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 lesson here is to think about proving negatives before expressing them with such certainty

No, that is not the lesson. If you assert a negative, the burden of proof (not just in the courts) always falls on the person disputing the negative. In your world, I cannot possibly assert with certainty that no man has ever been to Mars because there is no way of proving that. Most people (including, I rather suspect, you) would take the view that it is up to someone disagreeing with that statement to prove that it is wrong.

I agree with the couple completely.

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

No they are not.
re your points:
1.) asking people to sign a petition is just that, asking, people are freely available to refuse
2.)kind of comes under this ruling, they are free to be offended by the leaflets but that doesn't mean they can demand they not be visible or destroyed.

Being pro free speech isn't a right/left wing issue, there are already laws against incited hatred, this case was specifically about forcing others to essentially conform to others.

This ruling was a significant stop on the slippery slope of going down the U.S route of political persuasion being a protected characteristic and although this is traditionally an extreme right/left issue - anti/pro LBGQT it is good that I can turn down working for Neo-Nazi's because they are essentially Neo-Nazi's.

Those trying to turn it into a right/left issue are missing the bigger picture and should start to realise that "First they came for.... " is being played out in the clash of GC feminists/pro trans debate to understand the slippery slope of no platforming etc etc and the right to free speech

Ffs! Precedent! Clearly thought I was on a trump thread

DioneTheDiabolist
Thank you.
I know you all hate my views, but seeing the supreme court has allowed companies to hold views, I abhor, and they now could refuse you sell me (anyone) a wedding cake if either of my 2 boys is gay, but sell me one if they marry a lady, can I ask just like I avoid vegan/vegetarian restaurants, because I eat meat, and after having visit numerous abattoirs, as an herdsman, refuse to use Jewish or Muslim butchers, they slaughter in an inhumane way, surely all Christian business owners, must now have to tell all of us, that they are, and therefore I too can express my right, also as the supreme court lords and lady have given them the right to refuse, to refuse to ever spend a single penny and also the C of E and catholic church should no longer be in the law making roles. Freedom is a two way thing.
Also it is only the rich who have freedom of speech, see PRH47BRIDGE calling me libellous, I would never say that, too anyone, we can all make assumptions of people, I notice it always the rich who use courts to get their way.

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

This is precisely the point - but then, as countless MN threads show, there are some who'd like to be able to do just that. We see it all the time, with cries of "bigot" and threats to report when someone posts an honest but perhaps unwelcome opinion

As I suggested upthread, if the judgement gives even a slight pause for thought to such folk, maybe it was all worth it in the end

Anotherlurker
Bollocks in the second thread, the OP clearly said "I found a pile of pro life leaflets in the local university reception, and believe it's wrong, AIBU?" every answer on that thread said either report it and the university will destroy them and ban the distributor, or go back and destroy them yourself. How is that free speech.
Look at feminist chat, most women attacking any free speech which isn't anti trans. It even crept on here.
A certain poster said I was libellous and I was called an idiot, and told to piss of with my class wars. Free speech is the allowance of all views, up to a point.
Because if you are all right, why has the press and mumsnet gone on about anti semantic beliefs all summer, because if you can be seen to be racist and homophobic and transphobic, with the supreme courts backing, free speech old boy, why not anti semantic, anti Christian, anti Muslim, if you don't approve of same sex marriage and that's okay, I don't want MP's to get 15% pay rises or back private schools with 0% VAT or approve of nuclear weapons, or the BBC licence fee been charged to students, so I suppose I can write to Mrs May, Mr Hammond and HMRC and say that I am no longer willing to pay for them, so I will pay 20% less tax please. I bet you now I would go to jail for my free speech/right not to do it.
Funny that.

And now ...

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/11/gay-cake-christian-institute-photography/?utmsource=Facebook&utmmmedium=Buffer&utmcampaign=PN

2madcats
Good for Perfocal.com
Their owner said, I quote "It has been accepted in the highest court in the Uk, that private companies can accepted bookings and then if they feel it goes against their morals, refuse that booking if it offends their sensibilities and it's not counted as discriminatory"
So that okay then surely?

