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?

“ (and ignoring the trademark infringements that they would have been guilty of in representing Bert & Ernie without a licence)”

It’s best to ignore this. It’s a total non point. All bakers produce character cases they don’t hold licences for

On the ocado thing, they have the right to believe women have penises, I have the right to disagree and choose not to give them my money. It's kinda how freedom works.

The Christian bakers have (or at least should have) the right to not print something they disagree with just as they have the right to print something I don't agree with.

We can't police words on what we personally find offensive. Something will always offend someone somewhere, just take a look at the AIBU section on here.

I agree with Peter Tatchell...

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, said: “This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans.

“Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

“The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

I think the judgement was spot on (like many I highly suspect the bakery was targeted). Why should someone be forced to print a slogan they don’t agree with. What if a pro life Baker was forced to produce a cake saying abortion is murder. If we want to live in a free and liberal society we need to accept others opinions so long as they weren’t refusing to serve the customers a cake on account of their sexuality there is no problem.

@SummerGems see my post above, if the printer refuses to print stickers saying women don't have penises then they are within their rights to do so.

I would not support compelling them to print these stickers if they went against what they believed.

"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"

Yes, the customers. They could have iced it on themselves or hired someone else. It is not their freedom of speech to force someone else to do it.

I am boycotting Ashers because I don't agree with their views. I think they should be entitled to hold their views. But I don't support them. It is easy to find alternative bakers that aren't bigoted.

I am also boycotting Ocado, the misogynistic grocery firm. They are also entitled to hold their views. I don't support them either. I support alternative, non-bigoted grocery firms.

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

It was the customers right to say whatever they wanted (within reason and the law). It was the bakers' right to say whatever they wanted (ditto). Neither had the right to force the other (or anyone else) to say something they didn't want to say.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee a platform for this speech.

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

Sorry OP, that's free speech a personal opinion but according to you we're not allowed to have them. You have tied yourself in a knot there!

He went to the shop and asked for this message on the cake to goad them. I fully back gay marriage, but what this man did was horrible and unnecessary. He did it only to try and proof a point.

But what I mean is what the business writes on the cake is no reflection of their views. It’s simply an order for a Customer. How self obsessed do you have to be to think your paying customers need to fit in with your persona views?

Glint, I really don't think you understand freedom of expression or freedom of conscience. They are not trying to dictate anything to the customer, just refusing to do something they themselves object to.

I disagree with what they did (and I am from NI and know how bad it can be there for anyone with a lifestyle perceived as 'unconventional') but I think it would be worse for society if we established that people had to produce work expressing views they find objectionable.

I am delighted with this ruling. At last common sense has prevailed. YABU OP.

I do understand it but thanks for the patronisation.

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

You could say exactly the same of a committed vegan who decides to open a restaurant in accordance with their beliefs. Maybe, because being vegan is the norm for them, they don't plaster 'VEGAN!!!' all over their sign - they just choose to offer a menu on which all of the choices happen to be vegan. They're restaurateurs: if they offer to sell food to the public, what does their opinion or personal conviction matter if I storm in and demand to be served meat, eggs or cheese? Well, are they a proper professional business or not? Eating meat isn't in any way offensive to me, but MY personal beliefs on the matter do not equal THE unanimous 'correct' beliefs with which everybody MUST agree. Therefore, as a reasonable person, I would just look at the menu in the window, think "Not for me, thanks" and walk on to somewhere else.

Supporting gay marriage is not offensive TO YOU, but you aren't everybody. 'Bigot' is a very subjective word that is invariably used to mean "My views are THE only correct views and ANYBODY who disagrees with ME is a BIGOT!". Ironically, this is EXACTLY the same attitude that many of the people accused of bigotry themselves have. Same as people who parrot "The only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance!" and haven't even stopped for a moment to understand the paradoxical nonsense in what they're actually saying.

Isn't same sex marriage illegal in NI? If so, it would seem odd to denominate what these bakers did as a hate action or speech. I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage being legal, but it seems to me that's where the conversation should start, not at penalizing a baker for essentially taking a position to uphold the law as it is.

There’s also the copyright breach, if they had used Bert and Ernie they could get sued by Sesame Street

I think people should be free to say what they want within the current law (ie not hate speech) and I think nobody, ever, should be forced to say / print something which they do not agree with. So I'm glad about this ruling.

FWIW, I don't agree with the opinions of the couple in question, but that doesn't change my opinion on freedom of speech.

Is nothing to be with having a vegan restraunt. Vegan restaurants don’t cater for meat eaters. At all. This bakers do ice slogans onto cakes- all the time- but decided the wouldn’t ice this PARTICULAR slogan.

This was the right ruling. We shouldn't get bogged down in whether we approve of the slogan or not. It's the principle at stake that's the important thing - should people who offer services be obliged to offer something they have religious or ethical objections to?

I do understand it but thanks for the patronisation.

You don't. You said "But what I mean is what the business writes on the cake is no reflection of their views." Of course it's a reflection on the business!
I'm an Accountant. If a potential customer came in and said "I have loads of money that I got by illegal and immoral means and I would like you to arrange some tax evasion scheme" do you think I should go along with it? Am I doing wrong to say "that doesn't fit with my ethics and beliefs, I suggest that you go elsewhere."

“ (and ignoring the trademark infringements that they would have been guilty of in representing Bert & Ernie without a licence)”

It’s best to ignore this. It’s a total non point. All bakers produce character cases they don’t hold licences for hmm

Really? Does this mean that they're exempt from all trademark laws or is it just that the trademark owners don't pursue them? Every time I've seen 'character' cakes on sale in supermarkets, they always indicate that they're made under licence from whichever company. I'm guessing that small, local bakeries slip under the wire of relative anonymity rather than are fully legally allowed to use somebody else's trademarked character in their trading.

How self obsessed do you have to be to think your paying customers need to fit in with your persona views?

Really? I think the opposite. I wish more people would let their personal moral standards dictate the jobs they are willing to do. Rather than almost everyone turning a blind eye to unethical practices and wrong doing "because it's my job"

I have little respect for someone who had a strong moral opinion on something, but was happy to profit from people promoting the opposite view.

"But what I mean is what the business writes on the cake is no reflection of their views. It’s simply an order for a Customer. How self obsessed do you have to be to think your paying customers need to fit in with your persona views?"

Doesn't this happen all the time? I think banks refuse to provide banking services to people with dodgy political views.

The issue in this case is our right - and theirs - to determine which political views they are allowed to object to.

In this case the Supreme Court held that their genuine objection to gay marriage was reasonable grounds to refuse service.

How is it anything like you being asked to do something illegal senua? It’s nothing like.

Of course bakers don’t have character licenses. Do you seriously think they pay up
To Disney everytime they do a frozen cake?