Is forcing an artisan to bake a message cake for a homosexual commitment coerced speech, violating God's gift of free speech? Why/why not?

There is an on-going court case in Northern Ireland where the issue that is clearly being judged is whether people must stifle their consciences and be compelled to promote speech with which they disagree - or be free to decline promotional work that violates their conscience.

This is about the Asher company, owned by Daniel McArthur, who politely declined an order to decorate a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage". The gay rights activists who placed the order then got the Equality Commission for NI involved (in 2014). The owners were judged to have discriminated on 3 grounds: sexual orientation, religious belief and political opinion. The appeal has now gone to the UK Supreme Court and the case will be heard in May 2018.

The McArthurs did not know the sexual orientation of the activist, Gareth Lee, when they turned down his order for a "Support Gay Marriage" cake. They had served Mr Lee before and would happily have served him again. The court accepted that they did not know Mr Lee was gay, and that he was not the reason for declining the order. But the court brought in 'associative discrimination' law in a novel and worrying way. It stated:

"The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people... it was the use of the word 'Gay' in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled... This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community."

Please note that such a decision of the Court outlaws discrimination against ideas. Think well on that, and its implications for you. If this ruling stands, it will allow people to sue businesses that refuse to help promote controversial political views - not just religious ones. The door is closing on the right of people to disagree publicly with political, or religious, or sexual ideas that violate their consciences. This will be a dog that turns round and bites the hand that feeds it. For example...

Suppose an atheist web expert refuses to design a site presenting as scientific fact the claim that life on our planet was not an accident but intelligently designed by God. The customer sues him for discriminating against his religion. He says that intelligent design by God is central to his faith and the refusal hurt his feelings. He says the refusal was motivated by the designer's atheism, which also constitutes discrimination. The point here is not about whether the atheist is right and the potential client is wrong to have their respective views - the point is that freedom to hold to ideas is being threatened. The atheist is perfectly entitled to refuse to design a web-site that violates his atheistic ideas, and the potential client can obtain the services of many others who would either sympathise with his beliefs or be indifferent towards them. But we do not see Christians suing companies that decline to support their ideas - it's the other way around. Those who hate the ideas of Christianity seem to be trying to get the law 'adjusted' so that they can enforce their ideas on those who disagree with them. That absolutely is an attempt to either coerce speech, or to stifle speech about ideas that some find offensive.

We may be approaching a time when the freedom of the individual not to have to give expression to the political opinion or philosophical beliefs of others if he does not wish to will have been removed. It is chilling that some men are trying to take away the universal right of all humans to have freedom of speech - and ideas.

I don't think it's a violation of free speech - which in this situation has to do with Governments that allow free speech to everyone. People are at liberty to declare their sexual preferences either verbally or in written form, just as people are at liberty to disagree either verbally or in written form. Oops, sorry - that's not the case though, is it? Hmmm, there appears to be a fatal flaw in that line of reasoning because the reality is that while a minority are at liberty to force their views on those who disagree with them, those who disagree with the minority will be punished if they speak out.

Anyway, back to the case in point. As I remember, the issue was not about baking a cake. The baker was very happy to bake the cake. It was after the cake was baked that the couple insisted that the baker decorate the cake showing this was in celebration of a homosexual couple entering into either a civil partnership or a marriage. The baker could not, in all conscience, do that and as a result, the couple in question took him to court and demanded the baker be punished.

This is where freedoms were violated - the couple in question could simply have found another baker to ice the cake and pipe out the message. But no, they had to "make an example" of the baker in order to give publicity to their cause. They were guilty of a malicious vindictive course of action against someone who held different views.

Ah, when did freedom of speech turn into a one-way street? Why are people no longer allowed to voice disagreement and why should the Government punish people for so doing?

P.S. As an example of how some people wish to silence those who disagree with them, your question was put into Travel - Mexico - Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo. Freedom of speech no longer allowed on Yahoo Religion & Spirituality? The minority trying to silence Christians? What are they afraid of?

If you are employed by an employer that tells you to make a certain cake you make the cake or you don't have a job if however you're a business owner nothing can make you bake the cake unless you want to bake the cake

"God" doesn't give free speech. He isn't real. But here's a thought, Sparky. What if the only bakery in town is run by a man we'll call Christian Baker. (Pun intended.) Mr. Baker hates gay people, and refuses to bake cakes for them, forcing them to drive 30 miles to the next town to get wedding cakes. Now, Mr. Baker is causing a hardship, because what if a particular couple can't afford to drive 30 miles to the next town? What if they don't have enough money to fill their gas tank? Well, I guess they're out of luck for a wedding cake.

Now, some people may say this is whining over something insignificant, but if you've ever planned your own wedding, you'll know how huge of a deal it is if something like that isn't possible. A cake, something literally every other married couple has at their wedding. It could ruin the whole thing for you.

My whole stance on the cake thing has always been that artists are free to refuse a commission, but generic products should be sold to anyone willing to buy them. I never heard if the cake in that story was supposed to be a custom job or if it was just a generic white wedding cake, but I'm guessing there was nothing explicit about it if it was able to be that big of a story.

Baking cakes is not a religious activity and therefore, does not fall under any protections granted to religious entities. Baking cakes for the public is a business entity and thus falls under the laws and regulations OF A BUSINESS.

But here's the true test.

Superstitious bakeries claim that same-sex marriage ruins the meaning of marriage. But if asked to bake a same-sex cake for a civil union instead - they STILL refused which demonstrates that the refusal goes far beyond the actual type of marriage being performed and is actually based on what takes place in the bedroom.

=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=

THIS BUSINESS LICENSE IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON THE APPLICATION THEREFOR, AND MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED FOR CAUSE AS PROVIDED BY LAW. LICENSEE SHALL OBSERVE AND COMPLY WITH ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, STATE OF ____, COUNTY OF ____, CITY OF _____, AND ALL AGENCIES THEREOF.

WITNESS THE HAND OF THE MAYOR OF SAID CITY AND THE CORPORATE SEAL THEREOF THIS ___ DAY OF _____ 2018.

~ Standard Business License

=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=

This signed and sealed business license is to be displayed in plain view of the public on the premises that conducts said business or in the case of door-to-door service, this license shall be carried on the person and furnished upon request.