Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that the Christian bakery case has potentially created a dangerous precedent.

565 replies

SummerGems · 10/10/2018 11:46

So, Christian cake bakers in NI have won their appeal against their refusing to bake a cake with a gay marriage slogan on it.

The judges have voted unanimously that this was not a case of discrimination or politics but that it was about freedom of speech and that they would have refused to make the cake even if it had been a straight person wanting the cake with a gay slogan on it...

But the sexuality argument aside, this has surely raised some questions in terms of the equality act and how far one should be allowed to go against that in the name of free speech?

After all,if your beliefs decree that people with disabilities are so because of the sins of their ancestors, or that single parents are committing wrong,should they be allowed to say so and refuse to serve them on the basis of their beliefs? Where does this end?

OP posts:
DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 11/10/2018 11:32

They should be allowed to run their business as they see fit. What's wrong with that?

clutches pearls

But then...then...if I'm not outraged and don't call them bigots how else can I show my right-on woke social justice warrior credentials?

MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 11:34

But then...then...if I'm not outraged and don't call them bigots how else can I show my right-on woke social justice warrior credentials?

And equally you should be able to call them bigots or whatever if you disagree with them, and no one is forcing you to buy their wares. Isn't freedom great?

prh47bridge · 11/10/2018 11:49

But it cost that bakers £200,000 in legal fees which just shows how much the equality industry stinks

The baker's fees are being paid for by the Christian Institute, which is a charity. I don't know if the bakers have asked for a costs order following this judgement. If they are awarded costs the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland will have to pay.

samG76 · 11/10/2018 11:52

JAPAB - I'd love what a "support circumcision cake" would look like!

Interestingly, if you were having a bris and you asked for a few rounds of sandwiches and cakes to feed the guests, the implication of the case is that the baker couldn't refuse the order because they don't agree with circumcision. But they could refuse to put a supportive message on the cake!

MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 11:57

The baker's fees are being paid for by the Christian Institute, which is a charity. I don't know if the bakers have asked for a costs order following this judgement. If they are awarded costs the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland will have to pay.

Good to know. Maybe the solicitors that profit from trying to suppress people's freedom should be made to pay? We'd see a lot less of these vexatious cases going to court.

CynthiaRothrock · 11/10/2018 12:22

I thinks its a sad state of affairs from both sides that it has gone this far. It has reminded me of a time when i was about 14 and i went to the dr about my period being agony. It was recommended i take the pill. I made an apt to see the dr the following week. When i turned up it was a different dr who refused to prescribe me the pill as it was against their beliefs. ( not sure if they still do this) i left and made an apt to see a different dr. I didnt kick off or take them to court. You cant force someone to do anything or belive something. It is their choice. Regardless of weather you think its right or wrong.

JAPAB · 11/10/2018 12:44

Interestingly, if you were having a bris and you asked for a few rounds of sandwiches and cakes to feed the guests, the implication of the case is that the baker couldn't refuse the order because they don't agree with circumcision. But they could refuse to put a supportive message on the cake!

I suppose they could argue that they would refuse even a non-Jew if buying for such an event. At first glance I would lean towards saying that businesses should not have to cater for events they have a moral problem with, whether a Bar Mitzvah or a meeting of the Adolf appreciation society.

In fact, something similar happened with a bank that refused to keep acounts for the BNP.

2BoysandaCairn · 11/10/2018 12:48

So glad to see a group of you freedom of speech supports supporting the Christian Institue. Who have taken legal action to stop the overturning of section 28, legal action to ban civil partnerships/same sex marriage, the rights of a registar not to marriage same sex couples. Backed the rights of hotel owners to ban homosexuals from sharing a room. Would like the same for non married couples. Also promote hard line christian views.
Sorry I despair, yesterday we are back to my youth in the 1970 and 1980's, where non straight people are second class citizens.
I hoped my 18 and 16 year boys could grow up in a tolerant country.
Thanks to 5 rich lady and lords they have no chance. After March next year expect more of it.
We of course have a vicar's daughter in power and extreme catholic in waiting to take over. Of course we do want to be like the commonwealth, where lbgt is illegal

MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 12:51

I hoped my 18 and 16 year boys could grow up in a tolerant country. Tolerance goes both ways.

Kr1stina · 11/10/2018 12:52

Yeah, it’s easy to support freedom of speech and belief for those you agree with isn’t it ?

MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 12:53

It's interesting how Christian's are always expected to compromise on their beliefs when the same isn't asked of adherents to other faiths.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/10/2018 12:55

The baker's fees are being paid for by the Christian Institute, which is a charity

Glad to hear this - I honestly didn't know

Better still if costs are awarded against those who brought the case, thus saving the charity money, but I guess we'll have to wait and see

2madcats · 11/10/2018 12:59

Christians aren't expected to compromise their own beliefs, I just wish they would stop expecting their beliefs to impinge o

2madcats · 11/10/2018 13:01

On the rights of others as happens frequently in NI.

