‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

But that in itself represents significantly more advanced thinking than many are capable of crone. He’s got the concept of rules applying to everyone, not just the people he doesn’t like.
More than the average 20 year old can manage these days it seems.

I think it's self interest that's motivating him.

He's realised that if you can compel homophobic people to write pro-gay slogans, you can compel gay people to write homophobic ones.

I have no respect for Peter Tatchell whatsoever but he has at least done the thinking to bring the situation to its logical endpoint. I think it's self interest that's motivating him.

Maybe that’s why I just assumed...!

Yeah, Peter Tatchell's opinion over anything to do with rights, has zero credibility, as he advocates for the rights of nine-year-olds to have sex with adults. Or is it the other way round? I forget.

I might as well ask my dog.

Oh am I back to from there? Oops.

As you were...

Would Peter Tatchell support the right of customer to force a baker to make a ‘gay sex is an abomination in the eyes of god’ cake?

Er, no. He supports the bakers, and makes that very analogy.

*Long-standing gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell backed the bakers saying: "Ashers did not refuse to serve a gay customer, which would have been wrong and rightly illegal.

"What they did was decline to put a 'support gay marriage' message on a cake.

"Equally, I don't believe a gay baker should be compelled to decorate a cake opposing gay marriage."*

Would Peter Tatchell support the right of customer to force a baker to make a ‘gay sex is an abomination in the eyes of god’ cake?

Julie Bindel doesn't support marriage full stop.

I'm, sort of*, with Julie Bindel on that, and was discussing that very point with my partner last night.

I wouldn't be happy being compelled to write 'Support Gay Marriage', but it isn't the gay bit that's the problem.

*My preference is that only civil partnerships be recognised by the state for both hetero and homosexual couples and that marriage be left to religious institutions as an 'as well as' for those who wish it. I don't feel strongly enough to be campaigning about it though, it isn't exactly top of my 'things I feel a need to change about society' list.

Peter Tachell supports the bakers position on this. He gets the compelled speech issue.
www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/gay-cake-case-referred-to-echr/

Julie Bindel doesn't support marriage full stop.

Doesn't make her a bigot.

Being asked to write the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" in Northern Ireland is asking someone to support a political campaign to change the law which they don't personally support.

It's no different from asking me to write the slogan "Support Scottish Independence".

I understand the discomfort some gay people feel at the fact that there are people who continue to judge them and their lifestyles adversely. As a woman I know perfectly well the world is crawling with people who hold the most nauseating misogynist views. But while the idea of, say, sending Nigel Farage, Jordon Peterson and the ayatollahs to forcible re education (preferably with torture and beatings)* is superficially appealing, I recognise that in s free society co existence with people who think nasty things about us is part of the game.
PS Nige - if you happen to read this - this bits a joke. I know you need this stuff signposting.

I am surprised it's gone back to court. Should I be?

^Some people seem to be saying:

"Yes, I have no problems with people who hold different views from me being compelled to say things I agree with.

However I ( and people who agree with me ) should not be compelled to say or express views we disagree with - that’s totally wrong."

That's the totalitarian Left in a nutshell. And I say that as a lifelong socialist and trade unionist.

This thread is equal parts maddening and incredibly revealing.

Datun and M0RVEN’s posts directly above me sum it all up nicely.

(Oh, and yes, you can be anti same-sex marriage and not be a homophobe, some gay people are against gay marriage: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434 )

Anyone who is gender critical, or feminist, knows that the rejection of compelled speech is number one on the list of issues to support.

There is no way anyone can talk about feminism, be gender critical, or campaign for women's rights, if you are forced to agree that there is no such thing as a biological woman.

People who refuse, or pretend to refuse, to see this, are instantly revealing their agenda.

I’m also at some of the stupidity on this thread.

Some people seem to be saying

Yes, I have no problems with people who hold different views from me being compelled to say things I agree with.

However I ( and people who agree with me ) should not be compelled to say or express views we disagree with - that’s totally wrong.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

I’m at some comments on this thread.

Compelling a person to express a belief they do not hold is totalitarian.

On the approach espoused by early and others, someone could ask a baker, who was a TW, to ice a cake with “lesbians don’t have penises!” and “TWAM!” [sic]. And the baker would be compelled to.

That is not okay, just like compelling the Christian baker is not okay.

Freedom from compelled speech is not just for people who agree with you - it’s for those who disagree too.

This sums up the argument: The ECHR was put in place after the holocaust to prevent its like happening again, not to secure the rights of massive whiners to cake.

I just want to say, I’ve enjoyed reading this thread. Love the level of discourse that happens here, it’s quite unlike most corners of the inter webs, felt my mind changing back and forth several times as I read. By the end here’s what I personally have come to:

The law forcing anyone to express a sentiment they disagree with is compelled speech, and therefore wrong.

However the law should punish refusing to provide any regular service (any that does not express a viewpoint directly) based on the expressed or perceived beliefs (or protected characteristic) of another person.

I do think it gets muddy when the “service” is access to an otherwise private space which will be used by the client to express some opinion publicly. If a e.g. venue/billboard renter does not agree with Clients’ opinions or the views that will be expressed, is she being compelled to “speak” by Providing that platform like the cake baker?

I feel of two minds. On the one hand, I think it’s not the same, and the law should punish failure to rent to any paying (and rules following) customer, because the service is rental of a space to someone. No one is forcing the renter to directly express agreement (in fact she could stand in front and hand out pamphlets about how awful her customers’ views are if she wants to). Unlike the cake, she’s not being asked to say or do anything.

But then it is a private space/billboard owned by the renter - so should they not have complete discretion to whom it is available, even if outright discriminatory? In addition in the case of a billboard at least the renter is having to at least publicize a message they might not agree with. So it could be thought of as compelled speech. And this maybe could be stretched to renting a physical space where speech will be heard as well.

And hence the platforming/no platforming debate. I tend to say let everything be heard, just make sure anyone who wants to can argue back. But I can understand the view that people shouldn’t be forced by the law to pass along messages they don’t agree on as this is at least close to compelled speech.

[1] Which is an interesting GRA exemption, because the priest is allowed to judge by eye and doesn't have to take the birth certificate as biological truth.

I don’t know why but this tickled my fancy,

1. see thread that's grown large in a short time
2. read thread
3. see why it's grown large in a short time
4. yawn
5. pick another thread

Earlywalker

Yes, you’ve been asked repeatedly, are you happy for people to be compelled to ice the cake with absolutely anything? Even things like “abortion is murder” and “free all rapists” and a transwoman being forced to ice “women don’t have penises”? You haven’t answered, I just want to know if there is consistency.

Religion of the bakers is irrelevant to the principle

Agnostics & atheists would also object to being compelled to print slogans they totally opposed

My views are summed up by
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I would 100% defend a TW baker who refused to print "TWs are men"
even though I agree with the statement

Freedom from compulsion to say something is a vital part of the principle of free speech