Gay Wedding Cakes

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gay Wedding Cakes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

6036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2054288 11-Jul-2018 12:40

Fred99:

davidcole:

Fred99:

davidcole:

Interesting, I thought there was. And had a quick look int he Sale of goods act.

Human Rights Act overrides that.

yeah but if the provision was in there to refuse the sale (which there doesn't seem to be), then refusal - just because, would be valid as long as she didn't say because of orientation/race/religion etc.

But.She.Did.

Yep. Does that mean there can be criminal or civil charges brought against her? Like others, I wouldn't want to eat any product that someone was forced to make.

Previously known as psycik

Home Assistant: Gigabyte AMD A8 Brix, Home Assistant with Aeotech ZWave Controller, Raspberry PI, Wemos D1 Mini, Zwave, Shelly Humidity and Temperature sensors
Media:Chromecast v2, ATV4 4k, ATV4, HDHomeRun Dual
Server Host Plex Server 3x3TB, 4x4TB using MergerFS, Samsung 850 evo 512 GB SSD, Proxmox Server with 1xW10, 2xUbuntu 22.04 LTS, Backblaze Backups, usenetprime.com fastmail.com Sharesies Trakt.TV Sharesight

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2054297 11-Jul-2018 12:54

davidcole:

Yep. Does that mean there can be criminal or civil charges brought against her? Like others, I wouldn't want to eat any product that someone was forced to make.

Yes she could (and possibly will) be charged, and no - I wouldn't eat it either.

Of course being charged and punished will be worn like a badge of honour by an intolerant religious bigot - because that's what they do. And they'll use it as a rallying cry to others of their ilk.

So whether it's in the public good to prosecute, or for the HRC to tell her firmly and publicly that she's an intolerant bigot is a question...

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2054298 11-Jul-2018 12:58

I checked out her (The cake business) face book page yesterday and she was getting slammed left right and center and some amazingly disturbing posts which I would wonder if the people who made them were deranged. I see she has taken it down now. Her business page is getting pretty rocked on google as well where her score is slowly going backwards.

I guess she is getting a lot of publicity out of it so her business is either going to nose dive or get even bigger one or the other.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

davidcole

6036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2054299 11-Jul-2018 12:59

Mspec:

I checked out her (The cake business) face book page yesterday and she was getting slammed left right and center and some amazingly disturbing posts which I would wonder if the people who made them were deranged. I see she has taken it down now. Her business page is getting pretty rocked on google as well where her score is slowly going backwards.

I guess she is getting a lot of publicity out of it so her business is either going to nose dive or get even bigger one or the other.

Yeah if there were any charges...I'm picking the lack of business she'll now be getting will more than exceed any fine should could be passed.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2054303 11-Jul-2018 13:03

Fred99:

6FIEND:

To examine it from a slightly different perspective - would it be reasonable for the baker to argue that she is not prepared to bake the cake on the basis of what the couple intend to do with it (Ie. To use it as a component of making a public declaration of their love for each other) because they find that offensive? Despite it being legal. Rather than refusing service to the customer because of who they are.

Again with the analogies...

Could we compel an Islamic Imam to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple?

1) No - and that's pretty well what happened isn't it?

2) No - that's because religious exceptions to Human Rights laws give special status to people who claim to be representing the invisible man in the sky or whatever.

Ok - I will need you to help me reconcile those two positions, because I seem to be missing something.

On one hand (point 2) it's acceptable to refuse to perform a gay wedding on religious grounds, but on the other hand (point 1) it unacceptable to refuse to cater a gay wedding on religious grounds.

I have simplified somewhat, but perhaps you can help me with the distinction that you're making?

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2054309 11-Jul-2018 13:14

Rikkitic:

My answer to the Imam would be to say he shouldn't have to do anything he finds personally objectionable, but don't try to dress it up in religious mumbo-jumbo.

Why then, should the baker have to do something that she finds personally objectionable?

She certainly didn't try to dress it up in religious mumbo-jumbo.

Hi Maureen and Sasha

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a wedding cake for the 19th January. I do not wish to offend either of you and I thank you for letting me know that it is a same sex wedding. Even though as individuals you are both fabulous and amazing people, I must follow the integrity of my heart and beliefs. Our government has legalised same sex marriages, but it is not my belief that this is correct, therefore I will not support it and cannot make your wedding cake for you.

Kind Regards,
Kath

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2054312 11-Jul-2018 13:18

6FIEND:

Fred99:

6FIEND:

To examine it from a slightly different perspective - would it be reasonable for the baker to argue that she is not prepared to bake the cake on the basis of what the couple intend to do with it (Ie. To use it as a component of making a public declaration of their love for each other) because they find that offensive? Despite it being legal. Rather than refusing service to the customer because of who they are.

Again with the analogies...

Could we compel an Islamic Imam to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple?

1) No - and that's pretty well what happened isn't it?

2) No - that's because religious exceptions to Human Rights laws give special status to people who claim to be representing the invisible man in the sky or whatever.

Ok - I will need you to help me reconcile those two positions, because I seem to be missing something.

On one hand (point 2) it's acceptable to refuse to perform a gay wedding on religious grounds, but on the other hand (point 1) it unacceptable to refuse to cater a gay wedding on religious grounds.

I have simplified somewhat, but perhaps you can help me with the distinction that you're making?

You're really asking the wrong person. It's not a distinction I'm making or position I'm taking - it's the law (The Human Rights Act has exceptions on religious grounds).

About the only thing I can do about (apart from bleat in forums - mainly preaching to the converted in this case) is to be selective with voting in the hope that changes can be made - so that wearing a funny hat or shirt collar whilst telling people how to live their lives won't be a legal defense to being an intolerant bigot any more.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2054314 11-Jul-2018 13:29

6FIEND:

Why then, should the baker have to do something that she finds personally objectionable?

