How does everyone here feel about eating a cake despite knowing that its baker hates you and whose only reason to serve you with that cake was his fear of the law?

//How does everyone here feel about eating a cake//

What, a whole cake?

No wonder we have an obesity epidemic...

//despite knowing that its baker hates you and whose only reason to serve you with that cake was his fear of the law?//

Having worked in hospitality, I can assure you that ALL customers are dicks and are despised uniformly. You don't serve them because you like them, or just out the goodness of your heart, or because you're worried about the Man dragging you away if you don't. You serve them because it's your job, and you need money in order to survive.

Now, how do you feel about being served despite knowing that everyone hates you and their only reason to serve you is a fear of being poor?

Bakers do not hate me, so wtf are you talking about? We are not all homos, and most of us will not be giving a thought to homos who can't buy a cake. Besides, what are these pathetic people doing? Poncing into a bakers and saying that they want a cake for their same sex marriage, or are they doing what everybody else does and simply ordering a wedding cake? A cake is a cake, no matter who pays for it and who eats it.

Unless customers reveal their strange sexuality to the baker, he is not going to know what they are and will make the cake. Queers have got want they want through bullying and conning the plebs with mis-use of the word 'equality'. Are they going to continue with their look-at-me nonsense, or is it just you, Yuyutsu, stirring the possum in your usual, odd way?

Dear Yuyutsu,

What law are you talking about regarding bakers?

No such law has been passed in our parliament
and the current Dean Smith bill that has passed
in the Senate provides all the
necessary protections for bakers, florists,
churches, photographers, musicians, et cetera.

It appears that the only fears - are sadly those in your
own mind.

cont'd ...

Dear Yuyutsu,

BTW: Our baker is a personal friend and we've
been eating his superb cakes for decades. He also
happens to be gay. We shall be attending his
wedding as soon as the Bill is legislated,
sometime next year.

cont'd ...

Dear Yuyutsu,

It has just occurred to me that if you knew that
the baker hates you then it would not make much
sense to order a cake from him - because you'd
not trust him with the ingredients. Or would you?

Foxy,

While it appears that you are most attentive to your baker's sexuality, has it ever struck you that perhaps your baker would like to be known and treated as a good baker instead?

Customers pay $591 million for Leonardo's cake which has a queer longhair decoration. He was charged with sodomy and had a nice boy with him for 30 years who was painted doing a vertical finger gesture. He was fond of fairy cakes when he could buy them.

leoj,

You've got what's left of your life to continue
to be a jerk. Why not take today off.

Gee, and I thought the nice little Asian girl down at my local cake shop was being kind when she served me with one of her yummy custard tarts. And to think she was being false, all along she hates my guts. Oh well I still enjoy her custard tarts.

"You've got what's left of your life to continue
to be a jerk. Why not take today off."

Posted by Foxy, Friday, 17 November 2017 12:23:51 PM

What a shrew you are Foxy. I always suspected that, behind the oh-so-nice sanctimony there lurked a nasty piece of work.

Yuyutsu is presumably alluding to a homosexual buying a cake from someone who despises them, probably a vocally ignorant subtype of christian. If all that restrains such from poor behaviour is the law, then so be it. If as suggested by another poster on another thread they would offer violence or simply deliberately substandard product then legal channels exist for that too. Homosexuals had to endure laws that are now lo longer considered just. Bakers may have a harder time showing they need not provide good product to the public on the basis of a private prejudice or grudge.

If their deficiency makes them unable to serve the whole public evenhandedly, they should consider not opening to the public.

Paul1405, "..the nice little Asian girl"

How patronising, inappropriate and offensive to the worker concerned. Another faux 'Progressive' who talks the talk but is continually putting his feet into his mouth. You can stand in the corner with the similarly patronising Foxy, who also has problems taking people as people and feels obliged to put irrelevant characteristics such as ethnicity and sexuality first.

Is there any possibility, any vague likelihood, that you might deign to regard and treat the shop assistant politely as a customer being served by counter staff? You customer and the PERSON behind the counter as someone providing a service.

Be polite and respectful and leave that unwelcome, patronising, politically correct stuff out.

ttbn,

Don't you feel better now?

Venting your spleen is so good, isn't it?

leoj,

Foxy is not the one who labels people on this
forum. You do. She made it quite clear on page 1
that
her baker was a personal friend first and
foremost, whose superb cakes she had been
eating for decades and that she will be
attending his wedding sometime next year.
It was you who focused on the fact that her friend
was gay with your totally inappropriate and
unnecessary remark to Foxy. Her reply was polite-
given the circumstances. You were behaving like a
jerk. And still are.

Funny how ttbn - did not see anything wrong with
your comment though. Kindred spirits I dare say.

Refusing service,

http://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

Although as Rusty Catheter says, that isn't what Yuyutsu is asking about.

Foxy,

Unlike you and Paul 1405, most customers are first and foremost interested in ordering and receiving the desired produce or service.

That patronising, obsequious, politically correct stuff you go on about would be first and foremost of the pet hates of the targets of your obvious, over-egged, 'sensitivity'. It is always inappropriate.

Please tell us that you don't make reference, verbal or non-verbal, to any such characteristic or make it the subject of conversation when you meet people.

Expressing yourself in the third person, Foxy, is just one of the indicators of mental impairment.

leoj,

Frankly I don't understand what you're on about.
And before you start giving advice to others.
Start with making improvements with your self.
It would give you more credibility - especially
on this forum.

ttbn,

I'm pleased that you are concerned about mental
impairment. The next step would be for you to actually do
something about it.

Sorry, Foxy, but I cannot help you. You will need to see a professional

ttbn,

Remember when I asked for your opinion?

Me, neither.

The baker offers leftover cream tarts to the 3 customers and leads them out the back door.

To Yuyutsu.

