bryoney wrote:

Rhett1 wrote: Get it right good people. The only people you are allowed to put down are white heterosexual Christian males.
What a lot of hypocritical remarks.At least I’m honest.

The point being made here is that the above societal group is often the subject of a joke or a cartoon or a humorous story yet nobody shouts prejudice or discrimination in these cases. Why? Probably because they are not seen as a minority group. Probably because this group understands that a joke told against it is just that.....a joke. Not an insult, not a slur on their religion or nationality.

To those who say that service providers are obliged to provide that service come what may, in the U.K. there are several grounds for refusal, age and safety being the two most obvious. It is for safety reasons that cabin crew can have drunken, rowdy passengers removed, owners of licensed premises can refuse to serve anyone who they consider to have drunk enough alcohol to be a disruptive presence, fairground operators can place age and height restrictions on certain rides, surgeons can refuse to operate on people whose BMI is over a certain figure. All these examples involve refusing services but none of them involve ethnicity, religion, sexuality or disability.

It might have been better if the bakers had simply said that they could not fulfil the order requested by the date it was required and left their religious beliefs out of it as all they have really done is to provide a tool which has been used to great effect to promote gay marriage in a country where it is unlawful.

So the answer is to lie about it? Sort of like gays have had to do way too often?

Oh those poor white Christian males! They have been deprived of gay bashing, raping women and abusing both. And they are losing power and are panicked about it. They better get a white power march together. Oh! They have already done that and they have a president that encourages it! Hey!

. To those who say that service providers are obliged to provide that service come what may, in the U.K. there are several grounds for refusal, age and safety being the two most obvious. It is for safety reasons that cabin crew can have drunken, rowdy passengers removed, owners of licensed premises can refuse to serve anyone who they consider to have drunk enough alcohol to be a disruptive presence, fairground operators can place age and height restrictions on certain rides, surgeons can refuse to operate on people whose BMI is over a certain figure. All these examples involve refusing services but none of them involve ethnicity, religion, sexuality or disability.

Where has anybody said service providers should provide a service come what may????

That seems a complete strawman to me - nobody is arguing against any of the refusal examples you mentioned.

Because, as you said, they do not involve discrimination. Or anyone's religious beliefs.

Completely irelevant

senile1 wrote: It opens the door to refusal of anybody purely for ideological / philosophical reasons As I have said many times on when this subject has come up, you're in business to make money, and whom so ever shall seek your services, you are obliged to provide the very best service possible, or you should get out of business I am not interested in doing business with anyone who discriminates against others

Where has anybody said service providers should provide a service come what may?

Maybe in the above ....

bryoney wrote:

senile1 wrote: It opens the door to refusal of anybody purely for ideological / philosophical reasons As I have said many times on when this subject has come up, you're in business to make money, and whom so ever shall seek your services, you are obliged to provide the very best service possible, or you should get out of business I am not interested in doing business with anyone who discriminates against others

Where has anybody said service providers should provide a service come what may?

Maybe in the above ....

What is the purpose of being in business, you provide the service/ sell the product you advertise, tis the purpose of being in business, if not , close your doors

Philosophically business must provide service come what may subject only to the law, which I think is what Bryoney in her own way was trying to point out. One of those legal tenants was upheld by this most recent case, you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, religion, race etc. However you can refuse service on the grounds of free speech objections and health and safety or if doing so would be otherwise illegal. Had the cake in question been absent the "political message" service could not have been refused.

This manifests itself in many ways, leaving aside the matter under discussion, bar staff are obliged to refuse service to anyone who is inebriated to the point of being a problem to themselves or others, vendors of cigarettes are obliged to refuse service to those under a certain age, others are required to refuse service which involves selling goods that are deemed dangerous and are withdrawn from sale by the regulating authorities.

On the other side of the coin once goods are put forward for sale, in an offer off such to the general public, they must be sold if a customer who wishes to buy them meets all the legal criteria, even if a business suddenly realises that they have, say, under priced goods, they must be sold at the advertised price to anyone who wishes to purchase them for that offered price. They can be withdrawn later and the price corrected but not until all customers who might be requesting the lower price have been satisfied.

But all things being equal businesses are in business to trade and must generally do so with out general discrimination. Most signs that may once have suggested otherwise are now found to be illegal, and interestingly there is no legal difference between those that do display signs and those that don't, all are governed by the same laws, though off course one is advertising a degree of customer hostility that might make some unwilling to trade with them.

KayyGee wrote: Philosophically business must provide service come what may subject only to the law, which I think is what Bryoney in her own way was trying to point out. One of those legal tenants was upheld by this most recent case, you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, religion, race etc. However you can refuse service on the grounds of free speech objections and health and safety or if doing so would be otherwise illegal. Had the cake in question been absent the "political message" service could not have been refused.

This manifests itself in many ways, leaving aside the matter under discussion, bar staff are obliged to refuse service to anyone who is inebriated to the point of being a problem to themselves or others, vendors of cigarettes are obliged to refuse service to those under a certain age, others are required to refuse service which involves selling goods that are deemed dangerous and are withdrawn from sale by the regulating authorities.

On the other side of the coin once goods are put forward for sale, in an offer off such to the general public, they must be sold if a customer who wishes to buy them meets all the legal criteria, even if a business suddenly realises that they have, say, under priced goods, they must be sold at the advertised price to anyone who wishes to purchase them for that offered price. They can be withdrawn later and the price corrected but not until all customers who might be requesting the lower price have been satisfied.

But all things being equal businesses are in business to trade and must generally do so with out general discrimination. Most signs that may once have suggested otherwise are now found to be illegal, and interestingly there is no legal difference between those that do display signs and those that don't, all are governed by the same laws, though off course one is advertising a degree of customer hostility that might make some unwilling to trade with them.

