The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers

[owen87]

1. That's a very cute attempt to spin and play on words/phrases there. Sure, refusal to create something against a person's values; but if those values are discriminatory, then it's discrimination. If your values are to see gay people as wrong and repugnant, and not creating anything for them as a result, then that is discriminating against gay people. It's cute that you spin it like the discriminators are the ones defending their own rights, but they are actually subverting others' rights

If I refuse to create anything for black people because it's against my values of thinking black people are inferior, I'd still be racist, except I'm doing it disingenuously.

2. What a silly comparison, if a Neo-nazi is telling you to write racist messages on a cake, then they are the ones being racist, they are the ones breaking anti-discrimination laws. Not only should you not make that cake for them, you can call the cops on them. You shouldn't be committing criminal activity even for business.

I find all these dumb scenarios where somehow the customers are asking the baker to write the most improbable messages quite hilarious, they are creating absurd scenarios to justify what they know is discrimination on their part

3. Except you are conveniently forgetting the different situations of employer and employee: sure, refuse to do work with certain people as a company's employee and you will receive consequences for it from the employer, and so you should; but bakeries where the guy refusing to bake the cake for gay people who are going to be owners of that business and therefore the employers, no one will take them to account within their own business, except for the law. That is why anti-discrimination laws are in place, to hold employers to account where they otherwise can't be, not the employees

Christian employers are precisely trying to subvert those discrimination laws' ability to hold their homophobia to account, that is why this whole melodrama about gay wedding cakes kicked off in the first place; Christians want to keep gay people out of their business, but they know they'd be breaking anti-discrimination laws. Hence the wink wink nudge nudge and wah wah crying to the courts to make sure those laws don't apply specifically to Christians

Did you bother to read what I wrote or just make up your own imaginary arguments and run with it?

Someone has quite literally shopped around to find a group of beauticians who won't perform a brazilian wax on their male genitalia even though they identify as female in order to pursue legal action against them. Acting as though these people are somehow nonexistent is disingenuous.

The premise is; should someone be able to be forced to create something they don't want to - for whatever reason. You clearly want to be able to to force people to do things you want, with no recourse, for if they refuse you want legal repercussions.

Were it simply a transaction of; a cake is already baked, on the shelf, and they refused to serve an individual for some reason, I would agree they shouldn't be able to do so.

There's plenty of racist things a neo-nazi could say that doesn't contravene anti-discrimination laws but that would be (rightly) refused to be done were you a Jewish or African baker. Same as there being plenty of things you could ask a gay baker to write that would be offensive but not illegal, should they be forced to do so?

You want to be able to use the law to force people to create anything you deem acceptable, whether they want to or not.

Phillips, however, maintained during an interview with “Today,” that he would “serve everybody.”


“It's just that I don't create cakes for every occasion they ask me to create,” he said.

“I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop,” Phillips said. “I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create.

“This cake is a specific cake, a wedding cake is an inherently religious event and the cake is definitely a specific message,” Phillips said, explaining his objection to making the wedding cake for the same-sex wedding.

Raging homophobe right? Only refusing to make cakes for those gay people.

But Phillips said there were several other messages he would never agree to put on any of his cakes — including anything that would disparage a member of the LGBTQ community.

'I don't create cakes for Halloween, I wouldn't create a cake that would be anti-American or disparaging against anybody for any reason, even cakes that would disparage people who identify as LGBT,” he said. "Cakes have a message and this is one I can't create."

Should he be forced to make cakes with Anti-American sentiment? For Halloween?

Surely under your guidelines he's a baker, therefore he must bake whatever cake you ask for right? With whatever message you're paying for right?

 

[Cooldude]

Did you bother to read what I wrote or just make up your own imaginary arguments and run with it?

Someone has quite literally shopped around to find a group of beauticians who won't perform a brazilian wax on their male genitalia even though they identify as female in order to pursue legal action against them. Acting as though these people are somehow nonexistent is disingenuous.

The premise is; should someone be able to be forced to create something they don't want to - for whatever reason. You clearly want to be able to to force people to do things you want, with no recourse, for if they refuse you want legal repercussions.

Were it simply a transaction of; a cake is already baked, on the shelf, and they refused to serve an individual for some reason, I would agree they shouldn't be able to do so.