The only sitution I can see this occurring is if I was in an area where I was the minority race, and I knew there was racism abudent towards me.

In that sitution my answer is simple. I always like cake. But I would probabley buy it less often.

Second to that if I wanted to change someone's hatred of me, there are a few options. Try to befriend them, or be good to them despite their anger. In either of those cases buying cake from them while they hate you likely won't help the hatred. Unless it comes at a time when they are needing costumers. Then it could be an act of kindness in a way.

If the culture at large doesn't hate you though, there's a different option entirely. Find another baker. Trying to force people to do what they don't want to do (expecially when you can go to someone else) usually isn't a good idea.

If the baker hates you, your first action should be to step back & take a look at yourself. People rarely bother to hate those they don't know, hate takes too much energy for that.

If you can see no reason for hate, then have a look else where. Are you a part of a group that annoys the rest of the society. If the hater has never even seen you before, this must be the reason.

In this case, evaluate what your group is doing to attract anything as strong as hate. Australia has absorbed millions of new, & different people, & very few of these groups of people attracted hate. They may have had to work hard at being accepted, & then welcomed, but surely it is a requirement on entering another's territory to make sure your actions are acceptable to those who's territory you enter. If they aren't you are conducting an invasion, & deserve to be repelled.

It comes back to you & yours. Give no reason for dislike, or distrust, & you will have no trouble with acceptance in Oz.

Dear Hassie,

And that's why I like you so much!

I don't get my cakes from politicians and neither expect to get politics from my baker.

Thank you everyone, your answers are much appreciated!

Now as Foxy said, if someone hated me then I should be concerned about the ingredients, not only the physical ingredients but also the emotional poison that comes with the cake, even if it cannot be seen or chemically analysed.

My question was obviously raised at this time as a result of the current SSM saga, but it was not my intention to restrict it to SSM issues.

So please allow me to refine my question:

Say the baker does not hate you, or at least he didn't hate you until you asked for that cake.

However, the need to bake you a cake placed him between a rock and a hard place: in order to bake the cake he would need to defy God (at least according to his understanding, let's not get here into yet another discussion about God's existence) and/or his spiritual principles and/or his conscience and/or break his vows - but if he failed to bake the cake, then he would get in trouble with the secular law.

Say he pleaded with you on his knees: "Please don't make me do it, I apologise, I'll even pay you so you can get a similar cake across the road, but please don't force me to break my religion", but you answered: "No way! You bake it now or I call the police!".

Now the baker's spirit was weak and out of fear he baked you that cake, cursing both you and himself: how would you feel about eating that cake?

//how would you feel about eating that cake?//

What sort of cake? I'm happy with most flavours, but if it's got coffee in it forget about it.

Got some fruit cakes on here, and they all voted NO. Can live with that.

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."
"Such is life"
The baker will go quietly when the Feds arrive, in handcuffs and to the gallows . The workers' flag is of the deepest red . Remember Joan or Arc .

Joan of Arc. Maid of Orleans .

Yuyutsu,

If someone was as sadistic as the customer in your new scenario, the last of my concerns would be whether they enjoyed eating the cake. Such bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals could only be dreamt up by someone getting caught up in the post-survey hysteria and panic.

Let's alter the scenario a little: Let's say you live in a small town and the baker is the only one for hundreds of kilometers. Why should the customer suffer because of the baker's superstition?

Things are not always as simple as 'My business, my rules.'

Dear Yuyutsu,

Firstly, regarding same sex marriage and bakers -
the private members' bill from Liberal Senator
Dean Smith to legalise same sex marriage will
have amendments in it to protect religious freedoms.
as Senator James Patterson clearly stated -
"I will now work constructively with my parliamentary
colleagues over the coming weeks on amendments to
ensure that the strongest possible protections for
the freedoms of all Australians are enshrined in the
federal legislation."

Senate, Attorney-General George Brandis also flagged
plans to amend the bill when it goes to Committee to
"put the matter beyond doubt, that nothing in the bill
makes it unlawful for people to hold and express the
views of their own religion on the subject of marriage."

Therefore the baker will be protected by the law if he
does not want to be involved in same-sex marriages.

And as far as not wanting to provide cakes to certain people
in general?
I'm sure that most bakers will be able to find suitable
reasons for not doing so - whatever their reason. Although
I must admit that I've not known a business service provider
turn down a customer or question their personal life - as the
reason for doing so.

Your arguments are rather strange, to say the least.

Paul,

I don't mind being called a "fruit cake - I assume you are applying that to all NO voters; it is much better than being thought of as a degenerate, so fixated on being part of the 'in' crowd that all common sense, decency and logic goes out the door with a YES vote for a small minority of perverts and sickos. Not so long ago, it was fashionable for the put down merchants to declare that anyone who spoke against homosexuality had to be a latent homosexual himself! I know that you are not a great one for history, but you might remember that. I have to tell you that I believe that people claiming to be straight, but who voted YES, have some thinking to do about their own sexuality. People hiding behind 'equality are only kidding themselves; they are getting a safe, second-hand thrill themselves. A bit of cheap voyeurism.

Yuyutsu,
Is this how to interpret your survey :
"If a happily married man buys cake for his husband but finds the baker is bound by his conscience then should the baker be compelled to sell. Whose rights are greater. Should the gay be sensitive".
?

Doubtless the serial activists will be targeting perceived soft targets to provide test cases to stretch the envelope and to feed their egos. It is a lot of fun to force 'authority' and the public to bend to their will. Individuals, small businesses and charities, schools too, do not have the resources or the lawyers on tap to defend and counter against embarrassment tactics that affect goodwill.

PETA for instance is notorious for devising sly ways to set up and embarrass their targets and of course the tabloid media will give oxygen to almost anything that can be given the 'controversial' tag. Activists know that the media are about audience numbers, for advertisers and any pap does for their dumbed-down audiences. Although the public are now awake to PETA's games.

