Implications of the Irish gay cake ruling

[MIdgebabe]

Specifically No one is required to manifest a belief that they do not hold

The billboards is what concerns me Heresy.

It is one thing when this judgement is applied to two people in a small bakery with limited reach, but quite another if a large company (and one who might even have a monopoly on advertising space country-wide, or look to gain one) can pick and choose what slogans they carry with impunity - which is exactly what we were objecting to with the Woman poster vs Primesight issue.

Can they now just say "we don't agree" and refuse without further justification?

The onus then being on a group to challenge this (expensively) in court?

More widely, this could also restrict the flow of information and of other political messages, or any information/messages at all. I find this to be a concern when we see such totalitarian tendencies these days.

I'm not sure this judgement supports free speech at all. But I want to find out more.

I agree with the ruling Plainspeak and agree that I wouldn't want to be forced to promote a belief I was strongly against but I do see the concern you raise.

no-one is claiming that Primesight or Exterion have acted illegally, though, they're simply complicit in silencing women. Though obviously that's not happening as Posie is still getting in the papers about this (and not losing her money!). Posie can't force them to put the posters up but equally it reflects very badly on them and that's a business decision they need to make, and of course one could argue that the original case reflects badly on the bakery, but that's up to them.

See, I think we should be able to force Primesight (a secular business, without any religious affiliation) to put the posters up for the very reasons of preventing arbitrary or insidious mass silencing. If the statement/ slogan is not defamatory, illegal, untrue (eg TWAW) etc, with strict exceptions for the genuinely religious.

If the bakers had been asked to cater the wedding wearing T shirts expressing that belief, or asked to greet guests with that statement, or wear a sandwich board, that would be different IMO as it would be a very personal association.

Icing or printing words is not forcing the same level of personal association, or the same as actual speech, but if they contravene the rules of their religion there is a case too, otherwise I think not, as mass silencing is a greater risk.

What would happen if the Metro had refused the Women's Place advert? And if/when twitter and all GC women?

It is the global/ national scope of businesses nowadays that I think makes a difference to this. We can see that as women we have so little power, even as consumers, and I don't think this helps.

*typo, if/when Twitter bans all GC women

I think we would have to make a claim for sex discrimination. Which is definitely where we're headed, and why it's so important for the category of female to be based on sex not "gender".

Because if it isn't and thousands of men can get GRCs it will without doubt weaken our position.

But if they can just say well we think TWAW so we don't agree that woman=adult human female then there is their free speech right to decline per Lady Hale.

There is some balancing to be done vs discrimination against women, maybe but I am pretty sure that in this climate we could lose.

I guess part of what I am saying is that these days is that who owns the media, who owns the posters, the social media, who owns the means of production etc of books, t shirts, bags, posters = more and more who controls what is said and what people can know, and therefore what we can be influenced to believe. Scary.

Yes, agree it's tricky. I think it has to be considered on a case by case basis when it comes to free speech which could be perceived as discrimination/harassment but should lean towards free speech. But that's just an opinion based on not considering the whole issue in any great depth. Like you I need to think about it some more and I'm open to changing my mind.

Discussion on This Morning about this. I'm wondering if there is an IQ test for certain presenters and guests to make sure they are particularly dense and cannot grasp basic ideas.
It's like they hear buzzwords and there's a Pavlov's dogs response of head nodding and something switches off their critical thinking skills.

Totally ereshkigal. I think we are so under pressure from this TWAW indoctrination and losing the meaning of woman and female which is so fundamental and important, that my initial reaction was relief too. Then I thought, hang on a minute.

Our news media are increasingly under the control of too few people, and that never ends well.

This is an issue that takes a lot of nuanced thought and consideration.

I would accept that ruling under Article 9, and freedom of conscience (given their faith and the illegality of SSM in NI, and any perceived spiritual consequences of them carrying out that request). I'm struggling with Article 10.

I think the fact that it was Christians in this case makes it very easy to believe they were in the wrong and should have iced the cake, Christians are, in my view, regarded as an easy target and indeed were almost certainly targeted to make this cake. They are a private business, clearly Christian, and so one can shop accordingly. Whereas, for example, Tim Farron, also a devout Christian, consistently voted in favour of gay marriage as he believes in equality in the law, and his personal views on those of his chosen faith weren't relevant, and as an MP, a public servant, i think he was right to do so.

Those who believe TWAW are at liberty to disagree with woman=adult human female, and vice versa (that woman=adult human female is factually correct is in our favour, something that increasing number of people are picking up on). Businesses need to think about their audience and their public image and act accordingly.

The downsides of freedom of speech and expression, in my view, are hugely outweighed by the upsides and it's up to us to act within that moral framework, by not asking for posts to be deleted but by continue to argue our case. And we have amazing women, and men, who are doing just that.

