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

[SummerGems]

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?

The case was reasonable to bring, as was the appeal; the final verdict supported freedom of speech.
I don't begrudge public money to settle such an important issue

On reflection, forcing someone to present a particular viewpoint is in some ways even worse than censorship

The Uk in the past has had laws against things like blasphemy
but I can't think of any laws forcing ordinary people (i.e. as part of their job) to say things in public with which they disagree

It is only dictatorships in show trials that demand the accused recant and state whatever views the state requires.

oops, i.e. NOT as part of their job
An employee might well have to say things they strongly disagree with.

An ordinary citizen cannot be forced by the state to
e.g. either praise or condemn Equal Marriage or abortion
including citizens who own a small business producing goods with text

So a gay baker could refuse to ice a cake with the words ‘homosexuals will burn for eternity in hell’ (a wee free cake, probably sugarless, bitterness and eggless).

Fine by me

Those of an authoritarian bent may be of the left, the right, religious, vegan / omnivore. It is probably a psychological characteristic, rather than being related to one's place on the political or religious spectrum

Couldn’t agree with this more ^

Why do I despair, and fear for the future, read this thread.
This was brought my 2 white middle class hard right Christians, who are clearly against free speech, or they would have iced the cake. My aunty was an liberal supporter all her life, she owned a bakery and produced cakes for the conservative, labour, Jewish, and gay population, even though that was illegal at one point.
I was brought up in a very low church/Methodist family, which taught that everyone, I mean everyone, black, white, Indian, Chinese, straight, gay, not sure, was to be treated the same, all came form god
I have in the last 30 years of my life I have walked away from Christianity, any belief system which allows child abusing vicars to stay in it, but refuses divorced, gay, bi sexual people rights and women the right to lead you in service or be a bishop, is morally corrupt and should have no legal standing in our society, let alone the chance to vote down laws.
I always laugh though, because if you Christians are right you are all going to spend along time in hell, because Jesus said let me decide the sin.

Finally I have no time for the likes of prhbridge47, because it was the likes of him and his best mate Sir Chris Woodhead, at Ofsted lead to the demonization of state comprehensives, and it's people like him and Lady Hale and the Law lords who will happily end social mobility for my poor working class boys, with their demands for grammar schools, and of course Lady Hale hates all forms of marriage, she wants free divorce and all in civil partnerships, not marriage, so of course she is willing to throw same sex marriage under a bus, gets her wish quicker.

Nope! 3 times... still no! Not a bloody word of it!

Can anyone help?

Personally in a case like this one, I would say any religious rights are bottom of any rights.
Race, Gender and Sexual orientation SHOULD ALWAYS TRUMP religion every time, if you disagree with this fine, but you are totally wrong, and you can try and prove your case, but will fail.
You are born your race, your gender (most cases) and your sexual orientation, no one FFS is born a Christian, Jew, Muslim and FFS many swap during their life times, many more than once. If you choose to follow a non proven, often intolerant belief system, you come last every bloody time for me, against Black, Mixed race, Indian, Chinese, Women, LBGT, you choose to be offended, grow up.

s, who are clearly against free speech, or they would have iced the cake
Free speech doesn’t mean you can force people to do things.
Do I support people’s freedom of speech hell yes even stuff I don’t support.
Would I make a website (my job) for something I didn’t want to, erm no.

It was worth spending public money to clarify this law, but I am rather surprised the EOC supported the action, they must have known that it was against existing precedent and were seeking to push the boundary but I'm unsure why, since forcing the baker to comply with making the cake would be to create a double-bladed weapon.

The 'Support gay Marriage' cake request was used by a gay rights activist to test the law and the law was duly tested. I can see no 'dangerous precedent' in the judgement - the baker's right not to produce an artefact supporting a political campaign he didn't want to was upheld, not a right to refuse his business service to a gay man (which he can't and didn't).

The law is is written in statute and tested in courts: judicial law has been a powerful tool in the fight for gay rights in the UK. To attempt to conflate the refusal to produce this particular slogan cake with illegal discrimination was wrong - that freedom not to comply is important.

who are clearly against free speech, or they would have iced the cake

On that basis mumsnet wouldn't be able to enforce their talk guidelines

Those of an authoritarian bent may be of the left, the right, religious, vegan / omnivore ...

Absolutely - but then some of us dislike authoritarian behaviour of all kinds, whether we agree with the standpoint it's coming from or not

If we find someone's views objectionable, surely it's better to ask "how do you feel that would work?", "have you considered ...?" or whatever, rather than simply cry "bigot" (which IME rarely gets anyone very far anyway)

Imho - political correctness is becoming the new anti blasphemy laws. Don't oppose the new social justice orthodoxy. If you do then you will find yourself dragged in front of the courts like those bakers, or subject to harassment and loss of career like the women who question trans genderism.

clearly against free speech, or they would have iced the cake

Being in favour of free speech means you support the right of others to express their views, not that you give them a platform. Compelling people to say things that they don't want to say is the opposite of free speech.

I mean everyone, black, white, Indian, Chinese, straight, gay, not sure, was to be treated the same

I agree. And this bakery would be in trouble if they behaved differently. They won because they would not have baked this cake for any customer.

Finally I have no time for the likes of prhbridge47

This is a personal attack which is completely uncalled for and also completely wrong about me. I look forward to your apology.

it was the likes of him and his best mate Sir Chris Woodhead, at Ofsted lead to the demonization of state comprehensives

Sir Chris Woodhead was not my "best mate". I never met him. I do not agree with a lot of his views. I have never demonised state comprehensives.

it's people like him and Lady Hale and the Law lords who will happily end social mobility for my poor working class boys, with their demands for grammar schools

I am against grammar schools, although I try not to get involved in that debate. Their proponents believe they help social mobility. The evidence available suggests they don't. That is why I am against them. We should ensure that children from deprived backgrounds get the best education possible to promote social mobility.

Lady Hale hates all forms of marriage, she wants free divorce and all in civil partnerships, not marriage, so of course she is willing to throw same sex marriage under a bus, gets her wish quicker

To go from her support for no fault divorce (something many lawyers support as they see the problems the current system causes) to the idea that she wants to end marriage is a huge jump. I can see no reason to believe that she wants to throw same sex marriage under a bus. There were five judges involved in this case. Nothing in their judgement is in any way damaging to same sex marriage.

It's not just about religious rights

It is about the freedom for anyone to refuse to print a particular slogan

• even if they have no religous or political affiliations, or even just because they are an unsociable sod who always faces the other way in a bus queue.

That is an essential part of freedom of speech:
not being forced to say or print something with which you disagree

We are (mostly) having a reasonable debate here.
Personal attacks should have no place

I often disagree with prhbridge47 and some other posters on other topics, but on any thread, I would 100% defend their right to disagree with me ( and to be wrong )

you all support a bigot view of the world, financially supported by a bigoted charity.
Well that’s not true now is it? You can support the concept of the ruling without supporting the bakery. It’s not bigoted to believe that people shouldn’t be forced to write or create something they don’t want to.

2boys I have supported gay rights and abortion since the early 1970s

I despair at the damage MrsT's policies have caused to the wc and especially her de-industrialisation of the NE, where my late father came from
I admit I totally misjudged at the time, the effect of her policies, as I was celebrating the 1st woman PM

My father told me of the near-starvation and horrific deprivation he and his family suffered in the NE during the 1920s and 1930s.
Although I am professional mc now, I grew up very poor after his early death and I only achieved mc education & income via free uni education & maintenance grants, right through to a STEM Phd. No longer available.

I am also mixed race and suffered continual racism as the first non-white child in my primary school

So I am fully aware of how the swing to the pitiless hard right over the last 40 years has hammered the most vulnerale in society
and taken away most rungs on the ladder to climb out of poverty

Despite all that, I think that removing freedom of speech / forcing " approved" speech to the extent you want would damage the vulnerable,
far more than it would damage the powerful.

We only have our voices; the state has police and prisons - and as final resort - guns & tanks

but believe their should be more rights for trans gender people. What rights do you think they need that they do not already have?

Well that’s not true now is it? You can support the concept of the ruling without supporting the bakery. It’s not bigoted to believe that people shouldn’t be forced to write or create something they don’t want to.

You can't reason with stupid, Pualey, but I think you are making a good attempt at doing so!

My apologies... I would not have asked that question if I had been more observant. This is not the right thread. I withdraw my question!

he is a supporter of Mrs Thatcher's disastrous free market reforms, Section 48 in schools (which of course banned teaching of gay rights, lovely right wing care for all) and supports the sale of state schools and ending free education and that all private schools are best

Kindly withdraw this comment. I do not support Section 28 and have never done so. I do not support ending free education. I have several times pointed out that state schools have now caught up with private schools in terms of results so private schools are not best. I do support free markets but that does not mean I uncritically support Margaret Thatcher's reforms. Whilst I support robust debate, this is downright libel.

Why hasn't the great Lady Hale, banned university fees for the working classes, supported union rights, supported more Wc class kids into Oxbridge and the law courts, demanded the ending of cuts to funding in state schools, SEN funded, the PIP system , the criminal deaths in Social Housing, the use of food banks, the roll out of universal credit, you know things that attack the future of working class kids

Parliament is supreme. I do not know why you are concentrating on Lady Hale and ignoring the other judges in this case but her role is to rule on the legal cases that come before the Supreme Court. She cannot overrule the government willy nilly just because she disagrees with them.

So it's ok to have free speech, but I the thick one can't have no time for the likes of PRH47BRIDGE, so basically you are against free speech, at least I know.
I apologise he is always correct, I am totally wrong, I may have namechanged, but I have followed the education threads for at least 4 years, and searched back other ones, MR Bridge has often posted glowing comments about OFSTED and Sir Woodhead's leadership, he even glowing commented on an obituritory thread.

Sorry but disagreeing with some one is free speech. I have no time for Nigel Farage, Tony Blair, Jacob Rees Mogg, Frank Field, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Sachs, and numerous others.

But don't worry I get it now this is a conversion for adults, and thick, CSE educated northern WC council estate posters, know nothing are to thick to understand the law, to thick to understand free speech, to thick to deserve rights, of course that's mumsnet pet project, ban 2boys from thinking then he won't dare to have an opinion and wont vote and we can have the country you want

GOT IT, I REALISED MUMSNET WASN'T FOR WC CLASS PEOPLE ALONG TIME AGO, PEOPLE LIKE ME AND MY UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLN ATTENDING DS DON'T BELONG, FFS DON'T MENTION DS2 AND HIS PREDICTED 2+ AT GCSE.
I stopped posting weeks ago, and I will again, now, don't worry though people like me and Gordon Brown's Bigotted Oldham lady, will continue to vote and encourage our kids they deserve just as much as you, if you listened Brexit wouldn't have been a surprise.
Bye.

Given this ruling, businesses should now be required to state their position before a gay (or any other group) are refused & humiliated when they ask for something.

A simple sign saying "we will not serve pro gay cakes", hanging in the window would suffice.

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.....

And your point is?