There's plenty of racist things a neo-nazi could say that doesn't contravene anti-discrimination laws but that would be (rightly) refused to be done were you a Jewish or African baker. Same as there being plenty of things you could ask a gay baker to write that would be offensive but not illegal, should they be forced to do so?

You want to be able to use the law to force people to create anything you deem acceptable, whether they want to or not.

No, I've responded to everything you have written, the only one imagining those rebuttals don't exist is you, because they don't suit your preexisting viewpoints

You have a fundamental lack of understanding on the matter at hand: businesses have always had the right to refuse services to customers as long as: 1. the customers are breaching the terms and conditions of their business. 2. the business isn't violating preexisting laws for doing so. You make it sound like businesses have no right to refuse any services under any circumstance, which is also disingenuous

The reason why Christians kicked off a fuss about the gay wedding cakes to the courts, is because they know if they refuse the service to gay people, they would be violating anti-discrimination laws. So they're trying to make the courts allow them to ignore those laws, for their religion.

Businesses already have the right to refuse printing the N word or Neo Nazis racist messages, you make it sound like they don't, which is idiotic.

Equating Neo Nazis writing the N word and racist messages with gay people just wanting a wedding cake is disingenuous and not to mention, kinda ****ed up.

Raging homophobe right? Only refusing to make cakes for those gay people



Should he be forced to make cakes with Anti-American sentiment? For Halloween?

Surely under your guidelines he's a baker, therefore he must bake whatever cake you ask for right? With whatever message you're paying for right?

Yet again, you have almost zero understanding of what the problem actually is.

The baker already has the power to refuse services to requests with anti-American sentiments, because those kinda sentiments don't fall under the protection of anti-discrimination laws

Equating that, with gay people just wanting a cake, is false equivalence and dishonest. Refusing services to gay people purely due to their sexual orientation, is discriminatory, and falls under anti-discrimination laws that govern businesses.

The reason why Christian bakers want to take that to court is precisely because they know they'd be breaking the law if they refuse services to gay people, but they are so dishonest that they equate the act of baking a gay wedding cake, to making racist message cakes for Neo Nazis

I find the mental acrobatics in all of this hilarious, especially when I have listened to the same kind of people who were crying about Blair Cottrell the neo nazi having his bank account terminated for being a nazi. They were so up in arms about the absolute rights of the customer then, yet now they suddenly want businesses to have absolute power as long as the customers are gay people

 

[Frank Bunn]

The baker already has the power to refuse services to requests with anti-American sentiments, because those kinda sentiments don't fall under the protection of anti-discrimination laws

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Equating that, with gay people just wanting a cake, is false equivalence and dishonest. Refusing services to gay people purely due to their sexual orientation, is discriminatory, and falls under anti-discrimination laws that govern businesses.

Which part of "I don't discriminate against anybody — I serve everybody that comes in my shop. I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create" did you not understand?

The reason why Christian bakers want to take that to court is precisely because they know they'd be breaking the law if they refuse services to gay people, but they are so dishonest that they equate the act of baking a gay wedding cake, to making racist message cakes for Neo Nazis

Christian bakers didn't take anyone to court. They were taken to court.

I find the mental acrobatics in all of this hilarious, especially when I have listened to the same kind of people who were crying about Blair Cottrell the neo nazi having his bank account terminated for being a nazi. They were so up in arms about the absolute rights of the customer then, yet now they suddenly want businesses to have absolute power as long as the customers are gay people

The old 'same kind of people' argument. The same kind of people who want to buy gay wedding cakes want to lower the age of consent. #amidoingitright

Westpac have the right to choose not to have any individual as a customer. But as a corporate giant they are not doing so out of any deep felt moral sensibilities. It's about public relations and ultimately dollars. Their lack of credibility to act as a moral arbiter was exposed by the banking royal commission.

 

[owen87]

No, I've responded to everything you have written, the only one imagining those rebuttals don't exist is you, because they don't suit your preexisting viewpoints

You have a fundamental lack of understanding on the matter at hand: businesses have always had the right to refuse services to customers as long as: 1. the customers are breaching the terms and conditions of their business. 2. the business isn't violating preexisting laws for doing so. You make it sound like businesses have no right to refuse any services under any circumstance, which is also disingenuous

The reason why Christians kicked off a fuss about the gay wedding cakes to the courts, is because they know if they refuse the service to gay people, they would be violating anti-discrimination laws. So they're trying to make the courts allow them to ignore those laws, for their religion.