Yuyutsu has given an extreme example again, I don't know why.

Yes, Yuyutsu, if the baker had genuine distress. And he might even put up a sign later, or indicate in his advertising what sort of business the public can expect him not to do. The kosher shop is advertising their limitations and strengths, as does the krishna restaurant.
Your baker example keeps coming up, perhaps because of a specific example in which neither the customer nor the order-taking staff were the slightest bit aware of the proprietor's deficiency?

However, there are professions in which I do not regard religion as sufficient cause to not offer all legal options. Both the responsibility and ability to do so are part of the respective standards and the religious restrictions are presumably as well known to adherents. Numerous professions provide a full spectrum of services , may be the only such provider, are registered as *fully* competent not partially, enjoy substantial protection from competition and in any case do things others are simply *not allowed* to. They enjoy none of the excuses you apply to the baker, nor the luxury of feeling somehow less pious. They chose to serve all the day they applied for registration.

Rusty

Dear Toni,

Yes, no coffee and no strychnine: so then all is fine?

---

Dear Nick,

I wish I could do the same as Joan when my time of trial comes.

«"If a happily married man buys cake for his husband but finds the baker is bound by his conscience then should the baker be compelled to sell. Whose rights are greater. Should the gay be sensitive".?»

I may personally condemn the baker's morals and think they should come to disrepute, but it's my view that forcing another to work for you against their will is, by definition, slavery. Should anyone in our day and age be as insensitive as to enslave others?

---

Dear Foxy,

Like you said all the time: we'll have to wait and see...

But I do hope that Brandis doesn't limit his amendments to SSM issues. I also hope that Brandis's amendments are not limited to appease the big established churches, but go further to protect everyone's private religion as well.

«And as far as not wanting to provide cakes to certain people in general?»

I wouldn't concentrate that much on "not wanting". Rather, the baker/provider would have liked to help the customer, but something substantial prevents them.

«Your arguments are rather strange, to say the least.»

These are not common events, but when they occur, they can really hurt.

Two more examples:
1) A man is either a monk or included in his marriage vows never to look at another woman. Shouldn't he be able to make a living by starting a business that is open to male customers only?
(he would be happy for a boy to come in and carry the goods to his mother outside)

2) One's priesthood-vows prevents her from coming in contact with unclean animals. Should she be prevented from starting a business because a blind person might want to enter with their dog, which would desecrate her sacred space?
(she would be happy to hold the blind person's hand and lead them in without his dog)

---

Dear Leoj,

I am vegetarian, but I'm ashamed of PETA's actions.

We are trusting Brand is now, are we? This person has got everything he touches wrong; he makes Turnbull look passable.

No response to my alternate scenario then, Yuyutsu? Why am I not surprised? It's always easier to look at things two-dimensionally, isn't it?

Perhaps Yututsu was thinking of this (maybe subliminally).

"Northern Ireland bakers guilty of discrimination over gay marriage cake

Ashers Baking Company found guilty for refusing to make cake featuring gay pressure-group slogan ...."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/19/northern-ireland-ashers-baking-company-guilty-discrimination-gay-marriage-cake

//Yes, no coffee and no strychnine: so then all is fine?//

No, I want it baked and decorated as a full-scale replica of Spock (Leonard Nimoy's Spock, obviously).

Those of you who don't get hysterical about Pickering Post might like to look at his cartoon today on the 'broad church' that the Coalition has sunk to.

"Let's say you live in a small town and the gun-shop is the only one for hundreds of kilometers."
Gay man wants divorce for burnt toast and shop owner is Catholic . The man has just had drink drive test for 1.8 blood alcohol and wants to drown husband in blood bath from 2 boxes of ammo. Shop owner on bended knees begs forgiveness for not selling pistol , gay gets cop to arrest shop owner , opens strong box and puts 52 pistols on Visa.
Owner has heart attack and is taken to morgue.

Doesn't work Nick, you forgot the Permit to Obtain and the consequent waiting period.

No , looked that up , Cecil has it all in his pocket and can still hold pistol enough to get 1 shot in 6 at Humphrey.

To Yuyutsu.

This comes down to the rights of the costumer, verses the rights of the business owner/ service worker.

Who has more rights the customer demanding a service? Or the business owner to run their businesses they see fit. Does a service of any kind have the right to refuse service to a costumer?

My figuring would be that it should depend on the service. Medicine and the utilities are services that should be equally given. If you can pay for it you can have it. Cake isn't a nessassary service, even if it is the only one in a small town.

To those demanding a cake being served.

Worth noting is a suprising rule. Turns out some businesses hold a higher expense to rude patrons and a discount to polite costumers. It happens. Probabley usually only with small self owned businesses. But it happens none the less. The ability to serve or deny service is an extension of this in my opinion.

Not_Now.Soon,

I've known a number of small businesses that had a sliding scale for politeness.
It is also good practice to always be polite to policemen and dentists, I've known policemen who responded to politeness, can't say personally about dentists.

One policeman that I know well told me that he pulled a woman up for going a bit fast and was just going to give her a bit of a caution, when he got to the window she said,
"Well, get it over with, I'm in a (blank) hurry!"

So he booked her and radioed ahead to the next patrol to keep an eye out.

Leoj, the sanctimonious white supremacists, nothing like a bit of your good old, rather feigned anger, when it comes to comments posted by Foxy and/or myself, from any progressive for that matter. A sarcastic comment by me in response to the opening post, is met with another one of your cynical attacks, this time its phoney indignation concerning racism. A quick read of your forum rants, shows what a racists you really are. My mock reference to "..the nice little Asian girl" claimed by you as being patronising, inappropriate and offensive is typical of you, the person who hides behind a so called moderate position on the point in question, what ever it be, but at the same time pushes a hard right barrow on everything from race to homosexuality. I have no concern for the opinions of a fraudulent blowhard such as yourself.