I expect the same of all religions !

prh47bridge · 11/10/2018 13:07

Sorry I despair, yesterday we are back to my youth in the 1970 and 1980's, where non straight people are second class citizens

Rubbish. Non-straight people can go and buy a cake in Ashers if they want. Ashers cannot refuse to serve them. All this judgement says is that no-one, straight or non-straight, can force Ashers to put a particular slogan on a cake. Equally, no-one could force a gay bakery owner to produce a cake with the slogan, "Ban gay marriage".

I hoped my 18 and 16 year boys could grow up in a tolerant country

And, thanks to the Supreme Court, they can. As MaxDArnold says, tolerance goes both ways. That means tolerating those whose views differ from yours. Saying that someone who disagrees with gay marriage must produce a cake supporting gay marriage and face sanctions if they won't is clear intolerance.

pennydrew · 11/10/2018 13:10

Sorry I despair, yesterday we are back to my youth in the 1970 and 1980's, where non straight people are second class citizens

Not true. Not being able to force bakers to ice your cake does not mean you’re a ‘second class citizen’ and it’s kind of pathetic and entitled to make that claim.

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 11/10/2018 13:12

Good to know. Maybe the solicitors that profit from trying to suppress people's freedom should be made to pay? We'd see a lot less of these vexatious cases going to court.

This was not a vexatious case. That's a ridiculous argument when it was actually successful in more than one of the courts.

DioneTheDiabolist · 11/10/2018 13:15

What specifically about yesterday's ruling has you worried that your children will not grow up in a tolerant country 2BoysandaCairn?

Original poster
SummerGems · 11/10/2018 13:17

So interestingly I’ve seen statements from some saying how much of a victory this is for free speech and how they suddenly feel that as Christians they are finally permitted to admit that being gay is repulsive, a sin and that “God said that men shouldn’t take it up the bum.” But hey you all celebrate the victory. Hmm and yes, those are the exact words the individual used. He then went on to say that he’s glad that neither of his sons is gay. I suspect that neither of them would feel they could tell him if they were.....

As for people saying that they can’t understand why Christians are always the ones expected to compromise on their beliefs..... well if their beliefs weren’t abhorrent then perhaps people wouldn’t expect them to take a more real world view.

Oh and, I’m perfectly within my rights to say that because.... freedom of speech innit?

OP posts:
Original poster
SummerGems · 11/10/2018 13:20

And. For people bleating on about the money. Well the money was paid because the bakers refused to accept the ruling in the first place hence why it’s ended up here. Had they lost here it would still have been down to them for the fact it ended up at the Supreme Court after they lost two previous rulings.....

OP posts:
MaxDArnold · 11/10/2018 13:21

Oh and, I’m perfectly within my rights to say that because.... freedom of speech innit? Yes you are, and I support your right to say that even though I disagree. Very hypocritical that you can't extend that courtesy to others. Typical SJW I suppose.

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 11/10/2018 13:21

I'd be interested to hear about any actual documented instances of business refusing to provide services because they conflict with the owners non-Christian religious beliefs, and of them getting away with it because it's only Christians who are expected to compromise. Not your friend's friend or something you heard about on Facebook, but something that can be verified.

Hideandgo · 11/10/2018 13:22

The rights of a person to exist always trump the right of a person to a believe they shouldn’t exist.

JAPAB · 11/10/2018 13:24

Being a "second-class citizen" would surely be when you have fewer rights than others, or are generally regarded in society as being inferior.

It is not that people are legally allowed to criticise your beliefs or actions, per se. Or allowed to decline to support them?

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 11/10/2018 13:28

And. For people bleating on about the money. Well the money was paid because the bakers refused to accept the ruling in the first place hence why it’s ended up here. Had they lost here it would still have been down to them for the fact it ended up at the Supreme Court after they lost two previous rulings.....

Given that they actually won, you're stretching that argument further than it can really go. People aren't doing something unreasonable if they refuse to accept a judgement that is later overruled. They're not responsible for the previous errors.

That said, this wasn't actually a straightforward case and there was arguably some unclearness in the legal position. It's a shame it's cost 200k, but actually (and I'm a solicitor) I'm quite glad of the clarification. I actually don't think he should've brought the case in the first place because ethically I don't agree with his case. But all the stuff about punitive damages, one side or the other having done something wrong in contesting it, is ridiculous. This is a case that was arguable, particularly given case law that basically says when protected characteristics clash, the customer 'wins', and where they've both managed to persuade a court.

Swipe left for the next trending thread