|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where should there be "The right to refuse service"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
He could legally not bake 'statement cakes' that aren't discriminatory (race, sex, religion, disability) - that's the test. I'm not asking about the legal test. My question was about your personal belief. Some of the rationale people give here about not baking gay wedding cakes don't really speak to the issue of making a protest cake. For example, I might not have a problem with a civil rights cake, or a 'Black and Proud' cake, but I might balk at some of the more extreme sentiments expressed by some even if the messages were not discriminatory. I might just not like cussin' words, yet the message, other than that might be perfectly acceptable. I don't think I have to print out all messages that are non-discriminatory. I just don't get to balk at messages for reasons that are illegal. My reason for excluding Nazis is that in some European countries, laws against Nazism trounce well over any free speech limit we are used to in the US. I just want to avoid that entire topic. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses. Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NoNukes writes: I'm not asking about the legal test. My question was about your personal belief. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That's why we have laws, so that I don't get to pick and choose. Except I don't believe that to be what most people do. I believe many bakers draw a line somewhere regarding whose money they will take, and what messages they'd be willing to put on a cake. Only a few of those choices have anything at all to do with legal matters or discrimination. Laws against discrimination do not require me to bake a cake for R J Reynold's celebration of the 50th anniversary of Joe Camel, a mascot that was demonstrated in court as being intended for targeting kids as new smokers. I sincerely doubt that I'd accept their business. I'd be happy to tell the company how to find Tangle's shop.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses. Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NoNukes writes: Except I don't believe that to be what most people do. I believe many bakers draw a line somewhere regarding whose money they will take, and what messages they'd be willing to put on a cake. Only a few of those choices have anything at all to do with legal matters or discrimination. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Note this situation is in the UK.
I think, for the US, it goes too far. Making/not making a generic cake for a gay wedding is one thing. Being forced to make a statement on a cake is something different. A standard generic wedding cake takes no political stand on anything. To refuse to provide your usual non-political product to someone because of their (insert bias) is bigotry and should have no place in the marketplace. But having government regulations that force a baker to make a political statement on their cake against their belief and against their will should be a violation of the 1st Amendment and such a ruling by a court not allowed. I think you Brits should be quite upset over this ruling. Your free speech rights just took a big hit at the hands of your government. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
I think the pro gay marriage slogan was also related to the referendum occurring in the south this friday.
big news in the ROI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
Your free speech rights just took a big hit at the hands of your government. Meh, we're pretty used to the idea that freedom of speech is not an absolute. We've had libel laws for centuries, and assault laws for as long (assault technically being the threat of violence, rather than the violence itself). More recently we've had laws punishing harassment and incitement to racial hatred etc. Definitely not uncomfortable with some limits being placed upon freedom of speech. And I agree with Tangle that our society tends to put limits on freedom of speech where those limits are to protect people, or those classes of people we think it's right to protect. It's a judgment call each time, and this instance it's close to the borderline, but in broad terms, I'm not too uncomfortable about it. But I would never preclude a restriction being placed on our freedom of speech, just because it is such a restriction - there's plenty such restrictions in place already. Freedom of speech may be somewhat sacred, but its halo is a bit tarnished with some naughtiness here and there.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Here, we're not so cavalier with our Free Speech rights. There are, of course, restrictions, but those restrictions are limited to speech meant to incite imminent violence. Saving someone emotional distress is not one of the restrictions to free speech we allow. Apparently, you allow such restrictions.
I am assuming here that the baker's refusal was based upon what the requested art expressed, not a general refusal to do business. This baker was not inciting any violence by their refusal to so decorate a cake. The baker was not assaulting or being harassing in any manner. The baker was taking no overt actions whatsoever except to refuse to create art the baker found personally offensive. Yet, your government stepped in and said that this baker can be forced to speak in this offensive manner. Writ large, your government can compel you to speak against your conscience giving you no license to refuse. Our governments cannot. You may see some naughtiness here and there as tarnish on the halo of Free Speech. We, here, see that as the very luster that makes this right so precious. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Ok, I need to explore this a little further.
