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?

OK, let's say you own a bakery called "Yummy Stuff" and you are called Josie. A customer comes in and asks you to make a cake saying
"Yummy Stuff is fucking shit, and Josie is a cunt!"

and you (hopefully?) refuse, because it's offensive to you.

Or would you "have" to make it, because 'freedom of speech'?

Things this case has no effect on:
Hate speech: this is still illegal
Discrimination against a person on the basis of their sexuality: this is still illegal
Discrimination against a person on the basis of their religion: this is still illegal
Making Jewish restaurants serve bacon. All restaurants are still allowed to limit their menu options in any way they choose.

Okay?

This is what Peter Tatchell thought about this just before the original appeal hearing:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

YANBU it’s a disgrace and typical of the DUP supporting religious bigots in N.I. Unfortunately. And yes they DID refuse service. It’s no different to a gay coiple rocking up to a hotel to be told no they can’t have a room together, how about two separate rooms. Or leave.

Amazing that people boycotted ocado because of some trans poster or other and yet gay marriage is fair game....?

And frankly, if Peter Tatchell welcomes this verdict, OP I don't think you need to worry: twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/1049961502948634624?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I don’t really understand the people saying “they don’t agree with the message” who cares? What does their opinion matter? They’re bakers, if they offer a service where they put writing in cakes they should put whatever they’re asked really (ill admit this gets tricky if someone requests say a racist cake) but this message wasn’t offensive, it was simply offensive to them (because they’re bigots) I’m disappointed they won their appeal

YABU the ruling defends against being compelled to support something that you do not support

So if a bakery refused to ice a cake saying Fight racism, because they were proudly racist, then you think that is okay?

Peter Tatchell does not represent all LGBT people and views by them way, the only thing He cares about is being ‘controversial’ and getting himself attention by any means necessary.

Amazing that people boycotted ocado because of some trans poster or other and yet gay marriage is fair game....?

You can still boycott anyone you like. That is your freedom of expression right there. That has NOTHING to do with this case. No one is saying you have to start buying all your baked goods from Ashers Bakery. If people disagree with them about gay marriage and boycott them and close them down THEY STILL CAN.

But glint the whole point of freedom of expression is that applies even when we don't like what is being expressed.

It seems from this thread that acceptance of sexuality hasn’t come nearly as far as we’d like to think.

If this was a customer being refused on the basis the slogan was pro women the responses would be vastly different

Hate speech and similar is still illegal - so no they wouldn’t have printed a slogan saying ‘f the jews’ or black people or whatever because that would have been illegal. Except, we’ll it is Ashers so actually they probably would have because they follow a right wing religious creed that tells them white Christian men are good and everyone else comes below that in varying degrees.

And to compare supporting gay marriage with racism and swastica’s and calling people cunts is bloody offensive in itself.

What almost everybody seems to be missing is that, currently, gay marriage is ILLEGAL in Northern Ireland. Whether or not an individual is in favour of, against or not bothered about its potentially being made legal is irrelevant as it is not (yet) sanctioned by NI law.

Aside from any religious convictions on the part of the bakers (and ignoring the trademark infringements that they would have been guilty of in representing Bert & Ernie without a licence), they would have been entirely within their rights to refuse on the grounds that they were being asked to be seen to be publicly condoning something that is currently against the law.

Purely from a point of principle, what's the difference between this and somebody ordering a cake saying "There is no such thing as marital rape" or "Reserve the top jobs for men so they can support their families"? How about a picture of a woman in a very short skirt alongside the legend "She's clearly asking for it!" There are plenty of people who hold these views, the implications of acting upon which are clearly contrary to the law as it stands.

Put simply:
Can you legally discriminate against people on grounds of sexuality? NO
Can you legally discriminate against cakes on grounds of the slogans iced on them? YES

But Summer, the customer was not refused. I often get in trouble with my 'woke' friends because I agree with free speech -because I actually fucking understand what it means- .

This decision has nothing to do with views on sexuality or religion or anything else.

"Amazing that people boycotted ocado because of some trans poster or other and yet gay marriage is fair game....?"

Let me help you with your logical fallacies.

1. The posters in this thread are almost certainly not customers of this bakery. They may disapprove of the bakers' views, but agree with their right to hold them, without supporting them financially.
2. Ocado was supporting the censorship of a poster that they had no proximate connection to (they merely happen to use the same advertiser). That's not the same thing as 'not wanting to make a cake with a political slogan on it'.
3. Gay marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland, so in that context, this is a position that people living there are fully entitled to hold.
4. The cake in question was a political act 'Support Gay Marriage', it was not a withdrawal of service on the grounds of gender identity or sexuality, it was a refusal to support a political message.

I WANT to live in a society where the response to a person with objectionable beliefs is debate and reasoning and social disapproval, not jail or legal action.

And I want this for my opponents too.

This is why you don't get feminists shutting down and picketing trans events. We actually want them to have free speech too.

No democracy should be criminalising opinions and thoughts. You can't legally compel another person to express an opinion they don't hold.

And that last part actually is a formal human right.

Well summarised, QuietMary.

“But glint the whole point of freedom of expression is that applies even when we don't like what is being expressed.”

Doesn't this point just back up the fact the bakers should’ve done it? They didn’t like that was being expressed but who cares? It was the customers freedom of speech to get it iced on

So the printing press that refused to print the penis stickers that women wanted were within their rights to do so.

This is the same kind of thing and is fair as far as I can see.

We cannot have compelled speech.

Specifically: I think the cake company are likely a bunch of right-wing bigots, and I would not use them for any purpose, but I do not think they should be forced to make a cake with a given political slogan on it.

I also think that we should boycott Ocado for saying that their advertising company was right to censor a poster with the dictionary definition of 'woman' on it.

See? Not inconsistent at all. This is not difficult stuff, really.

I fully support free speech.

I don't think they were doing anything wrong by refusing to bake a cake with a particular slogan on.

By your example, a jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake with a Nazi slogan if you are saying bakers should have to bake whatever they are asked. I actually think thats a far more dangerous path.

I don’t really understand the people saying “they don’t agree with the message” who cares? What does their opinion matter?

The law cares about protecting the rights of everyone to freedom of expression. Their opinion matters because they are people with rights too.