To think that "gay cake row" verdict is a victory for common sense?

[MaxDArnold]

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that a Belfast bakery was not obliged to bake a cake emblazoned with the slogan "support gay marriage" and over turned a £500 damages award over turned on it.

For those unfamiliar with the case more information can be found here.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

Am I being unreasonable to think that this was absolutely the right call, and a victory for personal and religious freedom? I don't think anybody should be forced to facilitate political slogans which that profoundly disagree with.

Lazy, and also wrong.

Well, at least 2boysandaCairn's posts are consistent.

@Bi11yButton

I'm a jeweller. I will not make religious jewellery of any kind. I don't like mass, organised religion and I don't like things which have been done in the name of religion (not talking about extremist, just normal religious view). I don't like it. My name goes on every piece of jewellery I make so I won't make religious pieces. I will sell too and produce pieces for anyone of any religion; their beliefs don't stop me from working with them. But I won't make something which represents a religion. Does that mean I discriminate against christians/jews/buddhists/Muslims etc? No. It does not. I just don't want my own name associated with symbols I don't believe in.

2Boys your lack of understanding of what the verdict actually meant is really worrying. This has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with freedom of speech. And if it’s true the stupid knee jerk reaction of your child’s school is even more worrying. But I suspect you heard the first part of that story and made the rest up as well.

2Boys your lack of understanding of what the verdict actually meant is really worrying. This has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with freedom of speech

Yup.

And the fact that that poster seems to keep ignoring the fact that almost everyone on this thread has said something along the lines of “I disagree with the bakers opinions, but I respect their right to hold them”.

And by the way 2Boys, mentioning that you happen to know some people from NI comes across a bit “I can’t be racist, I have black friends!” - it doesn’t strengthen your argument.

klu klux klan cake, or a national front cake

Gay Marriage does not promote violence towards black people though does it? Gay marriage isn't a cult, or a view or a religion.

Gay Marriage does not promote violence towards black people though does it?

No it doesn’t, of course it doesn’t.

Why can’t people understand that it’s not the gay marriage part that’s the problem, that it’s the legal precedent set by the original ruling?

It really isn’t hard, or it shouldn’t be.

To Shitehen and Penny
I have just got up from my 4th 12 hour night shift, so sorry for misreading your name, I was avoiding using the shite bit.
You both criticised another poster and I for our views on your homeland?, I try to explain, I have obviously offended you, so with good grace I will remove myself.
I disagree with the OP, my right, sorry to have upset you both, life's to short to waste arguing on a stupid internet thread, so there you are, you say common sense won, I say I am not sure, and tried to explain.
Joys of free speech.

You both criticised another poster and I for our views on your homeland?, I try to explain, I have obviously offended you, so with good grace I will remove myself.

I’m not Northern Irish, I’m Scottish.

2BoysandaCairn with respect, you’ve repeatedly misunderstood the point of the ruling, accused posters of being on with racism/homophobia (nobody is or has) and now flipped it because someone argued back.

You need to take a step back.

It is the common sense outcome because the message is overtly political but it raises some interesting questions.

As was said on another thread, it would be interesting to see where it would be okay for baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake saying "congratulations on your marriage James and John" (in England and Wales). You could say that they are entitled to disagree with gay marriage and that you should not not be compelled to promote it and you could say that they would not have been happy to sell a cake saying that to straight couples either but it is no different to the B&B case.

If that couple believe that gay sex is immoral, why should they be forced to provide them with a room to shag in? If a B&B owner has a rule that says no same sex couples can share a bedroom, is that discriminatory as long as they would not let heterosexual people share a room with the same sex either?

If a B&B owner has a rule that says no same sex couples can share a bedroom, is that discriminatory as long as they would not let heterosexual people share a room with the same sex either?

By that reckoning they’d have to ban unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a room too.

Winebottle

Well, firstly, providing a room for same-sex couples to sleep in doesn't promote same-sex marriage. So it's different from a cake iced with a message in that respect.

Secondly, if I run a B&B and have a blanket rule that rooms may only be shared with the opposite sex, regardless of relationship status, then my rule will constitute discrimination against people with a protected characteristic, as gay couples will in fact be prevented from staying at my B&B whereas heterosexual couples will not. The judgment discusses this at paragraph 25 onwards, using a the concept of "indissociability". The example given was of a council who allowed free entry only to people above the statutory retirement age (at the time 65 for men and 60 for women). The council's policy was held to be discriminatory against men aged 60-64.