Businesses already have the right to refuse printing the N word or Neo Nazis racist messages, you make it sound like they don't, which is idiotic.

Equating Neo Nazis writing the N word and racist messages with gay people just wanting a wedding cake is disingenuous and not to mention, kinda f’ed up.





Yet again, you have almost zero understanding of what the problem actually is.

The baker already has the power to refuse services to requests with anti-American sentiments, because those kinda sentiments don't fall under the protection of anti-discrimination laws

Equating that, with gay people just wanting a cake, is false equivalence and dishonest. Refusing services to gay people purely due to their sexual orientation, is discriminatory, and falls under anti-discrimination laws that govern businesses.

The reason why Christian bakers want to take that to court is precisely because they know they'd be breaking the law if they refuse services to gay people, but they are so dishonest that they equate the act of baking a gay wedding cake, to making racist message cakes for Neo Nazis

I find the mental acrobatics in all of this hilarious, especially when I have listened to the same kind of people who were crying about Blair Cottrell the neo nazi having his bank account terminated for being a nazi. They were so up in arms about the absolute rights of the customer then, yet now they suddenly want businesses to have absolute power as long as the customers are gay people

Again; you have almost zero understanding of what I've actually written. I'm not going down this rabbit hole of having my comment misrepresented over and over until we're nowhere near the original discussion.

Should businesses have the ability to choose what they create or not? Not should they be able to refuse to serve something off the shelf, but should you be able to compel someone to create something custom that they do not wish to create?

From what I'm reading, your answer to the above is yes, you should be able to compel someone to write something they disagree with? The semantics you're trying to argue are completely irrelevant to the question above.

 

[its free real estate]

Westpac have the right to choose not to have any individual as a customer. But as a corporate giant they are not doing so out of any deep felt moral sensibilities. It's about public relations and ultimately dollars. Their lack of credibility to act as a moral arbiter was exposed by the banking royal commission.

Banks also exist as quasi extensions of the state, with often direct support and bailouts when they fail, and a cartel like power over their industry.

Plenty of independent bakers however where if one is being discriminatory you have a choice to go elsewhere.

 

[its free real estate]

Again; you have almost zero understanding of what I've actually written.

I don’t think he reads anything.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This is a pic of the actual Northern Irish cake (the order was fulfilled by another baker to be presented at a function for Andrew Muir, Northern Ireland's first openly gay mayor SOURCE:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 )

PICTURE SOURCE: https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1010/1002126-belfast_gay_cake/

Writing on cake with icing is easier to do than the actual baking or the work done on those Sesame Street characters, providing you have the equipment. A Christian baker could have done the cake with the characters on it and left the writing to be filled in by the clients, they might even be able to provide shop space and the equipment to do it without carrying out the messagework themselves.

But the consumer needs to know this beforehand. What are the business-owner's core beliefs, and will they prevent me from getting my entire order completed?

 

[Frank Bunn]

This is a pic of the actual Northern Irish cake (the order was fulfilled by another baker to be presented at a function for Andrew Muir, Northern Ireland's first openly gay mayor SOURCE:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233 )

PICTURE SOURCE: https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1010/1002126-belfast_gay_cake/

Writing on cake with icing is easier to do than the actual baking or the work done on those Sesame Street characters, providing you have the equipment. A Christian baker could have done the cake with the characters on it and left the writing to be filled in by the clients, they might even be able to provide shop space and the equipment to do it without carrying out the messagework themselves.

But the consumer needs to know this beforehand. What are the business-owner's core beliefs, and will they prevent me from getting my entire order completed?

The consumer did know this beforehand. A gay rights activist knowingly targeted a Christian bakers to stir up trouble then complains that the case is bearing a "heavy burden" on him.

As the court found, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the customer's order because of his sexual orientation. The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.

 

[its free real estate]

Don't see the difference between what is written there and a cake that says "STOP THE BOATS"

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Don't see the difference between what is written there and a cake that says "STOP THE BOATS"

In fairness and without bias you are correct. Which is why I think it may well be better to let the bakers do the the baking and non-specific decorating, and the clients provided with the on-site tools to to the specific messaging themselves if they wish. Literally while the baker/s wash their hands of it!!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The consumer did know this beforehand. A gay rights activist knowingly targeted a Christian bakers to stir up trouble then complains that the case is bearing a "heavy burden" on him.

