The baker/ vax problem

The Judgement of Solomon, William Dyce, 1836

The problem before us is whether someone that supports a baker’s refusal to make a ‘wedding’ cake for a gay couple could then oppose the same baker inquiring about their customer’s/ employee’s vaccination status and refusing entry/ employment if they decline or are unvaccinated.

The relevant principles included (i) whether the employer/ proprietor has an absolute right of refusal; (ii) whether a employer/ proprietor can be coerced to conduct themselves by their own lights in an unconscionable manner; and (iii) whether the vaccination status of X is absolutely a private matter. This is not an exhaustive list but we should be clear about what principles being applied, which are dispute in whole or part, and/ or about the manner in which they are limited by some other principle.

Discuss

36 thoughts on “The baker/ vax problem”

  1. The company should have a right to refuse service based on company policy, except where forbidden by law, for example carriers, essential services. etc.

    The line between privacy and company intrusion is not so clear cut. Would depend how the law is currently written and tested in court. imo


    Report comment

    1
  2. I am pretty sure that businesses/shops or even employers, potential or otherwise, have absolutely no right to ask what is your sexual proclivity or religion.
    Why should your vaxx status be an exception?

    On the baker/gay business in the U.S., my understanding is that the baker was prepared to provide service to the person concerned, just not prepared to make up and bake the specified explicitly sexualised cake the customer was wanting.
    You can’t tell me that if a gay went into a Muslim bakery and ordered the same thing that there would have a been different outcome. But with one significant difference – there would have been no backlash against the Muslim baker.


    Report comment

    13
  3. This is a false equivalence.

    The baker is refusing to be forced to manufacture/supply a particular product, not denying normal service to someone based on their bedroom preferences.

    Indeed, if the antagonists had not insisted upon ramming it down their throat, to turn a phrase, then it is unlikely the matter would have come up at all and the baker would have had no issue with them buying a bagel, muffin, or whatever else they felt like buying.

    It is not unlike someone attending a Masseuse and then becoming upset about being denied a “happy ending”, even though said Masseuse does not supply that particular “product” (despite the patron insisting that they should be forced to do so, because: “Da Scrimination”).


    Report comment

    7
  4. The problem before us is whether someone that supports a baker’s refusal to make a ‘wedding’ cake for a gay couple could then oppose the same baker inquiring about their customer’s/ employee’s vaccination status and refusing entry/ employment if they decline or are unvaccinated.

    ..
    There is no “problem”.
    The vaccines are shit.
    And so is getting married for no good damn reason except to piss off someone else because you’re an atheist activist.


    Report comment

    6
  5. There’s no fucking “false equivalence”. Both stories are about compelling people to act against their wishes.

    1. The baker if fined and potentially closed down if he doesn’t make the cake for a couple of fat dykes pretending marriage.

    2. And people demanding they can keep their job if the employer doesn’t want to continue hiring of non-vaxxed.

    People don’t want to compel the baker, but want to compel the employer. False equivalence.. “pigs arse”..


    Report comment

    1
  6. Or to put it another way:
    Your employment status should be dependent or neither your stupid ideas about marriage or whether or not you’re willing to sign up for a never ending sequence of semi- useless jabs.
    Cakes are an entirely different matter. Desserts are a serious matter.


    Report comment

    3
  7. I had heard about Best and Less promising to refuse service to the “un-jabbed.”
    All I have to say is that they can go f..k themselves; I have never shopped there, and will on principle refuse to do so in future.


    Report comment

    7
  8. You might get further if you divorced your argument from this vaxx to actual vaccines instead.
    The argument for, say, a nurse who is about to work in, say, a maternity ward to be required to stay vaccinated against certain diseases might be valid, depending on whether or not doing so protected patients in general, or herself where the employer might be held responsible for injury to her if she wasn’t vaccinated and caught something.
    In other words, the requirement to vaccinate isn’t on the whim of the employer, but must have some practical purpose based in reality.
    It has nothing to do with cakes.
    At all.


