The Guardian reports the latest fortnightly Essential Research poll has Labor’s two-party lead unchanged at 53-47. The poll also includes the monthly leadership ratings, which show Scott Morrison leading Bill Shorten 42-27 as preferred prime minister, out from 39-27 a month ago. We will have to wait for the full report later today to see primary votes and approval ratings. The poll also finds 40% in favour of transferring families and children on Nauru to Australia, with 39% opposed; 37% supporting the closure of the Nauru detention centre and transferring those remaining to Australia, with 42% opposed; and 35% in support of keeping them there indefinitely, with 43% opposed. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1025.
UPDATE: Full report here. Both major parties are up a point on the primary vote, the Coalition to 38% and Labor to 37%, with the Greens reverting to 10% after a spike to 12% a fortnight ago, and One Nation up two to 7% after dropping three in the last poll. Scott Morrison is up six on approval to 43% and down three on disapproval to 28%, while Bill Shorten is respectively down three to 33% and down two to 45%.
The Guardian report focused on asylum seeker questions, but the other focus for the supplementary questions this week is the media. Thirty-six per cent offered that the government had too much influence on the ABC, 16% not enough, 17% about right and 31% don’t know, with Labor and Greens voters greatly more likely to offer the first response. Forty per cent felt ABC reporting was independent and unbiased and 34% the opposite – Labor and Greens supporters weighed more heavily towards the former, with Coalition supporters evenly split.
Also featured is an occasional “trust in media” question, along with a new question identifying specific news outlets. Despite all the fuss of late, results to both follow the usual patterns: public beats commercial, broadsheet beats tabloid, news beats tabloid, and there’s nothing lower than an “internet blog”. The Australian has a slight edge over the Fairfax papers, which I would hypothesise has something to do with the latter’s move to tabloid.
The rebound from the ice melting after the last ice age finished, circa ten thousand years ago, is still ongoing, slow but sure.
At Alta, northern Norway, the coast is still rising now, and as it rose after the ice sheets melted, the reindeer and moose hunters who migrated when things got a bit warmer, were in the area 7000 to 2000 years ago, and put engravings on a narrow band of rock at or just above the sea water line which was kept free of lichens and moss by sea spray, forming a perfect canvas for their art.
This area is and was constantly being uplifted, which means that there are a series of rock engravings at various levels as you go up the hill from the sea. As they rose, the rock surface was colonised by algae, lichens and moss, and the carvings became invisible.
These levels have now been cleared of lichens and moss (they use pure alcohol for the purpose, which does not damage the surface, and is long lasting) and are a major tourist attraction.
The engravings form a very important part of archaeological art.
“AFP officers are understood to be raiding the Department of Home Affairs building in Canberra over damaging leaks in the au pair saga last month.”
Thank god they’re on our side.
Maybe Dutton thinks he has gotten the thread to get the evidence on Mr Quadvieg
Note no media present for the raids
Can the Commonwealth legislate a ‘Religious Freedoms Act’? It isn’t a specific inclusion in S51 of the Constitution, but S116 is relevant, but has never been successfully argued in striking out an Act..
Section 116 states:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.[1]
Section 116 has four limbs. The first three limbs prohibit the Commonwealth from making certain laws: laws “for establishing any religion”; laws “for imposing any religious observance”; and laws “for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”. The fourth limb proscribes the imposition of religious tests to qualify for any Commonwealth office or public trust.[2] Only the “establishing religion” and “prohibiting free exercise” limbs have been the subject of cases before the High Court.[2][3]
The section sits in Chapter V of the Constitution, which deals with the states of Australia. However, Section 116 does not apply to the states.[3] Each state has its own constitution, and only Tasmania’s has a provision similar to Section 116.[4] Commentators attribute the erroneous location of Section 116 to a drafting oversight caused by the weariness of the committee charged with finalising the draft Constitution.[3][5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia
Bob’s Uncle
You are essentially correct – in AU business is a a tax collector, not a tax payer, and corp taxation is a mechanism for collection of tax, not an actual “end” tax (due to imputation etc.)
Money not collected as corp taxation due to lower rate is in principle available to competition between owners (who will in fact receive fewer imputation credits and hence pay more tax than previously), customers (who could receive lower prices) and suppliers (including employees).
