Interesting Peter Tatchell article on freedom of speech and equality law

But they didn't refuse the business because the customers were gay. It's not like two men walked in holding hands and were told to leave. That would be a totally different scenario. They simply declined a job because they were asked to promote a political campaign (gay marriage) that they do not believe in. Like I say, I'm struggling to see how that's so very different from a Catholic baker potenitally turning down a request to decorate a cake with slogans promoting the Orange Order.

A bakery, like most private businesses, is not obliged to accept any job

That is true but the reason must not be simply because of protrcted characteristic. For example I declined to act for a number of clients whom I had only been contacted by e-mail. Their names clearly indicated their ethnic origin was different from mine. My reason for declining was there was big red flashing lights re money laundering , they ticked so many "do not touch with a barge pole" bixes. When I reported it to my MLRO he agreed we should not act. When I told them they sent an email which was obviously a threat that they were going to report me for being racist. I ignored it and we never heard from them.

Or what about something illegal I disagreed with - e.g. A pro-paedophilia cake?

Paedophilia is neither legal nor a protected characteristic so of course you could refuse.

Homosexuality is legal in NI ,same sex marriage isn't. Whilst your example initially looked a bit silly to my mind it highlights the unfairness of trying to force Ashers to support a campaign for same sex marriage.

Yes, unless they had a “No Political or Religious slogan” T&C.

Is that true? A private business is obliged to accept any job at any time? I thought businesses could pick and choose which commisions they wanted to take. It's their choice to lose out on the business, presumably at the gain of one of their many competitors.

A test case.

In other words, a deliberate provocation.

There religion is a protected characteristic for both.

But Orange marches are a political act, not a religious obligation.

(e.g. a Muslim taxi driver who refused a passenger with a guide dog because of his religion was held to have discriminated)

But here there's an obvious safety issue at play. Also, taxi drivers are supposed to accept any passenger unless perhaps they are drunk or abusive. A bakery, like most private businesses, is not obliged to accept any job.

In your example I would imagine the right to refuse to ice the cake would win as the other side is clearly acting in provocative manner.

But couldn't you say the same here? From what I know, this bakery was well known to be run by conservative Christians. Belfast is a pretty big town. The customers could easily have chosen one of any number of other bakeries. Of all the bakeries in all of Belfast, they happened to choose this one?

If Orange Men had gone into a bakery in a well-known Catholic part of Belfast and asked for a cake with a slogan celebrating one of their marches (which are legal in NI), should the bakers have been obliged to provide them with a service?

There religion is a protected characteristic for both. Sometimes the courts have to decide which one characteristic will trump which (e.g. a Muslim taxi driver who refused a passenger with a guide dog because of his religion was held to have discriminated)

In your example I would imagine the right to refuse to ice the cake would win as the other side is clearly acting in provocative manner.

If Orange Men had gone into a bakery in a well-known Catholic part of Belfast and asked for a cake with a slogan celebrating one of their marches (which are legal in NI), should the bakers have been obliged to provide them with a service?

Should cake makers not be allowed to refuse to make a pro-UKIP cake?

Being a member of a political party isn't a protected characteristic so they could refuse.

Lee has conflated the right of Ashers not to support a political campaign with which it disagrees with discrimination against an individual with a protected characteristic. I agree with Peter Tatchell they should have the right to do so.

If same sex marriage were legal in NI and if Ashers then refused an order for a cake for "Bill and Ted's wedding" (rather than a cake with a political slogan) I might have a different opinion . As it stands I can't see why they should be punished for adopting the same view as civil law in NI does.

Agreed. I do envy the Cousins their First Amendment.

This is how we end up with a blasphemy law through the back door.

according to the thatchell article, free speech laws and rights are murky here, compared to the US.

I don't think that's the risk. But I think we live in a time where political correctness is blinding many of us.

I think if the publisher had a policy of not publishing anything which is likely to be offensive to religious groups, they would be fine.

This is how we end up with a blasphemy law through the back door. Similar debate was had in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo - should we be able to publish words/images that offend religious sensibilities? (Yes. Next).

I think if the publisher had a policy of not publishing anything which is likely to be offensive to religious groups, they would be fine.

but that's just not a workable policy. You can't base laws on what people might think is offensive because what's offensive is very subjective. They same message may or may not be offensive to two members of the same group. Some muslims may find Mohammed drawings non-offensive. Others may disagree. The writer (Thatchell) nailed it. The bakers, as far as I remember, didn't refuse to serve the gay person, but refused to make a pro gay marriage cake. That's very different. Should cake makers not be allowed to refuse to make a pro-UKIP cake?

Frankly, I think the LGBT person who went to the baker is acting like a bully. I can see bakers refusing to make all kinds of cakes: pro-UKIP cakes, S&M cakes, you name it.

There is loads to admire in Tatchell’s tenacity but his views on self ID would seem to be that it should be legal given this guest blog: www.petertatchellfoundation.org/gender-recognition-act-time-for-reform/

I agree with Peter Tatchell.

I also think it is absurd that the decision went against Ashers for refusing to ice a message in support of something which is not actually legal in N Ireland. Regardless of what your views on gay marriage it does not seem unreasonable to say I will be involved in creating something bearing a slogan in support of something which is illegal.

I wonder how much Lee's action has set gay marriage back ?

From the comments on the website

Although I agree with gay marriage, I also believe that this small bakery does have the right to refuse to make the cake. They were being asked to decorate a cake with a slogan for something they believe is completely wrong. Why didn't Gareth just ask a different bakery?

Well if that wasn;t what they were saying then they should have been clearer! Because that is what they wrote.

What you wrote makes more sense.

Some people do have funny ideas about stuff so who knows.

There is no law that says if you don't hire women (or any other sorts of people) in certain proprortions / at all then you have to justify it.

I don't this that is what they were saying. I think that they meant you can't generally expressly turn down women for jobs just because they are women/advertise jobs as 'men only' (subject to incredibly limited exceptions). Equally, if the best applicant for the job was a woman and you didn't hire them then it is possible to be sued and you would need a good justification for choosing another applicant.

"did I over simplify? The interaction of law and society.

The effect of the law is that companies are forced to employ women or have a damn good explanation why not. A good reason might be, there are only 2 of us working in the company. A bad reason would be women are useless and I can't find any good enough for my roles."

This is still not true.

There is no law that says if you don't hire women (or any other sorts of people) in certain proprortions / at all then you have to justify it.

This is made up. I'm sure. Id be interested to see where this has come from.

Think coercive control people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I stand with the Ashers, sick of the bully boy techniques by Lee trying to get Christians to engage in compelled speech

If they lose where would you draw the line? This is part of Tatchell's concerns, e.g.:
Likewise, Muslim publishers (who believe that the Islamic prophet must never be depicted in art or drawings) could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that Muslims find deeply offensive.

I think if the publisher had a policy of not publishing anything which is likely to be offensive to religious groups, they would be fine. I think the problem would be that if, for example, they had published (or were silly enough to admit that they would willingly publish) cartoons that were deeply offensive to Jewish people, then they would be in trouble.

I think it's fair enough. You can't have one rule for one set of beliefs and one for another if they are both lawful. It's like I would hope that venues which are happy to host trans events would also be willing to host the Women's Place events. I don't want to see minority viewpoints shut out as long as those viewpoints are legal.