Gay cake & secularism debate // Peter Hitchens vs Andrew Copson

[@smithswoodrookie]

I’m an atheist & a secularist. It was an absolute disgrace the bakers were fined for refusing to print a political slogan.

[@Saber23]

smithswoodrookie well can you really be mad? Nonsense like this is all your ideologies offer anyone

[@midnightsun24c7]

@@Saber23 athiesm isn't itself an ideology

[@Saber23]

what is an ideology to you?

[@midnightsun24c7]

@@Saber23 athiesm is the lack of belief in a diety/God. It doesn't say anything about your ideologies or affiliations except what you're not

[@midnightsun24c7]

@@Saber23 usually athiest tend to care about secular issues that happen here in real life rather than uphold religious peoples personal moral opinions about things. They tend to see that using personal beliefs to justify discrimination and things like that is just wrong. So if they "Tend" to lean a certain way thats perfectly reasonable. I know athiest that believe all kinds of spiritual nonsense they just don't put a God in it. Me as an atheist, I want to maximize liberty and freedom as much as possible while not allowing any 1 faith or personal belief to be preferred or backed by the government. One persons individual life is separate from business. In business (even a "private business") you can't discriminate against somebody for immutable characteristics. If you had some personal belief that said that people of color don't deserve to be married (and there are passages that have been used for that in the past) so you denied that cake under that premise... in my opinion you should rightfully be called out and handled appropriately for breaking the law against discrimination. Those laws aren't hampering "religious freedom" you will still have the absolute right to think anything you want. Just make the fucking wedding cake. This is not a hill to die on. God won't be mad. Infact if God is real. He allows people to do what they do, to be who they are. The morality of the situation isn't on the baker according to Christianity. It is not his job to judge.

[@roblewis5044]

peter is 100% correct in what he said.

[@adambritain5774]

Nothing new there...!

[@seanmoran6510]

Inglejuice Pity you don’t know wisdom

[@seanmoran6510]

Inglejuice Puritanical 🤦‍♂️ Let’s hope you never meet a real one !

[@SagaciousFrank]

@Almighty Kevin , why would religious beliefs taint his mind where it matters most? If anything it has inspired and expanded his worldview after he renounced the intellectual and moral void of Trotskyism (communism).

[@matthewsimmons9251]

Am I the only one who thinks that a shop owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, for any reason?

[@_Anato_]

No. That's the rational response to this. I can go into a local pub and start ranting and raving and kicking chairs and knocking over peoples beers on the bar, and I will be asked to leave, in other words refusing me service even though it's a "Public" House. If you don't want somebody to enter onto your premises you have the right to deny people entry or leave to remain if they are already there, if they refuse either it then becomes a case of criminal trespass You should be free to refuse service to whoever you want for whatever reason if it's your business. If the staff on duty in the bakery refused the order but the owner/manager gave the OK and the staff still refused I would be on the side of "Yeah there is no reason to not do this cake" even though I disagree with homosexuality. However if the owner of the business does not want to do business with someone that should be his right, as Peter said not respecting his right to choose who he does business with and how he does it is completely totalitarian and should rightfully be shouted about in the streets as government oppressing people. But hey ho, you know gays are part of the narrative that is being forced down our throats, so everything must be done to please them even if it defies logic, anybody who disagrees is (insert buzzword here)

[@SA-tl7fk]

no, but i would suggest you look at how things can degenerate when you dont regulate the refusal of service to some extent. i don't believe a civil society should condone the refusal of service to people based on their ethnic appearance, political views or religious faith. of course in the cake instance they have every right to refuse publication of a message they dont believe in, however, they ought not be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for someone because they appear to be gay (which is not a crime). society should be guided by morals and values; maybe you dont believe that its immoral to refuse innocent people service based on their appearance? sometimes i think libertarianism - ironically - is just as much as an ideological threat to western liberty as the permissive society no one who thinks that you should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason can truly call themselves a conservative

[@_Anato_]

"No true Scotsman" You should have the right to refuse service to anybody you want to. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" The person with no shirt or shoes might be the best guy in the world who reads to abandoned baby llamas whilst giving blood during a kidney donation operation, but people still need the right to do business with who they want. It's a contract: "You pay me, I provide you with this" You can easily withdraw your willingness to participate in this contract on both sides of the contract, and that needs to be protected, you're not just some cheap slave prostitute who has to endure because of the money being paid, it's a business.

