- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,369
- 19,501
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
It isn’t discriminatory to not bake a cake. To not sell a cake that you have already made is a different story.
The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers
- Thread starter Todman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,856
- 43,240
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I wasn’t replying to the OP.
I do agree with the above though, I think that premise is fine.
Of course. As if the state should be able to dictate to a business the people it must deal with (ex age based re alcohol etc)
There’s a difference between laws around the under-age consumption of alcohol and laws that protect from discrimination under grounds of race/sex etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Ditto.
But I'd sooner serve a gay couple a cake for their wedding than a fatty their 7th doughnut for the day.
You can go into any bakery and buy any cake on display. Bloke behind the counter is in no way obligated to indulge in your design fantasies.
You can't go into a car dealership and order a Commodore with 1957 style Chev rear fins.
You can't go into a car dealership and order a Commodore with 1957 style Chev rear fins.
false equivalence.
But a dealership that specializes in such designs and refuses to sell to Richmond supporters or paint the car black and yellow but would do the any design for any other supporter?
Russian Demon
Premiership Player
- Mar 26, 2015
- 4,225
- 5,651
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Well under the ruling that dealer would be protected. If he had the car in the colour/design the supporter wanted he has to sell it. However, he is not able to be compelled to create a painted design on a car if doing so is in conflict with his beliefs, religious or otherwise.
The government compelling an individual to express an opinion or belief (and by express this includes designs, art ect) is pretty clear in the first amendment in the US. This ruling was overturned because the original judge was an idiot by making such a big deal of how the defendant's freedom of religion was of secondary importance, as if it was a self evident truth. In reality it is protected under the same amendment. This ruling actually doesn't answer a lot of the relevant questions.
My personal opinion is that the government should not be allowed to compel somebody to express something they don't believe, whether it is combating bigotry or not.
But painting a car is not supporting Richmond. Baking a cake is not being Gay. The objection is not to the car or the cake but the customer.
:"express something they don;t believe"
You got a simple definition of that? Renting a venue? Renting a House? Providing a ring?> Providing food? Printing a wedding notice? Cab drivers should be allowed to refuse to pick up Richmond supporters?
Russian Demon
Premiership Player
- Mar 26, 2015
- 4,225
- 5,651
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Well, i'm reading from the ruling of this case. The case had to be made that the decorating of a cake with a message constituted art, and therefore an expression of a belief. Its not for me to decide, its the courts.
If its just colours on a car, maybe this is hard to prove. But anything that is recognisably Richmond, i don't think it would be so difficult.
And your first sentence is wrong. The objection is to act of gay marriage, and writing a message in support of that is what was contested, not the selling of an existing cake, or even one without a message.
I'm also not sure sure there is a simple right answer. I tend to favour the restriction of governments compelling individuals, simply because its a power that could be abused. In this instance, there are lots of bakers who would do this contract, so this baker is making a choice that will ultimately reduce the number of bakers with the same view, in turn reducing the problem.
But my opinion doesnt hold for all cases. Maybe the answer to "whose rights are more important"is situational and has to be assessed in context?
- Banned
- #212
It's gross but I don't think the government should compel the baker to make the cake. People have a right to be bigots.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,389
- AFL Club
- Geelong
A wedding cake is a non-Christian pagan tradition and symbol.
Christian bakers are happy to bake non-Christian pagan symbols for Christian weddings.
Because of their Christian beliefs, Christian bakers are not prepared to bake non-Christian pagan symbols for what they see as non-Christian weddings.
If you really want to do your head in, try putting those propositions into one or more logically valid syllogisms.
Christian bakers are happy to bake non-Christian pagan symbols for Christian weddings.
Because of their Christian beliefs, Christian bakers are not prepared to bake non-Christian pagan symbols for what they see as non-Christian weddings.
If you really want to do your head in, try putting those propositions into one or more logically valid syllogisms.
- Banned
- #214
It wouldn't be illegal for them to refuse that commission.
It was still false equivalence. the cake shop was happy to do designs like the one requested custom was refused on the basis of the identity of the customer not the design.
- Banned
- #216
Sure. But your alternative scenario didn't make any point either.
DarwinRoo
Brownlow Medallist
"God" has been a bigger prick than "Satan" has
- Jun 30, 2014
- 10,169
- 5,512
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #219
Isn’t that the basic law of business!
It’s the business that suffers anyway with the loss of the deal
- Thread starter
- #220
- Jun 30, 2014
- 10,169
- 5,512
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #221
Learn about basic business practices
Then find out that it wasn’t the only bakery in the district
What if fatty buys the 7 donuts for $20 special? Not your problem, everyone entitled to free healthcare now matter if self induced
#letthembefree
- Banned
- #224
So Jim Jeffries interviewed JP and he's very glib. Dishonest even. But he asked him about the gay bakers at 4:40.
I don't know. Maybe JP didn't feel like drawing the distinction between selling an existing cake and customising a gay wedding cake.
I don't know. Maybe JP didn't feel like drawing the distinction between selling an existing cake and customising a gay wedding cake.
Similar threads
