danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Wake me when they start trying to pass a law which forces this jeweller to give them their money back.

Exactly.

That will be soon.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Wake me when they start trying to pass a law which forces this jeweller to give them their money back.

Exactly.

That will be soon.

So now we only discuss topics that involve law or soon to be law?

No, but one gay couple asking for their money back doesn't amount to any kind of story unless it's linked to a much more significant wider narrative. In the case of the bakers it was all about whether there was the legal right for an individual business to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. In this case no such discrimination has taken place and so far as I'm aware nobody is intending to use the force of the law to impose their moral code upon the jewellers in any meaningful way. Rather, what's happened is that one previously satisfied customer has become unsatisfied and is seeking redress through market mechanisms, something which under any other circumstances you'd be supporting. Either way, since the law is not being invoked this is not an issue which has any relevance for the rest of us. Nobody's freedom of conscience is being curtailed and no wider ethical issues are raised, this is a matter of interest solely to the protagonists and as such I have no interest in it.

As I said, wake me when I have a reason to care.

Sassenach wrote:No, but one gay couple asking for their money back doesn't amount to any kind of story unless it's linked to a much more significant wider narrative. In the case of the bakers it was all about whether there was the legal right for an individual business to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. In this case no such discrimination has taken place and so far as I'm aware nobody is intending to use the force of the law to impose their moral code upon the jewellers in any meaningful way. Rather, what's happened is that one previously satisfied customer has become unsatisfied and is seeking redress through market mechanisms, something which under any other circumstances you'd be supporting. Either way, since the law is not being invoked this is not an issue which has any relevance for the rest of us. Nobody's freedom of conscience is being curtailed and no wider ethical issues are raised, this is a matter of interest solely to the protagonists and as such I have no interest in it.

As I said, wake me when I have a reason to care.

Well said. I hope that it NEVER comes to the point that a person serving MUST have the opinions in line with people being served.

Sassenach wrote: In the case of the bakers it was all about whether there was the legal right for an individual business to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

You have a broad definition of "discriminate."

Did those bakers refuse service to gays entirely?

That would be "discrimination."

Based on your definition, a gay baker would be discriminating if he/she refused to bake a cake and deliver it to a party for a group that was explicitly endorsing traditional marriage. So, the cake would say something like "(Matt. 19:4-5) Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

That gay man or woman would be guilty of "discrimination," right?

As I said, wake me when I have a reason to care.

You won't care.

bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Sassenach wrote:Wake me when they start trying to pass a law which forces this jeweller to give them their money back.

Exactly.

That will be soon.

So now we only discuss topics that involve law or soon to be law?

You can discuss it, but accept that this is not about the government doing anything to anyone.

I don't want to get involved in the rights and wrongs of the baker case Steve, I was merely pointing out that it was different in that it was a wider issue of the applicability of the law rather than a very narrow issue of specific customer satisfaction.

I started this link to denote that their are those who are not willing to do business with people who do not agree with them. The bakery situation is very similar, but not exact.

Just saying that there are those on the left who are intolerant on the gay marriage issue as well.

Doctor Fate wrote:Based on your definition, a gay baker would be discriminating if he/she refused to bake a cake and deliver it to a party for a group that was explicitly endorsing traditional marriage. So, the cake would say something like "(Matt. 19:4-5) Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

What if they refused on the grounds that that is a ridiculously long message on a cake?

As I said, wake me when I have a reason to care.

You won't care.

Surely you, as you keep insisting Republicans are more prone to, would wait until the facts are in before judging?

Indeed, I suspect that Sass would care to some degree if the law was invoked in a case like this, given his views as expressed on free expression. But as he's not agreeing with you 100%, he must be told he's an enemy, right?

(and there we see just how tolerant people who demand we tolerate their intolerance can be )

bbauska wrote:I started this link to denote that their are those who are not willing to do business with people who do not agree with them. The bakery situation is very similar, but not exact.

Just saying that there are those on the left who are intolerant on the gay marriage issue as well.