Is it the case, in the States, that if a hotel owner refuses to allow black rights activists to hold a meeting in a conference room in the hotel, with a banner advocating black rights, as a result of that hotel owner's belief that black people should have fewer rights than white people, then the owner is entitled to do that ? Bear in mind that the owner omits to incite imminent violence, in this example.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
if a hotel owner refuses to allow black rights activists to hold a meeting in a conference room in the hotel, with a banner advocating black rights... Interesting. The owner cannot be compelled to provide the banner, of course. But, if the hotel, as part of its business, rents its conference room to community organizations, then refusing to do so because the organization represents blacks is, imho, practicing illegal discrimination. If it could be shown that this refusal was based even partially upon the intent to discriminate by race then, again my opinion, I think the courts in this country would have the owner stripped naked, publicly flogged, then have a big "B" for bigot branded into his forehead. The people of the United States should be thankful I am not Emperor. The difference here to the UK baker example is that the hotel is refusing to extend its usual and customary business. The UK baker example included the creation of separate and unique artwork (speech) that was offensive to the baker. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
The UK baker example included the creation of separate and unique artwork (speech) that was offensive to the baker. I suppose the distinction I would draw, is that the creation of pictures and words on a cake, whilst distinct from baking the cake, is still part of the baker's service. As a customer, I don't have the machinery to reproduce the pictures on rice paper, or the ability with icing sugar to create neat wording. In that regard, I'd see the baker's artwork as similar to services provided by sky writers or sign makers. I'm pretty relaxed about holding the cake guy to account on this one, in large part because neither I nor anyone else I know would understand that the words were those of the cake guy - same as for sky writers, sign makers, printers and the like. It's part of the service - and that's what he was withholding from the customer. It's nuanced, I agree - and the cake guy did argue that he was happy to sell a cake to the activist, but not to write words he disagreed with. It's close to the borderline. But I think we do our society a greater service by saying that we won't tolerate a denial of a service to a gay person, than we do by refusing to accept a further limitation on a right of free speech. As with all rights, it's a balancing exercise. I can understand views to the contrary in this case though, when it is marginal.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think we both agree that refusal to provide the customary and usual services offered to all other comers based on ones personal dislike of (insert bias) is unacceptable.
We will disagree on whether refusing to create offensive speech, while offering to provide less offensive speech for the same purpose, is equally unacceptable. It is indeed a balancing act. What is more important, the alienation of a class of people seeking customized service or denying a power to government to intrude and force offensive speech? Cultures differ. BTW, I would extend, and I think US courts would extend, the same right to refuse making offensive speech to sky writers, sign makers, graphics designers and artists of imagery of all sorts in all mediums. If a customer wants a pair of "Entrance" and "Exit" signs special made you have no right to refuse based on who/what the customer is. If the same customer wants "No Niggers" signs special made ... that is considerably different regardless of who/what the customer is. It should be up to the proprietor and his conscience, not the force of government, whether to accept that business or not. Edited by AZPaul3, : Emotional comfort too soft. Alienation is better term.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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 here http://www.equalityni.org/...2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdfJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. Not weird at all. A cultural difference. This was fascinating. I'd never delved so deep into UK case law. Thank you for this. One provision in UK case law I recognized fully was this: Pg 34:
quote: I can see clearly where Judge Brownlie felt the ruling given was appropriate considering the secular law in force. A right and proper decision from the perspective of judicial temperment in the UK. The difference here in the US is a difference in secular law: The 1st Amendment. SCOTUS has always safeguarded the sanctity of the Free Speech provision even in the face of the most blatant bias. Government has no power to curtail political speech and can not compel speech against conscience. This case would not turn on a religious right in the US, as in the UK, but on a Free Speech right. Again, this is limited to a personal objection to having to make specific speech whether that be through icing on a cake or a printed sign; through any voice or imagery meant to convey a message. A free speech defense is not available for a bigoted action except as pertains to the making/refuse making of political statements. "I'll bake you the cake but it won't have a swastika on it," is defensible but, "Git outa my store, faggot," is not. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity? Let's hope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
AZPaul writes: I'll bake you the cake but it won't have a swastika on it," is defensible but, "Git outa my store, faggot," is not. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024