
Cue tumbleweeds.

Eric G "The problem is you pitch us LGBTI against religion."

No, the problem is liberty vs dictatorship.

JKUU "In general a "right" may be exercised so long as public order and safety are not compromised. That is, no "harm" befalls the exerciser, other people..."

i.e. only in very serious circumstances should religious liberty be "suspended".
What is serious or urgent about cake decorations?

" JKUU "In general a "right" may be exercised so long as public order and safety are not compromised. That is, no "harm" befalls the exerciser, other people..."

i.e. only in very serious circumstances should religious liberty be "suspended".
What is serious or urgent about cake decorations?"

The "harm" Shockadelic, is the discrimination against the customer. The 14th amendment provides "equal protection of the laws."

I'm trying to work out why you seem to be positing every side of the arguments, Shockadelic?

"So everyone must eat halal, whether they want to or not.
Where is my "right" to eat unholy meat?"

To quote you...

"Crisis, what crisis?
Go to the restaurant that WILL serve you."

But your hypothetical is just silly...

"With this cake business, imagine the shoe on the other foot.
A fanatical Christian asks a gay cake shop owner for a decoration saying "God hates gays".
When he's refused, where's the media outrage, the state prosecution?"

Trouble is I can't imagine a gay cake shop owner [or more accurately the gay owner of a cake shop] being stupid enough to refuse instead of charging a heap extra for the decoration, assuming the shop offered a 'cakes made and decorated to order' service without qualifications such as 'subject to management approval'.

But if it happens the least likely thing to hear would be 'Deafening silence."*

*deliberate oxymoronic statement

It would be shouted from the pulpits and make headlines around the world.

Personally, I reckon all cake shops are secretly gay. Have you seen how some of those cakes are frocked up?

No self-respecting religious bigot would go near one!

Ttbn has focused on the real issue which is the rights of taxpayers. This cake has cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars.

Maybe it is about discrimination but discrimination is not an absolute value. There are values which pertain to the frivolous waste of government funds and both Lee and the Commission should hang their heads in shame for taking the issue as far as they did.

The structures used to protect people from discrimination should not be used simply because it is a matter of principle. They should be used to protect people in serious cases. Not getting the exact cake you require from the exact shop that you want it from is not a serious issue. Tell the North Korean people you cannot get the right kind of cake – they struggle to get food to survive on.

It makes you wonder how insecure about his sexuality that Lee is that he needs to bring this to the attention of the Commissioner. So what if a cakeshop has a problem with his sexuality is he going to take every person to the courts that has a problem with his sexuality? Doesn’t he have better things to do with his life than to try and convince one cakeshop owner that it is ok to be homosexual?

What damage has he done to the business of the Asters? Is he so insecure that he would rather damage someone else’s livelihood? What kind of victory is that? Why does he need such puerile victories to feel good about his sexuality?

The Commission shows a complete lack of perspective and simply has pandered to the insecurities of Lee. It is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money when a Commission like this gives in to the insecurities of a single individual instead of using its resources to fight real issues of discrimination

This sqawking about 'religious bigots' by people who themselves are bigots is a joke.

Operating a public service means you serve the public! Yes they could withhold part of their service if it goes against so called Christian (homophobic) principles?

But suppose that service had been a medical clinic?

Every day Ambos are supposed to treat druggies, alcoholics and people out of their brains and violent for no particular reason!

Suppose treating druggies went against some so called religious belief/conviction?

Medical treatment can be the iced version or just plain cake as it were! And germane to the thread or topic!

And suppose we just gave the iced version to people not thought to be Gay?

I can remember being treated daily for multiple PE's in a regional hospital, and found myself the recipient of this lessor style of medical treatment; at the hands of a particularly large male nurse/homophobe.

Eventually a doctor came to see me, and discovered the black and blue bruising that shouldn't have been there!

What I'm saying, if you sign up for a particular job or vocation, provide the best service you're capable of, regardless of who you're serving!

I made a point of showing said knuckle dragging Neanderthal, (nurse Asher)a photo of the wife and kids as I was leaving; just so I could watch him squirm and get all red and flustered; particularly when I said to him, can't judge a book by its cover eh?

And had I been alb,e to stand he would have received clicked heels and a stiff arm salute! Ditto Asher's village cake shoppe!

And while the next hospital was better with the hands on stuff, a chest infection was knowingly left untreated, and I was cross infected with another patients, almost impossible to cure, tropical ulcer!

