Baker backed by UK court. (page 2)

cofty

what right does the baker have to force the client not to express his/her opinion ? - Phizzy

None at all.

And the baker has the right not to participate in that expression.

Live and let live.

LoveUniHateExams

what right does the baker have to force the client not to express his/her opinion ? - Phizzy

None at all - and if you think about it, the baker isn't even doing that. The baker isn't stopping the gay couple from expressing their opinions in general, or expressing them specifically by going to another baker more agreeable and having the agreeable baker express a pro-gay marriage political message.

Credit where credit's due - I often criticise British judicial decisions but here they have rendered a judgement based on common sense and concern for individual freedoms.

cofty

Imagine a Christian group asked a baker — who supports pro-choice — to make a cake with the slogan 'All Abortion is Murder'.

Or an atheist group ask a Muslim baker to bake a cake with a cartoon image of Mo?

Should these bakers have the right to politely decline, or should their refusal leave them subject to prosecution?

waton

As I said above, his producing the slogan on the cake is NOT expressing his opinion, anymore than the Stonemason, who may well be an Atheist with no belief in the Afterlife, is expressing HIS opinion when he carves "Rest in Peace". Phizzy

Artistry is an intense endeavour, giving body to an idea, often more durable then the idea itself.Think Michelangelo. By perhaps forcing the customer to engage in the creation process herself, the baker did us a great service, because Transgender people have proven to be the greatest artists.

Simon

Those saying that the cake maker isn't endorsing or supporting any message so shouldn't have the right to refuse to provide the cake are often the same people who demand boycotts or harassment of businesses who are simply part of a supply chain to some group or government agency that they don't like.

So which is it? If you can be tarred and feathered for supplying something, can't you refuse to do so?

You can't have your cake and eat it too ... even a gay one.

Onager

"--Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.--"

My argument against that is that making a cake with a message on it isn't an expression of the baker's belief. Neither is anyone forcing the baker to hold or have any political opinion.

Phizzy

" My argument against that is that making a cake with a message on it isn't an expression of the baker's belief. Neither is anyone forcing the baker to hold or have any political opinion."

You just put it more succinctly than me Onagar. I think if this case is taken further, European Court say, this may well come up.

waton

Neither is anyone forcing the baker to hold or have any political opinion."P:

Yes, the making of the message makes the bakers write, create "publish" to use wt parlance,-- an opinion, state a stance, force them to replicate in more permanent form (until eaten) than sound, an opinion, which, right or wrong, is repugnant to them. They become "publishers" more profoundly than the wt literature salespeople. Making them follow with their own hand, after having to create in their own mind the opposite message of what they hold to be right. It should be their right to decline to be thus invaded, without question, without consequences.

Simon

My argument against that is that making a cake with a message on it isn't an expression of the baker's belief. Neither is anyone forcing the baker to hold or have any political opinion.

To show how wrong this is, replace the message with something you or someone else would find offensive and then ask "would you accept 'meh, I just made it' as an excuse for someone making it?"

When the left weaponizes offence and wants to make causing offence a crime, then people can start claiming that as an excuse not to do something can't they? This is a logical conclusion of grievance policy.

cofty

Phizzy - I am interested in your answers to these questions...

ETA - I don't think the link is working but it's my post three above yours ^^^

Baker backed by UK court.

Share this