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?

Freedom of religion is a protected characteristic, to ask someone to product a piece of artwork (icing on the cake) that is contrary to their views is discriminatory

2boys it’s clear you don’t understand what the judgement said. Your further examples are not in point. To refuse to make a wedding cake for 2 grooms would be discrimination because you were refusing to do something on the basis of their sexual orientation. The “no blacks” etc signs are directly discriminatory on race grounds

I have struggled with this case as I disagree with the bakery’s view on equal marriage. But I find it more helpful to think of it in terms of how I would feel if someone asked me to write a slogan on a cake with a message I felt was morally wrong - for example “abortion is murder”. I would point blank refuse to do it even though it could possibly be argued to be unlawful discrimination.

But once again, can you tell me how, as a Christian, not supporting same sex marriage, is not homophobic?

If you define "homophobic" as 'demonstrating prejudice against...' or 'unjustly discriminating against...' then it is possible, in theory at least, to hold a view of marriage that excludes anything other than 1M1W, but which does not qualify for the above definitions.

That said, even if it is impossible to hold to a traditional view of marriage without homophobia (and Islamophobia and Mormonophobia etc etc due to the prohibition on polygamy) well, people are allowed to be homophobic and express this up to a point. A lot here feel that 'refusing to write a pro message' is on the "allowed" list.

PRH47 seems to not agree with my memories

I do not understand your problem with me. You have made accusations about my alleged beliefs that are simply incorrect. I cannot comment on the two threads you mention on the post from which I've taken this quote. I have never been on any such threads. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

Also it is only the rich who have freedom of speech, see PRH47BRIDGE calling me libellous

Freedom of speech has limits. One of them is libel. When you make claims about me that are untrue and that could damage my reputation that is potentially libel. The same would be true if I made untrue and damaging claims about you.

Still waiting for an apology.

I’m on the liberal end of liberal scale. I abhor any kind of -ism, I have absolutely no time for anyone who decides to hate someone else on the grounds of race, colour, religion, gender, sexuality or any other part of character.

I think the court got it absolutely correct. The bakery offers a service and was clear they would serve the customer, just not with that slogan. They disagree with it and didn’t want for their business to be associated with it. That is absolutely their right. Just as they might have done if there had been a racist slogan or a Nazi slogan. This is the same law which allows other private businesses to define content on, say, social media platforms. It allows Facebook to ban racist groups. It allows you tube to take down Alex Jones’ content. It allows mumsnet to delete posts which don’t meet their guidelines.

It’s not about free speech, or homophobia, it is about a business having a right to choose what its associations are, what it is aligned with. And that is how it should be. We can’t decide we want things a certain way, just because it doesn’t align with our world view.

For me, the only depressing result in this case is that it had to go all the way to the UK Supreme Court before anything much was made of the very obvious point that it was the message, not the person, therefore there was no discrimination.

When old and worthy campaigners like Peter Tatchell agree with the bakers, everyone should listen.

Well done Lady Hale. She is a credit to the Supreme Court and the UK lucky to have her.

2madcats

And now ...

^www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/11/gay-cake-christian-institute-photography/?utmsource=Facebook&utmm_medium=Buffer&utm_campaign=PN^

I hope the photography company has taken legal advice on this. If the Christian Institute wanted them the photography company to produce a pro-Christian slogan of some description then they would be within their rights to refuse service on the basis that they would refuse the same service to everyone. On the other hand, if - as it appears - they declined service on the basis of Christian Institute being Christian then they've discriminated and have broken the law.

Perhaps the NI Equalities Commission will take up the case on behalf of the Christian Institute?

Or perhaps they've just blown their litigation budget? or they regard freedom of religion as the wrong sort of human right

There are some on here who claim to be liberal and feel strongly that everyone is equal (unless of course you disagree with my world views, in which case you are not equal and do not deserve human rights such as freedom of speech).

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

Yes actually, that's precisely the lesson here. Your failure to understand it doesn't change that.

When one is not in a position to know whether something is true, it's idiotic to make vast claims about it. If this then leads the idiotic claimer into a position where they can't even attempt to back up what they say, that's their fault and their problem.

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.

The person losing on the internet is the person who made a claim, needs to back it up and has failed to do so because they can't possibly. That is and remains you.