I think that makes the point best, but there is in fact a B&B case. THe court said: "Again, in Preddy v Bull [2013] UKSC 73; [2013] 1 WLR 3741, letting double bedded rooms to married couples but not to civil partners was directly discriminatory because marriage was (at that time) indissociable from heterosexual orientation."

The point is that you look beyond the technicality to the substance of what's actually going on. Only letting bedrooms to married couples is, on the surface, a restriction to marriage. In reality though it discriminated against SSC.

I think a more interesting question is this, from the Guardian here.

The objection of the bakery owners was to the message, which conflicted with their deeply held religious convictions, and not to any personal characteristics of the customer. However, the core difficulty with this judgment lies in the assumption that being required to convey the opinions of others, with which the deliverer disagrees, is a breach of the latter’s right to freedom of belief and/or expression.

Yet, if this were the case, it would also be true of post office workers delivering mail, and printers printing material, containing points of view with which they disagree. Many journals and periodicals also typically declare that the opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors. Businesses conveying messages in other ways would be in substantially the same position if the terms of their contracts with customers contained similar disclaimers. Allowing certain providers of goods and services but not others to choose which otherwise lawful messages they are prepared to deliver, as the supreme court has, effectively enables them to have their cake and eat it.
Steven Greer
Professor of human rights, University of Bristol Law School

There was an AIBU thread a while back on volunteers at a National Trust property who refused to wear a rainbow badge during Pride Week. The property's previous owner had been a gay man. It seems the law was on the volunteers' side.

I think the prof overemphasises the importance of the defendants' religious beliefs: the crux of the judgment is that they treated the plaintiff no differently to how they would have treated anyone. But they are interesting examples. I think there is a difference between refusing to ice a cake with a particular message and refusing to deliver a copy of Gay Times although I can't work out what it is.

And why are they using Bert and Ernie? They weren't gay!

Bert and Ernie were definitely gay!

But there are varying degrees of indissociabiliy. They are not prevented from staying in my example, they can stay in different rooms. Heterosexual people are also prevented from staying in double rooms with their friends.

Admittedly, wanting to share a room with someone of the same sex is a better proxy for being gay than support for gay marriage but it is not a perfect one.

shiteHEN
I will walk away, but I will leave the following So no one is in doubt
I understand the bloody ruling, the supreme court back freedom of expression, I believe that's what lady Hale said. BUT
She then spend the next section of her pronouncement saying it wasn't about gay rights, she was at pains to do so, so even the 5 law lords realise this ruling could open the floodgates to homophobic abuse.
If the bakers had used CAB or been backed by stonewall or the rainbow foundation, or used their own money, I would have never bothered, yes I would worry for LBGT rights, but walked away. BUT
This really important to me they where backed by the Christian Institue ffs, please do an internet search on them.
Christian Institute have

1. Been censored by the Charity Commission
2. took legal action to overturn the repeal of Section 48
3. backed 2 hoteliers to have the legal right to ban gay couples in their hotels
4. backed a registrar to have the right not to marry same sex couples
5. took legal action to ban same sex marriage. They have been backed by the DUP, which refuses same sex marriage and abortion in NI Plus NI UKIP and right wing fundamental Christians.

So if you are happy for all those to get their way, that's fine, but I won't celebrate their victory, this was done for clear political reasons, and in my view clear homophobic reasons.
I have found all this out since reading the breaking news on BBC on Wednesday. I therefore have serious concerns, you all say you wouldn't support the bakers views, or what about KKK or homophobic cakes, both would be ban under hate crimes by the way, or support the BNP, but here's the crunch point, you are supporting organisations which have equally offensive views, to me, as the BNP and NF

I am sorry if that is uncomfortable or virtual signalling or spittle-flecked, but some times it's worth looking behind the PR fronts and the friendly angelic, married couple to see who is paying the piper, and I will never stand nest to that group of backers. You can if you want.

You will be glad that I am pissing off

YANBU OP, common sense prevailed. I was dismayed by the previous rulings in this case and delighted that the Supreme Court made this ruling. No one should be forced to say, write or ice any message that they disagree with.

