An interesting little thought

So, you can be punished for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Well, hey, why not? No, really, we’re a democracy, they over the Pond are too, such laws can indeed be passed and they have been.

If you’re going to offer a service to the public then you’ve got to do so in a non-discriminatory manner*.

Shrug.

Twitter can and does ban people for saying entirely legal but unapproved of stuff. So, if you’re offering a service to the public you don’t have to do so in a non-discriminatory manner*.

Hmm.

Rather the point of this civil liberty, rule of law, sorta stuff is that it’s not discriminatory in this manner, isn’t it? We don’t divide into Good ‘uns and Bad ‘uns, those who gain the protection of the law and those who don’t. Rather, all are subject to the same law and laws.

Hmm.

*My own answer is that producers and providers can do what the fuck they like** on any grounds whatsoever, let the market sort it out. But that’s not the zeitgeist is it, despite being logically valid as a position?

** Who they provide to that is, not how, obviously. As with the publican, short measures are illegal but the right to ban anyone whenever, whatever, exists.

37 comments on “An interesting little thought

  1. But Twitter banning ‘unapproved’ stuff is the right sort of discrimination.

    This argument was long ago lost with positive discrimination – as long as it signals virtue its okay.

  2. I’m disinclined to shrug at thuggish theocratic enforcement just because it has the parliament’s and, by extension, the public’s stamp of approval.

  3. You are assuming there is some dispassionate test behind this law, instead of it simply being created to be used as a weapon against political enemies.

  4. Rather the point of this civil liberty, rule of law, sorta stuff is that it’s not discriminatory in this manner, isn’t it?

    Quite so, Tim. But we’re long past the rule of law, and the sort of grown-up, restrained, responsible culture that used to sustain it.

    It’s been Who? Whom? time since 1997.

  5. “If you’re going to offer a service to the public then you’ve got to do so in a non-discriminatory manner*.

    Shrug.”

    ER…NO. And piss on shrugging tyranny off.

    Do these supposed rules/laws apply to the “unpopular” shadow self of socialism–ie the national kind.? No they fucking don’t. Do they apply to ANY non-left/anti-left cause or concern? No they don’t. No gay is going to be forced to bake a cake for the Westboro’ Baptists law or no bullshit law.

  6. That you even feel the need to discuss this issue goes quite a long ways to explaining why Twitter does not make money, and most likely never will make money.

    Twitter was founded by SJW types, and is run by SJW types. Their first priority has been, and continues to be, political correctness… As opposed to, say, growing its user and advertising base.

    Twitter is very much a niche product, and niche products really can’t afford to act the way Twitter acts. A small but vocal minority gets their panties in a wad when Twitter pulls this sort of shit… Everybody else shrugs their shoulders and says, well, who gives a fuck.

  7. “No they fucking don’t. Do they apply to ANY non-left/anti-left cause or concern? No they don’t.”

    ROFL!

    I think by now you can all predict the obvious examples of that I can be reliably expected to bring up here? 🙂

    It applies to *both* sides, both left and right. But both sides see their own discrimination as simply enforcing proper moral standards, while the other side’s is unjustifiable persecution.

  8. That cake thing was political nonsense – unless the judge was simply an idiot?

    There was no discrimination whatsoever towards people, simply the product.

    If I am a photographer, and I don’t want to photograph porn (the reasons don’t matter), preferring weddings or portraits, or squirrels playing on swings, that’s my choice.

    Some idiot judge should not have the right to say “you must take that client on”. It was the product that the bakers objected to; if a straight couple had asked for that exact same product, the answer would have been the same.

    As I said, typical turdy SJW politics, or an idiot of a judge.

  9. It is legal to sell tobacco products. That mean I may *CHOSE* to sell them in my shop, not be *FORCED* to sell them in my shop.
    That’s the fundamental mental flaw in these people. They think that because something is not banned it is required. You see it with Remainers arguing that getting control of our borders means that we will shut the borders. No, it means ***WE*(** *(**CHO*SE*(*(** what to do with our borders.

  10. “No, really, we’re a democracy”.

    Democracy is indeed very close to tyranny of the majority and will force you to do things you do not want to do. Which is why the power of the state needs to be severely limited.

  11. Its down to protected characteristics. The equalities law sets certain characteristics you can discriminate on, the rest you can. Generally race, gender, sexuality or (some) religion are protected. Political opinion is not. [I don’t make the rules so don’t blame me]

    So refusing to bake a cake for due to gayness of customer is a no no. Refusing to serve someone because they are saying political things you disagree with is ok.

