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