Maybe. The bakery's own website (they're a chain) states on the 'about us' section of their website

https://www.ashersbakingco.com/about

...Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr & Mrs Asher. Our name comes from the Bible. Asher was a tribe of Israel who had many skilled bakers and created bread fit for a king..."

but how many people would actually read this as a matter of course when placing an order? It's not quite proof enough on 'knowingly targeting' a business for their expressed beliefs on a said topic.

I can't find any reference to intentional targeting in any media about the incident either;

Gay marriage cake: bakers 'forced to act against their beliefs'

Supreme court hears appeal by Belfast bakery owners against fine for refusal to make cake

www.theguardian.com

Christian bakers lose their appeal over pro-gay marriage cake

The owners of Belfast-based Ashers Bakery declined an order placed by gay activist Gareth Lee, claiming the message was inconsistent with their deeply held religious beliefs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ashers 'gay cake' row: Bakers win Supreme Court appeal

Questions are now being asked whether the judgement will have an impact on discrimination laws.

www.bbc.com

The BBC article DOES make mention of the following

"...Arriving outside the court on Tuesday, Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur said the case had "always been about the message".
"We didn't say no because of the customer; we'd served him before, we'd serve him again. It was because of the message.
"But some people want the law to make us support something with which we disagree..."

which indicates that the customer had been there before. But did they actually EXPLICITLY know that, as a Christian bakery, that was the stance they were going to take? Nothing on the Ashers website indicates their way of thinking apart from that one Biblical reference to the origin of their name.

In any case, Ashers won. I just believe the consumer should be well informed of such stances beforehand before making a decision because this whole messy issue could have been avoided (half a million pounds in legal fees for a cake job that cost less than forty quid).

 

[its free real estate]

but how many people would actually read this as a matter of course when placing an order? It's not quite proof enough on 'knowingly targeting' a business for their expressed beliefs on a said topic.

You’re arguing from incredulity and inferring that the company’s about page is the only way of knowing the Asher bakery is Christian. Far more likely that the community knows their status as Christians outside of any blurb on their website (eg I know the Pancake Parlour is owned by Scientologists and have never visited their website).

Far more likely the person who requested the cake is an activist who deliberately targeted the baker (especially given the nature of the message requested) then the cosmos aligning for the two of them to meet.

 

[Cooldude]

Again; you have almost zero understanding of what I've actually written. I'm not going down this rabbit hole of having my comment misrepresented over and over until we're nowhere near the original discussion.

Should businesses have the ability to choose what they create or not? Not should they be able to refuse to serve something off the shelf, but should you be able to compel someone to create something custom that they do not wish to create?

From what I'm reading, your answer to the above is yes, you should be able to compel someone to write something they disagree with? The semantics you're trying to argue are completely irrelevant to the question above.

You are doing very well to project your failings on other people, as all people on your side of the political fence always seem to do

That whole pettifogging BS about "creating" and "off the shelf" and "custom service" is all just that: pettifogging BS. It is just elaborate spin for religious people to equate serving gay wedding cakes as serving to Nazis, how off the shelf is different to custom, and all that silly bullshit. It is all just false equating, deliberately absurd examples used to help them weaseling out of anti-discrimination laws

Of course, all of that has been explained to you, but you merely covered your ears and went lalala

When someone is comparing serving gay wedding cakes to serving a Neo Nazi putting an N word on a cake, you know you're talking to a crazy. "If I have to serve gay wedding cakes that means I have to serve Neo Nazis writing N words! You can't oppress me like that!"

 

[its free real estate]

You are doing very well to project your failings on other people, as all people on your side of the political fence always seem to do

That whole pettifogging BS about "creating" and "off the shelf" and "custom service" is all just that: pettifogging BS. It is just elaborate spin for religious people to equate serving gay wedding cakes as serving to Nazis, how off the shelf is different to custom, and all that silly bulls**t. It is all just false equating, deliberately absurd examples used to help them weaseling out of anti-discrimination laws

Of course, all of that has been explained to you, but you merely covered your ears and went lalala

When someone is comparing serving gay wedding cakes to serving a Neo Nazi putting an N word on a cake, you know you're talking to a crazy. "If I have to serve gay wedding cakes that means I have to serve Neo Nazis writing N words! You can't oppress me like that!"