And thus the court has unwittingly opened a can of worms. Were a person to enter your business whose politics you disagree with, you are within your right's to refuse service on the grounds of "freedom of speech objection". so basically , the court upholds conditional discrimination practices Decisions such as these are counterproductive to a free and just society, and represent right-wing hypocrisy by a judicial branch which should be neutral, and advocating equality and justice, but in it's stead, are making a mockery of it's self and the judicial system

senile1 wrote:

KayyGee wrote: Philosophically business must provide service come what may subject only to the law, which I think is what Bryoney in her own way was trying to point out. One of those legal tenants was upheld by this most recent case, you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, religion, race etc. However you can refuse service on the grounds of free speech objections and health and safety or if doing so would be otherwise illegal. Had the cake in question been absent the "political message" service could not have been refused.

This manifests itself in many ways, leaving aside the matter under discussion, bar staff are obliged to refuse service to anyone who is inebriated to the point of being a problem to themselves or others, vendors of cigarettes are obliged to refuse service to those under a certain age, others are required to refuse service which involves selling goods that are deemed dangerous and are withdrawn from sale by the regulating authorities.

On the other side of the coin once goods are put forward for sale, in an offer off such to the general public, they must be sold if a customer who wishes to buy them meets all the legal criteria, even if a business suddenly realises that they have, say, under priced goods, they must be sold at the advertised price to anyone who wishes to purchase them for that offered price. They can be withdrawn later and the price corrected but not until all customers who might be requesting the lower price have been satisfied.

But all things being equal businesses are in business to trade and must generally do so with out general discrimination. Most signs that may once have suggested otherwise are now found to be illegal, and interestingly there is no legal difference between those that do display signs and those that don't, all are governed by the same laws, though off course one is advertising a degree of customer hostility that might make some unwilling to trade with them.

And thus the court has unwittingly opened a can of worms. Were a person to enter your business whose politics you disagree with, you are within your right's to refuse service on the grounds of "freedom of speech objection". so basically , the court upholds conditional discrimination practices Decisions such as these are counterproductive to a free and just society, and represent right-wing hypocrisy by a judicial branch which should be neutral, and advocating equality and justice, but in it's stead, are making a mockery of it's self and the judicial system

Not quite, they can only refuse service if in the provision of that service they are required to make utterances that impinge on their views, like writing a pro trump message on a cake or printing a poster for the KKK, if it is just a simple exchange of goods for compensation then they have no grounds to object under the free speech provisions and in all of these "free speech" objections the reasonable person test would apply.

So going back to the cake in the center of the current discussion, without the words supporting gay marriage, the picture of Bert and Ernie would not likely be enough alone to be identified with a LBGTI+ political statement and therefore not grounds for objection or refusal of service. The same if we go back to a KKK example a poster with just two blonde haired, blue eye young people looking wistfully at the American flag, despite any subtle suggestion behind it, would likely not be enough for a Jewish printer to object producing the product, even if they knew the customer was a member of the KKK.

Could it be a case of political correctness gone barmy .

KayyGee wrote:

senile1 wrote:

KayyGee wrote: Philosophically business must provide service come what may subject only to the law, which I think is what Bryoney in her own way was trying to point out. One of those legal tenants was upheld by this most recent case, you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, religion, race etc. However you can refuse service on the grounds of free speech objections and health and safety or if doing so would be otherwise illegal. Had the cake in question been absent the "political message" service could not have been refused.

This manifests itself in many ways, leaving aside the matter under discussion, bar staff are obliged to refuse service to anyone who is inebriated to the point of being a problem to themselves or others, vendors of cigarettes are obliged to refuse service to those under a certain age, others are required to refuse service which involves selling goods that are deemed dangerous and are withdrawn from sale by the regulating authorities.

On the other side of the coin once goods are put forward for sale, in an offer off such to the general public, they must be sold if a customer who wishes to buy them meets all the legal criteria, even if a business suddenly realises that they have, say, under priced goods, they must be sold at the advertised price to anyone who wishes to purchase them for that offered price. They can be withdrawn later and the price corrected but not until all customers who might be requesting the lower price have been satisfied.

But all things being equal businesses are in business to trade and must generally do so with out general discrimination. Most signs that may once have suggested otherwise are now found to be illegal, and interestingly there is no legal difference between those that do display signs and those that don't, all are governed by the same laws, though off course one is advertising a degree of customer hostility that might make some unwilling to trade with them.

And thus the court has unwittingly opened a can of worms. Were a person to enter your business whose politics you disagree with, you are within your right's to refuse service on the grounds of "freedom of speech objection". so basically , the court upholds conditional discrimination practices Decisions such as these are counterproductive to a free and just society, and represent right-wing hypocrisy by a judicial branch which should be neutral, and advocating equality and justice, but in it's stead, are making a mockery of it's self and the judicial system

Not quite, they can only refuse service if in the provision of that service they are required to make utterances that impinge on their views, like writing a pro trump message on a cake or printing a poster for the KKK, if it is just a simple exchange of goods for compensation then they have no grounds to object under the free speech provisions and in all of these "free speech" objections the reasonable person test would apply.

So going back to the cake in the center of the current discussion, without the words supporting gay marriage, the picture of Bert and Ernie would not likely be enough alone to be identified with a LBGTI+ political statement and therefore not grounds for objection or refusal of service. The same if we go back to a KKK example a poster with just two blonde haired, blue eye young people looking wistfully at the American flag, despite any subtle suggestion behind it, would likely not be enough for a Jewish printer to object producing the product, even if they knew the customer was a member of the KKK.

As I have said, "conditional discrimination", subjective to who the complainant may be