    So if Twitter started saying men aren’t welcome they would get a visit from plod. To argue with them banning opinions you would have to show that those opinions are largely linked to a protected characteristic. If most white men and pretty much only white men held views Twitter banned then they would be on thinner ice. Good luck in proving that though.

  12. So if Twitter started saying men aren’t welcome they would get a visit from plod

    I’m sure they’d get right on that, immediately after their investigations into female genital mutilation among the sandpeople community.

  13. “So refusing to bake a cake for due to gayness of customer is a no no.”

    As already pointed out, it wasn’t the sexuality of the couple, it was what they wanted as a product. The baker would have turned down a straight couple had they asked for the same thing.

    If the gay couple had simply asked for a ordinary wedding cake (out of a standard catalogue perhaps, if we are allowed them in the SJW’s perpetually offended world?), no problem.

    What is so complicated about the obvious distinction between the people being served and the product being asked for. And no, don’t try and tell me that a gay couple could only ever reasonably ask for a gay cake (hence in reality it was discriminatory towards them personally), that would clearly be bollocks.

    “To argue with them banning opinions you would have to show that those opinions are largely linked to a protected characteristic.”

    This might suggest that a photographer, who sometimes was willing to photograph nude women, could be regarded as guilty of discrimination if he turned down a job to photograph a nude man. Which of course would be so far down that retarded SJW rabbit hole…

  14. PF: I think a photographer who is paid by women to photograph them naked certainly could be done from discrimination if he refused to photograph a paying man naked. He is offering a service. He could refuse to photograph people who wanted to make a left wing political point through their nakedness which he disagreed with.

    As to the baker, the problem was down to whether it was the cake or the person ordering the cake. The judge found it was the person ordering the cake. I think he was wrong but this stuff is hard.

  15. NiV–Twadle as usual–tho’ at least in short compass this time.

    Won’t bake for gayboys=get rousted. Won’t bake for “Nazi’s”= Official sound of crickets.

  16. Devonchap–The “morality” is that you should be able to refuse to treat of serve anybody you don’t like for ANY reason. If you are paid from coercive taxes there is a case that you maybe obliged to serve all those who have paid. But that is nothing to do with private bakers.

  17. “could be done from discrimination if he refused to photograph a paying man naked.”

    Then the law would self evidently be “a spaz” – if you’ll forgive my contempt. I know you said you are not taking sides etc, hence not aimed at you, but what you just suggested there so very obviously flies in the face of any sane reality.

    “The judge found it was the person ordering the cake. I think he was wrong

    Agreed

    “but this stuff is hard.”

    Not for any normal sentient human being (or “Clapham Omnibus”).

    The photograph thing is perhaps not that dissimilar to the cover of a cake. In that one might argue (however trivially) an element of art? One can’t do art on command. If the idea of photographing nude men gave our male photographer the equivalent of writer’s block…

    Maybe that was a practical solution for the bakers? Piss into the cake mix and just do a utter shit job on the trickier art work. That’s probably what will happen in future, the next time an SJW decides to be an arsehole.

  18. Bear in mind, chaps, that every single one of these “homophobic” bakers/B&B’s/pizzeria cases came about because angry gays deliberately went out of their way to find some conservatives/Christians/reactionary rural types to sue. It’s the same mentality behind hate crime hoaxes.

    It’s like the gay marriage thing. Most gay men aren’t interested in getting married, because weddings are a woman thing. Of those gays who do want gay marriage, a high percentage of them do so not because they have any intention of living in a lifelong monogamous relationship, but to humiliate and attack their perceived enemies.

    Like with Labour scouring the Third World for immigrants, or ostentatious weirdos picking fights with normal people for not using their made-up pronouns, a large part of the appeal of gay marriage is to rub people’s noses in it.

    Épater la bourgeoisie never went away, it just got institutionalised.

    Welcome to the world of identity politics, where it’s Who? Whom? all the way down.

  19. PF,

    “If I am a photographer, and I don’t want to photograph porn (the reasons don’t matter), preferring weddings or portraits, or squirrels playing on swings, that’s my choice.”

    What about squirrel porn, or furries?

    I nearly got some work for a company because someone joined and found himself looking at porn and asked if he could leave, due to religious reasons. And that suits me just fine. I can have that work. On the other hand, I have my own problems with things like gambling sites. I’m not against gambling being legal, I just don’t want to be involved in it.

    And as Steve said, these were just setups. If you wanted a cake for your gay event, would you want some anti-gays doing it? You wouldn’t, would you? You’d want someone who you knew would try and do a good job, rather than under obligation.

    It’s better that you do squirrels on swings and Rocco Siffredi does porn.

  20. “Most gay men aren’t interested in getting married, because weddings are a woman thing.”

