‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

This case has nothing to do with gay marriage. It’s about compelled speech.

Imagine you were an artist @FlowerCupcake. Would you accept a commission for a piece of art with the words “ Fornicators will burn in Hell “?

If not, why not ?

I have seen a few people refer to it as a 'local bakery' and imply that it is some small independent shop. It is part of a chain that has multiple locations throughout Scotland and Northern Ireland and supply dough and goods for multiple stores and restaurants. It is not some little mom and pop bakery or someone baking in their kitchen,

Also, people are talking about the rights of the bakers but seem to be ignoring the fact that gay marriage is not legal in Northern Ireland. But yeah, poor Christians being penalised for not icing a cake. Gay people in Northern Ireland are not allowed to get married to each other, and this case has much bigger significance in that respect.

Northern Irish politics are complicated and volatile, so maybe stop using us as a tool when you don't give us the time any other day of the year? Thanks.

It was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was.

And an equivalent analogy would be if the women wanting to be served drinks had insisted that the bartender put on one of their AHF t-shirts.

Mr Lee was not denied a service. He was provided with an iced cake and the means to add a slogan of his choice.

It's genuinely worrying that people can't see the distinction!

People are too caught up in the religious aspect to join the dots

No it’s not that. I think they are happy for the law to discriminate against people with religious views because they personally don’t have any.

They only support freedom of speech and belief for people like them.

But yes, you are right that they are too thick to see that it would affect moral or political beliefs as well.

They baked the bloody cake ffs
The bar should have served the beer ffs

What the key is FOR THE MILLIONETH TIME is that the cake makers shouldn't have to write on the cake a statement they disagree with, like the publicians don't have to say "women don't have penises" as they hand over the pint.

European Convention on Human Rights

ARTICLE 9

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience

1. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be

www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

As a business owner (not a bakery, a totally different industry) I reserve the right to refuse a customer who wishes to promote anti gay, anti atheist, anti "my" values etc

Due to this I believe others have the right to reserve the right to refuse a customer who is wishes to promote another belief they fundamentally disagree with.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech - I have the right to think people are total and utter bigots due to their beliefs but if I think I have the right to disagree with them, how can I say they cant agree to their own?

We cannot have it both ways, if someone wanted me to mention something anti semitic or anti atheist in my work I would say no.

If someone else didn't want to mention something opposed to Christianity in their work I would say that in order retain equality they should be equally allowed to say no as I am.

It was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was.

The baker served the cake.
The bar should have served the beers.

The bar didn’t have to like the T-shirt’s to serve the beers.

GC protesters is immaterial
The cake buyer is immaterial

The cake got served
The beer did not

Earlywalker I realise this is all going around in circles but do you agree that the BNP (or similar) should be allowed to get all the local Asian, black or Jewish printers to print their election leaflets, even if they don't want to and other printers would do it? BNP is a legal party.

Do you think a small business owned by a couple who Id as lesbians where one is a trans woman should have to print banners saying 'lesbian= female homosexual. Same SEX attracted. Lesbians don't do dick' ?

The comparison with the women not being served because of their t shirts isn't right. It would be if you hired waiting staff for a function and asked them to wear adult human female t shirts.

I agree with those upthread saying people have lost the ability to see unintended consequences. It's really weird.

was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was

Women have complained about being refused service for wearing either "adult human female" or "lesbian" tops.

Note that in both these cases the women were refused service because of their beliefs. They didn't ask the bartender to agree with them, merely serve them.

The cake maker was willing to serve the cake, just not willing to write something on it that they disagreed with.

The difference is quite obvious to me.

Early so you think that a transwoman who believes they are a woman should have to ice 'transwomen are men, get over it' on to a cake, if that is their business?

As individuals we all have the right to our beliefs and to hold those and say/not say what we want, as a business, if you provide a service I think you should perform it without discrimination.

They did provide the service. They made the cake and they provided pens so that the customer could write the message themselves. They did not want to be forced to write something they did not believe.

What about “abortion is murder” early? That’s not inciting anything. That’s just an opinion. Should be forced to ice?

Earlywalker

So if a transwoman ran a bakery and someone went in and asked for a cake that said 'Women Don't Have Penises', you think the transwoman should be forced to do that?

^By allowing businesses to refuse service based on them not liking your morals sets a dangerous president.

It was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was.^

This is about compelled speech. Not providing a service. x 10000

I think if a business says they provide a service, they should provide that service. Even if their morals and the person they’re providing a service too collide.

I am utterly against pharmacists and doctors etc refusing to provide access to abortion or contraception because of ‘religious beliefs’ and so on so would be a complete hypocrite to say this shouldn’t apply to all aspects of businesses.

Providing an icing on cake is what your job is, if you’ve stated ‘any words on any cake’ it’s not your job to police what people want on that cake. If you have certain criteria, you should make that clear.

Obviously if it said something like ‘kill all blacks’ that’s racism/incitement to violence and against the law so they can reasonably refuse.

Providing the service for which you are paid for, does not mean you agree with their views. God knows I’ve dealt with some absolute assholes in previous line of work, but my job and my personal opinions are two separate things.

You are consistently moaning about GC people being denied their right to talk or businesses refusing them entry to premises to discuss feminism.

By allowing businesses to refuse service based on them not liking your morals sets a dangerous president.

It was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was.

As individuals we all have the right to our beliefs and to hold those and say/not say what we want, as a business, if you provide a service I think you should perform it without discrimination.

Obviously some things are not black and white, e.g my salon has a disclaimer that they can refuse service based on personal hygiene reasons, which is fair enough if your service involves touching a client and your personal hygiene is a big factor within the service.

Yes, GC!

There's a reason why justice (interestingly traditionally portrayed as a woman) is shown blindfolded. It's meant to indicate that the law applies, impartially, without prejudice, to everyone - nice, nasty, morally virtuous, morally lacking... everyone should be treated the same before the law.

You don't get to introduce laws which say "free speech, but only for that subset of people who say things I agree with." Or "you can be compelled to say things I deem to be nice, but no-one gets to tell me to say things I deem to be nasty." It doesn't work like that. It can't work like that without being either completely arbitrary or hopeless partial and politicised.

I feel like most adults in this country have lost the ability to assess a situation and look ahead to its unintended consequences.

I feel like this too, and it is really frightening. We are now completely at the mercy of whoever is in power, and whoever will come into power next. It seems so easy for the wool to be pulled over people's eyes.

Mr Lee, is seems, is a man who refuses to accept "No!" for an answer.

He seems to want to force himself on us [via his views] against our consent.

What kind of man behaves like this, I wonder?

FFS this thread is frustrating. So many people missing the point

I think it is a form of abuse not to accept no for an answer and to continue to take someone to court until that no is overturned. It is using the law as a form of coercion.

I hope Mr Lee loses as otherwise it is a very dangerous precedent.

In a statement, Mr Lee's solicitor said the latest legal bid "does not directly implicate the owners of Ashers bakery or challenge their right to privately hold religious/political views".

"Instead the case will be against the United Kingdom, a member state of the European Court," the statement read.

It added: "The latest hearings will attempt to challenge that ruling at the highest human rights court in Europe, citing the Supreme Court failed to give appropriate weight to Mr Lee's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mr Lee really believes that his right to force someone to do something they dont believe in is more important than the rights of everyone else to object to stuff.

One of the banks refused to let a GC group open an account with them because the didn't support their goals. Is that OK?

No, it's not, but the account manager is perfectly free to refuse to write in their account opening letter "we support your aims".

whatsthecomingoverthehill par for the course, then...

I can only presume early et al would be absolutely willing to write the vile examples I gave on a cake if they were in the cake decorating business?