NNN,

You didn't look it up at all, had you done so you'd have known that it's called a "Permit to Acquire".

Is Mise
Making allowance for your evasive style , I looked up " Request for Firearms Licence Application Form" which is obviously the same bleeding thing with 10 days notice . Cecil had the signed permit in his pocket and well you know it .

OK OK OK he got the licence 28 days later - 38 days, that's why he had blood alcohol of 1.8 waiting for the divorce. What do you care?

Not_Now.Soon,

«Medicine and the utilities are services that should be equally given. If you can pay for it you can have it.»

If such services are so important that they ought to override my freedom of religion/conscience, then surely they ought not to depend on your ability to pay for them - otherwise, you would be claiming that money is more important than my freedom... which is quite an insult.

Nevermind, medicine and utilities are typically provided by companies and/or governments, not by individuals.

«This comes down to the rights of the costumer, verses the rights of the business owner/ service worker.»

Even when a customer had rights to receive a particular service (on what grounds?), this doesn't make them eligible to demand this service from a particular individual. Think of it this way: if push comes to shove, the provider could simply quit and close their business. Can retirement ever be considered a crime?

«Does a service of any kind have the right to refuse service to a costumer?»

I assume that you are asking about the moral right (rather than about the current Australian law):

If a business received any public favours, then the public has a right to impose conditions in return, including anti-discrimination laws. Such favours include incorporation, registration, subsidies, tax-relief, right to operate/advertise in public areas, etc.

But if a business is truly private, operates solely on private property, is not incorporated, is not registered, and never received any public incentives, etc., then it should be able to freely select who comes in its gates.

AJ Phillips,

<<Such bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals could only be dreamt up by someone getting caught up in the post-survey hysteria and panic>>

No. If I was running a retail business for example, and getting people coming in regularly that I don't like, I would simply close down the business. I know people locally that easily fit into the 'don't like' category.

<<Let's alter the scenario a little: Let's say you live in a small town and the baker is the only one for hundreds of kilometers. Why should the customer suffer because of the baker's superstition?>>

Simple. People should not think they have a right to whatever they want or have any right to force a business into providing something the business does not want to, including for reasons some may consider spurious.

<<Things are not always as simple as 'My business, my rules.'>>

Sorry, but yes they are, in regards to business. Businesses make their own decisions. If it was your business however then you can be as open minded as you like.

In reality I have visited Leigh Creek in South Australia. It's a very remote community with no bakery at all. There is a supermarket (and no they do not provide wedding cakes) so if you so desperately need cake to scoff down, you either need to buy a cake at the supermarket or buy a cake mix! You'll also pay through the nose for either product, due to the high delivery costs. Sorry these are the rules.

Also some people also need to get out a bit more in terms of 'small town' and 'hundreds of kilometers' away.

NathanJ,

I’m not sure what this has to do with my labelling of Yuyutsu’s hypothetical as “bizarre”.

<<If I was running a retail business for example, and getting people coming in regularly that I don't like, I would simply close down the business.>>

Okay, but his hypothetical was still bizarre. Whether you would close your business, in the event that such occurrences happened frequently, is irrelevant to that. In fact, the fact that such occurrences would not happen frequently makes it even less relevant.

<<Simple. People should not think they have a right to whatever they want or have any right to force a business into providing something the business does not want to, including for reasons some may consider spurious.>>

Ah, but it’s not that simple, and that’s why there are anti-discrimination laws.

You see, this hypothetical bakery did not spring up off the blood, sweat, and tears of its owner alone. The baker was able to establish his bakery because he lived in a society that made this possible. He did not do it all by himself (c.f. the myth of the ‘self-made man’). Therefore, it can be argued that the baker does not get to be a monumental arsehole to the people who make up the society that helped make his bakery possible. This argument is further strengthened if the baker is receiving government benefits or tax breaks at the expense of the public.

Anyway, I doubt you’d be arguing the same if this hypothetical baker didn’t like n!ggers or Jews.

<<I have visited Leigh Creek in South Australia. It's a very remote community with no bakery at all. There is a supermarket (and no they do not provide wedding cakes) so if you so desperately need cake to scoff down, you either need to buy a cake at the supermarket or buy a cake mix!>>

Yes, but those people chose to live there. People who are discriminated against do not choose to be who they are, nor should they be expected to check the prejudices of their local retailers before moving somewhere. This comparison is invalid.

Would a Muslim baker be expected to bake a cake with an anti-Muslim message on it for the wedding of a heterosexual couple from the Australian Defence League (or whatever they call themselves at the moment)?

No, Is Mise, they wouldn’t.

The difference (and I'm sure the law would agree with me here) is that the message in your example is hateful, whereas there is nothing hateful about a gay wedding cake.

Similarly, I think an atheist group would have a difficult time suing a Christian baker because they refused to make a cake with a message that Christians would find offensive. Now, had the cake simply been about celebrating atheism, that would probably be a different matter.

I don't think reverse discrimination is an issue here.

.

//Would a Muslim baker be expected to bake a cake with an anti-Muslim message on it for the wedding of a heterosexual couple from the Australian Defence League (or whatever they call themselves at the moment)?//

Of course not... and if they refused there would be no repercussions under anti-discrimination legislation. Discrimination is only unlawful for certain things, such as age, race, religion etc.

Neo-Nazi twats are not protected under anti-discrimination legislation. Bakers are free to discriminate against them as much as they like.

Dear Is Mise,

«Would a Muslim baker be expected to bake a cake with an anti-Muslim message on it for the wedding of a heterosexual couple from the Australian Defence League (or whatever they call themselves at the moment)?»

I think that in this particular case the baker would be off the hook (they should never be on the hook to begin with, but even as the law currently stands):

This is because writing anti-Muslim messages on cakes, would simply not be a service that they provide, to anyone.