    Mostly it’s about legal rights given to married couples that single people don’t get…

    “Of those gays who do want gay marriage, a high percentage of them do so not because they have any intention of living in a lifelong monogamous relationship, but to humiliate and attack their perceived enemies.”

    ?!

    How does that work?! What do you think is “humiliating” about it?

    Nevertheless, the easiest solution surely is not to be their enemy?


    It’s like saying that most women are not interested in wearing trousers/jeans, because that’s a man thing. They’re only doing it to humiliate and attack chauvinists. The theory says a lot more about the insecurities of the theorist than it does about gays/women.

  21. @NiV

    So what was it about the ‘rights’ conferred in a civil partnership that meant the gayists had to have a marriage instead?

    Was it that you couldn’t say you were married?
    Or maybe that both parents names were on the certificate?
    Or worse still, you couldn’t use adultery as a reason for dissolving the partnership?

    I can’t imagine the hardship that would have caused – no wonder they wanted a proper marriage.

    Helps it rubbed the non-queers faces in it as well…

  22. “So what was it about the ‘rights’ conferred in a civil partnership that meant the gayists had to have a marriage instead? Was it that you couldn’t say you were married?”

    Yes.

    “Helps it rubbed the non-queers faces in it as well…”

    Most non-queers don’t care, so it’s not “rubbing their noses” in anything. The only people who might feel their noses rubbed are the mentally sick minority who still hate gays.

    I’m sure none of them would have had any problem with gay-haters being annoyed. But it’s not why they did it. The point is to establish the principle that they’re the same as everyone else. Why did blacks want to sit at the front of the bus, or go in the white’s-only bars and shops? Because they don’t think there ought to be a difference – they wanted to be treated the same. Retaining the alternative label was just a way of maintaining a difference, retaining that social exclusion, that inferior category.

    Let me turn the same question around – if there was genuinely no difference between civil partner ship and marriage, then why would you be *opposed* to them marrying? If there was no difference, there would be no reason for you to object. So the fact that you’re objecting means that *you* recognise a difference. And that’s what they want.

    And they’d still want it, even if nobody minded them getting it.

  23. Mostly it’s about legal rights given to married couples that single people don’t get…

    “So what was it about the ‘rights’ conferred in a civil partnership that meant the gayists had to have a marriage instead? Was it that you couldn’t say you were married?

    Yes.

    So it wasn’t any real “rights”!

    Religion? Ultimately this lot won’t be happy until they force priests and bishops to deny their own creeds. Drip drip..

    Anyway, isn’t all that completely missing the point?

    As we know, and as with most of this nonsense, so called “marriage” was all about equal treatment. Some countries had already put “same sex marriage” into law. Therefore, it was deemed preferable that they all must. Simply so that two romantic Belgies (say) in London could be treated the same as they had been back in Brussels.

    Look at the time lines. All countries started implementing this at the same time. It was driven by the usual European nonsense – though not the EU in this case, it was the Council of Europe.

    Makes it a bit easier for an overriding supreme court to rule on these things…

    Where is EU Steve / the Remaniac to defend this?

  24. “So it wasn’t any real “rights”!”

    In what sense? Either they can claim to be married or they can’t. If they can, they have the right.

    “Religion? Ultimately this lot won’t be happy until they force priests and bishops to deny their own creeds.”

    If priests and bishops support gay marriage (as the current argument in the CofE would suggest many do) would you want to force them to deny their own creed by forbidding them to marry gays?

    Oh, yes. We can force priests to deny their own creed if we happen to disagree with their creed… Suddenly that’s totally OK. So what’s the difference?

  25. NiV

    You are missing the point.

    I’m talking about those priests and bishops that follow their religion traditionally (in case that was not obvious – ie those that don’t agree). And I wasn’t really focusing on CofE. Though it’s amusing that Imams are never held to the same kind of standards!

    And, it’s not about whether “we happen to disagree with their creed”, after all I’m an atheist (at least as far as this discussion goes).

    My key point was different – and as you well know – don’t worry about it..

  26. “I’m talking about those priests and bishops that follow their religion traditionally (in case that was not obvious – ie those that don’t agree).”

    I got the point. But I’m talking about those priests and bishops who *do* agree, who you are ready and willing to forbid to follow their beliefs. My point is, what’s the difference between you and those you are criticising?

    ” Though it’s amusing that Imams are never held to the same kind of standards!”

    I have my arguments with the Imams, too. But as far as I’m concerned, the Imams are the same as all the others opposed to gay marriage. On the subject of double standards, we could equally easily point to people who oppose Islam but share their authoritarian policies on homosexuality. Why isn’t that equally amusing?