There is some evidence from certain northern European economies with the following characteristics
– strong employee representation on supervisory boards (the senior of their typical two board structure), and
– less comprehensive or no imputation
that employees can see increased real wages as a result the competition that follows a corp tax cut. I’m not sure there’s any evidence of same when these parameters do not apply.
There is an argument that corp tax cut leads to increased internal investment (i.e. CAPEX) within business (and also an argument that corp tax increase leads to increased internal investment: better to invest than pay tax…). This phenomenon relates to the requirement to depreciate CAPEX over multiple years, which is disproportionately difficult for small businesses as they have inferior access to financing. If CAPEX were always expensed in the year incurred then this distortion would go away.
Finally – the real reason in most cases that people argue for corp tax cuts for large businesses is that it it facilitates share buy backs and thus allows executives to convert shares into cash. It was once more or less prohibited for a corp to trade in its own shares but unfortunately that is no longer the case. I’ve not looked at the detail but I assume the rule is that share buy backs may only be funded from after tax income (unlike expenses) and so lowering the corp tax rate does indeed make more money available for share buy backs. And of course the recent experiment in the US shows exactly that.
There might be some religious freedom treaty the Government can absorb under its external affairs power.
Sprocket
Averaging 26 heading to 30 Test matches
Then, if you take out his centuries v a demoralised England last summer, lucky to average 20
Not only Number 4- but Vice Captain and future Captain by Langer’s criteria
The sooner Langer goes and takes the Marsh brothers with him the better
Fingers crossed Khawaja and Head kick on tonight from the starts of last night
I also do not understand that Bancroft is spoken of along with Warner and Smith – look at Bancroft’s Test record including his average taking out the 82 not out
On a par with the other West Australian, M Marsh
At least Cummins and Hazlewood are back on the park
Plus Carey should replace Paine
With Cummins as Captain pending Head establishing in the side
Smith and Warner then as team members
And don’t get me started on Lyon, who I do not rate because of repetition and around the wicket
He does not reside on the same Planet as the great off spin bowlers including Ashley Mallet
Ah yes, but many bigots don’t believe they are bigots. They believe that if homosexuality and gay marriage are not evil, then at least homosexuality can be cured (which gets rid of both problems: the disease and the wedding). They may even argue that they are doing homosexuals a favour by encouraging them to see a doctor about their health problem.
Cake shops are not a public or government service, or part of an essential industry. They are cake shops, i.e. a business that makes cakes.
If we are to go around forcing businesses to do business with people they would not prefer as customers, or else be hauled before a court at great expense, then we need to force all businesses to do this, or none at all.
For example, businesses run by gay management could be forced to sell cakes with “Homosexuality is a filthy disease” written on them. Businesses with Catholic management could be forced to sell cakes with “The Catholic Church condones the rape of small children” written on them. Business that support the Liberal Party could be forced to print Labor corflutes. You could think of a thousand example like this. The essential element is force. Try forcing someone to do something that is against a strongly held belief and see how far you get.
The basic reason this does not happen is that the business proprietor (except in the case of an essential service) should be able to reserve the right to refuse business to anyone they do not wish to serve, for any reason. One man’s bigot is another man’s hero. This is not only fundamental morally, but is the practical basis of all commerce. There can be many reasons for not serving or dealing with a particular customer. If we had to pass every one of them through legal hoops as to whether it offended the customer to the point they could sue the business, very little business would be done (except in lawyers’ offices). And that’s only if the business proprietor was stupid enough to give the real reason, and not to just claim no stock, or “too busy”.
Aggro businesses that refused to serve too many customers would be out of business in short order. A cake shop in Taylor Square wouldn’t last long if it did not serve gays. A cake shop in rural Alabama that refused to serve Klansmen, or to cater a plate of sandwiches for Klan cross-burning nights might likewise go broke quickly. Therein lies the test of a business’s viability: the economics of it. Not whether they like gays, or the Klu Klux Klan, or vice versa (are we going to force customers to patronise gay businesses if they are irrationally scared of contracting AIDS or whatever?). You just can’t legislate against genuinely held opinion. You won’t change a thing by trying to do so.