I wonder if this okay with you all, why my grandparents and parents generation fought so hard to ban the following signs in houses all over UK, in the 1950-60's
No DOGS, NO BLACKS or IRISH, I guess with should add No QUEERS/POOFS to that list now. God we are going back nearly 7 decades, I thought we where better, obviously not.

Bollocks in the second thread, the OP clearly said "I found a pile of pro life leaflets in the local university reception, and believe it's wrong, AIBU?" every answer on that thread said either report it and the university will destroy them and ban the distributor, or go back and destroy them yourself. How is that free speech.
People have the right to protest, they can campaign a private company or individual to do something, doesn't mean they have to.
A university may agree and destroy the leaflet.
It's free speech as freedom of speech is not freedom without consequences, if you put something in private property, people have the right to complain about it and ask for action to be taken, doesn't mean action will be taken.

Look at feminist chat, most women attacking any free speech which isn't anti trans. It even crept on here.
Again people debating is not shutting down freedom of speech. Also mumsnet is a private company, so they don't have to provide a platform for anything. If they say we will delete anything that isn't about biscuits, they are totally free to do that.

A certain poster said I was libellous and I was called an idiot, and told to piss of with my class wars. Free speech is the allowance of all views, up to a point.
You are free to go on about classwars, people are free to tell you its ridiculous on a thread about this topic, free speech ftw.

Because if you are all right, why has the press and mumsnet gone on about anti semantic beliefs all summer, because if you can be seen to be racist and homophobic and transphobic, with the supreme courts backing, free speech old boy, why not anti semantic, anti Christian, anti Muslim, if you don't approve of same sex marriage and that's okay.
Can I think racist thoughts, yes but I'd be an arse hole. If I decided to say some racist shit out loud to somone, exercising my freedom of speech, I'd be arrested as it's a hate crime. If someone came to me and asked me to bake a cake with peace to all mankind on it, no matter what the message is I don't have to do it.

Freedom of speech is different from the freedom of thought or expression. You are free to use freedom of speech to say whatever you want, there may be consequences due to laws or people arguing back or whatever, but you don't have the right to force me to do something or think something.

I don't want MP's to get 15% pay rises or back private schools with 0% VAT or approve of nuclear weapons, or the BBC licence fee been charged to students, so I suppose I can write to Mrs May, Mr Hammond and HMRC and say that I am no longer willing to pay for them, so I will pay 20% less tax please. I bet you now I would go to jail for my free speech/right not to do it.
Funny that.
Not really its common sense, can you write to them and complain and lobby, yes. Can you stop paying them, sure if you want, but again freedom to do something is not freedom without consequences, you are free to stop paying, but the consequences are you might end up in court/fined etc because of the laws of the land.

The supreme court came to the conclusion that they came to basically, because we have a freedom of "thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression(article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest
beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging
them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown,
and it had not been in this case [56, 62]."

No DOGS, NO BLACKS or IRISH, I guess with should add No QUEERS/POOFS to that list now. God we are going back nearly 7 decades, I thought we where better, obviously not.
Well that would be illegal, they didn't refuse to serve him, they had served him before and offered to serve him again with a different cake, they just can't be forced to write something.

You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what is a very clear ruling 2boysandacairn.

The couple did not refuse to serve anyone. They offered to print the cake without the slogan. It wasn’t about the person, they just weren’t willing to make the cake.

I wonder if this okay with you all, why my grandparents and parents generation fought so hard to ban the following signs in houses all over UK, in the 1950-60's
No DOGS, NO BLACKS or IRISH, I guess with should add No QUEERS/POOFS to that list now. God we are going back nearly 7 decades, I thought we where better, obviously not.

Is there a full moon tonight?

Bollocks in the second thread, the OP clearly said "I found a pile of pro life leaflets in the local university reception, and believe it's wrong, AIBU?" every answer on that thread said either report it and the university will destroy them and ban the distributor, or go back and destroy them yourself

Not sure what you are getting at, but it's not illegal, disregarding Mumsnet being representative of anything, the forum is freely willing to be offended at anything, they can raise a hate mob to destroy the leaflets, what they cannot do is force the university to support their view via a legal route.

The rest of your comment is not really related to free speech and more of a rant, I have cut and tried to retype a response.