I guess you could say there was no icing on that particular cake, and or, homophobia is alive and well in the bush; and all to often on the back of no evidence, just patent homophobic paranoia!

And you can still find similar versions of Gay bashing in the bush; and often only because you disagree with this attitude/medieval belief!
Rhrosty.

ttbn, it was Daniel McArthur who turned the issue into a 'religious' one two days after Mr. Lee's order was accepted and paid in full and it was Asher's who should be held to account for the costs of litigation which could have been avoided... this from the Belfast Telegraph:

"The Equality Commission, which has a statutory obligation to monitor compliance with equality laws in Northern Ireland, had initially asked for the bakery on Belfast's Royal Avenue to acknowledge it had breached legislation and offer "modest" damages to the customer.

When Ashers refused, the commission, a publicly funded watchdog, proceeded with the legal action."

I agree that in the scheme of things this issue is a trivial one and should have been treated as such by Asher's.

WmTrevor:

What difference does it make that the order was accepted and paid for. Are Asher’s before the Commission for failure to supply what was ordered or for discrimination? Had they discriminated within seconds or within weeks the outcome would be the same and Lee would have raised the issue with the Commission. It was Lee who brought the issue to attention. He got his money back and they failed to deliver. That happens every day in business. If it was that important he could have gone to the Commissioner for sloppy business.

He was not concerned about the cake but about making an example of someone who has a problem with his sexuality. By making a discrimination issue out of it instead of a business issue he has shown his insecurity when people have a problem with his sexuality.

Yuyutsu, you miss completely the context of Dawkins – it’s all analogy. They are not real parameters. Genes do not think, do not care, cannot actually be selfish or choose a body. It is artful storytelling explaining to lay people the effects of natural selection using human characteristics you understand.

In genetics we mostly avoided talking this wrong way around from reality. Natural selection works on genes not the other way around. The 'gene' in pop genetics is unreal because it’s mutations not different genes that compete. It's not individualistic either as evolution is the sum of the population. "It is in the interest of those genes" is an exceedingly simple construct to explain the complexity of natural selection 'selecting' or 'promoting' gene types through greater reproductive success of their conferred biology. It is an absolutely passive process but we understand best purpose and taking action.

"Peace and harmony will only come when we stop to define ourselves in terms of our genes in general and their sexual-inducements in particular."
We have barely started. With your artistic impression of genetics, I think you refer to genetic falsehoods, like the exaggerated difference we put on male-female, between races and between humans and other animals when the genetics and biology isn't that diverse. If we truly defined ourselves genetically or more correctly biologically, we wouldn't have races, we wouldn't limit the role of women and we would accept all our attributes have biological diversity.

Our 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act were a world first for national recognition of intersex people but it’s inconsistent at state level. Extremely mean discrimination in denial of human biology, of sex biology generally. The State still considers our homosexuality and transgender as an optional add-on culture when we LGBTI really want to be treated as are heterosexuals, that our biology is correct and moral.

Test the stupidity: would a religious cult get far that demonised the ranga phenotype? Try intersex instead of gay on top of the cake. The dilemmas and the great difficulties exist only because we avoid clarity and exalt culture over biology.

Eric G wrote: "Try intersex instead of gay on top of the cake."

A visit to http://crl.ucsd.edu/~elman/Courses/HDP1/2000/LectureNotes/williams.pdf might be enlightening.

From that site: "Many Native Americans also understood that gender roles have to do with more than just biological sex. The standard Western view that one's sex is always a certainty, and that one's gender identity and sex role always conform to one's morphological sex is a view that dies hard. Western thought is typified by such dichotomies of groups perceived to be mutually exclusive: male and female, black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Clearly, the world is not so simple; such clear divisions are not always realistic. Most American Indian worldviews generally are much more
accepting of the ambiguities of life. Acceptance of gender variation in the berdache tradition is typical of many native cultures' approach to life in general."

The site is fascinating.

JKUU "The "harm" Shockadelic, is the discrimination against the customer. The 14th amendment provides "equal protection of the laws.""

This is half the problem.
Hysterical leftists redefining "harm" to mean any slight offense, inconvenience or disagreement.

If your definition is correct, then the Christian fanatic is also "harmed" if he doesn't get his "God hates gays" cake and I am "harmed" if I can't get bacon at Punchbowl KFC.

But your do-gooder "laws" are only applied in a hypocritical, lopsided manner.
Only SOME people's "rights" and liberties are validated (minorities), overruling the "rights" and liberties of others (the rest).