AJ Phillips,

You don't understand that a business operation is just that - private. It's not your business. What a business owner chooses to provide or whom they choose to serve is a decision made in private.

This is in the context that private business operators may also feel the need to have a private life, elements such as rest time, holidays and days off work etc.

I know this having relatives who run their own small businesses at present.

So what a private business operator chooses to do privately, is their business, not mine or anyone else's. This can be in the context a private business operator wanting a work/life balance, feeling an need for religious incorporation, like not wanting Sunday trade or having other private reasons for not wishing to operate under certain terms and conditions.

Private, business operators should not have impositions placed upon them and be expected to be put in a position where they have to "check the prejudices of their customers, local, state or federal governments".

The public does however have a right (as expressed by Yuyutsu) to impose conditions on private operations, in areas like discrimination in return for private operators receiving any public benefit.

<<Yes, but those people chose to live there. People who are discriminated against do not choose to be who they are, nor should they be expected to check the prejudices of their local retailers before moving somewhere. This comparison is invalid.>>

Firstly, you assume people need retailers. I take the view they do not.

People have lived in the Leigh Creek area since birth. I know this, visiting the area as part of a study tour. Some of the local people are aboriginal and have long and deep connections to the land.

So these people are not in a position where "they be expected to check the prejudices of their local retailers". Personally, I think that "prejudice" is the wrong term to use, because business decisions are simply, made in private.

If you want a business that doesn't discriminate and is open to all - start your own.

AJ, obviously you don't know how the big stores operate. They have surveillance cameras and PA systems, just for the purpose of ejecting the undesirables from the store. Keeping it safe for us good white folk.
Just the other day I was in my local KKK Supermarket when this announcement came over;

"Nig nogs get out!"
"Jewboys , spicks, towel heads leave now!"
"Poofters, fags, we know who you are, PO quick!"
"Chinks, back of the queue!"
"REMEMBER express lanes are only for the good white folk, the rest of you freaks join the long queues!
"Spook in aisle 4! Security to aisle 4, spook on the loose!

It was bedlam and mayhem, especially when the attack dogs were released, but that is a normal Saturday morning at my local KKK Supermarket. Thank god for those tough laws that keep it safe for US racists and bigots, BUT! they don't go far enough!

Given his posts on here concerning "queers" I would love to be a blowfly on the wall down at Butchers chop shop, to see how he really treats those "queers" he so despises.

Butch; "NEXT!"
Gay; "I would like 20kg's of your most expensive fillet steak for my wedding reception, please,"
Butch; "Yes sir, right away sir, (pant), no problem sir....(pant)(pant)(pant)....anything else I can get you, lamb cutlets maybe, loin chops?

NathanJ,

You need to read up a bit on jurisprudence. There is the philosophy that a man’s home is his castle (This used to be absolute, meaning that one could kill someone on their own property - for whatever reason - and the law couldn’t touch them. For obvious reasons, this is not the case now.).

This principle does not extend to businesses, no matter how private they are, because when one starts a private business, they are still putting it out there into the PUBLIC domain. I can refuse, say, Jews into my home if I please because it is my private domain, this is not the case with a business.

<<You don't understand that a business operation is just that - private. It's not your business.>>

You are getting all caught up in terminology (i.e. ‘private’) without any consideration for legal philosophy. We are entering an age-old philosophical/political debate that has raged for centuries with multiple perspectives which all have their strengths and weaknesses. It’s hardly going to be resolved now by pointing to a word and appealing to absolutes.

<<Private, business operators should not … be expected to be put in a position where they have to "check the prejudices of their customers, local, state or federal governments".>>

I haven’t suggested that they should. It can be argued, however, that there should be restrictions placed upon them for the reason I cited. Although, this isn’t a debate I’m inclined to get too far into, as it is somewhat dependant on one’s worldview, and the law agrees with me anyway. Your objections have been noted, however.

<<Firstly, you assume people need retailers.>>

No, I don’t. But some may want them, and this is all that is necessary for my point to be valid, and for your comparison to be invalid.

<<Personally, I think that "prejudice" is the wrong term to use, because business decisions are simply, made in private.>>

No, they are made in public because their decision concerns and entity which has been placed into the public domain and affects the public. Either way, it’s still prejudice.

AJ,

"The difference (and I'm sure the law would agree with me here) is that the message in your example is hateful, whereas there is nothing hateful about a gay wedding cake"

The message isn't hateful, it simply says,

"Christ is the Son of God".

Why would Neo-Nazis be going to a Muslim baker anyway? They'd be too worried about him using halal ingredients, and the profits from his business supporting terrorism. This is a stupid hypothetical.

Here's one for you:

Should a baker be allowed to refuse bake a gluten-free cake for trendy types who aren't actually gluten intolerant? Refusing to bake a gluten-free cake for somebody who was actually gluten intolerant would be clear-cut case of discrimination against disability. But is it wrong to tell the customers 'look, you can have a proper cake or you can piss off' if they're only following a stupid fad?

Toni,

"Why would Neo-Nazis be going to a Muslim baker anyway? They'd be too worried about him using halal ingredients, and the profits from his business supporting terrorism. This is a stupid hypothetical."

OK, they're not anything but a Catholic couple who believe in multiculturism and the Pope's call for brotherhood with Muslims.

AJ Phillips,

Law is questionable, because you stated:

"You see, this hypothetical bakery did not spring up off the blood, sweat, and tears of its owner alone. The baker was able to establish his bakery because he lived in a society that made this possible. He did not do it all by himself (c.f. the myth of the ‘self-made man’). Therefore, it can be argued that the baker does not get to be a monumental arsehole to the people who make up the society that helped make his bakery possible."

Legally any argument based on the above will not be advanced.

