‘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

And of course, there is that too. CassianAndor

To be clear, I don't agree with this being taken to the ECHR.

@ cassan- this is not about one point, but many different ones and all depending which view you are taking- Do I want someone to be forced to write sexist racist homophobic offensive messages No- do I want people to be able to discriminate against a person and hide behind religious rights, No I don't either.
@ScrimshawTheSecond There are already restrictions on Freedom of speech - you wouldnt be allowed to swear whenever you wanted and in any place for example - and this is what society governs fair. I heard the phrase your right to swing your arm stops at my nose and I think this is very apt.

I don't think anyone should be forced in to compelled speech. I wouldn't make a cake with racist messages, so I can't feel they should be forced to write anything.

Imagine if white supremacists forced a cake to be made then posted it on social media? The bakery would be destroyed. They should be able to refuse to make something. It's not discrimination because they are still selling but being forced to create a specific product is different.

cheese for the last bloody time - they didn't discriminate against him. Discriminating against him would be refusing to serve him on the basis of his sexuality. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

This is also not about freedom of speech but freedom of expression and the court ruled that no-one can be forced to express a view that they do not hold. That would be compelled speech. You appear to be in favour of this.

The trans rights movement is a huge threat to lesbians, and it makes me feel scared and unsafe to keep reading threads in Feminist Chat suggesting that homophobia is great and something we should support

Which threads are these? I haven't seen any comments in FWR supporting homophobia. Comments that Pride has been taken over by TW and fetishists, absolutely - but most people I've seen commenting here feel that conflating fetishism with homosexuality is itself homophobic and reductive, as it suggests that fetish behaviour is an inherent part of being gay.

I also find comments comparing gay people to paedophiles... incredibly disturbing

me too. Good thing no-one's posted that, then, isn't it?

There is no evidence that they refused to write the message because he was gay. How would they even know whether he was gay or straight? The objection was purely on writing the message, and that would have applied no matter who was requesting it.

I also find comments comparing gay people to paedophiles and calling the belief that gay and lesbian people should have the same legal rights as straight people “political propaganda” incredibly disturbing.

What a load of disingenuous claptrap. No one has done that. But you know that, really.

to keep reading threads in Feminist Chat suggesting that homophobia is great

You what? I read FWR pretty closely, I'm obviously still managing to miss those threads.

There's an obvious, massive gulf of difference between respecting someone's personal right to not say something they disagree with (because compelled speech and 'right think' is a really scary thing) and actively 'supporting' their position. By not forcing someone to say something they personally, morally, disagree with, you are not 'supporting' their perceived 'bigotry'. Unless you believe that compelled recitation of rightthink is necessary to stamp out unbelievers.

Flip it around. Should trans bakers be forced to write 'women don't have penises' on a cake? Of course they bloody shouldn't. I agree with the sentiment: I believe in the sentiment, I absolutely also agree with the right of people to say no, I don't agree with that and it's not a message I'm willing to repeat.

The guy bought a cake. He was not refused service. He was offered icing to write the message himself. This is purely and simply about his right to force someone to act against their beliefs if the acronym 'lgbt' is invoked. I'm not for that. I'm lesbian and I'm absolutely not for that. Most LGBT people are grown up enough to cope with people holding opinions they don't share.

Whoever posted about the hairdresser, it's slightly different.

It's more like:

An Indian woman went to a hairdressers asking for her hair to be cut and then highlighted pink. The hairdresser agreed to do the cut, but said they wouldn't colour the hair because they believe hair should be natural colours.They'd refuse to colour hair regardless of whether the person was Indian/white/Asian, but would always do the cut.

(Obviously I don't think coloured hair is a common religious belief, but in terms of the service aspect, that's a closer analogy.)

I'd be cool with a gay baker refusing to write "support straight pride"

I think it's just daft trying to force people to write stuff that they don't agree with. I don't think it helps anyone.

Gracious some posters are making this painful. It is not about gay marriage, it is not about religion. It is being compelled by law to write/ say something that fundamentally goes against what you believe in.

People are too caught up in the religious aspect to join the dots.

BBC round up of views from last time
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45811072

I actually wish religion wasn’t particularly part of this case because everyone should be able to have freedom of belief, whether or not they also have religious belief.

Peter Tatchell said previously that Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas. I agree with him (on that!)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

[does detailed search of FWR looking for posts saying “homophobia is great” or similar]

Nope, nothing.

Hippo - you are either wilfully misunderstanding or plain making shit up. No one has said those things. I'm sorry for you that you have to fabricate a side to argue against, but that's what you're doing. If this isn't wilful on your part then please go back and actually read what people have said.

X post Unicorn

If someone asked me to ice a cake saying “Peter Tatchell is not a paedophile apologist” I would refuse.

Which threads are these? I haven't seen any comments in FWR supporting homophobia.

Not supporting homophobia as such - but arguing your points about transgenderism and feminism by referring to an incident that is linked to homophobia - and implying that it is fine to have such views as we’re all entitled to our beliefs and opinions (and as a pp pointed out where does that end? Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?) is pretty dodgy ground. I agree the OP has very much missed the mark with this comparison and argument.

I am stunned at how many people seem to think that free speech only applies to people they agree with.

And that if you defend person A's right to free speech then you agree with person A's opinions.

That's not how any of this works.

Spot on, dancer

pixie how were the bakers homophobic? Not supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you're homophobic. I would assume they also don't support any non-religious marriage because for them marriage is a sacred sacrament.

But as unicorn says, this element is a distraction from the actual point, which is compelled speech.

Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?)

Of course it bloody does in terms of your right to hold them.

Why is this so difficult??

Does that mean racist and sexist ‘opinions’ are ok as well?

Are you familiar with our present Prime Minister?

All jokes aside, regardless of my own views, yes people have the right not to be compelled to state 'women are equal to men' or 'black people are equal to white people'. It is the compulsion that is at issue, not whether or not we find views silly or vile or the people holding them to be ridiculous.

It is a point of principle that effects everyone, those we agree with as well as those we don't. Compelling speech is the action of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.