Hate the idea as much as you might, some people just don’t like homosexuals, the Klan… or vegans, or hippies, or women, or children, or Asians… nominate your preferred oppressed sector of society here.
Forcing them to go against their beliefs – no matter how stupidly held – will only do your cause harm. You just have to wait for those businesses to go out of business, due to natural attrition of their bigoted views, as society’s mores gradually change.
‘Shellbell says:
Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 12:53 pm
There might be some religious freedom treaty the Government can absorb under its external affairs power’
I recall that there was some enthusiasm for the relevant UN thingie on the part of religious folk associated with the Right of the Liberal Party… until they figured out the full implications which were essentially that it would have prevented THEM from infringing on the rights of others.
In response to the Hurricane Michael landfall – the fact that it would intensify rapidly in the 24 hours before landfall (if not quite the full extent of that intensification) was well forecast – the National Hurricane Centre forecasts were for a major hurricane landfall (category 3/4, which equates to 4/low 5 on our scale) from 48 hours before it actually happened. Getting people’s attention when it’s still only a tropical storm is a different matter.
A lot of the US Gulf Coast is extremely vulnerable to storm surge flooding because of the topography, both undersea and on land. It’s pretty flat which means the water can get a long way inland (20km+ in some cases in Katrina), and a lot of the coast has ‘barrier islands’ which are basically just sand dunes with a lagoon between them and the main coast – many of these are developed but they are seriously bad places to be in a hurricane. Most of the Australian tropical coast isn’t as vulnerable to storm surge – it helps that the natural tidal range in a lot of northern Australia is so large that you’d need a landfall close to high tide to get water far above the normal high tide mark – but a category 4/5 landfall on high tide 20km north of Cairns is the sort of scenario disaster planners have nightmares about.
‘BT
Most of the Australian tropical coast isn’t as vulnerable to storm surge’
Indeed. Not only in terms of coastal morphology but also in terms of no-one being around.
Yes there was the impediment to a business borrowing to purchase shares in itself
Whether that regulation still exists I am unaware
So, as an example, when FH Faulding were under siege on market, the Scammell family borrowed to be active in the Share Market and thwart the on market predator
FH Faulding were prohibited from borrowing to purchase FH Faulding shares
BB
I think your post reflects the thinking of the ruling of the UK High Court.
If you regard baking as non essential service and other proprietors able to provide that service its quite reasonable. Thus the likes of Peter Tatchell
https://attitude.co.uk/article/peter-tatchell-backs-supreme-court-ruling-that-christian-bakery-did-not-discriminate/19344/
I don’t agree only where there is no alternative competitor and as I have put it above think of the political speech if Labour UK was prevented from publishing its political posters. As long as the law is equal in regards to that I am fine. No exemption for religion just the right of the owner to refuse.
@AmyRemeikis
There is now some sort of fire alarm going off at Home Affairs. This raid is obviously lit
A full length feature film can now be made of Watto and Mitch Marsh being dismissed LBW
Who could possibly imagine a game based on plonking yer front foot straight down the wicket and transferring all yer weight onto said foot as you look smack the ball back past the bowler would leave you susceptible to being hit on the pads in line?
With the raid the question Labor needs to ask first is what is happening with Cash?
My understanding of the cake case is the cake was a political cake not a wedding cake.
kakuru says:
To Peinlich eine Kartoffelkpf is a very serious crime in J Edgar Tuber’s dept.
A R “And sure, you can argue that that’s “small government”, or even “democratic” in some perverse way. But it’s not actually libertarian. Libertarians oppose the erosion of civil liberties, whether that happens at the federal, state, or local level.”
I think you misunderstand how libertarians think. With regards to marriage equality, they don’t see it as a ‘civil liberty’, they don’t look past the institution of marriage itself – or at least laws surrounding the institution of marriage – as an unwelcome and interfering state institution. In fact instituting marriage equality is just further big government interference, and from that perspective should be opposed.
Also you mention how libertarians want to simply throw these things back to the state or local level as some sort of cop out – when in fact this is entirely consistent with their world view. By imposing, and even overruling state or local legislation by the federal laws, the state and local governments “right” to impose their own rules are violated. Now I know that sounds paradoxical – a libertarian standing up for government’s rights to impose rules – but in this case it is the lesser of two evils when adding the feds to the mix. Ultimately libertarians want either no government, or some kind of ‘opt in’ government, or a government whose only role is to protect property rights. But when confronted with the limited options our system provides them, certainly the more local the government the better,as its considered more representative of the individual’s rights.