This issue is not about emotional arguments re living in a society or about how a private business operator has benefited from that.

The general public should not be drawn into any issue (between a private business operator and a member of the public). This is something for business owners and customers to resolve in private.

For example, one time I wanted to get furniture restored. The business owner said he may not be able to complete the work, because he wanted time off work.

Now I can argue, whether I respect the private business owners wishes (regarding living in a society), or I can disrespect his wishes and demand services because it has been put "out there into the PUBLIC domain".

Regarding prejudice:

<<No, they are made in public because their decision concerns and entity which has been placed into the public domain and affects the public. Either way, it’s still prejudice.>>

Decisions about prejudice are not necessarily made in that context. For the reason above, people may not know all of the facts, reasons or context to why a business has decided to not provide a service, so claiming prejudice, is wrong, with various reasons existing.

Finally,

<<You are getting all caught up in terminology>>

Yes and I will. Law isn't always (ethically) right. I will make a personal decision to respect the rights of private business operators. They are people, not objects.

Life isn't a one way street that selectively favours residential households.

Dear Toni,

«Refusing to bake a gluten-free cake for somebody who was actually gluten intolerant would be clear-cut case of discrimination against disability»

No, because that would simply be a case of demanding a product that is not on sale, to anyone. This would be akin to demanding an elephant from a used-car-yard because one is allergic to cars. You want an elephant? see if you can find one in your local pet shop!

And even according to the existing non-discrimination regime, nobody is obliged to provide you with "Spock" dolls unless they provide them to others.

Now please stay on the topic.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

NathanJ,

I can see that it's going to be a complete waste of time continuing this.

My argument is based on political and legal theory, and philosophical considerations, not emotion or what the law actually states. None of what you have said addresses anything I have said, and some of it studiously sidesteps it with irrelevancies.

Again, I suggest you study jurisprudence and social contract theory if you want to argue for a libertarian perspective beyond a simplistic and literal understanding of what it means for a business to be "private".

//OK, they're not anything but a Catholic couple who believe in multiculturism and the Pope's call for brotherhood with Muslims.//

Then I'm sure they'll be quite understanding when the Muslim politely declines on the basis of his faith, but wishes them all the best for their upcoming nuptials and refers them to the local competition. And being Catholic I suspect they'll probably feel a bit guilty about leaving the store empty handed when he has been so polite and helpful, and buy something before they leave. So everybody wins. Isn't that nice? See, the world doesn't always have to be about conflict and unkindness.

//No, because that would simply be a case of demanding a product that is not on sale, to anyone.//

No it wouldn't. In this hypothetical bakery, the baker is quite happy to make gluten-free cakes for people who have a genuine gluten intolerance. So it is on sale to some people. Just not trendy pricks.

//And even according to the existing non-discrimination regime, nobody is obliged to provide you with "Spock" dolls unless they provide them to others.//

Not a doll, a cake. Cakes are edible. Dolls are made of plastic. And we prefer the term 'action figurine'. Anyway, it's my cake, isn't it? Don't I get to say how I want it decorated? If your hypothetical baker doesn't do Spock cakes, that's fine. I'm quite prepared to take my hypothetical business to a different hypothetical bakery. That's the nice thing about hypothetical bakeries: there's no shortage of competition. Hypothetically, there can be an infinite number of bakeries that do Spock cakes. So I'll just hypothetically go to one them.

//Now please stay on the topic.//

Shan't :P

Bearded man walks in " Please may I have a delicious non-gluten cake?"
"Are you disabled , wrinkly or from a race?"
"No"
"Sorry , no cake"
"But I'm Muslim"
"Sorry, no cake"
"And gay"
"$4.50 thank you sir".

//Bearded man walks in//

Hipster beard or non-hipster beard?

Because I'm hypothetically installing an elaborate system involving CCTV, the latest in beard recognition software and automatic laser turrets at the entrance to my hypothetical bakery to keep those buggers out. Oh, and also people with terrorist beards. And people with goatees, but that last one kind of goes without saying.

I still need to figure out something to do about female hipsters, but hopefully once a few of their male counterparts have been vaporised on the threshold the bakery will get a reputation as 'the shop that kills hipsters' and they'll learn to avoid it.

All purely hypothetical, of course.

Toni,

But what if they aren't accommodating and insist, and he refuses because to put that on a cake is offensive to him in his religious beliefs, should he be prosecuted for refusing to make and put their requested words in icing on the cake?

The Beard Liberation Front (BLF) is a British interest group which with Builders Labourers Federation, Aust., campaigns in support of beards and opposes pogonophobic discrimination . Stephen of the Australian BLF owns Stephen Webster Beauty and enjoys working with celebrity clients, his most valued client is the everyday professional woman with discriminating taste in fine feminine pogonos and gluten-free tucker.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you, I already looked at this link and learned from it what the current Australian law is (which I consider illegitimate, immoral and worth defying).

Now for all this beard-talk by the above guys, suppose you were in this unfortunate tiny minority of women who grew a beard and the Australian law stated that women may not shave their beards: Would you then consider such a law to be legitimate and moral, just because it was legislated democratically? would you then agree with Socrates' position that if the law tells you to drink poison then you ought to drink poison?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am a relatively hairless creature. I always have
been. It's probably my ancestry. The only place where I
am hairy is the mane on my head. Anyway, I'll play along.
If I was to grow a beard - I would shave it off immediately
regardless of what the law was. And I would say I did it
for religious reasons. For example, Tibetan monks don't have
body hair and I would be able to fit right in as a Tibetan
nun.

There are always ways in which problems can be solved - no matter
what life throws at you. As the old adage tells us:

"A successful man/woman is one who can lay a firm
foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him/her".

