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?

I didn't say that, I am just trying to explain how it feels to me, a non Christian living in NI.

Democracy in NI means using the petition of concern to block a majority vote !

You wouldn’t know how it feels to live under Nazi regime so you should not compare it. Doing so based on not having a cake iced is pretty poor form madcats. It’s not ok.

Free speech has already died - people are shouted down for bringing up certain important issues - trans people in prisons - grooming gangs in Rotherham etc, the problems caused by ‘travellers’ etc

I hide the fact that I am not a Christian because i know it would impact my Job. My children are discriminated against in school, their choice is pretend to pray and be included or don't and be excluded.
I am not in fear of my life so yes I agree it's not even close to the same. However if my children came out as gay I would fear for their mental health living here and encourage them to move away.

I can see how they danced on the head of a pin to get he judgement.

But, on the other hand, if you are going to be offended by the public, then don't go into business where you need to serve the public.

So the only equivalent I can think of is living under the nazi regime

Think harder, because to be honest that's one of the most ridiculous comments I've read on this thread and to be honest you've got stiff competition.

2madcats you could send them to a different school. I went to a Quaker run school, but pupils who were practicing Christians would have been in the minority. Certainly no one would have been discriminated against for being non-religious or of a different religion.

Fine Saudi Arabia - a baker refuses to ice - support women's rights.

China - a baker refuses to ice support the right to religious freedom.

I was trying to move away from people suggesting being forced to ice swasticas which are inherently negative to show how this was a positive message which most right thinking people wouldn't have had a problem with.

So I should just move to Lisburn then - the 1 Quaker school in the entire province simples

Quakers are Christians. My point was that even in a very openly Christian school with a relatively strong emphasis on faith I've never come across anyone being discriminated against because they chose not to pray. I find it hard to believe that in any even a very small proportion of schools in this country children are being discriminated against for not praying. If they are you should definitely make a formal complaint because it's totally unacceptable.

But you also have to accept that schools are within their rights to say a prayer at the end of morning assembly (or whenever they want). The pupils can chose to join in or to jusy sit quietly for a few minutes.

I live in NI. My uncle and his family lived in Nazi Germany. Living here is nothing like living under the Nazis. And this ruling had nothing at all to do with the DUP.

I'm out I feel like people are deliberately misunderstanding what I was trying to say.

I agree with the ruling I agree with free speech, I was just trying to explain why a lot of people are saddened at the same time !

I don’t understand how a company which is a legal fiction can claim protection under human rights law.

I think the decision was ultimately difficult and dancing on the head of a pin but probably the only one and the best in the circs, but I don’t understand how a company can claim a human right.

Good grief. This thread is becoming a parade of never-ending stupidity.

@2madcats Fine Saudi Arabia - a baker refuses to ice - support women's rights. China - a baker refuses to ice support the right to religious freedom.

Yes fine with both of those. Tolerance includes the duty to tolerate intolerance. Legislation can prevent you from actively disadvantaging or attacking a group without actually forcing you to support them.

I don’t understand how a company which is a legal fiction can claim protection under human rights law

Lee claimed the company discriminated against him. The court found it had not.

I know that lass.

I’m just interested in the technical Point.

Perhaps try reading the judgement? It is online. You will see the appellants were the company and its individual owners.

I know that Lass.

I’m just interested in the technical splitting of legal hairs that happened. I don’t think, given that corporation and legal personality is a fiction, that a company can have a religious view. I also find it interesting that ashers want the protection of company law when it suits them.

The whole history of company as legal fiction is also interesting, given how entwined it is with religion, don’t you think?

You are conflating so many legal concepts I'm not sure how to begin to untangle them.

No one has claimed the limited company has a religious view. It is the owners of the business who do. The owners of that business want the ability to run their business in a way that accords with their own religious, moral and ethical beliefs.

For example I am one of the owners of business which runs as a limited liability partnership. The owners of that business would not act for say the owners of a strip club/ lap dancing club as it would conflict with our ethics and values.

I’m not conflating them.

The notion of company as a legal fiction comes from the church. I don’t know why you think I shouldn’t state that. It’s fact.

You are conflating them.

A company is not a legal fiction. A limited company is a separate legal persona created historically for trading purposes and now regulated by statute.

What is so difficult to understand about the fact that a limited company has owners? The owners of the limited company were part of this case too. They have the right, within the confines of the law, to run that company in accordance with their beliefs. Lee thought they did not- the Court disagreed.

2cats how on earth are people misunderstanding you? You actually said as implants has already quoted, and here's your full statement the only equivalent I can think of is living under the nazi regime and a nazi baker refusing to bake a cake that says support the rights of Jews to be treated like human beings and now am awake, is it fuck!

The notion of company is a legal fiction that originated from the church. It is a legal fiction authorised by the state.

I don’t know why you are so insistent that it’s not.