Interesting Peter Tatchell article on freedom of speech and equality law

[Wanderabout]

Using the law to force Ashers and others to aid the dissemination of ideas that conflict with their conscience sets a dangerous, authoritarian precedent.

The equality laws invoked in this case are intended to protect people – not ideas – against discrimination.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/6182820/ashers-christian-bakery-gay-cake/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I stomp TERFS' or something
It is an incitement to violence. Change the word to Nazis or Fascists it is no better. It is not actually legal to stomp on any of them.

I don't really get why these bakers did not just say they couldn't do it and not give a reason

It would only have helped them in the short term. Not giving a reason would not have helped them (or any other business if the refusal is based on a protected characteristic) if he still pressed on with the case.

It might have made it marginally more difficult for him to argue but I'm guessing that if pressed to lie Ashers would not have fudged the issue ("too busy/ too complicated") and would have been honest about it.

I wonder how much damage he has done to his own cause?

But it's not the same thing. Making a product celebrating an occasion you don't celebrate is not the same thing as making a product endorsing a political campaign you are actively opposed to

I agree. And the religious /satanic aspects of Halloween surely now sail over most people's heads anyway.

I'm confused by the Asher's ruling. My understanding is that the customer was found to have been discriminated against due to his sexuality which is the protected characteristic under the NI Act.

I'm not sure however how this matches given that had he asked for a standard came it wouldn't have been refused or even come up. Essentially, how would the person who rescinded the order definitely know he is gay? Similarly how the discrimination case would work if a heterosexual customer placed the order and then it was refused later on. The discrimination was against the cake, not the person. But I haven't read any of the judgements so am happy to be educated.

I just read a summary of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (from a blog from legal firm).www.lawsoc-ni.org/summary-of-judgement-ashers-bakery-appeal
Sorry its too long to cut and paste

The key takeaway from the judgement seems to be the appellants (Ashers) might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.

www.lawsoc-ni.org/summary-of-judgement-ashers-bakery-appeal

My comment about Halloween is that it undermined this idea that the "printer" of the message is deemed/perceived to support the message. Ashers owners are from the brand of Christianity who disapprove of Halloween. Yet, there was no evidence that their production of Halloween based bakery goods implied religious/political support for Halloween

My comment about Halloween is that it undermined this idea that the "printer" of the message is deemed/perceived to support the message. Ashers owners are from the brand of Christianity who disapprove of Halloween.

it's not for anyone else to decide how consistently they observe their religion. religion is inherently consistent, and also it's not the government's place to decide who is a good muslim/christian.

Marchin1984

But it goes to credibility and consistency of their argument. Plus this is nothing to do with govt...it is a court interpreting the law. And the Supreme Court may come to a different conclusion to the trial judge and Court of Appeal.

But do we want courts deciding who is a consistent/good Christian?

this is not place for the state. if people don't want to bake a cake they shouldn't have to.

this is not place for the state. if people don't want to bake a cake they shouldn't have to.

I don't believe that baking of the cake was even the issue? Weren't they happy to bake the cake just not ice the message?