So here we are a day on, no proof offered for your claim and no attempt even made. Says it all.

Think the outcome is sensible

But once again, can you tell me how, as a Christian, not supporting same sex marriage, is not homophobic?

Are we forgetting that same sex marriage isn’t even legal in the country where this happened? They don’t agree with something which, rightly or wrongly (I think it should be legal fwiw), isn’t possible in their country.

If I was asked to make a beautiful lemon cake and then put a Nazi symbol on top of it, i'd damn right refuse.

I'd be happy to put anything else on it (a unicorn, gay rights slogan, a penis, womans tits) but the swastika is a no.

Now I'm not saying a gay rights slogan and a swastika are the same, of cause they are not, im saying that I find the swastika offensive, others may not therefore they can make your cake. and the same with the gay rights slogan, these bakers found it offensive, so they were happy to make the cake but not the decoration.

I think that's fair enough, they didn't refuse their service, as long as everyone sticks to that we're good.

not really, no. What a ridiculous waste of money though!

At first I was angry thinking they were refusing on the grounds of the couple's sexuality. But if they are refusing to write words they find offensive on the cake that is an entirely different matter. There are some words I would not write, or put anywhere, let alone on a cake to be seen in public. I think the fact that Mumsnet won't print the words because they are outside the guidelines says enough for me.

I agree with the ruling. If people are forced to go against their beliefs then its a breach of human rights and freedom of speech.

Would you expect a muslim to write an anti islamic message or a gay bakery to write a homophobic slogan. I think the judge made the right decision.

At first I was angry thinking they were refusing on the grounds of the couple's sexuality. But if they are refusing to write words they find offensive on the cake that is an entirely different matter. There are some words I would not write, or put anywhere, let alone on a cake to be seen in public. I think the fact that Mumsnet won't print the words because they are outside the guidelines says enough for me.

I have no idea what your post is about. It wasn't a couple - it was a man, who wanted the cake. And what the bakery refused to ice the cake with was the slogan "Support Gay Marriage", which is not "banned" by MN.

It’s regrettable that same-sex marriage happened to be the subject of this ruling. Nevertheless I agree with PP that the principle of the decision of correct.

Nobody is equating gay marriage with Nazism (and a baker who refused to bake a swastika cake would probably be protected by hate crime legislation). You have to understand that this decision sets a precedent which must then be applied to a whole host of other issues.

Would you support a baker who refused to bake a cake with an anti marriage reform slogan?

So is there now going to be allowed segregation on our high streets where gay people aren't welcome? I can't see many LGBT people feeling welcome in shops that are openly offended by who they are. Will this spread to discriminate against other groups of people and fuel hatred of minorities.

You have completely missed the point Walkingdeadfangirl

LassWiADelicateAir, the point of this ruling and the consequences are two different things. Do you think this will have no consequences at all?

Walkingdeadfangirl

The only consequence is that people cannot be obliged to express political or religious opinions they don't agree with. I tend to think this is a very important civil right.

The fact that the successful parties in this case were Christian and the unsuccessful party gay is a simple detail. There is precisely nothing in this judgment that would legally entitle "segregation on our high streets where gay people aren't welcome". People focussing on the religious beliefs of the defendants ought to remember in any case that the purpose of human rights isn't to protect people we generally approve of. It is to ensure that in a pluralistic society such as ours, everyone has their civil rights protected, including those you disapprove of. Yes - by God - it even protects religious people who hold views you may regard as homophobic. That's the whole point.

As has been pointed out repeatedly during this litigation, the bakery was happy to serve the plaintiff and in fact would do so again - as they are obliged by law to do.

The more I think about this judgment, the better I think it is. It is absolutely wrong to coerce people into backing causes they don't agree with by threat of legal sanction. There is too much of that going on already. It's bullying, high-handed and overbearing. If you want an idea to gain approval in society it's much better to do so by argument and persuasion rather than coercion through the law.

TomPinch

Hear hear

The only consequence is that people cannot be obliged to express political or religious opinions they don't agree with. I tend to think this is a very important civil right.
But a consequence will be that gay people will feel unable to go into that shop because of the owners hostile beliefs. Its divides society into businesses that tolerate difference and those that dont.

*Walkingdeadfangirl

Are you actually reading the thread?