//But what if they aren't accommodating and insist, and he refuses because to put that on a cake is offensive to him in his religious beliefs//

If ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

Is Mise
If a bearded lady is shaving while being arrested in your shop and asks for offensive words on the cake , would you refuse ? If a drunk Santa Claus fires both barrels into your bread-mixer would you still refuse? Then you're in the clear , its not homophobia it's for every valued customer . You can tell the cop it's religious insult when he gets back to you and arrest the lot ( although Santa came from Lithuania and may be Russian).

Excellent response, Foxy, Thanks!

Toni,

Nice ducking there!

In the cake case in the US, the baker knew the gay couple as they were regular customers and he had never refused to sell goods to them.
However, when they asked for a wedding cake he refused, saying he couldn't reconcile his religious beliefs with gay marriage. He offered to find another baker who would be willing to bake the cake for them. They refused, he refused, so the matter went to court and the baker received a large fine.
Two issues here. Firstly, he had never refused to sell to them before so he wasn't guilty of refusing service on the grounds of sexual orientation. What he refused to do was provide goods for a ceremony he didn't agree with.
Secondly, the gay couple were being deliberately malicious and vindictive in trying to force him to dishonour his own beliefs, when apparently there were multiple other bAkers nearby who would have made the cake for them.
As has been said, who would want anything negative to spoil their wedding day and marriage. Certainly you wouldnt want illwishes from people you had tormented.
The free market would easily sort this out if left alone. Let gay couples use the majority of businesses who are happy to provide for them and leave religious and conscientious objectors alone.

Dear Big Nana,

Hopefully the Dean Smith Bill with all of its
amendments will satisfy everybody and be fair
and equitable to all. It's up to our
Parliamentarians now to sort this out. Time they
did their job.

There should be nothing to sort out.

It is not the job of parliament or the legal system to force anyone to work for anyone they don't want to. That is slavery.

"he couldn't reconcile his religious beliefs with gay marriage. "
bad move . If one of them proposed marriage to the baker what could he say ?

Foxy, I don't uunderstand why we have to have a law about this. The free market will always sort out these issues. Plenty of businesses will provide services for gay weddings, or Muslim weddings or Jewish weddings etc. . Those who won't provide those services will simply lose that business. I don't see a problem, unless there is only one business in town, then people would have cause to complain.
Who in their right mind would want the bad luck of ill wishes on their marriage that would come with forcing someone to provide a service against their will. To say nothing of any little extra they may put in the cake, or the deliberate mistakes in the photos or flowers.
To me it is being deliberately malicious to want to force this issue and certainly will do nothing to improve acceptance rates of the gay lifestyle

And *of course* our laws have *never* enforced certain minimum aspects of public conduct.
Get over it.
Activities on sunday were once harshly rebuked.
Just being gay was once harshly punished.

Josephus is not running out to bemoan that other laws were not supportive of minority rights to differ in the complete freedom he wishes for the religious.

Businesses *have* to accept legal tender, businesses "open to the public" and advertising to the public have to accept the public, or display their deficiencies ("whites only", etc). Once it is "made to order" or "your message here" it is no longer the proprietor's pick. If that is too oppressive, go private, by appointment and private advertising. If your prosperity depends on public access, it is not slavery to serve the public in full.

Very few religions have any unambiguous basis for refusing service to gay couples, and if they do, they can adapt their official dogma or lose all public subsidy.

They can still do what they want behind closed doors, a freedom that others have had to accept as adequate. If it is not good enough, they will have to work out what unjust laws they have imposed on others and just what *is* due.

Dear Big Nana,

We probably have enough laws as it is. However
since the YES vote quite a few Australians are
expressing their concerns about where they stand
and what they can and can't legally do and they
want to ensure that their rights are protected
by legislation. I'm sure that the Parliament
will take care of these concerns. In the meantime
the following link explains where the law curently
stands:

http://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/start-your-business/what-is-customer-service/refusing-service

Meanwhile, read up on Margaret Court.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/theyve-not-our-values-perth-school-replaces-tennis-legend-margaret-court-as-patron-ng-c7a7205091f6df912b3ebe8fe38bef89

Forcing people to provide a service under threat of law is certainly a good way to promote non acceptance of SSM.
I read an excellent suggestion for dealing with the problem.
If you provide a service and you have a religious or moral objection to SSM, then calmly explain that to the customer. If they continue to force the issue, explain that you will provide the service but the money received will go towards groups who support traditional marriage, after an amount has been spent on public advertising of that fact and thanking the same sex couple for their contributions to the cause.
Would be very interested to reactions to that ploy.

Court, the former great tennis player, and now days pathological homophobe, makes herself irrelevant to the argument with absurd comments about transgender children being influenced by the devil and manipulated in a way that was evident in Nazi Germany. Christ! the woman's a fool. did she get hit in the head by a tennis ball at 100 mph, rendering her senseless?

Big Nana,

That sounds like a civil way for same-sex marriage opponents to deal with the situation at least.

The only problem I would have with removing all discrimination law is that, firstly, it could be interpreted as an implicit condoning of such behaviour (collective condemnation of behaviour is one of the functions of law, after all) and, secondly, it doesn’t help the people who are discriminated against in the meantime. Apart from the above, I have no objection to letting the market sort these things out because once word gets out, these bigots will find their businesses boycotted anyway.

My biggest problem is that most of us are fine with anti-discrimination law concerning race, but when it comes to sexuality, suddenly we’re all worried about religious and moral objection. We can even see this in your choice of wording (deliberate or not), and you’re not alone: when the discrimination concerns same-sex couples, it’s ‘conscientious objection’; when discrimination against race is exercised, we all seem happy to call it ‘racism’ and condemn it.

If all here, concerned about bakers’ rights to refuse services to same-sex couples, would also defend a baker’s right to refuse services to people based on race, then I have no complaint. Such consistency would at least demonstrate that the individual was more concerned about the baker’s liberty and that they were not just being a homophobe. However, I think you’d find that, for many, there is a double standard here.