    Report comment

    4
  9. It is not unlike someone attending a Masseuse and then becoming upset about being denied a “happy ending”, even though said Masseuse does not supply that particular “product” (despite the patron insisting that they should be forced to do so, because: “Da Scrimination”).

    Should a prostitute be sanctioned because she refuses to provide sexual services to another female?
    I don’t believe so.


    Report comment

    1
  10. It’s not so simple, an employer is entitled to determine what attributes in an employee constitute acceptable standards to do the work being paid for. The law however says that there are some things a company can’t ask about, however an employer can ask if there is anything that might interfere in any way with employees ability to do said work.

    The laws however did not have pandemics in mind, so it all depends on how the law is written and tested in court. Given the states have declared public health emergencies, I would not bet on the courts undermining these through interpretation of current laws.

    In principle you would think that vaccination would not be a job requisite unless you had some potential job exposure to viruses or sign some form of waiver for risk of infection.


    Report comment

    1
  11. A gangle of gays will be busting their guts to tell you their sexual proclivities.
    A non frankenvaxed person relies on their protection by law not to be forced to make any disclosures.


    Report comment

    9
  12. We need to define more carefully what a ‘gay wedding cake’ is.

    I understand (from wiki), that the baker had refused to sell a wedding cake to the gay couple prior to them discussing the details of the cake.

    This is different than if the baker had merely refused to bake a cake of a specific type (with gay detailing).

    The former is discriminatory.. I think the latter is less so (or not at all).

    As for vaccines (ignoring the efficacy arguments):
    – The baker has an obligation to protect his customers. If he is consistent and insists on all health records from his employees (HIV or gay-male status, Hep status, MMR vaccines etc etc), then I don’t see a problem. Of course he can’t do that (HIV/gay in particular).
    – The baker serves people with all sorts of diseases all the time. So he cannot ask for covid info without being a hypocrite.


    Report comment

  13. There are two things that need to be clarified before any statement on this issue isn’t susceptible to misunderstanding, cross purposes etc.

    (A) are we actually talking about a baker refusing to provide the sort of cake that the baker does in fact routinely provide, just because the customers are lesbians? Or are we talking about the real life case where the baker was perfectly happy to sell that sort of cake to the lesbians but wouldn’t make a pro-gay “marriage” cake for them – or for any other person in the world, either – i.e. the baker was simply saying “we don’t supply that product”?
    (B) What are the actual complaints about the vaxx situation? (The premise is that the complaint in the baker’s situation is that the government tried to force the baker to make the pro-gay “marriage” cake.) Is the complaint that the business chooses not to serve the unvaxxed? Or is the complaint that the government forces the business not to serve the unvaxxed? A related issue is whether there’s any critique of a prospective customer boycotting a business that won’t serve the vaxxed (or a baker who won’t bake the pro-gay “marriage” cake) – I don’t recall anyone complaining about either so perhaps that one can be parked.

    JC says (A) makes no difference. And if you start with the absolutist premise that any business should be allowed to refuse any customer for any reason whatsoever you’d certainly reach that conclusion.
    But if the issue is about a business refusing to supply what it ordinarily supplies some customers (vaxxed/non-lesbians) to other customers (unvaxxed/lesbians) there’s at least a question about whether that refusal should be permitted. JC would clearly say “yes”, and so would many others no doubt – but there are plenty of people who would argue that some anti-discrimination laws are justified.
    Whereas if the issue is whether a business should be forced to supply products that it just doesn’t supply to anyone, then it’s crystal clear that there can be no question of “discrimination” and no grounds for arguing that the business somehow should be forced to supply someone with things which it doesn’t (and doesn’t want to) trade in with anyone.

    And that latter situation clearly just isn’t analogous at all to a business refusing some customers what it’s in the business of supplying to others. Fine, conclude that in either case the business should be at liberty to refuse, but don’t pretend that the two cases are axiomatically the same.

    As for (B), it would undoubtedly be inconsistent to argue that the baker should be allowed to discriminate against lesbians, while arguing that other businesses shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against the unvaxxed*. But there’s nothing inconsistent about saying that in both cases the government shouldn’t be telling businesses who they should or shouldn’t be dealing with.