    My view is that if somebody wants to do something that does nobody else any harm – and I really don’t see what harm gay marriage does to anyone else – then if they can find a priest willing to marry them, they can marry.

    For every liberty you gain to do what you want, the other side have the corresponding liberty to do what they want. If a priest doesn’t believe in gay marriage, you don’t get to force them to act against their conscience. But by the same reasoning you don’t get to forbid those priests who *do* support gay marriage. If people don’t think gay marriage is valid, you don’t get to force them to acknowledge it as such. But conversely, they can refuse to acknowledge the validity of *your* marriage. After all, marriage is a blessing by God, and God wouldn’t bless a homophobe’s evil….

    “And, it’s not about whether “we happen to disagree with their creed”, after all I’m an atheist”

    Then bearing in mind how atheists have been treated down through the millennia – one step below the gays, mostly – I’d think you’d have more sense. Atheists were persecuted too in much the same way. Should you have a right to marry, as an atheist? Should you have a right to ask a priest to do so, knowing that atheism is forbidden in pretty much every religion? (Except Pastafarianism, of course.) That it carries the death penalty in 14 countries, and is widely considered the worst of sins?

    Atheists won equal rights a century or more ago, just as gays are doing now, and it seems the current generation have forgotten the question was ever in doubt. But it was. Should an atheist have equal rights and privileges to any pious man? Should we require them to be treated so? Even in a religious institution like marriage? Exactly the same principles apply.

  27. @NiV

    Because they don’t think there ought to be a difference – they wanted to be treated the same. Retaining the alternative label was just a way of maintaining a difference, retaining that social exclusion, that inferior category.

    Marriage is (was) a union between a man and a woman. Anything that wasn’t a man and a woman was (by definition) not marriage.

    A civil partnership was provided that gave all the benefits and could be applied to same sex couples. But that wasn’t enough – why?

    Why did blacks want to sit at the front of the bus, or go in the white’s-only bars and shops? Because they don’t think there ought to be a difference – they wanted to be treated the same.

    That was a symptom of the segregation between blacks and whites, not the cause. The cause was that the black man was oppressed, which caused lack of opportunity, and therefore poverty and lack of a ‘future’.

    Not being able to say you are married is in no way in the same league and is particular disingenuous to claim it is so.

  28. NiV

    I got the point. But I’m talking about those priests and bishops who *do* agree, who you are ready and willing to forbid to follow their beliefs.

    Err, no, I never said or impied that. You do that trick quite a bit you know..;) And you really don’t need to, you make an argument well enough.

    The rest of your “live and let live” thing, obviously I agree with, and was consistent with my objecion to people being forced to provide goods and services for that they would not ordinarily provide. Not your atheist bit though because you’re still in misquote mode..:)

  29. “Marriage is (was) a union between a man and a woman. Anything that wasn’t a man and a woman was (by definition) not marriage.”

    That’s the case in Judao-Christian societies culturally descended from Moses-the-Slayer.

    But more generally we also have polygyny (one man, several women), polyandry (several men, one woman), polyamory (several men, several women), and yes indeed, same-sex arrangements.

    The Zuni of New Mexico, for example, recognised the berdache (“two-spirit”) as a separate gender. We’wha, one of the most revered Zuni elders (an Ihamana, spiritual leader) served as an emissary of the Zuni to Washington, where he met President Grover Cleveland. We’wha had a husband who was generally recognized as such.

    There are archaeological records of same-sex marriage ceremonies from Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt – for example in the Book of Incantations.

    In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements.

    At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions: Nero and Elagabalus (the latter of who was very definitely transgender).

    Same-sex marriage were specifically outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans in the Theodosian Code. Why make a law against something that never happens?

    Indeed, the Old Testament rulings on sexual morality forbidding same-sex sex explicitly contrasted them with behaviour elsewhere.

    The Lord said to Moses,
    “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God.
    You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
    […]
    Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.
    Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
    But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things,
    for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled.
    And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

    Leviticus 18, if you want to check. It’s got a very long list of “detestable practices”, which are clearly only being forbidden because there are lots of people who do them.

    ‘Marriage’ is what society says it is.

    “A civil partnership was provided that gave all the benefits and could be applied to same sex couples. But that wasn’t enough – why?”

    If they’re really the same, why are *you* making a distinction?

    “That was a symptom of the segregation between blacks and whites, not the cause. The cause was that the black man was oppressed, which caused lack of opportunity, and therefore poverty and lack of a ‘future’.”

    And this is a symptom of the oppression of gays. Same thing, yes?


