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?

if you ban people ordering cakes 'only' bought by gay people. And yet the Judges say it is allowed.

Good grief. Another poster Who Doesn't Get It. The bakery did not refuse to serve the customer because he was gay. They refused to decorate the cake with a political slogan that went against their religious beliefs. A better analogy would be the bakery refusing to decorate a cake that said "Support abortion".

The customer's sexual orientation had nothing to do with the issue.

I do wonder how people can continue to be so willfully stupid.

There is also the risk of indirect discrimination if you ban people ordering cakes 'only' bought by gay people. And yet the Judges say it is allowed.

For this argument to be valid, cakes promoting gay marriage would have to only be ordered by gay people. In reality, and as the court accepted, the campaign for marriage equality contains a great many heterosexual people. Who knows, could even be a numerical majority of those involved.

Now I expect we're shortly to hear all the examples of burqa wearers who aren't Muslim that google can possibly dredge up, and I think there was a Jewish woman in Jerusalem who did it about a decade ago. But basically, burqa wearers are overwhelmingly Muslim women in a way that people wanting to purchase items with pro marriage equality slogans are not.

No but some do and it isn’t illegal to do so, nor is it legal to discriminate if they choose to.

Anyone told the passport agency ?

No because they didn't refuse to serve the gay couple. That would've been discriminatory. They refused to endorse the cake's message supporting gay marriage. An analogy might be if me as a black person went to said bakery and asked them to make a black lives matter cake & a plain cake. Said bakery refused the black lives matter cake but still provided the plain one. I'd think they were absolute nobs and know not to go to their bakery again but it wouldn't cross my mind that I was being discriminated against on the grounds of race!

The case was not about them discriminating against a gay person but against a political message

The case against the bakers was on both grounds. It was argued that their refusal was both direct discrimination against a gay person and discrimination on political grounds (which is illegal in Northern Ireland but not the rest of the UK).

I think SCOTUK also missed it

Re the copyright in Sesame Street characters, this was not raised as an issue by either side in this case. SCOTUK decides the issues put before it. Copyright was not raised as an issue so they did not need to consider it.

There is also the risk of indirect discrimination if you ban people ordering cakes 'only' bought by gay people. And yet the Judges say it is allowed

No, they absolutely did not. The decision (which was correct in my view - I was surprised at the decisions of the lower courts which seemed to go well beyond the current law) was based on the fact that this cake could equally have been ordered by a straight person who supported gay marriage and the bakers would still have refused to make it. If it was a cake that would only ever be ordered by a gay person (I struggle to think what such a cake might be, but let us imagine such a thing exists) then refusing to make it would be discrimination.

I don't think anyone should be forced to go against their beliefs ever.

Ever ?

Homosexual people should not be discriminated against ever but their rights do not overrule other people's rights to express their own beliefs.

Sometimes they do, and rightly so. However sincerely held their beliefs, Ashers wouldn't be allowed to serve someone purely because of their sexuality. But they're allowed to refuse to provide a particular product or service, as long as they refuse to provide it to everyone.

DGRossetti

Banks, customs etc do need to see your face. I really thought that would go without saying. Certainly you cannot ask them to remove it before staying at a fucking hotel.

Perhaps of interest:

theulsterfry.com/local-news/peace-process-under-threat-as-gay-cake-violence-spreads/

The entire point is that they would have refused to put that message on a cake bought by straight people as well
Yes and I am sure a christian person covering their face would be refused entry as well. A simple sign over reception saying, "For personal religious & security reasons, faces must remain uncovered at all times".

You do know they had served them before? Most articles include this

We didn't say no because of the customer; we'd served him before, we'd serve him again. It was because of the message.

"By the way, Bert and Ernie's image is under copyright" is in danger of becoming this thread's "cancel the cheque'.

SummerGems
I wonder if you have read the details concerning the case and legalities in enough detail. The finding by the court is correct and consistent with the law. Is it the personal beliefs of the bakers that bother you?
Is it right to insist a Muslim caterer serves pork?
Is it right to insist an individual doctor training in gynaecology must perform abortions if they have moral or ethical or emotional objections?
I have known of hairdressers, tattoo artists, journalists and painters who have not provided a service requested by a customer because it was something the provider wasn’t happy doing. We need to protect individuality and freedom of speech and opinion. We can still do this whilst protecting equality and fighting discrimination.

We didn't say no because of the customer; we'd served him before, we'd serve him again. It was because of the message

Is it right to insist a Muslim caterer serves pork?

There was a similar case some time ago. IIRC, a Muslim man tried to sue Tesco for making him handle alcohol (ring it up at the till / stock shelves) as part of his duties. I believe that he lost the case as Tesco were not requiring him to consume alcohol but to handle it as part of his normal duties that other staff would reasonably be expected to perform.

A better analogy would be a Muslim caterer who refuses to offer pork as part of their catering. Potential clients would be free to select a different catering company that offered a wider range of foods.

Is it right to insist an individual doctor training in gynaecology must perform abortions if they have moral or ethical or emotional objections?

They are free not to provide that service. However, they would be wrong to refuse to be trained in how to carry out that procedure if it was a necessary part of their training.

Is it right to insist an individual doctor training in gynaecology must perform abortions if they have moral or ethical or emotional objections?

Pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense the MAP ...

Disrespectful
The point re Muslim caterer - we agree on the “better analogy”.
And doctors training - not quite sure what you are saying but doctors can refuse to be trained as to be properly trained you are required to carry out the procedure. Of course they would have to understand the process and care for the patient otherwise.
What is the point you are making exactly?

Interesting to see how many people support free speech but only for people whose views they agree with.

And how everyone who disagrees with them is a bigot. But not the other way of course .

And a suprisingly large number of people appear to think that other people should compelled print political slogans they disagree with. But not them of course .

THIS - 100000%

OP I support gay marriage, but I agree with the ruling, imagine if you will, I am a bakery owner, and am asked to ice a cake with the slogan ‘NO to gay marriage’, should I be compelled to ice the cake?

And doctors training - not quite sure what you are saying but doctors can refuse to be trained as to be properly trained you are required to carry out the procedure. Of course they would have to understand the process and care for the patient otherwise.

They cannot refuse to engage in the procedure if it is a required part of their medical education. (I suspect that abortions are covered by specialised training and are not part of the standard medical school curriculum.) Once they are in practice they can decide for themselves whether or not to carry out such a procedure.

It is a bit like the chemist who refuses to provide the morning after pill: they may refuse to dispense the medication but they cannot decide that they will not learn about this medication as part of their training.

There was a case several years ago regarding a registrar (by this I mean a person who works in a register office, not a physician) who refused to perform gay marriages because doing so went against her religious beliefs. She lost the case, IIRC.

imagine if you will, I am a bakery owner, and am asked to ice a cake with the slogan ‘NO to gay marriage’, should I be compelled to ice the cake?

It is your decision whether or not to decorate the cake with a political slogan that goes against your beliefs.

She lost the case because she was willing to marry people of opposite sexes, so she was basically treating people less favourably due to orientation. Also it's a bit different when it's your own business rather than a job. So eg you can have your own shop that doesn't sell pork and alcohol even though that might mean you lose business from non-Muslims. That'd be your problem, and you can effectively design the role so your refusal to serve pork or alcohol doesn't impact on your ability to do it. But you can't go into an existing role that does require the selling of pork and alcohol and expect them to tailor it for you.

Weird how these gay rights activists always target Christian bakeries but strangely avoid trying to show up Muslim or Jewish ones who would likely have the same response...