No "harm" came to Mr Prissy Pants.
He lost no limbs, money or reputation.
All he had to do was buy a cake somewhere else, or God-forbid, DECORATE HIS OWN DAMN CAKE!

WmTrevor "a gay cake shop owner [or more accurately the gay owner of a cake shop]"

No need for correction.
I said "gay cake shop owner" PRECISELY because it contains both meanings.

"charging a heap extra for the decoration"

Not if a sign says "We decorate your cake for $X".
Do you really think a cake shop would not specify what its charges are?

"It would be shouted from the pulpits and make headlines around the world."

Yeah, right.
No, it would make headlines if he GOT the "God hates fags" cake.
And guess WHO would get prosecuted?

"this issue is a trivial one and should have been treated as such by Asher's."

It was. They offered him nothing.
It's Mr Prissy Pants who doesn't get how trivial this is.

"I'm trying to work out why you seem to be positing every side of the arguments, Shockadelic?"

Because I'm critiquing two different things.
1. Restrictions of liberty, which only applies to non-leftist causes/groups.
2. The lopsided defence of "rights", which only applies to leftist-favoured causes/groups.

I want liberty, but for all citizens, not for some "special" people.

//To answer your 3, an anti Semite refusing to cook a kosher meal is acting because of his racial discrimination, not a conscience belief.//

I've heard those to the left of me accuse anti-Islamists of racism, and those to right of me protest that opposing a religion is not the same as opposing a race. I agree with them. Kosher dietary laws are a relgious stricture that have nothing to do with race. Nice attempt at a red herring, though.

//4 of course has gone to the absurd//

If you say so. I guess it's easier to write a question off as an absurdity rather an attempt an answer, but it won't get you many marks in a philosophy exam and it's not a convincing argument in an informal setting.

//I stated there WERE such stores.//
//There ARE KFCs that are "halal certified " and won't cook or sell bacon, whether the customer is Muslim or not.//

Thanks for the SHOUTING. I heard you the first time. Repeating bald assertions more emphatically only increases the volume, not the veracity. What helps to back up bald assertions is submitting supporting evidence, not EMPLOYING HEAVY USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS.

//Ones I'm aware of are Fawkner and Flemington in Melbourne and Punchbowl and Bankstown in Sydney.//

Thanks. You know that's all you had to say? No need for the essay. Or the shouting.

Melbourne is too far out of my way but Punchbowl and Bankstown are within reasonable travelling distance. I now have the necessary data to attempt the experiment for myself, instead of relying on your hearsay.

Dear Eric,

All the more so - if Dawkins' book is just an analogy and the genes do not actually care a thing, certainly not for you, only behave AS IF they do, then why should you care about them?

In fact, why do we give them any importance? why do we jump when they say "Hop"? They `say` "Chase this man/woman/boy/girl for us" and we respond with "Yes, Sir, how low?" and follow their dictates, even losing our head in the process.

It is not my business to defend culture (besides, the Western culture is not my own anyway), I simply state a simple fact: so long as and to the extent that we identify ourself with those genes and their sexual whims, we shall know no peace!

I really don't care what specific whims they have, be they heterosexual, homosexual and all the rest, it makes no difference - anyone who listens and pays attention to those genes, does so at their own peril, all the more so when one goes to the extreme of defining themselves according to the specific whims of their genes.

Schizophrenics get in trouble because they listen to the voices in their head - but most of us get into even bigger trouble when we listen to the voices of those genes, matters not whether they are real or otherwise, matters not which gender(s) or habit(s) they ask us to pursue.

phanto, these publicly-funded commissions only exist to pander to hysterically insecure activists.

There would be no propaganda value in only hearing serious cases.
Propaganda must be relentless and ubiquitous.
Every nook and cranny. No stone left unturned, etc, etc.

Rhrosty "But suppose that service had been a medical clinic?"

But it wasn't. And that's the point.
Mr Prissy Pants wanted a triviality. A cake decoration.
He did not *need* a life-saving *necessity*.

"Suppose treating druggies went against some so called religious belief/conviction?"

Then don't be an ambo.
(Same goes for not wanting to cook bacon. Don't apply for the job or the franchise license.)

Eric G "If we truly defined ourselves genetically or more correctly biologically, we wouldn't have races, we wouldn't limit the role of women"

Quite the opposite.
Since genes/alleles differ so little between species/sexes/races, the differences would be highlighted/amplified, not ignored/downplayed.