Why should you and I abide by any law we may find personally objectionable?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2054315 11-Jul-2018 13:30

6FIEND:

Why then, should the baker have to do something that she finds personally objectionable?

She certainly didn't try to dress it up in religious mumbo-jumbo.

I don't get the connection you are making. You asked about an Imam conducting a marriage ceremony, not a baker making a cake. I was responding to your question.

Also, I never said the baker should be compelled to make the cake. I said the couple should go elsewhere.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2054350 11-Jul-2018 14:04

She hasn't broken the law at all. She refused to take part in a same sex wedding ceremony, she did not refuse service because the potential customers were gay.

This is identical to a religious minister being free to refuse to marry a same sex couple based on his beliefs.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2054352 11-Jul-2018 14:10

UHD:

She hasn't broken the law at all. She refused to take part in a same sex wedding ceremony, she did not refuse service because the potential customers were gay.

Oh yes she did: "Our government has legalised same sex marriages, but it is not my belief that this is correct, therefore I will not support it and cannot make your wedding cake for you".

UHD:

This is identical to a religious minister being free to refuse to marry a same sex couple based on his beliefs.

No it is not. I suggest you read posts above before stating uninformed opinion as is if it was fact.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#2054362 11-Jul-2018 14:22

Rikkitic:

6FIEND:

Why then, should the baker have to do something that she finds personally objectionable?

She certainly didn't try to dress it up in religious mumbo-jumbo.

I don't get the connection you are making. You asked about an Imam conducting a marriage ceremony, not a baker making a cake. I was responding to your question.

Also, I never said the baker should be compelled to make the cake. I said the couple should go elsewhere.

Apologies - I was combining your suggestion (that the Imam ought not be forced to conduct a gay marriage) with Fred99's similar thoughts and asking how that position was different to Fred99's suggestion that it was wrong for the baker to have the option of not providing a cake for a gay wedding.

I did not mean to insinuate that you shared that second opinion as well.

Fred99:

Why should you and I abide by any law we may find personally objectionable?

Well, generally speaking, because that is the price we pay for living in a civil society.

But there is always nuance. The law is (and never will be) a perfect tool.

Newly introduced legislation (such as the Marriage amendment Act) may reveal inadequacies, contradictions, or grey areas in previously sound legislation. Legislation may not have kept pace with modern expectations. (Eg. Until 30yrs ago, it was against the law to even be gay) And sometimes challenging/difficult conversations need to be had to bring about reform.

It's also interesting to note that these two women in question, are actively seeking to circumvent the law in their own country by arranging to be married here in NZ. We have assumed all along that the baker is not prepared to help them on religious grounds, but it's equally plausible that "Kath" is an ex-pat Australian who doesn't think it's "correct" for her compatriots to use NZ legislation as a loophole to achieve something that the Australian Government doesn't currently permit.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2054364 11-Jul-2018 14:31

I think the only reason issues like this arise is because of the special status religion is given in our society. Like a lot of people, I am not religious. I do not believe in a god, and, especially, I do not believe in organised religion.

I believe social institutions like marriage should be entirely a civil matter. People get joined ('married') by a bureaucratic registrar and that is the end of the matter. Religion doesn't come into it at all. Religion should not have any kind of legal authority at all. If people want a religious ceremony for their marriage, they should be free to have one, but it is then a matter between them and their religious organisation. It has nothing to do with the State. If the religious organisation does not want to offer the couple their sanction for any reason, they should be free to make that choice. But it has nothing to do with the law.

And religious organisations of every description definitely should not have tax-free status, any more than religious representatives should have unsupervised access to children.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2054366 11-Jul-2018 14:33

6FIEND:

Well, generally speaking, because that is the price we pay for living in a civil society.

But there is always nuance. The law is (and never will be) a perfect tool.

Newly introduced legislation (such as the Marriage amendment Act) may reveal inadequacies, contradictions, or grey areas in previously sound legislation. Legislation may not have kept pace with modern expectations. (Eg. Until 30yrs ago, it was against the law to even be gay) And sometimes challenging/difficult conversations need to be had to bring about reform.

It's also interesting to note that these two women in question, are actively seeking to circumvent the law in their own country by arranging to be married here in NZ. We have assumed all along that the baker is not prepared to help them on religious grounds, but it's equally plausible that "Kath" is an ex-pat Australian who doesn't think it's "correct" for her compatriots to use NZ legislation as a loophole to achieve something that the Australian Government doesn't currently permit.

The law is clear in that case - and she broke it. Simple. No "nuances".

As for the bit I highlighted above, same sex marriage has been legal in Aus since 9 December last year. This incident did happen in the past - before the law was changed. If that was the reason that she refused service then the bigoted baker should have perhaps mentioned that at the time - not have people defending her or arguing for her making stuff up to retrospectively justify what she did. But she didn't - she referenced a NZ law she didn't like - as reason to break another law.

Not that I think that argument has any merit whatsoever anyway. It's illegal to sell alcohol to people under 21 in many parts of the world. Should we ban sale of alcohol to visitors to NZ under the age that they'd need to be in their home country?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2054377 11-Jul-2018 14:44

The baker in this case has a couple of things in her favour...

1. She was honest in her actions, she could have accepted the order and just not fulfilled it or fulfilled it badly.

2. Her refusal was timely and politely stated without any attack on the couple.

Having said that I believe that she was wrong in her decision based on the information at hand and I am sure that there will be a cost to her be it in lost business, legal sanctions or both. I feel as I said in my earlier post the key here is tolerance and understanding by all parties.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8