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