See, I think we should be able to force Primesight (a secular business, without any religious affiliation) to put the posters up for the very reasons of preventing arbitrary or insidious mass silencing. If the statement/ slogan is not defamatory, illegal, untrue (eg TWAW) etc, with strict exceptions for the genuinely religious.
So you're compelling a company or an individual to provide a service they do not want to. On the basis that failing to provide it is censorship. Except Primesight (for example) rents billboards, and is not compelled to inform the public in the way the BBC is, for example. They rent the billboards to whoever wants them, they refuse service to whoever. We could then challenge them in law if the refusal was discriminatory. But any company should have the right to refuse service. Known shoplifters are banned from supermarkets. Is that in breach of their human rights - it means they have far less choice and could be in a food desert if all the stores near them have banned them - but isn't it the store's right to ban them? Pubs banning people in workwear/PPE or in football shirts? Is that worth challenging legally? Then the Equality Act exceptions. Each time an organisation segregates women from transwomen, even if it's justified by risk assessment, even if the org did an assessment for each individual transwoman, they still run the risk of vexatious litigation.
You've put in several caveats - 1. provided the message is not defamatory. Surely this needs to be decided in law? A controversial, challenging or shocking statement might not be defamatory if it is actually true, the problem we have is the online bunfights shut down messages deemed unfriendly so there is rarely a legal argument made. 2. Provided it is not illegal - well the law can be rewritten to make many things illegal, you can't advertise to children in Sweden and in many countries you have to choose your children's names from an approved list. So I'd say it depends on the law. 3. Provided it is not untrue - agreed. ASA should challenge more advertising claims. 4. Strict exceptions for the genuinely religious. Which exceptions? Can they lie? In what way are the exceptions strict, or the religious genuine? If I go to Mass every week do I get to come over all Clarkson and say cyclists should be shot?
I'm being pedantic for a reason. We either have free speech, with legal restrictions on incitement to violence or lying, or we have approved speech. If we have the latter then while we may agree with the approved list at present, that can always change in the future. I'd rather listen to a holocaust denier and tell him why I disagree rather than give him the air of mystery half of Europe does by making his opinion illegal.

If the bakers had been asked to cater the wedding wearing T shirts expressing that belief, or asked to greet guests with that statement, or wear a sandwich board, that would be different IMO as it would be a very personal association.
I disagree. Your opinion is that a t shirt is worse than making a cake, but the bakers didn't make that distinction. If the order was goady, as it appears to have been, then I'm sure the bakers can imagine the PR coup the couple could have had in posting photos of the cake in the cake box printed with their bakery's name. So there could still have been a personal element. There could have been social media posts linking the bakery to the cake's message, again making it personal. If the bakery agreed to make the cake, decorate it and provide icing for a slogan they themselves didn't want to ice, it says to me they bent over backwards to avoid litigation and hadn't even considered the possibility of the PR stunts that could still have been carried out with sloppy self-icing!
We have very homophobic, sexist groups in this country who are permitted to hold views I find offensive. Those groups never seem to be targeted by goady fuckers like this. I suspect it's because in the battle of protected characteristics, gay is quite far down the top trumps list. Perhaps not as far down as woman.

I think it has to be considered on a case by case basis when it comes to free speech which could be perceived as discrimination/harassment but should lean towards free speech.
It's the "could be perceived" bit that's the problem. We are safer if discriminatory language is permitted than if it is banned. Because what is deemed "discriminatory" is entirely subjective and changes often.
I'd be happy with a ban on incitement and lying, with everything else allowed. But that's just me.

People hold all sorts of views. Some are quite distastefully unpleasant to others. We won't agree on a definitive list that we can all agree are beyond the pale.

This is an enormous topic, and I think it's really important to keep in mind that the focus of this ruling was specifically on compelled speech. You cannot be compelled to promote something you do not agree with.

This is not the same as discriminating against someone because they hold a protected characteristic, and it's also not the same as being pressured to remove something because someone might perceive it as offensive.

This is essentially a conscience clause. The comparison with Posie's billboards only works if the companies involved believe that Woman does not = adult human female and putting the dictionary definition of woman is compelling them to say something they do not agree with.

Now, it may be the case that Primesight does indeed find the dictionary definition of 'Woman' to be against it's beliefs, in which case they make themselves a laughing stock, but they are well within the bounds of freedom to make that decision.

Liberty and truth are bedfellows. We really shouldn't be afraid of letting them run together.

Well, what I think is that everyone should have a right to participate or not participate in speech. This means I have to support the bakery, because they could also prove it was the message itself they objected to, due to their beliefs. They weren't actually refusing to even provide a cake, just didn't want to ice it with the words saying "support gay marriage."

Regarding the billboard or other private companies refusing to publish gender-critical statements, that means I have to technically agree with their rights to do so. However, I think the case of the dictionary definition of woman is different than a religiously-grounded refusal to produce a message specifically to support to gay marriage. The onus, I think, is on the company itself to justify their objection to the actual message itself, i.e. the dictionary. Which would probably be impossible, really. Then they would have to look at their own policies. Are they applying the same standard to everyone? Would they let another group put up a poster with a different dictionary definition of word? Would they let certain religious minorities share their beliefs on a poster, even though this could offend other minorities or atheists? Would they let political parties put up messages even if they are controversial or offend other voters?