As someone who is part of the lgb community I agree.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the bakers point of view and ideals, but not their refusal to make something they disagree with. If the couple had gone in and asked for an ordinary cake they wouldn't have been refused.

I want to clear up some misunderstandings that have regularly appeared on threads about this ruling.

It wasn't a wedding cake.
It was ordered by a man, not a couple.
The courts in NI twice ruled against Ashers.
It was the Supreme Court of the UK who passed the latest ruling. Not a NI court.

So if you are happy for all those to get their way, that's fine, but I won't celebrate their victory, this was done for clear political reasons, and in my view clear homophobic reasons.

No one is thrilled that The Christian Institute has had a win. Those organisations didn't write the law.

What people do understand though is that this ruling protects everyone's right to free speech, not just people who say things that the majority agree with.

Free Speech is what allowed LGB activists to start campaigning for same sex marriage, for Alliance for Choice to host marches for abortion rights for NI women and for Women's Rights Organisations to highlight the issues with the proposed Self ID laws. Left wing organisations use these laws all the time and it would be hypocritical to insist that we had that right and no one else.

PennyMourdauntsLadyBrain
I know I have upset you, and probably DioneTheDiabolist on the other thread. BUT I know I am under educated and compared to lots on here thick, but I am truly confused, by this ruling and the claims it a win for free speech.
HOW? please explain.
Freedom of expression, I think I understand, ie a black person should have the right to say no a KKK cake, if think such a cake is illegal anyway, or a Muslim to not produce a Mohammed cake, but I doubt that would be a legal cake either.
But true free speech is summed up by this
I despise your views, I disagree completely, but I will died to support your rights to say it.
But even that has limits.
So surely for free speech to win, the bakers would have produced the cake.
Yourself and others keep saying free speech allowed LGBT activists (I notice you no T so against free speech there), and women's right to campaign, but under this ruling you would not, because the government could pressure all companies to say I don't support gay rights, as it is illegal, so no way can we publish your leaflets no way can you have a cake.

We live in a democracy, so we all can protest and campaign, don't forget the government forced fed suffragettes. So by law LGBT can have the right to a cake with "support gay marriage", unless it happens the baker is slightly homophobic, sorry Christian, then no your free speech and rights don't count, you will either have to ice your own cake or hope Joe Bloggs baker isn't also Homophobic, sorry Christian.
Free speech really?
I am guess you hate so called no platforming at universities and the bullying tactics of the likes of the TRA (no T in LGB after all) isn't this ruling giving all of us the chance to no platform so Tories can say no to Labour, Labour no to Tories, Omnivores can say no vegans and vegans no to omnivores, instead of us all trying to be grown and letting others be.
I am sure the Asher's have heard the statement
Love thy neighbour like your own, it is in the ten commandants after all.
Hypocrites come to mind, but all humans are that.

You haven't pissed me off 2BoysandaCairn. But you are completely misunderstanding the legal point being made.

If the Supreme Court had ruled against Ashers a homophobic customer would have been able to force a gay baker or anyone to write Homosexuality Is An Abomination. Would you write this message? Should the law force you to?

I’m not annoyed either, 2Boys.

I do get very irritated when anyone perpetuate outdated stereotypes of normal people from NI off the back of these examples. These aren’t the views of the vast majority of people here, despite what the DUP would have you believe.

This case could have happened anywhere in the UK- in fact the discrimination laws in NI are more expansive as they protect people’s political opinions as well.

Sorry it's late and I am truly thick, but I don't get the ruling at all.
If your homophobic customer wanted a "homosexuality is an abomination cake, no I would not produce it, and if he went to court, he would lose under hate speech laws, same for the KKK cake too.
We have discrimination laws, gender, sexuality and race all protected, up until Wednesday it was always taken that they came before religious freedoms, the gays and a bedroom in B&B ruling, the registrar and same sex ruling.
All I see is the rights of homophobic sorry Christians being promoted, because they would not produce the same cake for non homosexuals. So racists can do same for black rights cakes, anti semantics for Jewish cakes, Muslims for white cakes, because they not banning blacks, Jewish or whites, because they would not do it for any one.
So basically if hate someone, just make sure you hate them in an inclusive we hate you but it's okay, because if a white person loves you, we hate them to so wouldn't serve them either. whoope.
Christ this Donald Trump land.