Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

So, putting aside any issue of legality, if asked to print a banner that says 'Kill all the [insert whatever minority they hate]" you'd do it - in order to protect their rights to say it? You'd actually help them to promulgate their hate message? Even though you don't have to?That's just bizarre. And also morally wrong.

Nothing. You need to reread what I said.

There are some stock phrases that should be banned from EVC - this is one of them. If you think that there's a morally defensible position in either of those two statements you've got some work to do. The moral position is that both are wrong and should be resisted in any way possible. The minimum is not helping the bigots propogate their message.

We can agree on that at least. Morality is central to the issue. Helping propogate a dangerous and disgusting message is obviously immoral. That's silly. If the message conveyed by the speech was a moral one, there would be no debate. It's only because it is an immoral message that this discussion is happening. Firstly, and legalities aside, refusing to print a sign that you find immoral is not imposing your morality on others - you do not have a moral responsibility to help others say disgusting things. Your moral duty is quite the opposite.Secondly, their freedom of speech is their right to impose their morality on you. Your freedom of speech is to tell them that they are dangerous bigots and while you respect their right to say the nasty stuff they say, they can buy their own printing press to say it. I can. freedom of speech is a qualified right - not an absolute. But that is beside the point. You are not suppressing freedom of speech by refusing to print messages of hate - you're excercising your moral perogative. The speech is theirs to make, not yours. There is no obligation to support others' immoral acts, in fact your moral duty is to do quite the opposite and fight the bigots wherever you find them. That's not suppressing free speech, it's defending our democracy.

The 'I was only doing my job' defence sounds vaguely familiar.Oh yes, 'I was only following orders.' That situation ended well didn't it?

Of course you don't........ Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

For what it's worth, I think the gays that are targeting the simple-minded, fundamentalist bigots just to make a point are behaving badly and it's not helping their cause.They've won the rights that they deserve and society needs, they should be graceful in victory and buy their cakes from those willing to make them eagerly for them and let the ignoramouses serve their own markets - they'll be gone in a couple of generations anyway.There are better things to do with anger - being vindictive and spiteful now against a few bonkers bakers doesn't advance their cause any.

quote:

---

I do get your point. But there is a limited amount of inconvenience and indignity anyone ought to have put up with from, particularly when the law is on your side. If anybody is going to be inconvenienced why should it be the purchasers?

​

Assuming that such a choice does not require visiting 15 bakers to find such a vendor, or perhaps traveling 50 miles when there is a perfectly good baker down the road who happens to be an asshole, then yeah, I see your point, why not just patronize the friendly businesses?
  —NoNukes

---

I don't know the details of these cases, but I got the sense that the gays in question sought out the bakers in order to make a point - rather than just happened to go into their local baker to ask for a cake. If it was the latter, then I agree, they should take no prisoners.

quote:

---

But frankly, I don't give a crap about a bigot's right to discriminate.

---

Me neither, but I think it's tactically wrong to go out hunting bigots, it'll just give them reasonable cause for their persecution complex - as we see with Faith. It's better that they're just marginalised and ignored.

quote:

---

I do get your point. But there is a limited amount of inconvenience and indignity anyone ought to have put up with from, particularly when the law is on your side. If anybody is going to be inconvenienced why should it be the purchasers?

​

Assuming that such a choice does not require visiting 15 bakers to find such a vendor, or perhaps traveling 50 miles when there is a perfectly good baker down the road who happens to be an asshole, then yeah, I see your point, why not just patronize the friendly businesses?
  —NoNukes

---

I don't know the details of these cases, but I got the sense that the gays in question sought out the bakers in order to make a point - rather than just happened to go into their local baker to ask for a cake. If it was the latter, then I agree, they should take no prisoners.

quote:

---

But frankly, I don't give a crap about a bigot's right to discriminate.

---

Me neither, but I think it's tactically wrong to go out hunting bigots, it'll just give them reasonable cause for their persecution complex - as we see with Faith. It's better that they're just marginalised and ignored.

'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News

He could legally not bake 'statement cakes' that aren't discriminatory (race, sex, religion, disability) - that's the test.He could bake a cake that was sympathetic to Nazis so long as it doesn't break other laws of harassment or incitement to harm etc.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Ok, my personal belief is that people should be able to say what the hell they want in all circumstances. I like to know where the bigots, perverts and racists are and what they're really thinking.Of course, if they said something objectionable about my wife and children outside my house and then published it on Facebook, I might change my mind.That's why we have laws, so that I don't get to pick and choose.

Right, slight misunderstanding.I think that people should be able to say what they like.But I don't think that I should be forced to help them say things that I dislike.But, that's why we have laws.But I don't thing the current laws would bother me - the law allows me to turn down business I don't want so long as I'm not discriminating against a protected group. I don't have to print brochures for Camel if I don't want to.

There is a twist in the legal argument of the case in that the baker was a limited company - not an individual - that is, it is a legal entity in its own right and as a profit making corporate body it did not have a defence under our human rights act. A company can not have religous beliefs. Weird but obviously true.For the legal nerds, the full judgement is herehttp://www.equalityni.org/...2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf

And that position is true under our law too, because Nazis aren't a protected class whilst 'faggots', are.Your laws seem to be saying that a baker must bake a wedding cake with two gay men on it, which seems to be simple discrimination if they won't. But would it say that the baker must bake a cake with 'support gay weddings' on it? I suspect that would cross the boundary in free speech land.