Lady Hale: Supreme court.

[WheresTheEvidence]

Has anyone seen Lady Hales judgement in the case against the bakery that chose not bake a cake for a gay wedding?

In her summary she stated, in the supreme court;

"nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he doesn’t believe"

They had rights to free expression and freedom of conscience not to express views they didn't agree with.

But

“Conclusion not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination” court adds

So we as women have rights for free expression to state "a man can not be a woman" and we should not be bullied or forced to accept or express that "a man can be a woman" and this does not in any way diminish the needs of trans people or their supporters from discrimination ; which is what we've been saying all along.

Well done Lady Hale.

Maybe we should bake her a 🍰

"nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he doesn’t believe"

I saw that and thought of the court case where the victim was forced by the judge to refer to her attacker as "she" and "her" despite the fact that the perpetrator is male.

I wonder if she would like some crowdfunding to challenge what she was made to say in Court Disrespectful?

That's useful. Now to email Dawn Butler and tell her how appallingly she's behaving.

But look how she lists the protected characteristics !

"It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics."

"nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he doesn’t believe"

I saw that and thought of the court case where the victim was forced by the judge to refer to her attacker as "she" and "her" despite the fact that the perpetrator is male.

Yep, I immediately thought of Maria as well.

That marriage should be between a man and a woman is a belief though, where as saying biologically male people are not and cannot be female is a fact.

In light of all this transgender bollocks I’m not sure where I stand on the gay wedding cake issue. I think I still stick to my former position that if you’re a business making cakes, refusing to decorate with a perfectly legal and acceptable message should be against the law. How that plays out in our current predicament though I don’t know. I have no problem with people making ‘women have penises too’ cakes if they so wish and it’s not against the law to do so, but by the same token if I object on moral grounds, because it’s a falsehood, so refuse to bake the cakes, does this judgement uphold my right not to do so? Conversely, if my local baker refused to make me a cake saying ’humans cannot change sex,’ which is a fact, would they be allowed to do so?

I’m not sure this does us any good whatsoever tbh. A belief can be absolutely anything, it could be that elephants don’t have trunks, which would be fine unless someone came and asked you to bake an elephant cake for their 4 year old’s birthday. I think the test is whether people can object on factual grounds. You could get into all sorts of dodgy ground with that though so I don’t know.

Sorry, I’ve rambled on and gone nowhere.

Just to say, I am a gayer, so I do have a dog in this fight, kind of.

Thats a very significant ruling with a lot of impact.

Jessica Elgot @jessicaelgot
Really interesting nuance in the judgment - the refusal was because of the message on the cake, not the person requesting the cake. So if it had been a standard wedding cake but for two men = illegal to refuse. But not illegal to refuse to ice “support gay marriage” on a cake.

This is an interesting quote:

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, said: “This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans.

“Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

“The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

what was the 'message on the cake'? I can't find it anywhere?

The message was "Support Gay Marriage".

In light of all this transgender bollocks I’m not sure where I stand on the gay wedding cake issue. I think I still stick to my former position that if you’re a business making cakes, refusing to decorate with a perfectly legal and acceptable message should be against the law.

On another thread someone posted the case of a Spa / Waxing Studio that a transwoman sued, because none of the employees there does brazilian waxings on males (one of the employees doesn't even wax male legs, because she is Muslim). Until said case, it was never an issue as 98% or so are female customers and the others don't want Brasilian (or accept that it is not on offer for males).

I believe one should be allowed to reject on the basis of content. I mean, nobody will forgoe a business opportunity and possible boycott lightly. And if it is really something you feel strongly about...

neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose

isn't that exactly what GC people are being forced to do, though?

Bad on those grounds a gay baker would have to ice a cake with the words 'homosexuals are the spawn of the devil', or someosuch. Or a Jewish baker 'Hitler was right about Jews'.

RiverTam

I think you're right. There should be an obligation to make anyone a cake, but not to have to pipe on a message that conflicts with their own values.

I think Lady Hale got it spot on.

You can't refuse to sell something/provide a (non-biologically specific) service to someone because of what they are (gay, different race, particular sex, trans, whatever) if you would sell that something/provide that service to other people.

You can refuse to be forced to repeat a political slogan if you don't agree with it.

Presumably my employer, could, for instance, get me to sign a code of conduct saying that I wouldn't discriminate in the course of my duties against someone who was trans (and I'd happily sign such a code). But they couldn't force me to sign a piece of paper saying "I, FermatsTheorem, believe TWAW."

I'm not sure how relevant the size of the company is. Thinking of Posie's woman poster. Can a large company claim to have a

Sorry continued -have a belief- in which case unpopular opinions can be drowned out.

Fermat that's a good point. My manager in my old job attempted this when there was a TIM in another dept (IT, of course). Told people they had to call him she and she was a woman. But this means I could have come back with my freedom of expression rights that I don't have to agree he's a woman.

The baker said that he couldn't bake the cake because of the message upon it. (Something like 'hooray for same-sex marriage')

He would have refused a straight or gay or bi or whatever - their sexual orientation was immaterial.