[@SA-tl7fk]

what are you some sort of immoral wretched caricature of a thatcherite? what about the "contract" you sign with society to obey the rule of law and to uphold the morals, values and language of the nation? a thought experiment of a free market where everyone can refuse to anything because of private property, where being subject to service laws that stop you discriminating based on lawful appearance, political views or religious faith is considered "cheap slave prostitution" and inferior to people doing "business" does not add anything to your argument that you didn't already say and sort of demonstrates my point about libertarians being anti-conservative and in my view anti-liberty. rule of law gives us freedom. you'd be more on the mark arguing against that point rather than waffling about "the right to do business with who you want" as if that on its own confers greater liberty to society. in fact it relinquishes the liberty of the INNOCENT, LAWFUL PUBLIC to go and trade with people because they might unjustly discriminate against them. but of course morality, justice and liberty always go out the window and are replaced with vacuous squawking about business "rights". I cant even fathom what you mean about the "no true scotsman" remark... are you seriously trying to claim you are a conservative? the person wearing no shirt and no shoes should not be discriminated against if the rule of law and culture of the society allowed this sort of behaviour in public (which some dont hence shops not serving them) i dont believe people should be discriminated against based on their LAWFUL appearance, political views or religious faith. no civil, free nation would make political views or religious faith illegal... whereas rules on clothing can still be civil and free (almost all countries make public nudity against the law). "as Peter said not respecting his right to choose who he does business with and how he does it is completely totalitarian" No, he did not say that. repeat that part of the video and listen again; he was very specific as to why he agreed with the refusal to bake the cake. you should probably read this piece of writing from peter, himself hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/11/on-reading-and-seeing-what-is-not-there-a-widespread-problem-and-on-bicycles-.html what are you trying to conserve, exactly? you come off as a rabid young revolutionary foolishly straying into the darkness of the permissive society that takes its moral lessons from money rather than God. Private property and capitalism exists quite nicely with moral good; why do you seek to warp this? im just going to stress once again that this ideology is anti-conservative.

[@matthewsimmons9251]

lol triggered

[@garywood97]

It's definitely not a religious/secularism argument. I'm an atheist and completely on the side of the christian bakers. Nearly all libertarians would be, despite being mostly atheists.

[@Saber23]

No they wouldn’t because all they care about is what they want and desire they never think of others case and point forcing secular law on everyone (despite literally owing most of it to Christianity)

[@blue24563]

@@Saber23 Forcing secular law on everybody? When did that happen? I’m pretty sure it is religion that has forced law on everybody in every country in the world except the US.

[@Saber23]

@@blue24563 LOOOL are you being serious right now? Like do you genuinely believe the shit that’s coming out of your mouth?

[@starskyarsky8374]

My baker refused to put a swastika on my cake!!! He said he couldn't cause he was Jewish. I said it is a symbol of my Nordic ancestry. He didn't believe me. If I was racist I would not have him bake it. I was disgusted and goose stepped right out his shop. 😂😂

[@rhymeswithteeth]

@@midnightsun24c7 The swastika isn't only a symbol of the Nazis. The swastika has been around for hundreds of years before the Nazis adopted it as their symbol. Many cultures have used some form or variation of the swastika to indicate, or invite, good health and well-being.

[@midnightsun24c7]

@rhymeswithteeth sure. And I deleted my last wall of bs with this because it sums it up nicely, lol. If you ever go to a shop and ask for that, I just think good luck explaining that.

[@rhymeswithteeth]

​@@midnightsun24c7 Certainly, it would be an interesting case if a Hindu or a Buddhist person wanted a religious variation of the swastika symbol (a variation that conforms to their religion) printed on a cake and Jewish baker refused to make that cake for them.

