LGBT Activist Says We Should Be Allowed to Discriminate against Ideas

After refusing to bake a cake that said “support gay marriage,” a couple in Northern Ireland was convicted of political and sexual orientation discrimination. Now LGBT activist Peter Tatchell is publicly disagreeing with the court’s decision, saying, “Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion.”

[T]he court erred by ruling that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions.

His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order. Despite this, Judge Isobel Brownlie said that refusing the pro-gay marriage slogan was unlawful indirect sexual orientation discrimination. On the question of political discrimination, the judge said Ashers had denied Lee service based on his request for a message supporting same-sex marriage. She noted: “If the plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words ‘support marriage’ or ‘support heterosexual marriage’ I have no doubt that such a cake would have been provided.” Brownlie thus concluded that by refusing to provide a cake with a pro-gay marriage wording Ashers had treated him less favourably, contrary to the law.

This finding of political discrimination against Lee sets a worrying precedent. Northern Ireland’s laws against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion were framed in the context of decades of conflict. They were designed to heal the sectarian divide by preventing the denial of jobs, housing and services to people because of their politics. There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed.

The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful” message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

Tatchell gets it. He didn’t just reflexively cheer the punishment of his political opponents; he recognized the principle behind the ruling (a denial of freedom of conscience), considered what the result would be if the same principle were to be applied to everyone (including his political friends), saw that it was an unjust infringement of a natural right, and realized the whole society is better off when we protect everyone’s political and religious freedom of conscience. He put principle and natural rights above agenda, and I find that very encouraging.

Comments

[Phil Debenham]

Would that he were not so lonely in his opinion.

[Phillip A]

Note that he doesn't say what should happen if a bakery refuses to sell a plain old unmessaged cake to a same sex couple. Or rent a room, or sell flowers, etc.

[Phillip A]

And it isn't "freedom of conscience" (a fuzzy concept that can be expanded and contracted according to the prejudices of the persons involved) that he was trying to protect. It was freedom of speech, specifically, freedom from compelled speech a la Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).

[Italics for President, 2016]

Note that he doesn't say what should happen if a bakery refuses to sell a plain old unmessaged cake to a same sex couple.

Because selling a plain old unmessaed cake to a same-sex couple has never been an issue. (And what wedding couple would want "a plain old" cake for their wedding?)

Or rent a room

These types of cases are on both sides of the isle. Not too long ago a hotel was in the news for refusing to rent its space to a pro-traditional marriage conference.

Would you have sued the hotel?

Personally, I wouldn't be against renting a room to a gay couple since I wouldn't view my hotel rooms as "sex-chambers" or something like that. That people can have sex in a room in incidental to the primary purpose of providing shelter.

But if a person told me they were going to use my hotel primarily to have sex then I would not only be reluctant to rent the room to a gay couple but also to any unmarried couple or an underaged couple.

or sell flowers

Tatchell may not have mentioned it, but his line of argument is easily extendable too it: "should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs?"

So we can ask: should gay florists be forced to decorate at an anti-same-sex marriage conference?

[James Archbold]

Progress of a kind that it has come to disgruntled evangelical bakers in the court rooms of Belfast rather than the pipe bomb and molotov cocktail wielding christian sectarianist from the Shankill Road . .

[Mo]

@ Phillip A

"Note that he doesn't say what should happen if a bakery refuses to sell a plain old unmessaged cake to a same sex couple. Or rent a room, or sell flowers, etc."

Why would he address that, since that's not what's been happening in any of these cases?

(Except, of course, in the imaginations and "feelings" of many of these Rainbow activists.)

[Italics for President, 2016]

James,

Guilt by association fallacy. I could do the same with atheists: James I'm glad you've made progress over your fellow atheists of the Khmer Rouge that slaughtered people even for wearing glasses.

[Phillip A]

Mo:

For unmessaged cakes, renting a room, and selling flowers, I refer you to the cases of Aaron and Melissa Klein in Oregon, Susanne Wilkinson in Berkshire, England, and Baronelle Stutzman in Washington state, respectively.

[Italics for President, 2016]

Re: unmessaged cakes,

Cakes can be expressive (or messaged) even if they don't have words written on them. This is why art (photos, paintings) have been protected under the 1st Amendment. I would say birthday cakes are an expression of celebrating a person's birthday, even if the cake doesn't have "Happy birthday" written on it. Likewise, a wedding cake is usually a very particular type of cake, even if it doesn't have a linguistic message on it or a bride and groom doll on top. And the expression of these items isn't just in the style of the cake itself but also in the function it serves. The cake is a celebration of a birthday not because it meets some standard form of birthday-cakeishness, but because it is given for that event. Likewise, this is why a florist might reasonably object to doing a gay wedding. It's not that the type of flowers used are specifically or inherently wedding flowers, but because their expression is derived from their use.

[Amy]

Philip, you're incorrect about Stutzman (see here). She often sold them flowers. That's why they came to her for their wedding in the first place. I'm not familiar with the other cases.

[James Archbold]

Italics for President

Guilt by association fallacy. I could do the same with atheists

Don't worry.Having been a potential target for 3 decades I can tell the difference and I know which particular brand of christian I prefer. Give me the cake baker any day.