This is unhinged.

 

[Cooldude]

This is unhinged.

Nah I'm cool

 

[its free real estate]

Nah I'm cool

Your hatred of Christians has bent your brain.

 

[Evolved1]

Maybe. The bakery's own website (they're a chain) states on the 'about us' section of their website



but how many people would actually read this as a matter of course when placing an order? It's not quite proof enough on 'knowingly targeting' a business for their expressed beliefs on a said topic.

I can't find any reference to intentional targeting in any media about the incident either;

Gay marriage cake: bakers 'forced to act against their beliefs'

Supreme court hears appeal by Belfast bakery owners against fine for refusal to make cake

www.theguardian.com

Christian bakers lose their appeal over pro-gay marriage cake

The owners of Belfast-based Ashers Bakery declined an order placed by gay activist Gareth Lee, claiming the message was inconsistent with their deeply held religious beliefs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ashers 'gay cake' row: Bakers win Supreme Court appeal

Questions are now being asked whether the judgement will have an impact on discrimination laws.

www.bbc.com

The BBC article DOES make mention of the following

"...Arriving outside the court on Tuesday, Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur said the case had "always been about the message".
"We didn't say no because of the customer; we'd served him before, we'd serve him again. It was because of the message.
"But some people want the law to make us support something with which we disagree..."

which indicates that the customer had been there before. But did they actually EXPLICITLY know that, as a Christian bakery, that was the stance they were going to take? Nothing on the Ashers website indicates their way of thinking apart from that one Biblical reference to the origin of their name.

In any case, Ashers won. I just believe the consumer should be well informed of such stances beforehand before making a decision because this whole messy issue could have been avoided (half a million pounds in legal fees for a cake job that cost less than forty quid).

The ruling opens a can of worms. If a Christian employee of a company with more inclusive values is asked to make the same cake, should that employee have the right to refuse service with no repercussions from their employer or the law? I say not.

Making that cake would not have meant the bakers supported the message. They were being paid to perform a job function that in no way required them to vote for, approve of, or be involved in formal duties for a homosexual marriage service. It was hardly an explicit message that should cause any right-minded person to take offense either, just a token message of support for gay marriage.

Where do we draw the line? Should a bakery owned by white supremacists be given the same freedoms to discriminate against coloured people so as to not violate their values?

When religious 'freedoms' are used to discriminate against others, that's where a firm boundary needs to be set. Discriminating against homosexuals seems to be seen as one of those grey areas (for now), which I find unfortunate.

If/when the balance shifts against Christianity, through sheer weight of Muslim or atheist numbers, the Christians will be the first to demand equality and cry about persecution. Nothing is more certain.

 

[Evolved1]

You’re arguing from incredulity and inferring that the company’s about page is the only way of knowing the Asher bakery is Christian. Far more likely that the community knows their status as Christians outside of any blurb on their website (eg I know the Pancake Parlour is owned by Scientologists and have never visited their website).

Far more likely the person who requested the cake is an activist who deliberately targeted the baker (especially given the nature of the message requested) then the cosmos aligning for the two of them to meet.

I'll take a stab in the dark that Christian bakers aren't all that rare in Western nations.

Does it even matter whether the baker was deliberately targeted or not? If you flaunt your bigotry, you basically paint a target on your back. I haven't seen any concern over 'unfair' targeting of Westboro Baptist church members.

 

[owen87]

You are doing very well to project your failings on other people, as all people on your side of the political fence always seem to do

That whole pettifogging BS about "creating" and "off the shelf" and "custom service" is all just that: pettifogging BS. It is just elaborate spin for religious people to equate serving gay wedding cakes as serving to Nazis, how off the shelf is different to custom, and all that silly bulls**t. It is all just false equating, deliberately absurd examples used to help them weaseling out of anti-discrimination laws

Of course, all of that has been explained to you, but you merely covered your ears and went lalala

When someone is comparing serving gay wedding cakes to serving a Neo Nazi putting an N word on a cake, you know you're talking to a crazy. "If I have to serve gay wedding cakes that means I have to serve Neo Nazis writing N words! You can't oppress me like that!"

My failings? It amuses me that you think this whilst going on (yet another) rant without answering the question.

