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?

Glintandglide, the company I work for will turn down work which is legal and does not transgress any professional code, simply because the business owners object on the basis of personal ethics to undertaking that type of work. People do have a right to choose what work they do, just not to choose whom they do work for if they are discriminating on a protected characteristic. So anyway, yes, I do make the comparison, so there is one.

They didn’t refuse to serve them.

They refused to print a political slogan they personally disagreed with .

I believe in freedom of expression. I do not believe in compelling others to express on someone else's behalf.

If the men in question desperately wanted that message on a cake they could have baked it themselves. I can't imagine for the life of me you would want that message on a cake in the first place, my suspicion was that the order was intended to illicit a reaction.

Whilst I actually support the cause, legal action on such small matters, intentionally bullying someone who disagrees (however misguided) only serves to cheapen the cause of homosexual equality and alienate reasonable people, and serves only to gain a pat on the back from the people that are already supporters.

In all honesty the cake company had the right to refuse to decorate a cake which had a message on which was fundamentally at odds with their beliefs. I think we all have a few strong beliefs and no one has the power to compel us to promote the opposite.

However, if a gay man had gone in there wanting a birthday cake and been refused on the basis he was holding hands with his husband in the shop then that would have been a different matter because this would have been treating him as a human being with fewer rights than other people, regardless of anyone's views on any topic.

However,I do think that given they have now expressed these views they should be more transparent about where their boundaries lie in terms of what they are against in order that the customer can make an informed choice based on what they know to not be on offer....

If they’re prepared to refuse to do business with someone on the basis of them wanting a gay-related slogan then at the very least they should be prepared to be open about that fact.

I've never heard of a business feeling duty-bound to issue an exhaustive book detailing every eventuality that they could be requested to do. Would they have to include everything from "Immigrants out" to "Bring back the window tax" or "Rethink the Corn Laws" - even covering things that are currently illegal? It would take up the entire shop. Especially as the vast majority of people only even think to have personal greetings such as Happy Birthday or You Passed your Exams iced on a cake, which is not traditionally a recognised vehicle for political protest.

But that’s related to the ethical code you must uphold as part of your profession, there is literally no comparison
You are assuming a lot.
For example, I was offered a job doing really boring stuff for a company owned by Smith & Wesson. I turned it down because I didn't fancy working for a subsidiary of a gun manufacturer. There was nothing illegal about it nor anything against the Institute's ethics but it went against my beliefs.

Why are you so keen to have Big Brother dictate what you can or cannot say? Can you not see that this is a case of First They Came

They were willing to do business with them. They weren't willing to put that image on a cake. Those aren't the same thing.

My kids have previously drawn pictures to have put on cakes. I warn them each time we do that the staff at the store might refuse to the drawing and we might have to do something else. The staff isn't refusing to work with me or my kid if they choose not to as they are willing to sell us other things or do other images. Same when I commission work or when people commision work from me, while some may highlight popular things they don't do, none of us can list everything we don't do. I really can't think of how they would do that that wouldn't come across as even more antagonistic beyond what many businesses already do of reinforcing their right to refuse.

If I was a baker now I would simply refuse all political slogans for consistency and hopefully protect myself from legal action.

PaulDacree - well what about religious freedom then? Here's a precedent backing Ashers right to not print something they STRONGLY disagree with for religious reasons. Something that wasn't illegal, wasn't hate speech. So why shouldn't a B&B owner, a good Christian one appalled by 'gay' marriage refuse to allow a married gay couple into their B&B? What

@senua - Exactly this.

YABU - along with Peter Tatchell I agree, because if the court had upheld the decision then the next thing would be someone being taken to court for refusing to to ice cakes with "I support Tommy Robinson". Or could you be taken to court for refusing to display Racist posters?
There has to be a point at which you are free to say No to slogans.

And a local school was challenged a few years ago when it cancelled a hall booking which it discovered had been made on behalf of BNP.

*Today 13:44 senua

But that’s related to the ethical code you must uphold as part of your profession, there is literally no comparison
You are assuming a lot.
For example, I was offered a job doing really boring stuff for a company owned by Smith & Wesson. I turned it down because I didn't fancy working for a subsidiary of a gun manufacturer. There was nothing illegal about it nor anything against the Institute's ethics but it went against my beliefs.

Why are you so keen to have Big Brother dictate what you can or cannot say? Can you not see that this is a case of First They Came*

For gods sake, you’re the one why used an example of being asked to cover up tax evasion. I’m not assuming anything and that has bugger all to do with the companies you do and don’t want to work for

I could see that happening everanewbie. Ashers in particular would be well advised to have a no political slogans of any kind policy!

I also take offence at those saying putting something about marriage equality made it a 'political' slogan. Marriage equality is about personal freedom and civil equality. About the civil rights of a LGBT individual to have equal rights to a heterosexual individual. I didn't marry my wife ( not in N.I. obvs because we couldn't) as a POLITICAL act, I did it for the reasons that most people marry, commitment, love and legal protection for my family. What's 'political' about that?

if we are arguing that people have the right to say what they want, then we are surely also arguing that those who are offended by this fact are the ones responsible for being so i.e.victim blaming....