Racial intermixing would obliterate genetic variety like red hair and green eyes. Once it's gone, it can't come back.

Genuine genetic education among the general population may increase "racism" as more would understand how vulnerable these traits are.
Only in ignorance can people be genetically apathetic.

No two people, let alone all people, are genetically "equal".
It is political ideology, not science, that wants to ignore these differences and tell the neutrality/equality fairy tale.

Not that anyone should be aggressively "oppressed", but neither should we play phony utopian fantasy games.

Toni Lavis "Repeating bald assertions"

How many times do I have to say it: KFC do NOT publicly admit any store is halal (perhaps afraid of backlash). So how can I *officially* confirm it?

But you're on the internet: search for halal KFC.
http://www.halalsquare.com.au/sydney/search.aspx?q=kfc
http://www.halalsquare.com.au/melbourne/search.aspx?q=kfc

Make sure you go during breakfast menu.
Ask for a bacon and egg roll.

On the rare occasions that I go to McDonald's I have no problem in being served a burger without bacon; all that one needs to do is ask.
Only once did I have a problem and that was soon sorted out.
I'd asked for one without bacon and it arrived with a bit of bacon in it, on pointing out the mistake the burger was opened and the bacon removed, I then made the point that the taste of the bacon was still there and that I required a new burger; no problem.
I hate the taste of bacon (except Irish sugar cured) which stems from an initial dislike as a child reinforced by an army experience of being stuck with no food other than tinned bacon (YUK!!) for a few days.
I have noticed, particularly in India, that Muslims travelling (especially by train) have no qualms buying food from Hindu sellers; before anyone asks how does one know that a particular merchant is Hindu, the prominent tika on the forehead is as good an indication as one could get.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Ashers affair wasn't a set up, or at the least a 'testing of the waters' as it would seem that there are other convenient bakeries but not so overtly religious.

The cake shoppe took the order and accepted the money in advance!

With the pre-written and customer confirmed message written in plain black and white, there was apparently no controversy, nothing that offended so called religious conviction! At least not until Ashers had received payment in full! ACHING!

Had Ashers identified a RELIGIOUS CONVICTION problem at that point, the appellant would have been free to go elsewhere to spend their money, all while making a mental note of Ashers apparent homophobic bigotry!

Homophobic bigotry is just the start and all too often ends in some emergency ward, with an "APPARENT" Gay man struggling for every new breath; and I have seen just that and multiple times!

And of course the homophobes, with their homophobia on clear and present display, [some of them apparently medical staff,] will say, it's a non issue.

But then so was every other antisocial wedge throughout the entire course of human history!

I mean in living memory, it used to be okay to use the N word in a derogatory manner and tell nasty or calloused and or indifferent jokes about this or that ethnic minority.

It'd be different if they were at least funny!

And do we try to get away with the unacceptable by claiming they CHOSE their ethnicity?

Not too long ago it was apparently acceptable human behavior to rape an underage girl, and forever end her prospects of ever conceiving; simply because she was black?

How did some of us ever sink so low?

Religious conviction and claiming the black man was the son of the infamous Cain, who slew Able; and therefore deserved to be treated no better than a beast of burden!?

RELIGIOUS CONVICTION alone made that possible and all that sprang from that!

Yes that's a long way from a Belfast cake shoppe, a brick works, a Smiths anvil, a potter's wheel etc.

But that's where this crap starts and gradually amplifies; and only because some of us weren't man enough to say, thus far and no farther; now today!
Rhrosty.

IsMise:

It could well have been a setup. I had these same suspicions myself. If it was a setup then the question should be asked why you would need to set someone up unless you were trying to bully them into accepting your sexuality.

There seems no other reason. Lee does not need to prove a principle since the principle of discrimination is already enshrined in law. If you really wanted that particular cake then you would shop around until you got it. It seems the opportunity to bully was more important than having the cake and maybe the cake was just a ploy in order to make someone feel uncomfortable. Perhaps Lee’s real problem is not with the non acceptance of his sexuality but with religion’s non acceptance or with religion in general or with that particular bakery or those particular owners. Whatever his problem it was not about discrimination.

Such bullying needs to be exposed for what it is and it is becoming all too common a tactic from the homosexual community and its supporters. You only need to bully when you are insecure and every time it surfaces it is a sure sign that those who indulge in it are insecure about their sexuality. They are exposing their insecurities for everyone to see and people are tiring of such preciousness.

Phanto, you go from perhaps perhaps/a conspiracy theory, to treating said conspiracy theory as virtual ipso facto evidence! An interesting juxtaposition!