[@freedomofspeechbutmindwhat4019]

Peter's is one of the few sane voices in the media

[@SagaciousFrank]

One of the few sane voices willing to speak out against the new othordoxy full stop.

[@benhall2235]

There was an old Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast who were prosecuted/fined for refusing to rent a double room to a same sex couple. Which is even worse in my opinion. It’s their house, surely they can refuse entry to whomever they choose regardless of what the issue.

[@midnightsun24c7]

Jesus fucking christ. That is even worse.

[@midnightsun24c7]

That is pretty much downright discrimination

[@midnightsun24c7]

This cake guy can say "well its about art"

[@midnightsun24c7]

But that.... thats just fucked. "We don't want you here".

[@CraftAndSew75]

They deliberately went there causing trouble. The judge should've been fined for an unlawful judgement. If a Customer had wanted something offensive to the queen, it wouldn't have even got down on paper, let alone reached the Court! Similarly, if it was against a person of colour, they would have favoured the baker. Being gay doesn't superseed other's rights!!!!😡

[@Damontable]

The bakers did not refuse the gay people service. Those gay people are still free to enter ashers bakery and sit down and have a cup of coffee and cake. What they did refuse them was a specific item which infringed on their beliefs. Thats very different. If ashers told them "get out youre not allowed in here" then the gay people would have a case here but thats not what happened. They are still able to go into ashers and have services performed for them. They should not be able to dictate to the owners to perform a service for them if that service goes against the owners religious belief. Where then is that owners right to religious freedom? . Peter is 100% correct. The law was applied completely incorrectly here and the "judge" I feel was under pressure to comply with "The Agenda".

[@1yearago491]

Peter Hitchens: The Cake is a Lie

[@SagaciousFrank]

"To the extent that it is compatible with the freedom of others", a subtly ominous caveat, which given this cake case, would definitely be used to infringe upon freedom of religious belief and dissent against totalitarianism.

[@SamBo33-]

I wonder if this would have happened if it were an Islamic baker refusing to bake the cake.

[@borderlands6606]

It depends on the message. If the homosexual couple want "Congratulations" writing on the cake, the bakers refusal would be an act of bigotry. If they required something amounting to a polemic, or a message running counter to the baker's beliefs, the shop is fully entitled to refuse, in the same way someone requesting "F*ckface" on the basis is was a term of endearment could be declined. It's highly likely the cake would be photographed, and its reproduction in printed form would amount to assent by its maker. Cake making is an artisan skill and craftspeople are fully entitled to say what is and is not appropriate within their work.

[@rhymeswithteeth]

"Christian baker, Daily Bread, makes cake congratulating marriage of gay couple. Stay tuned for more on this story at eleven."

[@granitstudenica1066]

Peter: The cake was a publication BBC: In other news, The Gay Cake has won the Nobel Prize in Literature, here's Peter Hitchens in studio with his reaction.

[@joshjeggs]

secularism is what i define as no allegiance to a religious principles. in other words people do things on personal whim. whatever the feel like. there are no inerrant moral principles in secularism. it is perfectly acceptable to be a cereal killer and a secular person. while it is not so for a christian or Jew and others as defined by their sources. I think they mean humanist when saying secularism which is a sudo-secular model with religious principles borrowed from Christianity and Judaism.

[@adambritain5774]

As you've alluded to, secularism in selfism.

[@aquadude5]

How dare you?! We secularists love breakfast!

[@ralphdavidson9542]

Especially inerrant sudo cereals

[@themistoklestheodosopoulos6253]

Seems to be a very particular meaning to the term secular being used here. I don't see how a secularist would by default care at all about maximizing the freedom of all parties. The secularist would simply function without religious concerns. There is no secularism is loosely tied with general liberal principles. But the application of those principles does little to sway the argument here, as there are so many present day variations of liberal thought.