There's no "victimhood" in simply learning that others don't share your opinion - no matter how hard some try to claim it

And yes, free speech might well encourage some into hate speech, but they're not the same thing. If hate speech is used you deal with it, but you don't throw free speech under the bus just in case it's used wrongly

" So the NI court, which clearly exists to uphold and defend NI law, categorically doesn't itself support gay marriage - and yet finds against Asher's for their apparent unwillingness to endorse the supporting of gay marriage. I personally don't like the loaded word 'bigot' but many people would think that this stance perfectly epitomises it."

I would suggest you read the judgement. www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf

There was no finding of 'bigotry', rather that the behaviour constituted discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The legislation prohibits discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. The judge is required to uphold this.

The first judge and appeal court found that 'support for gay marriage' is associated with sexual orientation, and that this constituted discrimination for this reason. The Supreme Court has disagreed, for specific legal reasons.

Some other political speech would not be so closely linked to a protected characteristic as to give rise to such issues. For example 'support fox hunting' does not have particular links to race, sexuality, etc.

Here it is precisely because of the links between 'support gay marriage' and the customer's own sexuality, that a finding of discrimination was found.

The fact that this came from the Northern Ireland court and the final appeal from the UK Supreme Court is not really here nor there, as all courts are simply charged with interpreting the law according to judicial principles.

Different laws and rights interact with each other in ways that aren't necessarily obvious or clear-cut. This doesn't determine whether the breach or otherwise of the law is morally wrong, simply that it falls foul of the law as interpreted by a given set of judges.

Freedom of thought and conscience is (and should be) a human right too.

And I fully support gay marriage

It make a logical sense.

You can't discriminate again who you sell to but you can choose what you sell. Simples.

If I was a baker now I would simply refuse all political slogans for consistency and hopefully protect myself from legal action.

I don't blame you in the slightest. Not that political slogans are actually an accepted 'thing' for cakes anyway. In the age of online petitions, social media influencing, blogging, viral campaigns, lobbying parliament etc., icing a political slogan on to a cake as an effective way of getting your message out far and wide must come a close second only to sitting on a park bench and shouting at pigeons.

Allineedyoutodois - The Ashers case is nothing to do with how strongly they oppose the message. They could have refused to print it based on the slogan causing them very mild discomfort.

Refusing to do business with someone based on discrimination against a protected characteristic IS illegal. The B&B situation is not affected.

I feel quite confused and conflicted by this ruling. I'm struggling to decide if and how much and how I agree with it/don't agree with it.
I need to give it some more thought.

The ruling stated though that it wasn’t political. The ruling stated purely that it was done on the basis of their personal beliefs and nothing more but that because they would have refused to print the slogan regardless of who had ordered the cake (and frankly I find it somewhat that this has only just emerged) they were within their rights to refuse.

I wonder, if the cake had been a wedding cake for a gay couple in England which say one of the family was buying from this particular bakery and they’d wanted the writing to be “congratulations on the marriage of Jim and John) would people genuinely still believe that this bakery should retain the right to decline based on the fact they don’t approve of gay marriage or homosexuality in general?

It would be easy to make clear what you aren’t prepared to print, i.e. “no hate speech (which covers a multitude of things) no reference to homosexuality, women, disability or any pro choice messages,” (just to give examples.

I can say what I want = free speech
I can make you say what I want = not free speech

The Supreme Court made the right decision.

And my takeaway from this is that the lower courts are prepared to disregard the principle of free speech more than they should, and important principles may need pushing all the way up to the supreme court if they are consistently disregarded.

PaulDacree - well what about religious freedom then? Here's a precedent backing Ashers right to not print something they STRONGLY disagree with for religious reasons. Something that wasn't illegal, wasn't hate speech. So why shouldn't a B&B owner, a good Christian one appalled by 'gay' marriage refuse to allow a married gay couple into their B&B?

Because that would be refusing to provide a gay person a service that they provide to straight people, on the grounds of their sexuality, which is completely different from what Ashers did. For your example to be comparable, Ashers would have to be providing straight people with cakes carrying pro gay-marriage slogans, but refusing to provide a gay person the same cake and slogan.

If they'd done that, they'd have no leg to stand on, just as a business who let rooms to straight people but won't let the same rooms to gay people are acting illegally and treating people unequally. But they wouldn't be if they eg only had twin rooms and wouldn't let any couple, gay or straight sleep in a double bed.

For gods sake, you’re the one who used an example of being asked to cover up tax evasion. I’m not assuming anything

Yes you were. You assumed that it "related to the ethical code you must uphold as part of your profession" (even after I said that wasn't the case) and I gave an example to the contrary.