Or is this a specific systematic refusal of service to women who believe in biology - and if so - how can they possibly be justified in gagging only such women, if they allow other groups to advertise? What is their "rulebook?" Like how Christians can point to Biblical texts?

If they are anti-women, then at least they should be honest about it, explain why it is only women having free opinions that they find problematic, and attempt to justify why they think the content (in this case the dictionary) is now fundamentally against their beliefs. In such cases, these outlets likely do not have a leg to stand on, unless they publically state that they now find defining certain words a hateful act. And then we can all laugh at them for having gone absolutely stark-raving MAD.

I think the issue with free speech here is the statement itself (not the group making it), and whether you are being made to produce it yourself (as in the case of the bakers, i.e. compelled speech). I would find it highly philosophically objectionable to make a cake that says "Repeat after us: trans women are biological females," "TERFs are trash" or "Smash the cotton ceiling." Therefore, it is also in my interest to defend the rights of these bakers not to participate in producing messages they fundamentally do not agree with. I am sure the bakers would have iced the cake with something like "Happy Birthday."

(Basically, I agree with what Floral said, although she put it much better!)

Regarding the billboard or other private companies refusing to publish gender-critical statements, that means I have to technically agree with their rights to do so.
I do agree with their rights to do so, as I have the right to challenge them if their decision is discriminatory. Nobody has the right to a service or a product. We have the right not to be discriminated against because of protected characteristics. If I close my corner shop at lunch time you can't sue me for refusing to serve you, unless you can prove I decided not to serve you because of your characteristic.
The Primesight issue is basically that they thought they'd cop more flak for leaving it up than for taking it down. They made a business decision based on social media pressure, it wasn't censorship, just a poor business decision. Ocado sticking their woke oar in and losing millions of pounds in custom was a poor business decision. Ocado still should have the right to choose not to deliver to my house if they don't want to.

This is an enormous topic, and I think it's really important to keep in mind that the focus of this ruling was specifically on compelled speech. You cannot be compelled to promote something you do not agree with.
Except you can, in many other situations, and this is a product of our permitted speech environment. A male from a background/religion/culture who believes women are inferior is compelled to say differently at work. Good or bad? I say bad - I'd rather know his true views and judge/challenge him for them. A GC HR manager is compelled to say TWAW. Good or bad? Again bad, he or she is compelled to say something they fundamentally disagree with. Perhaps it is company policy, and the compulsion is corporate. How could anyone change the company's point of view if none of their employees are allowed to discuss it? A newsreader is compelled to call Jacinta Brooks "she". Good or bad? Are they acting as a mouthpiece for their organisation's policy or are they compelled by their employer to say something they personally believe is untrue?
We're tied in knots by trying to avoid offence. That offence is weaponised - dogpiles, boycotts, litigation - on all sides. However the more we try to avoid giving offence the harder it is to fight litigation or to resist PR action. Half these battles would have been unimaginable twenty years ago. Were we all unreconstructed Nazis in the late 90s?
I guess you could argue the above examples aren't compulsion, given that they are employment based. But the law compels us too (it's just we disagree with those opinions deemed illegal).

I don't disagree in the slightest about the offense industry, as someone who is really vocal about the importance of free speech - with limits simply around inciting violence and lying.

The examples you cite, I agree are in the main nonsense, because a news reader shouldn't be compelled to lie and so forth.

If a man genuinely believes women are inferior, for whatever reason, then I say let the fucker speak and be refuted openly.

As with any conscience issue, there will always be a tipping point at which you have to make a decision about your course of action. Sometimes, if your conscience will not allow you to say something you profoundly disagree with, you will be able to make a stand and make your case and prevail. Sometimes your stand will involve you not being able to do all the things you did before, like issuing marriage licenses if you don't believe the people involved should have one.

If it's something you believe in, you should be prepared to stand by it and make the case freely. If your argument is countered by a better argument, that's the way it goes. Banning speech or compelling it is utterly anti-liberty and should be resisted.

The truth loves the daylight, it's only lies that thrive in the shadows.

Read the MN rules for this board...

They have decided, despite a lot of pressure, to host this discussion, but on their terms.

Fine as the same terms apply to everyone.They do not discriminate according to race, sex or creed.

'I'm wondering if there is an IQ test for certain presenters and guests to make sure they are particularly dense and cannot grasp basic ideas. '

There's a lot of it about. I was listening to discussion about this on the radio yesterday. So many callers just couldn't get it. It was as if they interpreted the whole story as 'somebody did something mean to a gay person and that's WRONG' and couldn't get any further in their thinking. It reminds me of the TWAW dogma. Critical thinking in short supply all over the place

abbsisspartacus the bakery is in Northern Ireland where gay marriage is not legal. This is irrelevant though as the case was decided by the UK supreme court. The ruling would have been the same if the bakery in question was in England or Wales or Scotland.