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?

@Barracker Perfectly put.

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

Allineedyoutodois - It is a political slogan, as it was calling for the law to be changed. Personal freedom and Civil equality are also political issues. It doesn't mean it necessarily has anything to do with party politics, if that's what you meant. No need for offence.

Getting married is not a political act, but ordering a cake with a slogan promoting a change to the marriage laws kind of is.

Someone disagreeing with you isn’t hate speech

Someone offending you isn’t hate speech

I’m perfectly entitled in law to disagree with Tory Govt policy on X, Islamic teaching on Y and TRA beliefs on Z. That’s not hate speech.

It’s hate speech if I say that all Tories/ Muslims / TRA should be thrown out the country or die in a fire.

I can’t be compelled in law to say that I agree with Tory Govt policy on X, Islamic teaching on Y and TRA beliefs on Z.

I can’t be compelled in law to run by business according to Tory principles or my family according to Islamic teaching .

I personally think the judges ruled correctly. I think the more dangerous precedent to set is attempting to police people's beliefs.

The bakers offered to bake the cake and let the customer ice the logo onto it themselves. These are not the actions of nasty, malicious homophobes. They didn't turn the customer away and refuse to serve them based on their sexual preferences. They weren't at all abusive towards the customer. They simply explained that they wouldn't be comfortable icing the logo onto the cake based on their deeply held beliefs - beliefs they are perfectly entitled to have, whether you like them or not.

I fully support gay marriage, but I also accept that not everybody does, for whatever reason. I might find certain views/beliefs on gay marriage fucking abhorrent, but tough shit. People still have a right to them, regardless of what thy are. Now had the bakers been abusive towards the customer in any way, I'd be on their side 100%. That was not the case here though.

What everyone is missing with this case and will probably be missed again in this post is the requested cake did not only have a message about gay marriage. It contained a photo of Erinie and Bert off Sesame Street who are under copyright.

If the bakery had made the cake, they would have left themselves wide open to being sued by the owners of Sesame Street for using their characters in a way that the owners didn't agree with. As well as the owner of the photograph who probably didn't give their permission for it to be used on the cake either.

These types of situations arise all the time.

I’m not sure this would’ve happened outside of NI either actually (not the event, the appeal finding)

My understanding from previous reading about this case was that there would only have been a legal case in NI as not being prejudice against someone because of their political views is illegal in NI (because of the history there). The case was not about them discriminating against a gay person but against a political message?.

In principle no private business or institution should have to promote (or facilitate the promotion of) any moral, political or ideological message. And that includes the right to "no platform" speakers/views. So the right decision here IMO.

Gets a bit trickier when not promoting one ideology entails promoting another, as the above does not mean that a body or business can promote any message. But this is not the case here.

Frankly I think being opposed to equal legal rights for gay couples actually is pretty fucking homophobic, but that's not really the point here. One shouldn't be able to oblige a service provider to provide a service that they would also refuse to provide to anyone else, just because one wants it.

What everyone is missing with this case and will probably be missed again in this post is the requested cake did not only have a message about gay marriage. It contained a photo of Erinie and Bert off Sesame Street who are under copyright.

I think SCOTUK also missed it ....

Beautifully put, Kr1stina

It often worries me that some seem to feel free speech is fine only so long as they agree with what's said, and that the instant they don't the "isms" and "buts" start

Which is why, as a PP said, it's a good job we have the Supreme Court for cases like this

Because if you have the right not to say something,then you equally have the right to say something,

No. Think of the logical conclusion to this - it’s effectively being forced to state things you don’t believe on pain of censure. That, in effect, is banning blasphemy.

I see barracker has expressed this better above.

Are they as people homophobic? Yup they seem to be. Are they allowed to think that gay marriage is wrong? yes they are. Are they allowed to directly discriminate against a couple on the basis of being gay? No they aren’t. Are they allowed to refuse to print a slogan they don’t agree with? Yes they are.

you cannot mandate belief in a free society.

This was a sensible ruling.

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

Exactly this. It’s not debatable, it really isn’t.

They were not refused service, they were offered a cake and icing to do whatever they wanted. If they had refused to even bake a cake, that would be discrimination. That didn’t happen.