I take it that everyone here (who is old enough, at least), concerned about the baker’s right to refuse services to same-sex couples, also supported the Mormon Church’s right to refuse blacks (until they changed their position in the late '70s). It was just a religious objection, after all.

Dear Nana,

I would like to avoid turning this painful issue which I raised into a political tug of war.

Say a business-owner accepts SSM in their heart, but cannot personally contribute, perhaps because:
1) God/Prophet told him not to do it.
2) It would go against their vows.
3) Their father forbids it and they follow the 5th commandment.
4) They promised their mother on her deathbed not to do it.
etc.

Say one has nothing against blind people, but is allergic to dogs.
Say a man has nothing against women - on the contrary: well aware of his weaknesses, he knows that if he looked at a woman then he could not overcome the temptation.
Say one has nothing against blacks, but their presence triggers PTSD issues.
Say an adult-shop owner considers it morally wrong to sell such products to people under 30.

It's the human tragedy, the potential plight of private small-business owners who could suffer greatly under "anti-discrimination laws", that I care about, rather than how anyone could gain political power/victories. Such laws were already abused in America by cruel heartless people, for political gain, or perhaps for plain sadism.

---

Dear Rusty,

«Very few religions have any unambiguous basis for refusing service to gay couples, and if they do, they can adapt their official dogma or lose all public subsidy.»

If an organisation accepts "public" subsidies, meaning money that was stolen or robbed off others against their will, despite the commandment "thou shalt not steal" and its equivalent in other religions, then I can only wonder how that organisation was ever thought of as a "religion".

«Businesses *have* to accept legal tender»

And that's just as wrong (assuming that business is private, rather than say, a company). Any private business should be able to set their prices in Euros, in kisses or whatever.

«businesses "open to the public" and advertising to the public have to accept the public»

Only if they actually advertise that they are "open to the public", or when it is implied by the rules of the advertising agency.

Yes, Yuyutsu,

I'm fine with calling all those bluffs, one way or another.

Happy to deny religious status or exemptions to all the religions that have accepted public subsidy. It seems to be the religious that want the special pleading there.
Happy to watch you struggle along without legal tender. I guess other fairer systems could be introduced to gauge an individual's contribution and entitlement to the common wealth (such as Skinner's work-credits) but I suspect you would find them more restrictive. Business *can* accept other payment, but it seems it is the businesses themselves that don't much like payment in other forms. You mention other currencies, but that is begging the question, they only have value above that of coloured paper because they *are* legal tender somewhere similarly substantial.

In any case, you twice specified "private" business. I have been to private business premises. They do not have signage, their advertising is direct to people who have indicated interest, they do not have open doors to the public thoroughfare. Certainly *they* can restrict their trade in any way they wish. Businesses that have opened themselves to the public street have expressed a willingness to sell their stock in trade to the whole public. As I have mentioned, they might obviously not have some items (pork at the kosher shop). If they wish not to serve tall people, or fat ones, or white ones or old ones they should also indicate this deficiency to the public. Few claiming the right wish the consequences of it being known widely.

The open door and wares within *are* an advertisement. Finding an excuse not to serve without a prior notice at the door is not "conscientious" at all.

I do not believe we need to shed too many tears, these businesses are anticipating profit that is not possible without the accessible "public", the public road, the policed law. If their religion restricts recognition of that public, there are many other livelihoods, and types of business. Committing to serve the public while unable to serve the whole public is not the public's problem.

Rusty.

Dear Rusty,

We seem to agree that misleading is wrong.
We could discuss ad-nauseam the fine points of when exactly a behaviour is misleading, but let us now assume that no misleading is present.

I wish what you wrote was true in Australia, but according to the link which Foxy keeps sending us, it is not.

That link makes no distinctions between private and public businesses.
It doesn't provide any allowance for indicating "deficiencies" at the door.

And I don't think that at present, an Australian shop is allowed to have a sign on its door: "Payment is in Euro or marbles only".
(and I care not why they want it that way and whether it's a good or economically-sound idea)
Yes, a business MAY accept other forms of payment, but legally at present they MUST accept Australian dollars if that's how the customer wishes to pay. Also, they must pay their tax in Australian dollars, whether they ever had them or not.

«It seems to be the religious that want the special pleading there.»

Yes, so it SEEMS, but are they religious or do they only pretend to be?

Shopkeepers can accept non-legal tender *if* they have agreement with their customer. The whole point of legal tender is that agreement may not be clear. The shopkeeper is perfectly free to refuse legal tender, but not to expect the public to regard him as the injured party. An attempt to pay has been made. Nicely, it is most specifically for *debts*, and equally pertinent is that the payer may lack the *specific* thing the creditor wants, hence legal and not personal. By all means commence every sale (do put it at the entrance so as not to waste time) with the limitations (cowrie shells today, flints and strikers tomorrow). If however you trade and it becomes a claimed "debt", expect dollars, not your own incidental needs.

And yes, I think that the religious only "seem", and rarely more. They are conscientious to the extent of extracting each and every incremental simulation of observance from non-believers, but rarely in examining their own inconsistencies. I should respect their endless sensitivities when I do not even believe the premise?

Paul,

Congrats on the first mindless Nazi reference and dullard of the month award. We get that everyone that doesn't agree with the Green's dogma is a fascist, but please restrain your raving.

Shadow my foolish boy, your ability to get it wrong is legendary. This time its your lack of comprehension that got you sticking your big foot into your equally big gob. The "Nazi reference" came from Margaret Court, hardly a Greenie, read this slowly:

"makes herself (Margaret Court) irrelevant to the argument with absurd comments about transgender children being influenced by the devil and manipulated in a way that was evident in Nazi Germany."

Now try and comprehend what I wrote, too many big words, can't be sorry for that sunshine.