Interesting Peter Tatchell article on freedom of speech and equality law

But do we want courts deciding who is a consistent/good Christian?

this is not place for the state. if people don't want to bake a cake they shouldn't have to.

Marchin1984

But it goes to credibility and consistency of their argument. Plus this is nothing to do with govt...it is a court interpreting the law. And the Supreme Court may come to a different conclusion to the trial judge and Court of Appeal.

My comment about Halloween is that it undermined this idea that the "printer" of the message is deemed/perceived to support the message. Ashers owners are from the brand of Christianity who disapprove of Halloween.

it's not for anyone else to decide how consistently they observe their religion. religion is inherently consistent, and also it's not the government's place to decide who is a good muslim/christian.

My comment about Halloween is that it undermined this idea that the "printer" of the message is deemed/perceived to support the message. Ashers owners are from the brand of Christianity who disapprove of Halloween. Yet, there was no evidence that their production of Halloween based bakery goods implied religious/political support for Halloween

www.lawsoc-ni.org/summary-of-judgement-ashers-bakery-appeal

I just read a summary of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (from a blog from legal firm).www.lawsoc-ni.org/summary-of-judgement-ashers-bakery-appeal
Sorry its too long to cut and paste

The key takeaway from the judgement seems to be the appellants (Ashers) might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.

I'm confused by the Asher's ruling. My understanding is that the customer was found to have been discriminated against due to his sexuality which is the protected characteristic under the NI Act.

I'm not sure however how this matches given that had he asked for a standard came it wouldn't have been refused or even come up. Essentially, how would the person who rescinded the order definitely know he is gay? Similarly how the discrimination case would work if a heterosexual customer placed the order and then it was refused later on. The discrimination was against the cake, not the person. But I haven't read any of the judgements so am happy to be educated.

But it's not the same thing. Making a product celebrating an occasion you don't celebrate is not the same thing as making a product endorsing a political campaign you are actively opposed to

I agree. And the religious /satanic aspects of Halloween surely now sail over most people's heads anyway.

I stomp TERFS' or something
It is an incitement to violence. Change the word to Nazis or Fascists it is no better. It is not actually legal to stomp on any of them.

I don't really get why these bakers did not just say they couldn't do it and not give a reason

It would only have helped them in the short term. Not giving a reason would not have helped them (or any other business if the refusal is based on a protected characteristic) if he still pressed on with the case.

It might have made it marginally more difficult for him to argue but I'm guessing that if pressed to lie Ashers would not have fudged the issue ("too busy/ too complicated") and would have been honest about it.

I wonder how much damage he has done to his own cause?

As lass said, the paedophile example doesn't work, as its illegal.

Sorry, I didn't realise until the end of the post that same sex marriage was also illegal in Northern Ireland. I amended the second bit of the post but not the first. I thought NI had the same laws as the rest of the UK, for some reason

The difficulty for Ashers in their stance of being asked to promote something contrary to their beliefs is that they had been quite willing to make Halloween products; which are also contrary to their beliefs.

But it's not the same thing. Making a product celebrating an occasion you don't celebrate is not the same thing as making a product endorsing a political campaign you are actively opposed to.

NI has also got slightly different protected characteristics - political opinion is explicitly a protected characteristic

But the law protects people, not ideas. This is obviously especially important in NI because of its history - you wouldn't want a DUP voter refusing to employ a Sinn Fein supporter for example. That would not mean, however, that a DUP supporter should be obliged to make products endorsing Sinn Fein political aims.

I would decorate the pro-gay marriage cake every time, with delight.

But are there messages I wouldn't want to be forced by law to write on a cake?

What about If I was asked to ice the word 'TERF' should I have to do that?

Hmm yeah thats a good point. Its entirely possible that someone would ask for a cake saying 'I stomp TERFS' or something. As lass said, the paedophile example doesn't work, as its illegal. However it seems it is legal to be misogynistic and abusive towards women, or to threaten it. So the TERF example works pretty well.

Having said that, I think I would probably just suck it up and make the cake, if I had a business like that.

I don't really get why these bakers did not just say they couldn't do it and not give a reason. But I also don't really get why it was dragged through the courts either instead of just using another bakers. I also didn't realise same sex marriage was illegal where the incident happened, and would have thought that would maybe influence the courts somewhat.

Iced Purple I am agreeing with you. I think Ashers had a legitimate reason for turning this business down.

The difficulty for Ashers in their stance of being asked to promote something contrary to their beliefs is that they had been quite willing to make Halloween products; which are also contrary to their beliefs.

NI has also got slightly different protected characteristics - political opinion is explicitly a protected characteristic www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/external/anti-discrimination-law-in-ni.pdf

In the real life example I gave I did not give a reason for declining to act - had the persons involved complained and it was determined my refusal was because of their ethnic origin I would have been discriminating against them.

But again, Ashers didn't turn down the business because the customers were gay. They turned it down because they were being asked to promote something in conflict with their deeply held beliefs. Had the cake been requested by a straight couple - as it could easily have been - their reaction would presumably been the same.

So it's a very different scenario.

All Ashers had to do was refuse. “Unfortunately we are unable to make your cake”

They should have just said no and not given a reason

Saying no for no reason /too busy/ not skilled enough would not prevent anyone who had a legitimate ground for complaining they had been discriminated if there are grounds for believing the real reason was the protected characteristic.

In the real life example I gave I did not give a reason for declining to act - had the persons involved complained and it was determined my refusal was because of their ethnic origin I would have been discriminating against them.

Regardless of the details, this could end with the law being used to compel people to outwardly support something that is currently illegal. That is insane.

Same here.

It's very rare that I'll find myself on the same side as religious types, but just as I reserve my right to refuse to promote political slogans which go against my beliefs, I defend their right to do the same.

They simply declined a job because they were asked to promote a political campaign (gay marriage) that they do not believe in.!

This is the crux of it for me. If Bernadette Smith rocked up and wanted a cake or banner or whatever with one of her grotesque images on it I would tell her to shove it. The fact that she or her ilk could potentially hide behind an argument that they are a lobbyist or campaign group or whatever worries me. Businesses and individuals should be able to decide what they produce marketing or campaign material for.

I'm with Ashers on this and have been from the outset- quite difficult here when people just have this knee jerk reaction and don't understand what this could actually mean. I have dealt with the son (who's the "face" of this case) and wasn't terribly impressed. His mother however, who started the company and called Mr Lees to refuse the order and arrange a refund, is a genuinely lovely woman who tries to treat her customers and staff in a Christian way. But very niave.