[Italics for President, 2016]

James,

Glad you recognize the difference. But I still find the "progress" language problematic because it assumes that the former state is the more basic one. Actually it's a deviation or degeneration. There is no starting point of creating pipe bombs in Christian theology and other Christians move beyond (or make progress away from) that.

[Phillip A]

Italics:

Likewise, this is why a florist might reasonably object to doing a gay wedding. It's not that the type of flowers used are specifically or inherently wedding flowers, but because their expression is derived from their use.

Nonsense. If a homeless man commits an indecent act with Michelangelo's >David that does not somehow transform David into an obscene statue, or make Michelangelo into a pornographer.

[Italics for President, 2016]

Phillip,

Some things have a strong final cause attached to them by their creator and others less so. For instance, consider generic salt and pepper shakers you might find in a school cafeteria or a restaurant. In my college the salt and pepper shakers were identical in their form (and I once had this debate with a fellow at lunch, which is why I remember it) and whether one was a salt shaker and the other a pepper shaker depended entirely upon the use for which they were employed by the cafeteria. The creator or manufacturer clearly had no specific salt vs pepper vs some other spice in mind when producing the items. That was left up to the person or institution who used the items. Other items, like Michelangelo's David, have a final cause assigned by the creator and it doesn't matter what someone does or doesn't do with the item.

Cakes and flower arrangements are probably considered, by the baker or the florist, to be artistic expressions. More like Michelangelo's David, in that respect, than salt or pepper shakers. But they are artistic expressions for the purpose hired by the customer. This is why a cake can be designated a birthday cake even if it is physically indistinguishable from a you-just-woke-up-from-coma cake. In this sense, the expression is more like the salt n' pepper shakers at my old college than Michelangelo's David.

[Phillip A]

This is why a cake can be designated a birthday cake even if it is physically indistinguishable from a you-just-woke-up-from-coma cake.

So in these cases, I think the win-win solution would be for the customers to simply lie. The same sex couple can get their cake, and the baker could sleep easy believing that the cake they created is for one of the parties' fictional relative's wedding, and not for any nefarious homo-business.

[KWM]

Phillip,

I think the win-win solution would be for the customers to simply lie.

And same-sex marriage wedding cake militants would be repulsed by your suggestion. (That they need to lie). Shame on you for even thinking about it, right?

See, it’s not about just getting the cake. It’s not about being able to just have a marriage ceremony.

When will people start to understand this?

It’s about full submission and approval by everyone. Tolerance is so yesterday.

Until this happens, there is work to be done.

[Mo]

@ Phillip

"For unmessaged cakes, renting a room, and selling flowers, I refer you to the cases of Aaron and Melissa Klein in Oregon, Susanne Wilkinson in Berkshire, England, and Baronelle Stutzman in Washington state, respectively."

A list of names is not an argument.

[James Archbold]

KWM

t’s about full submission and approval by everyone. Tolerance is so yesterday.
Until this happens, there is work to be done.

The vast majority of gay people and christians alike could not care less about wedding cakes. It is small militant groups in each camp who bring these issues to the fore. In many other countries gay people suffer penal incarceration and Instances of hate crime for simply being outed as gay. And I wish it were these issues that made the headlines rather than petty niche grievances that take up so much energy and time . There is a small group of people who identify as "christian" who would like to turn the clock back to the days when anti sodomy laws ( which still exist in a dozen states ) were enacted and where being gay was regarded in law as an illness or when a person who was gay could not hold office or work with or adopt children. It is hard for the gay community to trust the church as a whole when there are members who hold these views. For most it isn't a case of seeking validation or acceptance or even being liked. To some extent it is simply a lack of TRUST. .

[KWM]

James,

The vast majority of gay people and Christians alike could not care less about wedding cakes.

Caring about cakes? Sure. It’s just cake, right? Flour, sugar, etc.

But:

Do homosexuals want to:

1. Buy wedding cakes without fear of being rejected by anyone?

2. Create an environment for others where rejection never happens?

Do Christians want to:

1. Be able to act according to their faith and conscience?

2. Create an environment where others are able to act according to their conscience?

If you’re saying no one cares about the above you need to get out more.

There is a small group of people who identify as "christian" who would like to turn the clock back to the days when anti sodomy laws ( which still exist in a dozen states ) were enacted and where being gay was regarded in law as an illness or when a person who was gay could not hold office or work with or adopt children.

It is hard for the gay community to trust the church as a whole when there are members who hold these views

First you talked about the vast majority of groups. Now you talk about small groups of Christians that make it hard for the gay community. Which is it? Big groups, small groups, vocal groups? Which matter?

I’m sure you’re on the front lines speaking to the gay community to not be concerned about a small group of Christians, right?

OR

Is a small group only a problem when the small group disagrees with you or unreasonable homosexuals?

[KWM]

People should look up the case of Kelvin Cochran in the news lately. He was the Atlanta fire chief fired for expressing his religious views. Now they say it was over his “judgement”. That’s how they work. They lie.

People like James say for the most part no one cares about “cakes”.

Looks like the mayor of Atlanta cares about them.