Implications of the Irish gay cake ruling

Because if it isn't and thousands of men can get GRCs it will without doubt weaken our position.

I think we would have to make a claim for sex discrimination. Which is definitely where we're headed, and why it's so important for the category of female to be based on sex not "gender".

*typo, if/when Twitter bans all GC women

See, I think we should be able to force Primesight (a secular business, without any religious affiliation) to put the posters up for the very reasons of preventing arbitrary or insidious mass silencing. If the statement/ slogan is not defamatory, illegal, untrue (eg TWAW) etc, with strict exceptions for the genuinely religious.

If the bakers had been asked to cater the wedding wearing T shirts expressing that belief, or asked to greet guests with that statement, or wear a sandwich board, that would be different IMO as it would be a very personal association.

Icing or printing words is not forcing the same level of personal association, or the same as actual speech, but if they contravene the rules of their religion there is a case too, otherwise I think not, as mass silencing is a greater risk.

What would happen if the Metro had refused the Women's Place advert? And if/when twitter and all GC women?

It is the global/ national scope of businesses nowadays that I think makes a difference to this. We can see that as women we have so little power, even as consumers, and I don't think this helps.

no-one is claiming that Primesight or Exterion have acted illegally, though, they're simply complicit in silencing women. Though obviously that's not happening as Posie is still getting in the papers about this (and not losing her money!). Posie can't force them to put the posters up but equally it reflects very badly on them and that's a business decision they need to make, and of course one could argue that the original case reflects badly on the bakery, but that's up to them.

I agree with the ruling Plainspeak and agree that I wouldn't want to be forced to promote a belief I was strongly against but I do see the concern you raise.

The billboards is what concerns me Heresy.

It is one thing when this judgement is applied to two people in a small bakery with limited reach, but quite another if a large company (and one who might even have a monopoly on advertising space country-wide, or look to gain one) can pick and choose what slogans they carry with impunity - which is exactly what we were objecting to with the Woman poster vs Primesight issue.

Can they now just say "we don't agree" and refuse without further justification?

The onus then being on a group to challenge this (expensively) in court?

More widely, this could also restrict the flow of information and of other political messages, or any information/messages at all. I find this to be a concern when we see such totalitarian tendencies these days.

I'm not sure this judgement supports free speech at all. But I want to find out more.

I think that with the case taking place in NI, where gay marriage is currently illegal, would "supporting gay marriage" (i.e. as a concept) be classed as a political opinion, as it's something that people are campaigning to achieve legislation on? In the same way that in Scotland a baker might wish to refuse to bake a cake supporting independence. Or someone might wish to refuse to bake a political party themed cake for a local party event depending on their own party allegiance?

if i refused to write "support black rights" or something similar i would quite clearly be in the wrong. but refusing to write support same sex marriage is still acceptable

wrong morally in your opinion ( and mine ) but it cannot be wrong legally, for reasons mentioned numerous times. I respect your beliefs, but you must be careful not to go down the road of using legislation to make people think the same as you. It doesn’t actually achieve that goal for one thing, and in my opinion, is morally wrong to force people to speak, or in this case ‘ice’, words they do not believe.

I totally agree with the ruling. The bakery would have refused to make that cake for anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. And they would happily have made a different cake for the gay customer. They haven’t refused service to an individual - they’ve refused to make a specific item.

I think it was an appropriate decision as the cake message seemed devised to be goady. Who puts "support heterosexual marriage" on a cake? You put names flowers etc. the people seeing the cake are already at the wedding supporting it so why would you put a slogan on the cake. I don't think the guy really wanted it for his wedding he just wanted to prove a point.
If Edinburgh buses can refuse to have "adult human female" on a bus then it is illogical to say other phrases are immune.

this is where I think the whole thing will have to go to court - Girl Guiding etc - because this is precisely what is happening and people are being threatened and bullied.

I think it's an entirely appropriate ruling and I am very happy. This whole debacle has made me much more for free-speech, including the right to refuse to participate in producing slogans one does not agree with.

(I suppose that means I have to accept that some private companies can then decide not to publish a dictionary definition of woman. But they would have to really explain how the speech itself goes against their principles, explain whether it is actually the PERSON who is saying the words they are discriminating against, whether they also rubbish the contents of the Oxford English Dictionary. Plus they will be ridiculed by myself and other people till the end of time for being scared of a definition...)

Obviously there is a link between the freedom to hold opinions and the freedom then to be able to choose what to say, but how this translates into the business world is what concerns me.

but this Official EU Guidance [https://rm.coe.int/handbook-freedom-of-expression-eng/1680732814 ]] on Article 10 does say

^"States must not try to indoctrinate their citizens and should not be allowed to
distinguish between individuals holding one opinion or another. Moreover,
the promotion of one-sided information by the state may constitute a serious
and unacceptable obstacle to the freedom to hold opinions"^

So that should shut Mordaunt up!

I'm not so sure about this judgement at all.

I think this might prove widely problematic. But I need to read more.

I think it is one thing to be able to personally refuse to state or support lies/ provable untruths, but I would have thought this case would have thought come under Article 9 Freedom of thought conscience and religion, where the bakers could refuse the slogan on grounds that it is at odds with the practice and observance of their religion.

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"

I can't see anywhere in Article 10 that there is the right ‘not to express an opinion which one does not hold’.

When WomensPlaceUk were in the Lords today their objections were supported by the Baroness Winterbourne under Article 9, not 10. This would come under freedom of thought and conscience I would expect, as would the "right not to have to express an opinion one does not hold."

The judgement was quite an upset I have read.

I didn’t realise Tatchell had actually been no-platformed and dubbed a transphobe by the woke Taliban. Peter Tatchell FFS.

Good ruling. Think of it this way. If you were a baker and asked to bake a cake with "trans women are women" on it - would you?

Umm yes I did mean gay marriage sorry

One of the reasons Peter Tatchell surprises me with his stance over the GRA is because, back in 2016, he changed his mind about Asher Bakery because of the freedom of conscience implications.

Nevertheless, on reflection the court was wrong to penalise Ashers and I was wrong to endorse its decision.
...
should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

Thought of course as Hairy has said, they could indeed refuse to make that cake and that would be fine. What wouldn’t be fine is them refusing to bake a cake for someone because they are black.

shape no, a Christian who believes that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman is not necessarily homophobic. Their views, as we know them, are specific to marriage. Not any other part of life. A devout Christian would no more pop down the local registry office to get married than fly in the air.

I think it's a great result, should never have got so far.

shapeshifter88 if you refused to write "support black rights" on a cake you would be well within your rights. That's the point. No one should be compelled to express things they don't believe. People don't lose that right just because they're racist.

Good ruling. Very sad case.

I'm a Christian, very pro gay rights, gay family member etc but free speech should be respected. You cannot compel people to believe what you want then to. The church, to its shame, has found that out. Or rather is still finding it out.

They just weren't prepared to ice the cake with the slogan. I think that's fair enough. I had friends at the time of the referendum, who had gay friends, but who voted no to marriage. I didn't agree but obviously they are allowed their opinion. I heard the Baker offered the icing/icing bag to do it.

I hate that it was a deliberate hit.