    [*But, as noted above, not necessarily inconsistent to say that businesses shouldn’t be allowed to refuse their normal stock-in-trade to the unvaxxed while also arguing that the baker shouldn’t be forced to produce something which the baker never had and never would produce for anyone else. Wrong maybe? But not inconsistent.]


    Report comment

    3
  14. “I understand (from wiki), that the baker had refused to sell a wedding cake to the gay couple prior to them discussing the details of the cake.”

    duncanm, my understanding is that the whole case was run as a free speech issue, i.e. the baker was happy to supply a cake but argued that the First Amendment liberated him from compelled “speech” (i.e. being forced into writing a pro-gay “marriage” message) as much as from being prevented from speech.
    wiki is often edited to present “progressive” falsehoods to ramp up the hysteria, so I’m disinclined to accept their account without reliable corroboration.


    Report comment

    4
  15. As for vaccines (ignoring the efficacy arguments):

    It’s more than just efficacy, it’s risk and transmissibility. How dangerous is the virus and how likely are you to have and spread it?

    Courts aren’t good at these types of arguments, they will probably punt it back to politicians to draw some lines.


    Report comment

  16. Tim – I do agree with your wiki bias point. .. just taking the devil’s advocate position that what is written happened.

    Wiki also notes that the baker was happy to sell them other goods. So he wasn’t refusing all services to the couple.

    Your 3:47 post point (A) explains my point better than I did.


    Report comment

    2
  17. Dover nails the real issue.

    (ii) whether a employer/ proprietor can be coerced to conduct themselves by their own lights in an unconscionable manner;

    This is the real issue.
    Or am I on drugs?


    Report comment

    4
  18. wiki is often edited to present “progressive” falsehoods to ramp up the hysteria, so I’m disinclined to accept their account without reliable corroboration.

    Look up “Cultural Marxism” on Wikipedia.
    The very title of the article there is the highly subjective, making no bones about it one of “Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory.”
    Further, Wiki hysterically goes on to say “Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory.”
    Wow! Even though I am someone who greatly admires and even loves Jews and Israel (though not one myself), I am an “anti-Semite” and “far-rightist” because I happen to believe that cultural Marxism exists!
    Some much for Wiki’s demanding contributors be “impartial” and “taking neutral stances”, and supposedly being impartial itself!


    Report comment

    6
  19. The good old liberto-retardo argument. This is why libertarians are in fact retarded. Because at the end of the day you are forced to admit in evil because you need to stick to your libertarian principles.
    Evil does not care and will exploit your libertarian values to further it’s goal.
    Just like all those people from the 60’s to the millennium were crying “free speech”, and now that all religious blasphemy laws are removed, those same people are happily banning and policing speech everywhere.
    You see, the rules do not apply to evil, they have no rules, but they make you conform to theirs, and then change the rules when it suits their agenda.

    The real questions are;
    – is sodomy wicked and evil and should it be discouraged? YES. So no cake for you.
    – is banning someone from buying or selling because they haven’t taken an experimental drug evil? YES.
    Don’t do evil.


    Report comment

    10
  20. Further to what I wrote above about Wikipedia stating that those who believe that cultural Marxism exists are, “anti-Semites,” is Wiki’s very casual, explicit racism with its stereotypical linking of Jewish people and Marxism.


    Report comment

    3
  21. feelthebern says:
    October 5, 2021 at 4:05 pm

    Dover nails the real issue.

    (ii) whether a employer/ proprietor can be coerced to conduct themselves by their own lights in an unconscionable manner;

    This is the real issue.
    Or am I on drugs?

    It’s okay, micro-doses of heroin is fine if it doesn’t lead to anything more. 🙂


    Report comment

    2
  22. Judge Dredd says:
    October 5, 2021 at 4:17 pm

    The good old liberto-retardo argument. This is why libertarians are in fact retarded. Because at the end of the day you are forced to admit in evil because you need to stick to your libertarian principles.

    Yea judge, good point. Logical consistency is pure evil at least when expediency is just around the corner that you can gab onto on the turn.


