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?

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

Now I understand why the UK has ended up with Brexit and the USA has Donald Trump. And MNers are supposed to be smarter than your average voter

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

I have no idea why you find it so difficult to understand the concept that a company is owned by its owners.

And a company is not a "legal fiction" (which btw does not mean what you seem to think it means)

Acompanyis a group of people or an organization authorised to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. Early incorporated entities were established bycharter(i.e. by anad hocact granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations throughregistration.A company is owned by its shareholders who may in turn be other corporate entities or individuals.

A company is a legal persona in its own right and here that company is owned by individuals who have rights.

You’re wrong, I’m sorry but your understanding of the history of the creation of the company and where it came from is wrong.

A the notion of a company having legal personality as opposed to real personality is a legal fiction to allow a “company” to contract and purchase in land.

It isn't.

And even if it were it has zero relevance to how this case was decided which comes down to the owners of the company, which was the trading vehicle, having the right to decide they wanted to run their business in accordance with certain personal beliefs.

Legal fiction does not mean what you seem to think it means. A company is not a legal fiction.

A company having legal personality is of course a legal fiction. That’s company law 101. And I find it interesting that the notion of the company having a legal personality originated from Pope Innocent IV when he was Sinibaldo de Fieschi and writing disagreeing with Pope Gregory.

The notion of the company having legal personality comes historically from the monarch as head of the church not from the monarch as monarch.

The notion of a company having legal personality is a legal fiction.

Oh fgs. For the umpteenth time what will it take to make you understand this case was about the rights of the owners of the company to run their business in accordance with their beliefs?

No one is saying the company has human rights. Your wittering on about historical origins, which have no place in current law, is beyond irrelevant.

And legal fiction does not mean what you say. You are confusing legal fiction and legal principles. These create a legal state of affairs whuch is different from the underlying facts, such ascorporate personhood although these are sometimes wronglycalled legal fiction.

Blackouts - maybe you should stop trying to argue legal points with a senior solicitor.

I disagree with you. The notion of a company having legal personality is a legal fiction.

I find the historic comparison interesting. And the dancing on the legal head of a pin interesting that’s all.

Ok so do you disagree with Williston? Anderson and Tollison? Kraakman? Turner?

In fact some commentators trace the concept of a company/corporation back to the Romans: see HR Hahlo Early progenitors of the modern company [1982] Juridical Review 139.

Although precisely how the historical background to incorporation is relevant beats me.

Yes.

I know that . It comes from the universitas magistorium and scholarae and partly through collegium.

Although precisely how the historical background to incorporation is relevant beats me

It isn't. And a company is a legal construct not a legal fiction. Either way it is wholly irrelevant to the rights which the individual owners of the company has.

Good for you. .

Now if you want to discuss the historical uses of corporations, perhaps you can create a separate thread (very fitting, given your interest in separate legal personality) and then stop derailing this one with your irrelevant tangent.

I didn’t say a company was a legal fiction.

Go away!

to TomPinch.

My last two replies were to Blackoutblinds.

But thanks for cake and flowers, foot which I'm always grateful even if virtual.

with whatever slogan you want on it to TomPinch.

Stop derailing the thread with your nonsensical and irrelevant posts, Blackoutblinds. If you want to talk about companies start your own thread.

Of course the ruling was correct and fair, the owners were entitled to their opinion and to not write a slogan that is against their beliefs.

OP do you really think people should be 'forced' to do things like this? we live in a free country......

What l feel is very wrong is the amount of debate around this couple who have hurt no one and broken no law.

Except for Blackoutblinds who needs to get on with their dissertation.

Hello,
I got the wrong end of the stick, and so admit I was wrong.
I will apologise if I offended PRH47BRIDGE, I still disagree with his support of Ofsted and Mrs Thatcher's policies.

LasswithADelicateAir
I think from your posts your a solicitor or lawyer?
I only have CSE English, so reading the court judgement, 50% is in a language I don't understand, and 25% goes over my head, but the bits I could access and didn't glaze over my eyes, seem to say even the judges thought their might be or could have been some discrimination against Mr Lee, but it was hard to prove or fell short of the ECHR explanations, or possibly the law lords felt different. Am I correct in that general thought?
Also all said that they could be a belief in the population that this ruling undermined the rights of minorities and this was the furthest thing from the actual ruling, then they admit that it is degrading to treat LGBT differently, so once again is it fair to say the law lords knew this was a case which was like walking a tightrope and their ruling could lead to discrimination been seen as legal in some quarters is that right?
Finally I am I right in saying, that I accept they got it right in the end, this was the worst type of case which could have highlighted freedom of expression, in the views of the larger population. So a case of say a baker not baking a pro life cake, or a Tory/Labour publisher refusing to print T May is the devil/J Corbyn will kill our kids would have been so much better for them?

Final point, if law and legalisation is to be seen as fair, to the general public, why do the Law courts and Lawyers always write in language which non legal humans don't understand.

I in all the 1st reports of this case never saw the paragraph which Lady Hale and the others completely denounce homophobic actions. If I had maybe I would have looked past the horrific opinions of the backing Christian Institute and DUP support.

I have been on nights and today was 1st chance to read whole judgement. It seems like they are dancing on a sixpence, doing a high wire show on a unicycle, to allow freedom of expression and therefore free speech, but not allow it to lead to Homophobic/racist actins and rulings in the future to me anyway.
I am honestly interested in Lasswiadelicateair's and any other poster's opinion on my limited understanding of this ruling, I genuinely would love too understand it better
Thanks

This is a very simple case.

It is my suspicion that they went to that bakery specifically because they knew their beliefs and wanted publicity. They wanted them to refuse to ice the message.

The bakers have the same rights as the people that ordered the cake. The people that ordered the cake had the right to make a request for a certain message, the people that own the bakers had the right to say they would not provide a cake with that message on it.

In British Law a business owner is able to refuse to do business with anyone. If you go to Tesco and demand to buy an item they can refuse to sell it to you, they can actually ask you to leave the premises as it is private property, as is that bakers.

I think it would have set a very poor precedent if the ruling had gone the other way, it would have effectively forced people to sell goods or services in a way that goes against their beliefs.

The people ordering the cake could simply have gone to a different bakers, I have no idea if they did or not, but this case has done no good to anyone (apart from the lawyers).