This is a bullshit abuse of the federal police.
I wonder which investigation will finish first, Cash or this one?
Federal ICAC asap.
If Khawaja gets out without adding to his overnight score, his average when opening for Australia will be about 120.
Just saying.
Chief Justice John Roberts just sold out Brett Kavanaugh – Palmer Report https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/chief-justice-john-roberts-just-sold-out-brett-kavanaugh/13348/
“Good to see the AFP living up to their reputation as being vigorous, active pursuers of leakers and pretty much no one else.”
They seem to be very slow on following up anything about “leaks” if it may embarrass a Liberal Govt Minister….like Cash. 🙁
E.G. Theodore
I assume the rule is that share buy backs may only be funded from after tax income
No. But it is a capital transaction, so not a tax deductible expense
Observer
there was the impediment to a business borrowing to purchase shares in itself
There is a general statutory prohibition in a company owning shares in itself (apart from a few exceptions like undertaking a buyback and cancellation); it is not specifically about borrowing
It shows amazing hypocrisy of Dutton to call in the AFP over a leak when politicians spend have their lives leaking to the press.
tick tock, ScoFo….
The leaks begin!
“Voters are not storming into our offices demanding this as a national priority. It’s a classic example of politicians confusing their own passions with the electorate’s priorities,” [ a senior Liberal MP] said.
“It will further hurt our standing amongst women, particularly young women we are weak amongst, who tend to be more socially liberal.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-10/religious-freedom-ruddock-schools-scott-morrison-christianity/10359612?pfmredir=sm
First question after Morrisons demonising Labor in his economic speech is on Climate Change and the Barrier Reef
guytaur @ #1729 Thursday, October 11th, 2018 – 1:42 pm
Morrison has an answer for everything.
Whether the electorate will buy the answer is another matter.
@Amy_Siskind tweets
Which brings up the age-old question: if Trump does a rally and Fox News doesn’t broadcast it, did it really happen?
@WorldofMarkyD tweets
Scott Morrison then tells #OutlookConf18
that @UnionsAustralia are “seeking to divide the community to “push an ideological agenda”
he’s referring to the #ChangeTheRules campaign – which seeks to counter the damage done by rampant NeoLiberalism
#AusPol
@quaedvliegs tweets
Over the course of the government’s long investigation into allegations against me, I have referred multiple leaks to the AFP, directly & indirectly, including news of my sacking in The Courier-Mail before I knew. I’ve no current advice on their acceptance, status or progress.
Ross Garnaut at the Outlook Conference. (Warning also contains Pastor Fozzie and Dollar Sweetie.)
.
.
Famed economist Ross Garnaut says “Australia is in trouble” and that business lobbies, media, and “cash-for comment economic modelling” share much of the blame.
“Australia is in trouble … poor political leadership is only part of the problem,” the former BankWest chairman and Hawke adviser said.
“Words shouted the loudest are taken as facts … but no matter how loud business lobbies and media outlets shout, there’s no proof it has actually helped their own policy outcomes.
“Climate and tax policy are examples of this … we need to listen to each other’s opinions.”
https://outline.com/y36FVY
Fairfax contributors are not exactly cock-a-hoop re. the AFP raid on Home Affairs:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/afp-raid-home-affairs-department-as-part-of-investigation-into-damaging-au-pair-leaks-20181011-p5091k.html#comments
The timing of this raid, along with the leaking of the Ruddock Review surely won’t result in any damage caused to the David Sharma. He probably wishes he stayed in FA. And I’m sure Mal’s having a chuckle.
Bushfire Bill says:
Aggro businesses that refused to serve too many customers would be out of business in short order. A cake shop in Taylor Square wouldn’t last long if it did not serve gays. A cake shop in rural Alabama that refused to serve Klansmen, or to cater a plate of sandwiches for Klan cross-burning nights might likewise go broke quickly. Therein lies the test of a business’s viability: the economics of it. Not whether they like gays, or the Klu Klux Klan, or vice versa (are we going to force customers to patronise gay businesses if they are irrationally scared of contracting AIDS or whatever?). You just can’t legislate against genuinely held opinion. You won’t change a thing by trying to do so.