Of course we should prosecute all such conspiracies, to the full extent of the law!

Always providing we can prove such conspiracies were actually evident/ever at all, rather than the perhaps, perhaps, mere musings of this or that excuse making mealy mouthed squirming like a worm on a hook advocate or closet homophobe?

I rather think this would and should have been a non issue rather than front page news?

And would have if Ashers had made their (two days late) religious convictions/apparent homophobic repugnance a first order issue, and before they, it would seem, dishonestly accepted the order and payment; and it would seem, with no intention of ever completing the commission; there just wouldn't have been an issue!?

People who have had their belly full of this sniggered snide discrimination, have a right to say, enough is already far too much!

And that push back has to start somewhere? And if it has to be an unfortunate Belfast cake shoppe, so be it!

And if the subsequent commercial boycott destroys the business and several lifestyles?

Then possibly one single homophobic bigot (cake baking fool) can hold their head aloft; saying, look at me Lord, I did all this Master, when will I get my just and deserved reward?

For mine, accepted prepayment is usually followed by the ordered and paid for good or service! No if buts or maybes! End of story!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty "accepted prepayment is usually followed by the ordered and paid for good or service!"

Ever heard of "refunds"?
Businesses frequently cannot fulfil accepted orders.

We do not know the precise details here.
Was the order submitted through an automatic online payment?
Was it taken by the work experience kid?
Were they flustered and busy that day, just leave it on the counter, honey!
We don't know.

Is Mise and phanto, I too smell a rat.
These "frivolous or vexatious" cases are often set-ups by pushy princess activists.

Rhrosty "enough is already far too much! And that push back has to start somewhere?"

Unfortunately for you the backlash will be in the other direction.

People are getting sick to death of political correctness, brainwashing propaganda, liberty-destroying "protections", the "compulsory inclusiveness" bulldozing of national identities, bullying brat activists, etc.

Enjoy your never-achieved Utopia while it lasts.
Political realism is making a comeback soon.

I get the impression from the net that Ashers are getting more business and that the free advertising is worth much more than 500 quid.

From Google

"Ashers Baking Co.
Directions

43 Google reviews
Bakery
Address: 19 Royal Avenue, Belfast, County Antrim BT1 1FB, United Kingdom
Phone:+44 28 9031 5957
Write a review
Reviews
"Excellent service, good products and reasonably priced."
"Brilliant service dnt believe the lies about rudeness."
"But they will sell you food with bacon in it."

Rhrosty, yeah it's not like homophobia could ever be anything more than an irrational response based on ignornace...or could it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU
See some of us don't get all our information from novels, TV and movies have actually known Gay men to behave in ways which are shocking, crude, corrupt,violent and above all selfish, we've seen first hand why until the 1980's homosexuality was treated as an anti social personality trait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqMr06Jexd8

TV and movies JOM? Interesting! You need to reach into the world of theatre and fiction to find examples that make your apparent homophobia acceptable?

And where these examples were literal, you don't suppose it could have anything to do with a lifetime of Gay bashing and discrimination; some of it official, do you?

I believe men who follow obviously gay men into toilet blocks and what have you and then near beat them near to death, don't have perfect manners either?

Nor can we say any different about gold digging or career oriented women?

Even so, not in any way an excuse to continue with the same old same old discrimination/denial of equal rights or covert or overt abuse!

I know, we've taken all the fun and sport out of it?

But you'll get over it!?

Me, I pity the poor bastards and what they have to contend with their whole lives through; and mostly because of inherently unfair cretins?

Why you'd even have us believe the Holocaust just didn't happen if you had your way?

Which sort of sums up you personal grip on factual reality, doesn't it?
Rhrosty.

Jay Of Melbourne, I could find 1000 reports of heterosexual depravity for every 1 of your homo ones.

There are nuns who murder, librarians that steal and boy scouts who "play" with their sister.
Should that put all nuns, librarians and boy scouts under suspicion?

Given:
1. a lifetime of bullying.
2. decades of ego-boosting gay rights propaganda, and
3. the ready availability of stimulating explicit gay porn
there should, given your theory of intrinsic criminality, be an emboldened gay psychopath lurking on *every* corner, bent on sadistic revenge.

Yet there is no gay crime wave.

We have Asian crime squads and Middle Eastern crime squads, but no Gay crime squad.

There's a Sex crime squad, but I'm sure most of their suspects are heterosexual men.