    “Err, no, I never said or impied that. You do that trick quite a bit you know..;) “

    Really? I apologise. I must have misinterpreted your intent.

    “Not your atheist bit though because you’re still in misquote mode..:)”

    Which bit do you disagree with? That you’re an atheist? That you think atheists should be allowed to marry? That the present generation has apparently forgotten that atheists were once (and in many parts of the world still are) treated as badly as gays?

  30. “Which bit do you disagree with?”

    Just the “I’d think you’d have more sense” bit (but which was the driver for those two paragraphs) – because you were misquoting / misinterpreting what I had said above, as I explained?

  31. You’re off misrepresenting again…

    I didn’t say they were the same – in fact I went to the trouble of explaining the man/woman marriage thing as was (until recently) applicable in the UK – not per the ‘norms’ in some other country or what happened in the distant past.

    What I said was the civil partnership had all the benefits so the two were equivalent on the eyes of the law.

    The one thing you did get right is that society defines it. The problem I have is that ‘society’ isn’t defining it. It’s being forced on the majority by a minority of ‘activists’.

    The majority may not (at this point anyway) strenuously object to it but they are unhappy with the trajectory it is all taking (PC self righteousness, SJWs, Antifa etc). You can see this in effect in the US, central Europe and to an extent in the UK.

    There will be a bloodbath eventually when all these hard won ‘rights’ are revoked in one swift movement. People are actually small ‘c’ conservative in nature and will eventually revert to type and bite back.

    It would have been better if it had been acknowledged that primary discrimination (on basis of colour for example) was wrong but the mickey mouse stuff like same sex marriage wasn’t.

    Trouble is that once you start down the path is can’t be stopped. We now have people who can defined themselves in anyway they want. Fine, they should be able to as long as it doesn’t infringe others. The problem is that it does, they know it, and so seek the protection of the law to enforce it.

  32. “I didn’t say they were the same – in fact I went to the trouble of explaining the man/woman marriage thing as was (until recently) applicable in the UK – not per the ‘norms’ in some other country or what happened in the distant past.”

    What you said was “Marriage is (was) a union between a man and a woman. Anything that wasn’t a man and a woman was (by definition) not marriage.”

    You didn’t specify UK only, or a particular time period. I interpreted what you was saying as an attempt to assert a universal definition, which had only recently been corrupted by the change in the law. So I pointed out that the definition you’re proposing we stick to wasn’t universal even in the past. It’s not the definition now, either.

    But if that wasn’t what you meant, I apologise for misunderstanding.

    “The one thing you did get right is that society defines it. The problem I have is that ‘society’ isn’t defining it. It’s being forced on the majority by a minority of ‘activists’.”

    The majority of the UK population support gay marriage, transgender rights, and protection of both groups by the government.

    So which side is the “minority of activists” forcing their views on everyone else?

    “There will be a bloodbath eventually when all these hard won ‘rights’ are revoked in one swift movement. People are actually small ‘c’ conservative in nature and will eventually revert to type and bite back.”

    People stay the same, but the rules they enforce with their bloodbaths change over time.

    It’s like language. Each generation invents its own new vocabulary, and their parents despair at their sloppy standards of English. But when the kids grow up, they’ll defend their own version of English against the changes *their* children make in exactly the same way. Every generation sees its own childhood as a golden age, forgetting what their own parents said about it.

    The only constant is change.

    “Trouble is that once you start down the path is can’t be stopped. We now have people who can defined themselves in anyway they want. Fine, they should be able to as long as it doesn’t infringe others. The problem is that it does, they know it, and so seek the protection of the law to enforce it.”

    Yes, if society currently persecutes a minority, and you introduce laws to stop that persecution, that infringes on the freedom of the persecutors to persecute.

    And yes, having already established the principle that society can persecute minorities, it’s easier to do this by simply switching targets, and make the former persecutors the disgusting minority. Revolutions simply rotate society – everyone just switches chairs, but the roles are the same. Authoritarians wanting to retain control over society will try to push things that way.

    Which is why I keep arguing this way. The only hope is to establish the principles of liberty as *universal*. If they’re accepted as such they ought to give us some defence against the SJWs in the future, but the cost is that we have to disown the persecutions of the past. You can’t say it’s OK on our issues but not on theirs.

    Society changes. You can either change the specific non-conformist practices that society persecutes, or you can change the system of enforcing conformity through persecution and nastiness entirely. What you *can’t* do is go back.

  33. @ NiV
    language
    Marriage is, in the English language, between one man and one woman. Bigamy is the crime of marrying a second person (of the other sex) while still marries to the first (although trigamy and quadrigamy are also called “bigamy”).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.