Hate the idea as much as you might, some people just don’t like homosexuals, the Klan… or vegans, or hippies, or women, or children, or Asians… nominate your preferred oppressed sector of society here.
Forcing them to go against their beliefs – no matter how stupidly held – will only do your cause harm. You just have to wait for those businesses to go out of business, due to natural attrition of their bigoted views, as society’s mores gradually change.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I agree with most of what you say here Bushfire. It is probably best to just move on if you encounter a bigoted cake-maker who won’t bake cookies for gay weddings or whatever. You’re probably sure to find another baker who’s more accommodating. You could also spread the word about the bigoted cake-maker and see how that affects business.
But this may not be the complete answer. For instance, would we feel the same if an Aboriginal couple, straight or gay, were denied such a service for their wedding? How about a Jewish or Muslim couple?
Perhaps a version of the don’t-ask-don’t tell policy might apply here. If a cake-maker really objects to baking cookies for a certain couple, he should just say he hasn’t the time or his chief cook will be on holidays soon or something else.
To actually tell someone you are not welcome here or to my service because of your sexuality, race, religion, etc, is to demean that person and subject them to hatred. Some sort of redress might be needed when that happens.
Whatever one’s political views and public policy views, what is clear to me is that Morrison communicates well. And this has been again on display at a business conference in Melbourne.
He talks in a normal way. He can cut through with his message. He’s not easily flustered. His language is lively, and even self deprecating. It’s been surprising.
None of this means he will win the election -he won’t. The punters are not waiting with baseball bats, but they are still waiting to strike.
What it means is that the polls will tighten. And Bill will come under a bit of pressure from the Gallery. It’s going to be a bit of fun.
True-False-Sorta-Weasel ?
“The storm is there. I mean, that storm, is there.”
Wonderful, inspiring stuff.
guytaur @ #2024 Thursday, October 11th, 2018 – 1:31 pm
This is a most intriguing action. It appears he does not think Kavanaugh belongs on his court and is willing to do something about it as a matter of principle, not politics; probably because of the various partisan statements & other past behaviours by Kavanaugh.
That UK Supreme Court decision seems pretty narrow. All it says is that a business isn’t compelled to provide all manner of products. If you are selling a certain product to heterosexuals, you have to sell it to people of any sexual orientation who wants to buy it. In this case the baker didn’t supply “Support Gay Marriage” cakes to anyone, gay or straight, so it didn’t amount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to decline to supply the cake.
The situation is very different from the southern states in the USA during segregation when motels would supply accommodation to whites but not to blacks, restaurants would supply meals to whites but not to blacks, etc. In those situations the supplier was selling the good or service to some people but denying it to others on the basis of race. If blacks had tried to buy ferris wheel rides from a motel, and the motel didn’t sell ferris wheel rides to anyone, it wouldn’t have been racial discrimination to decline to offer the requested service. It was the fact that the service was accommodation and the suppliers were providing accommodation to whites but not to blacks that made it discriminatory conduct.
Oh yeah BB. So businesses can reject customers for any reason at all?
You don’t look right.
We don’t serve fat guys in wheelchairs.
No Asians served here.
No abnormals like you kiddo with the glasses, go away.
Is that what you mean, Bushfire?
Either you’re pushing the proposition that people can reject customers for ANY reason, or you accept that there are some good reasons (like being a credit risk) and some bad reasons.
Does that include beliefs about Asians and kids with glasses, Bushfire? Or do you say some discriminatory beliefs are ok, but not others?
Here’s another proposition. Being in business is not a right. Its something you choose to do. We live in a society with rules. If the rules say you don’t discriminate then you don’t have to choose to conduct a business where you’re forced to go against your beliefs. You do something else.
Observer @ #1694 Thursday, October 11th, 2018 – 12:41 pm
Is this article from BK’s morning roundup what you are referring to?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nsw-s-suggested-immigration-cut-alarms-business-and-universities-20181010-p508tr.html
If so, then I’d have to say that sometimes a discussion of immigration is not a dog whistle. Sometimes it is just a discussion about immigration.
And really, it’s about time we had one!
nicholas
Yes exactly.
