‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

[FeminismandWomensFights]

This case is an important one to watch for those interested legal protections for personal freedom of belief. It is now going back to court.
Gist seems to be that the complainant tried to order a cake with a message on it saying ‘support gay marriage’ from a baker who doesn’t support gay marriage. Bakery says no to that specific order.
Complainant feels it’s about discrimination because he couldn’t make that supplier supply him with that specific message on a cake. Baker says that any different message on a cake would’ve been completely fine to provide to him, it’s not personal discrimination, it’s about people having a right not to endorse political statements that they don’t believe in. (Possibly making arguments about religious freedom of expression too, but I haven’t read into the details). It‘s easy to see how this case could relate to GC people’s rights, at work and so on.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891

Also Is the verdict of the cake case going to be relevant to Maya F’s case, I wonder?

I am looking forward to the day EHRC decides to pursue a case on behalf of women, religion, maternity or race...

I presume when ‘clarifying these points of law’ only one side gets government funding to bring their case?

Birdsfoot, interesting question.
Link again: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891

Ffs this again? I thought the bakers lost because there religion provided no protection and they should run it as a business not take it personally?

Or was that the guest house case?

slippery I think that was the guest house case. They refused service altogether.
The bakery didn't refuse to bake the cake, just to pipe the message on it. They offered to supply the coloured icing so that the customers could pipe it on themselves.

"This is about limited companies being somehow able to pick and choose which customers they will serve."

But that's not what happened - they chose not to provide him with a specific product, not refused to sell him anything because of his views.

And whenever I see that image I can't help wondering if reproducing it would be an infringement of copyright in the Sesame Street characters.

Shit, I thought this one was settled. I've heard legal people say that it is quite important for Maya.

I'm somewhat confused about how Brexit influences this. Are we still going to be bound by the ECHR? Sorry for my ignorance.

slippery the bakers won

AnotherLass ECHR is seperately from the EU so not directly affected by Brexit

the bakers won, as they didn't discriminate against the man placing the order on any basis, they did make his cake, they just refused to ice the words he requested on the basis that, as devout Christians, they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I understand that they were happy to provide the icing for him to ice his cake himself.

Ok... but this is relevant to feminism how?

This already went to the Supreme Court and the bakers won, so it's now going up to the European Court of Human Rights, is that right? (can't click link)

It's incredible how much money seems to be going to these men's case.

but this is relevant to feminism how?

Because it's looking at whether it's lawful for someone to say "no, I do not believe that and so I don't want to be forced to say it against my beliefs". Which is very relevant to feminism at the moment.

It would be interesting to try some other slogans out. Compelled speech: 'Transwomen are women' or 'adult human female', say.

If the cake makers lose activists of all areas will be targetting businesses and forcing them to write messages that don't agree with their personal beliefs
I know a couple of lesbian cooperatives. If they were cake makers, T shirt makers, embroiders they could be forced to write lesbians have penises
IMO the baker in this case was deliberately targetted

I’m a lot more sympathetic to the bakers since Wax My Balls.

pixie because of freedom of expression, ie you can't force someone to express (verbally or any other way) a belief that they do not hold.

Hence, regardless of what anyone might think, I can't be forced to use female pronouns for a man, regardless of how they identify. Their identity, and the validation of that identity, does not trump my freedom of expression.

IfIShouldFallFromGraceWithGod of course they were targeted. This man knew exactly what he was doing.

Because it's looking at whether it's lawful for someone to say "no, I do not believe that and so I don't want to be forced to say it against my beliefs". Which is very relevant to feminism at the moment.

Explains very little to me - but thanks anyway.

I find it bloody scary to think of the bakers losing this. Not because I have any sympathy with their actual views but that’s beside the point, just because losing a legal defence to protect personal freedom of belief and thought, is so totalitarian and that affects everyone negatively.

It is relevant because it is about whether speech can be compelled.

If you can compel someone to state they support gay marriage when they don't you can equally compel someone to state 'transwomen are women' when the vast bulk of the population do not believe that.

of course they were targeted. This man knew exactly what he was doing.

Indeed. It is useful to reflect on who is actually the bigot (according to dictionary definition) in this case).

I agree that the bakers must have been deliberately targeted in order to make a point. They could have gone to anyone else.

I suppose as a self employed person you should have the right not to take on work that makes you feel uncomfortable/bad/scared.

I worked as a therapist and the rule was that if someone came in for an appointment and you felt scared or worried the door would be left open or a ‘trainee’ would sit in on the session. Sessions would also be recorded (with permission). If I had been scared I would have terminated the session. No one gets paid enough to put themselves in harms way or at physical risk.

So in the JY waxing cases, the therapists didn’t feel that they could carry out the treatments for various reasons. The law can’t make them.

IMO the baker in this case was deliberately targetted

Weren't the bakers targetted in the same way as #waxmyballs?

The person who wanted the cake could have chosen any number of bakeries that were willing to ice his cake, but deliberately picked the religious baker who wasn't.