[@DrPog-rq7cn]

The libertarian solution is the most practical: private businesses can serve whoever they want, and refuse whoever they want.

[@seanmoran6510]

Why not go to another cake shop 🤷‍♂️

[@popland1977]

What if the cake was denied based on race?

[@garywood97]

That wasn't the debate. It wasn't about refusing the person but refusing a specific political message. What political message would be analogous that's based on race?

[@kbeetles]

Do you mean the cake was racist or it insisted on being a certain race and therefore was refused to be baked? Things are getting more and more absurd and ridiculous.....and this is just the start of the fun we can have with who and what is racist, homophobe, sexist, anti-trans, ageist, anti this, anti that, phobic of this and phobic of that.... you will not recognise life, public sphere, stress-related dithering and fearful colleagues, neighbours and friends in a coupleof years. Enjoy the show......

[@EOTA564]

The only morally consistent position is that a private individual or business should not be compelled to provide services to anyone as a simple principle of contract law. Society can reach an agreement on its norms without the intervention of the Law. The reason this is not the case in modern western societies is that our political and cultural leaders simply don’t trust people to make the ‘correct choices’.

[@DrPog-rq7cn]

Then they're racist, no need for state intervention. What if it was a Jewish baker being asked to make a Nazi cake?

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

Freedom of conscience. If the cake was refused based on race, it would be despicable and a slur on the baker's character. Yet the paradox of tolerance is that, for a better world, we must tolerate what we profoundly disagree with, except in the case of inciting violence. No one should be forced to act against their conscience, even if they are vile racists.

[@seanmoran6510]

Equality of outcome in other words How very Revolutionary French

[@midnightsun24c7]

What

[@midnightsun24c7]

What the whT?

[@adambritain5774]

Surprisingly, Copson not fit to lace Hitchens' boots.

[@R.Kinney1492]

You can't have your Gay cake and eat it too_ Let them not eat Gay cake_ This case takes the cake_ He wouldn't squeeze his cream on their cake in a Gay way_ It's left a bad taste in their mouths_ Real men eat muffins_ Donut touch Christian buns_ You'd think they'd have preferred some rare fudge creampies? I've never heard straight men complain about saucy tarts? What is the world cumming to? 👄🍰 😉

[@patricias5122]

Mr. Lee, dude, who are you to appropriate two copyrighted figures, Bert and Ernie, created by Jim Henson, for the children's program, Sesame Street, and make a cause celebre' of pro gay marriage ? These bakers should never have been put through this legal head. And yes, I completely support LGBTQ rights.

[@richards9407]

No. I'm with you.

[@dmartin1650]

one minute in and Hitchens has already straw manned the issue. The cake shop was no more being asked to publish anything than a printers shop would be. Poducing the media and publishing are entirely separate things.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

I'm confused as to where the straw man is?

[@DieFlabbergast]

Garbage. The issue at hand was not the cake but the words intended to be written on it. It was about conveying a political message, and nothing else.

[@BionicDance]

"The cake is a publication"...? What a steaming pantload. The cake is a _product,_ not a publication. It's not appearing in a magazine, a newspaper, on television, it's not a mass-produced book to be sold to the general public...it's a _CAKE._ It'll be taken to a party, it'll be eaten, it'll be over, and the baker's name will probably never be mentioned. Seriously...just bake the bloody thing and be happy to make the sale. Sheesh.

[@BionicDance]

No, it's an _edible._

[@TOM-os9rk]

BionicDance was there a message on it?

[@BionicDance]

There was frosting on it.

[@TOM-os9rk]

BionicDance thank you

[@BionicDance]

Now, look...I can't speak for British law, but let's have a look at the US legal definition of publication: *QUOTE:* _"In the United States, publication is defined as:_ _the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of people for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication._ _To perform or display a work "publicly" means -_ _(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of people outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or_ _(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times._ Now, what we have here is a _cake._ Whether it had a message on it was irrelevant; it was not to be displayed publicly, it was to be seen in a place with family and social acquaintances. It does not meet the legal definition of 'publication'.