I am so tired of people throwing around the term bigot to anyone that disagrees with them. Bigotry is the intolerance of opinion, not holding a different one! I have fought for gay marriage for a long time and I would not knowingly support businesses or people that do not. But equally I don’t want to force people, legally, to think the same as me. Just to treat myself and others with respect and equality. My aim these days, as I get older, is to find a way of getting on with people who think very differently to me. That includes Christians and other religious people, I’m atheist myself. The religious intolerance in the OP is quite obvious and it makes me far more uncomfortable than the baker refusing to ice a cake with a political slogan.

Also I think it's worth thinking critically about the implications of obliging a business to provide something with a coded but obvious political message specifically in NI. If I were a sectarian arsehole, I could have all kinds of fun with that. How about ordering a poster or cake or t-shirt with a photo of a Kingsmill loaf on it, or of Tina Turner performing? In the right context, both of those could be pretty fucking obnoxious.

I think it’s a good ruling. We need nuance in law. This is clear that discriminating against people is unacceptable but equally we can’t force non mainstream belief holders onto the margins of society by forcing only the mainstream view to be allowed. The message and not the person was objected to. The old judgement left all kinds of problematic scenarios. This sets out clearly what will happen when there are competing rights. Don’t forget religious beliefs are covered until equality legislation too.

Oh and re Ocado ( what a reach! ) nobody who stopped their orders is taking them to court. So that was a poor analogy. Anyone can refuse to shop somewhere, be it Ocado or this bakery 💁🏽‍♀️

Indeed. There are a number of people who are now boycotting Ashers because of this, and Ashers would be laughed out of court if they were to try and take legal action because of it.

This exactly the same thing as the billboard company removing the Woman: adult human female poster because they didn't agree with it.

They have every right to refuse to display it. No one is taking them to court (I hope ).

The ruling by the Supreme Court is the right one. You can't force individuals or companies to produce or display things they don't want to, so long as they are not discriminating against people.

Czech cake maker forced to ice "Brexit is best"? Wood carver having to make a giant penis? LGBT t shirt maker having to print the definition of women on t shirts? Vegan signwriter having to write the sign for oxford abattoir?

Ashers in particular would be well advised to have a no political slogans of any kind policy!
Ashers have only inscribed birthday cakes since this kicked off.

What @Barracker said.

If I was a baker I should be allowed to refuse to ice a cake with "die cis scum" on it. Some people will think me abhorrent for that and will avoid my shop. That's fine it's a free country.

If a TRA is a baker he should be able to refuse to ice a cake with "women don't have penises" on it. Some people will think him abhorrent for that and will avoid his shop. That's fine it's a free country.

And someone who believes gay marriage to be wrong can refuse to ice a cake supporting gay marriage. Also fine.

What I find most abhorrent about this whole thing is the baker being allowed to ascribe their anti-gay beliefs to their Christianity. That's a massive slur against Christians, many of whom are pro gay marriage. Christ never said a word about gay sex. He is recorded as having absolutely condemned remarriage after divorce and I bet anything that bakery has made a wedding cake or two for remarrying divorcees.

But whatever. The point is that anyone with abhorrent views can express them, and cannot be compelled to act or speak against their views, with the exception of hate speech, violence or incitement to violence. And those who disagree with views they find abhorrent cannot be compelled to assent to them. The response to disagreement should always be civilised debate. If someone's views are wrong they can be proven so. The law should not intervene.

Well, they can be compelled to act against their views in that if they're willing to provide double rooms or pro gay marriage cakes to straight people, they need to also either provide them to gay people or stop providing them at all. But I guess there's still a choice in that respect.

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

Agree, and also what is not free speech is "I can compell you to facilitate me saying what I want/provide me with a platform to say what I want".

Their shop, their rules imo. Surely they weren't the only bakery around and these people could have gone elsewhere to get it made.

It was a provocation against Christians.

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?

Yes, people think they should have the right to refuse that message and any other message you can think of. I'm not sure why you find that so difficult to believe.

This exactly the same thing as the billboard company removing the Woman: adult human female poster because they didn't agree with it. Not quite.

Billboards are often used for political slogans, the companies sell to all parties.

That billboard was removed after one man and a few TRA friends made strong, biased and inaccurate assertions against the purchaser of the space.

There was no alternative service in that area, by the same provider or others.

The billboard accepted the contract, put the sign up and then changed their mind. Depriving the purchaser of any redress

No legal ruing was sought! (yet???)