In a general sense, you are free to express your opinions about whatever you please, people can also appose your views(although shouting bigot at every opportunity is becoming a base line meme and can usually be brushed off), that is free speech. So long as you are not inciting hatred you do not have to conform to any political belief that you do not agree with and the opposing view cannot make you confirm via legal duress.

Free speech trumps everything. Lose that and we lose everything. In any event, the real issue is why was such a humongous amount of public money spent in pursuing this case?

‘Some animals are more equal than others.’

I am totally for free speech! I am so grateful for all those feminists who have spoken on my behalf and managed to get me to work to the same pension age as my fellow man

Funny, I have called no one bigoted, or an idiot, or closed free speech down by telling other posters they are infantile or calling them libellous. I have been polite, tried to explain my views and why I don't like certain posters. I even explained that I have changed my mind on same sex marriage, trans gender and even accepted Brexit. Unlike so many free speech supporters on here, who clearly think I should go away.
But once again, can you tell me how, as a Christian, not supporting same sex marriage, is not homophobic? Bollocks to this smoke screen we wouldn't sell one to a straight man/women. FFS it's discrimination, clearly, but it's okay, because they are Christian.

God no wonder my generation is not religious anymore, and the like of my boys see Christians as irrelevant to modern day society. Also why local churches have 70 on any Sunday.
Wednesday ruling proved Christians have no place in modern Britain, and sadly the highest court in the UK backs that

I'd ban all the boring bastards.

Funny, I have called no one bigoted

Erm....

you all support a bigot view of the world

PaintingOwls further up the thread has me thinking about what slogans/messages I’d have to refuse to script on a cake. What would cause my hand to shake so much that I’d have to put the icing tube down?

There are plenty I’d have trouble with, but do anyway. Not much would keep me up at night.

Except poor grammar.

‘Your Awesome Nanna’ or ‘Good Buy Gary, well miss U’ would break me.

Turns out it’s ‘free speach’ I have a moral problem with, not free speech.

That's nice, but we're on the internet. typical argument of some one losing an argument on the internet. @Paul did you really say I needed a higher standard of proof on an internet message board than in court? Mental.

Pualey, you support the views of the Christian Institue, which was heavily censored by the Charity Commission for it's homophobic views, you back the right to think racist thoughts, even if that makes the person holding that view an arsehole, your words.
The defendants in this case are backed by the DUP and The Paisley family, who call the pope Anti Christ's, they are backed by NI's worst evangelic churches, who back homosexual conversion therapies and say LBGT communities will burn in hell and are the damnation of the world.
I always look at who's backing the righteous campaigns, I try to support, that's why I don't give to Oxfam, Christian Aid or do shoeboxes anymore, but support my local school in buying the education of African kids and paying for a school too, plus donations to a local Ukrainian lady who goes back to their orphanages.

Look who you stand with. It says all you need to know. I have only see one LGBT spokesperson support this, and he's a celebrity rent a gob, so I stand with my kids and the 2 Lesbians we know who are horrified by this decision. I know where history came from and where we are going, I won't stand by and allow it.

you back the right to think racist thoughts, even if that makes the person holding that view an arsehole, your words

Even yeah I back the right to not police thoughts, how would you even go about not supporting that, how do you plan on policing thoughts?? I don't want to live in 1984, just as I supoort the right free speech as it's all or nothing, so you don't support freedom of thought? As it's all or nothing either everyone has the right to freedom of thought or no one does. Which unfortunately means some shit stuff too.

I don't support the Christian institute, saying everyone who supports this ruling must align themselves with X Y Z is ridiculous. I support the freedom of expression or lack thereof, I support the European human rights act which enshrines these things. I "stand" with myself, who is part of the lgb community but also supports the right to free speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, I'm not going to back making someone be forced to write something they don't believe in as I don't want to be forced to create something I don't believe in, there's people on all sides of all arguments, I'm not going to be like ok then I won't support that basic freedom because some religious people are also supporting it

People aren't saying Gay marriage is fair game. We can think that people who object to gay marriage are bigots and wrong and still understand that they don't HAVE to decorate a cake supporting gay marriage.

In turn, none or us can be forced to provide our services to support issues we disagree with - that includes you and me op. So we can decline to make the Hitler birthday cake, or print the "twaw" posters or whatever we personally don't like. It's not discrimination.