    Report comment

  23. 1. Australia legally is like Bushwood. “Gambling is illegal at Bushwood, sir”.

    Conversely, trolling businesses over discrimination claims is illegal under Australian law, per s 28 of the SDA.

    2. Most businesses are coerced into banning customers.

    3. Freedom of association is important. Unlike Imam Dredd, I don’t feel the need to make illegal something I don’t like but doesn’t harm me. If you bring up hokey existential arguments then you are validating Pigouian economics and can justify subsidies on the ugly and taxing the beautiful.

    Both the baker and COVID Karens can morally refuse service.

    That’s all there is to it.

    Now an argument about *being debanked* will come up.

    Hence the utility of ceyptocurrencies and also the question of why banks are a protected quasi monopoly arises.


    Report comment

  24. …and yes, a baker/pizza shop/funeral parlour/doctor/anyone should be able to refuse service if they don’t like niggers, jews or fags.

    However, quite frankly I hope they go broke, end up in a trailer park and their grandchildren end up in a cul de sac of genetic pedigree.

    Just because I don’t want behaviours banned doesn’t mean they have good outcomes.

    If you want freedom, you have to accept freedom having consequences, even bad ones. They are teaching moments.


    Report comment

    1
  25. The baker didn’t offer gay wedding cakes for sale and invaded no one’s privacy – the gay customer volunteered the info about his gayness.

    The pro-vax businesses want to discriminate based on medical history and to invade medical privacy – both prohibited, for good reasons, by federal law.


    Report comment

    9
  26. Why would you want a cake baked by someone who didn’t like you?

    I mean, seriously, haven’t they ever seen the French toast scene in ROAD TRIP?


    Report comment

    4
  27. In the US, there is a legal term that’s called public access.
    This means that if you run a business that someone walks into, you can’t refuse them service (exceptions are bars, casino’s etc).
    If you are concerned about payment, you can ask for payment in advance (a restaurant or say a bakery).
    So you walk into a bakery & ask for a cock shaped cake, the baker can easily say, we don’t make cock shaped cakes.
    Then we get to the legally tricky part.
    The punter asked for a standard cake with an overt, pro-gay message on it.
    Yes, the baker can refuse on religious grounds.
    And intent of the customer is also taken into account (how many bakers has he already gone to, is he trying to catch out a baker who objects on religious grounds).


    Report comment

    2
  28. When it comes to the vaccine issue, it’s a case of the employer has every right to ask.
    And the employee has every right to not disclose.
    Where this is a real shit sandwich being handed out by governments & public servants is that they are forcing employers into asking – otherwise they can’t reopen without the threat of fines – via a public health order, but not via legislation.
    In the US, they have an amendment, legislation, civil law all ensuring that the government doesn’t use businesses to interfere with an individual’s civil rights.
    Hence the Biden decree that businesses with over 100 staff have to be vaccinated, is going to be challenged has soon as it moves from being a Biden statement to being enforced.


    Report comment

    2
  29. For me, comes down to which hill you want to die on.
    If you’re a baker & you’re approached to do something you don’t want to, you have a many avenues to get out of it.
    Sure you’ve got your beliefs, but be smart about it.

    The vaccine issue is different.
    The government is compelling the business to invade the employees privacy.
    In some instances, it’s implied that your health history can not remain private (ie nurses, doctors).
    In other instances, it’s not.


    Report comment

    4
  30. I think a government should have the balls to legislate their decisions.
    That’s the difference between the baker with a gay cake request & forcing a business owner to invade their employees privacy.


    Report comment

    1
  31. The baker is the cake’s way of making another cake

    The baker is also the victim’s way of making another victim

    And the baker is the regulator’s way or making another regulation

    pretty much sounds like the baker is the problem here


    Report comment

  32. …and yes, a baker/pizza shop/funeral parlour/doctor/anyone should be able to refuse service if they don’t like niggers, jews or fags.

    ..
    That’s all fine and good if you’re living in 1972 Australia.
    But when you live in 2021 Arsetralia that has imported millions of people from all around the world who hate each other’s guts, it’s an entirely different story.


    Report comment

    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *