Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Flatasapancakenow · 11/10/2018 18:22

I wish the OP would stop using "disability is the result of your parents' sin" like it's an example of a commonly held Christian belief. I'm a Christian and have never heard this view expressed.

Justanotherlurker · 11/10/2018 18:31

Anyway this decision means that right wingers who support the baker will no longer be able to clutch their pearls at anyone "no platforming" a person whose beliefs they find offensive given that this was a kind of culinary no platforming!

If you are looking at this as a point scoring exercise then you are looking at it the wrong way, if you are happy with no platforming (which is a traditional weapon of the left) then it will also be used against you.

No platforming isn't the same as what this is about anyway.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 11/10/2018 18:31

this decision means that right wingers who support the baker will no longer be able to clutch their pearls at anyone "no platforming" a person whose beliefs they find offensive

Not at all; anyone from any "wing" can object to no-platforming just as they always have, but unless there's outright discrimination they can't insist it's done some other way. They might not like that - I don't like some of the no-platforming myself - but that doesn't mean this view gets to overrule someone else's choice

A PP mentioned the example of MNHQ's moderation, and FWIW I'm not keen on the deletion of anything at all to do with a certain community group or a particular couple of parents. But that doesn't matter; it's their site and within the law it's up to them to choose - just as the Ashers did

ChooChooBeanz · 11/10/2018 18:32

Although I hate homophobia I agree with the decision.

Although just for insight, being from NI, there is a slight political / sectarian

LassWiADelicateAir · 11/10/2018 18:35

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.....

What a ridiculous comment. The system permitted 2 appeals and ultimately they won.

ChooChooBeanz · 11/10/2018 18:36

Typed too soon

...element to this story. The bakers were supported by the DUP who are a really bigoted party here - who force their religious beliefs on everyone. I think the discrimination the gay community feel as a result of the DUP revved up these feelings with regards to this situation. The DUP are a heinous party

2madcats · 11/10/2018 18:41

Flatasapancakegirl but that is exactly the point, not all Christians are against equal marriage either. The bible has been used to promote slavery and misogyny so if a Christian feels it is against their beliefs to promote material in favour of women's rights or anti slavery they will have no problem objecting now !

exaltedwombat · 11/10/2018 18:49

Peter Tatchell, in today's 'Times', approves.

"As a human rights defender, I believe that people should be free to refuse to endorse ideas that conflict with their beliefs. So I’m delighted that the Supreme Court has ruled that Ashers Bakery in Belfast was within its rights to refuse to decorate a cake with the message “Support Gay Marriage” because it went against their religious convictions.

I say this as someone who supports marriage equality and who disagrees with Ashers’ opposition to it. But for me, it’s an issue of freedom of expression, which includes the right not to endorse ideas that some people might find offensive. It’s why I wouldn’t support forcing a gay baker to decorate a cake with an anti-gay marriage message. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Ashers did not discriminate against Gareth Lee, the customer who ordered the cake, because he was gay. They agreed to make him a cake but refused to decorate it with the pro-gay marriage wording he requested.

If the Supreme Court had ruled against Ashers it would have established a dangerous principle that businesses cannot refuse a customer’s request to propagate a message, even if it is sexist, anti-gay, or xenophobic, and even if they have a conscientious objection to it.

Although most Christians in Britain support same-sex civil marriage in register offices, the owners of Ashers Bakery do not. They say their faith requires them to oppose gay marriage and anything that endorses it. Our laws make clear that discrimination against individuals is wrong. But in a democracy people should be able to discriminate against ideas with which they disagree.
The Ashers judgment has implications much wider than the LGBT community. If the Supreme Court had ruled against them, it would mean that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be required to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial. It could also encourage far-right extremists to demand that businesses promote anti-immigrant opinions.

Equality laws protect people against discrimination. But requiring Ashers and others to promote ideas they find offensive would have been an authoritarian move and be incompatible with personal freedom."

Aridane · 11/10/2018 18:51

OP - I don’t think YABU. At least if you are, so too are the other two courts that share your view (but which the Supreme Court did not)

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 11/10/2018 18:58

I'm sorry but, whilst I am not saying Max's thesis is right, he is right about the burden of proof. His claim is that only Christian businesses are targeted. You are claiming he is wrong, so you are clearly arguing that non-Christian businesses are also targeted.

False. You've invented that. I'm claiming nothing, I'm asking for proof which is simply not the same thing. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which is not me.

You are asking him to prove other religions aren’t targeted? How can he prove that?! The onus is actually on you, to provide evidence that his statement is false.

Ooh look, another one who doesn't get it. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, nobody else, and inability to prove a negative is the problem of the person making the claims.

ExeterMa · 11/10/2018 19:07

Chuckling at the person 'boycotting' both Ocado & Ashers... clearly not possible...

My gay work colleague who agreed with ruling but not that fond of Ashers' beliefs so gets his sausage roll there every morning!

Fionz · 11/10/2018 19:20

I wonder if the two gay guys owned the bakery, and a straight couple walked in and asked for a cake with the slogan "Ban all Gays" ... would they have made the cake?? Erm... I seriously doubt it.... why?? Cause it's not what THEY believe in!!

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 11/10/2018 19:24

Well, this ruling now means they can be clear they don't have to.

dwab45 · 11/10/2018 19:25

Don’t forget, the Supreme Court was deciding on the law not the facts of the case.

Aridane · 11/10/2018 19:26

Has anyone got a link to the court judgment?

Pualey · 11/10/2018 19:43

Sorry totally wrong link it's www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf

donkeyrace · 11/10/2018 19:46

Hooray for the Appeal Court judges. This whole situation from the start was an attempt to persecute Christians for holding their beliefs. There is too much of that provocation going on these days and it's high time it stopped!

2BoysandaCairn · 11/10/2018 19:47

Can I ask a question of all you bright people, so I am in minority of one, so going down different route, on here there seems to be massive support for pro choice on abortion. Two threads stick in my mind, who I may be wrong (PRH47 seems to not agree with my memories),
No1) a thread asking us all to support the petition demand no pro life demonstrations near abortion clinics, 98% approval,
No2) a poster complaining of pro life leaflets in an university campus/building, every poster told the OP to report and get leaflets destroyed.
We lost a baby to miscarriage, so this tough, we couldn't abort, but support others who do, but surely after Wednesday's ruling both of the above actions are illegal, or should be.
Wonder how many will agree now?

DioneTheDiabolist · 11/10/2018 19:50

Jaysus, I'm sorry I asked 2BoysandaCairn.Hmm

Only messing with you. Your answer was unexpected.
And class.Grin

prh47bridge · 11/10/2018 19:50

I believe the supreme court and PHR47, might just have to accept that

I do not understand why you have chosen to attack me personally. You have every right to disagree with the Supreme Court. I believe you have misunderstood the situation but nonetheless, you are entitled to disagree. However, the personal attacks you have launched on me accompanied by untrue smears about things you allege I believe are not acceptable. I note you still have not apologised.

You've invented that. I'm claiming nothing, I'm asking for proof which is simply not the same thing. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which is not me

You are asking him to prove a negative (i.e. that non-Christian businesses are not targeted) which is not possible. What possible evidence could he advance that would prove non-Christian businesses are not targeted? That is why the burden of proof falls on you. Sorry if I think in terms of court procedure but, in the civil courts, if he made his assertion and you wanted to dispute it, all he would have to do is come up with some cases that showed Christian businesses being targeted. As a number of such cases have been well publicised he would have no difficulty doing so. It would then be up to you to produce some cases that showed other businesses being targeted.

Has anyone got a link to the court judgment

The full judgement is at www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf

There is a short version for the press at www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-press-summary.pdf

PaulDacrreRimsGeese · 11/10/2018 20:16

You are asking him to prove a negative (i.e. that non-Christian businesses are not targeted) which is not possible. What possible evidence could he advance that would prove non-Christian businesses are not targeted?

His problem, not mine. The lesson here is to think about proving negatives before expressing them with such certainty.

That is why the burden of proof falls on you.

No it isn't and no it doesn't. Although it's nice to see you're no longer trying to pretend I'm making any kind of claim at all.

Sorry if I think in terms of court procedure but, in the civil courts, if he made his assertion and you wanted to dispute it, all he would have to do is come up with some cases that showed Christian businesses being targeted. As a number of such cases have been well publicised he would have no difficulty doing so. It would then be up to you to produce some cases that showed other businesses being targeted.

That's nice, but we're on the internet.

Pualey · 11/10/2018 20:16

, but surely after Wednesday's ruling both of the above actions are illegal, or should be.
Why would they be illegal or should be? They don't have any relevance to the judgement that someone shouldn't have to write/produce something they don't wantt to.
People can still protest or ask a private business to take something down and a private business can agree or leave them up.

Diva66 · 11/10/2018 20:20

YABU. This has been an important judgement upholding the Human Rights Act. The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Nobody can be compelled to state a political opinion which they do not agree with.

RepealtheGRA · 11/10/2018 20:22

YABU

Had they lost it would have set a dangerous president that speech/belief can be compelled.