Is there a difference between providing an off-the-shelf product to a custom one? Should you be able to compel someone to write anything you deem you want them to?

Obvious you want to be able to compel certain groups to do whatever you like using the legal system to enforce it, at least come out and say you want to be an authoritarian.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You’re arguing from incredulity and inferring that the company’s about page is the only way of knowing the Asher bakery is Christian. Far more likely that the community knows their status as Christians outside of any blurb on their website (eg I know the Pancake Parlour is owned by Scientologists and have never visited their website).

Far more likely the person who requested the cake is an activist who deliberately targeted the baker (especially given the nature of the message requested) then the cosmos aligning for the two of them to meet.

That is something I genuinely did not know. I'd never be able to eat there anyway, there are far too many thetans having a pissup in my brain at any given moment. They enjoy it in there I think.

It's at least possible that Ashers being a Christian bakery chain is common knowledge in Belfast, though this hasn't been alluded to in any of the articles I've read of the case. As neither of us are arguing with a complete set of concrete facts there's a wee bit of incredulity and supposition on both our parts but that's okay.

Incidently there was a tit-for-tat incident in Dublin (this happened before Ashers won their case on appeal);

Dublin bakery's refusal to make anti-gay marriage cake 'was not discrimination'

“BY THE GRACE OF THE GOOD LORD.”

www.thejournal.ie

THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS Commission (WRC) has ruled that a Co Dublin bakery did not discriminate against a man when refusing to bake a €700 cake with an anti-gay marriage message.

In May of last year, the man placed a cake order with the bakery with the words ‘BY THE GRACE OF THE GOOD LORD, I (name redacted), that in my honest opinion – “GAY MARRIAGE” IS A PERVERSION OF EQUALITY and the 34th Amendment to the Irish Constitution should be REPEALED’.

The man told the WRC hearing he was taking the action against the bakery under the Equal Status Act in response to a Belfast court case which had found that Ashers bakery had discriminated against a gay man when refusing to take an order a ‘Bert and Ernie’ cake with a pro-marriage equality message.

The man told the WRC hearing he placed the order for this cake both to test and “balance out” the Ashers bakery case...

 

[Evolved1]

My failings? It amuses me that you think this whilst going on (yet another) rant without answering the question.

Is there a difference between providing an off-the-shelf product to a custom one? Should you be able to compel someone to write anything you deem you want them to?

Obvious you want to be able to compel certain groups to do whatever you like using the legal system to enforce it, at least come out and say you want to be an authoritarian.

I don't see how providing an off-shelf product or a custom one makes any difference. If a gay couple entered a Christian-owned jewellery store looking for wedding bands, selling rings to the buyers would be the moral equivalent to this cake situation, wouldn't it?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The ruling opens a can of worms. If a Christian employee of a company with more inclusive values is asked to make the same cake, should that employee have the right to refuse service with no repercussions from their employer or the law? I say not.

Now that WOULD be an interesting turn of events, should it happen. I would think that an employee going against their employer and denying business based on discriminations not held by the business itself would be on shaky ground. Then again, should a hypotheticaly secular Ashers employee be in hot water if they promoted gay marriage in a Christian bakery against that company's beliefs?

Precedents are being set in law as we speak.

 

[its free real estate]

I'll take a stab in the dark that Christian bakers aren't all that rare in Western nations.

Does it even matter whether the baker was deliberately targeted or not? If you flaunt your bigotry, you basically paint a target on your back. I haven't seen any concern over 'unfair' targeting of Westboro Baptist church members.

Unfair how? What people are arguing in this thread is for the state to intervene in private businesses according to rapidly shifting, if not faddish, social norms.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The danger is that the pro and anti poles of discrimination COULD clash and become a law and order problem somewhere down the track. At least with the State promoting equality through legislation the hardline discriminators might be marginalised. Some discriminate motivated by actual hate, remember that.

 

[owen87]

I don't see how providing an off-shelf product or a custom one makes any difference. If a gay couple entered a Christian-owned jewellery store looking for wedding bands, selling rings to the buyers would be the moral equivalent to this cake situation, wouldn't it?

They were asked to create something, not just hand over an item that has already been produced. One is a simple transaction, the other requires an individual to actively create a new item. There's a difference there is there not?

Should someone - as per the link above - be forced to create an anti-gay marriage cake if they're supportive of gay marriage?