Thats why the decision is not about sexuality. Its actually about political expression.
nicholas
Yes exactly.
Thats why the decision is not about sexuality. Its actually about political expression.
The ruling would apply equally to Scientology refusing to accept baking a cake saying I support Psychiatric Counselling
Just dreadful
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/abc-s-exposed-former-prosecutor-apologises-over-keli-lane-comments-20181011-p508z8.html
There has never been a media opportunity this bloke has walked past. Law is practiced quietly.
guytaur:
[‘Chief Justice John Roberts just sold out Brett Kavanaugh…’]
This could be evidence that even the conservative justices on the SCOTUS are worried about the effect that Kavanaugh’s appointment will have on the dignity and reputation of the Court.
I bumped into a Professor from the University of Technology the other day. Our dogs performed the introductions, and then the humans got talking. Really nice chap, actually, very pleasant and approachable to talk to, and good at putting his views across.
He’d also been a diplomat in London (with a science brief), a full time employee of ANSTO, and had just come off several years at a United Nations marine ecology research site in (of all places) Monaco (half his luck!). So he probably knew what he was talking about, I guess, when he took an upbeat outlook on the future of the planet.
First, the bad news: we are going through one of the most rapid extinction phases in all of Earth’s history (including asteroid bombardments and the ancient extinctions). It’s a disaster, from an ecological point of view.
After that the conversation took a more optimistic turn.
He stated that we are overdue for a new ice age, which should have started a few thousand years ago. However, the delay – at first due to random climate variations – has allowed our species to prosper and develop into whatever we are today. We now have the ability to influence climate itself, and are doing so, if only in a hitherto uncontrolled manner, but this, he believes is temporary. This is further staving off the overdue ice age with carbon emissions, which he stated have been affecting climate for as long as several hundred years (or so the latest research shows). Although he didn’t say so, I got the impression he didn’t think Global Warming, in that it was having this balancing effect, was all downside. That is, it’s stopping us from freezing.
He was also upbeat about population growth, stating with certainty in his voice that once civilization (by which he meant economic and technical advancement) achieved a certain level, the exponential growth in human populations would be countered by a natural reduction in birth rate. If this happens to China, then we should see a sharp drop in global numbers within a century or two.
He does believe that carbon emissions are too high, but I don’t think I’d be misrepresenting him to say that he believes there is ample time to curtail emissions to a level that will balance the longer term cooling factors at play. He stressed, however, that ice ages are as natural as warm periods, in fact possibly more the norm than the exception, and that as far as Gaia is concerned, ice ages are no bad thing (not necessarily from a human point of view, however).
We only chatted for half an hour, as the dogs started getting restless and it was nearly lunchtime, but I walked away from our meeting close to convinced that what we are seeing now in the extent of warming is an overshoot that, with goodwill and concerted international planning, will be corrected eventually, even if in the meantime there are some dire consequences of inaction. His opinion was that eventually even the most recalcitrant governments and lobbyists for fossil fuels will be forced to retract their stances and to accept that measures need to be taken to rein in the current warming phase.
He is no Climate Science denier. He accepts and promotes it fully. He is also no crackpot. But he takes a Big Picture point of view, coupled with faith that even the stupidest RWNJs will eventually have to face either reality or extinction.
I left the conversation feeling a lot calmer about the future.
If you examine only the political expression aspect of the UK bakery situation, it’s clear that the bakery should legally be in the right (even if they looked bigoted and lose customers as a result).
Generally you can’t expect anyone to assist you to express your views. There might be exceptions that we should legislate – for instance, perhaps all broadcasters should be compelled to provide a defined amount of airtime to all political parties and independents, with some kind of rationing process to keep it manageable. The justification could be that the broadcast spectrum is a public good, so if you use it you have certain public duties to fulfill – it can’t all be about profit. We value democracy, which can only flourish if people can express their ideas widely and hear other people’s ideas.
But in general, nobody has a duty to help you communicate your message.
The cake buyers were trying to get the bakery to help them communicate their message, and the bakery declined. The bakery wasn’t discriminating against the customers. They were deciding not to help a political cause. The scale of this case is trivial – the cause of marriage equality is not undermined because this one cake was not made. But the principle is important. Case law is about principles.