If that's all you are "just saying" then why this:

The extreme left is not only wanting to ensure that the people follow their political left, (such as the baker and florist with Gay Marriage), but they want to ensure that their positions are completely believed, not just commercially supported.

So you must serve a homosexual wedding, but you must believe the way the homosexual does as well.

That is not "just saying" that there are people on the left who are intolerant, it's saying that "the extreme left" (which seems to me to include a lot of people to you) all want to force everyone to think as they do.

I am intolerant. So are you. There are many things I do not wish to tolerate, such as murder, racism, wars of aggression, etc.

Now, should I be more "tolerant" on those?

For what it's worth, my opinion on this issue is that while I totally understand how a lesbian couple could feel that the special feeling they got about their wedding rings would be tarnished somewhat by the subsequent discovery that the jeweller is publicly opposed to gay marriage, ultimately they entered into a contract for his services in good faith and are not entitled to their money back. It was open to them to make sure they were only buying from somebody who shared their views on gay marriage by asking him first. Obviously that would have been a very odd thing for them to have done, but having not done it they can hardly expect to retrospectively apply an ethical filter to their purchasing choices. I do sort of sympathise with this couple, but not enough to support their claim for a refund, and any attempt to use the power of the law to enforce it would be something that I'd oppose.

That said, I do find this to be a very trivial issue.

On the other issue of the baker, there was actually a much more interesting case in the UK recently which was similar. A baker was asked to make a cake by a gay man which was not for a wedding but which was decorated with a picture of Bert & Ernie from Sesame St and had the words "Support Gay Marriage" written on it. He refused on religious grounds and was subsequently taken to court for discrimination and recently lost the case. In this case I actually support the baker. Expecting providers of services to provide for all members of society equally is one thing, but expecting them to actively contribute to a political campaign in support of something which they fundamentally oppose is another.

Is Sassenach intolerant for not supporting the purchasers of the cake?

Ok, so it would seem you have no interest in a meaningful discussion on this. Fine, enjoy your echo chamber.

The thing is, there's potentially a very interesting conversation to be had here about the extent to which freedom of conscience can legitimately be infringed in order to ensure equal treatment and whether anti-discrimination laws have gone too far or are being interpreted by the courts in ways which push the balance too far in one direction. If we want to have that conversation in a grown-up fashion then I daresay we'd arrive at a lot of common ground and find it to be worthwhile. The curse of Redscape is that nuance is never permitted.

bbauska wrote:Is Sassenach intolerant for not supporting the purchasers of the cake?

Nope.

I myself am not sure where I am on that the case he refers to (Gay marriage 'Bert and Ernie' cake bakery found guilty of discrimination in Northern Ireland).

The case may well be appealed, and I suppose could end up at the Supreme Court to test it against the Human Rights of the bakers and the customer.

Looking at the actual ruling, here is what happened:

The customer ordered the cake on the 8th/9th May, paying towards the cost and supplying the bakers with the image and text they wanted. The company advertised in a leaflet that they could provide the service of scanning a picture onto a cake, and nowhere in the literature did it say there were any limits on what they would accept (although presumably they could refuse an unlawful image).

The bakery called them back three days later to say that they should not have taken the order and cancelling it. This did cause some inconvenience due to the delay (but he did find an alternative provider, and did get his money back).

Basically the judge says that it is discriminatory, not just on the issue of sexual orientation, but on political views. And, (perhaps anticipating a bbauska hypothetical), she also says:

Judge Brownlie wrote:If the Plaintiff was a gay man who ran a bakery business and the Defendants as Christians wanted him to bake a cake with the words “support heterosexual marriage” the Plaintiff would be required to do so as, otherwise; he would, according to the law be discriminating against the Defendants. This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all.

The Defendants are entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them but, in accordance with the law, not to manifest them in the commercial sphere if it is contrary to the rights of others.

Court Decision

I can see the argument that the judge makes, and also Sass' point. I think it is debateable who is right, and to an extent we do need to go through the law on it to establish where the lines are drawn between the rights of consumers and vendors.