Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

‘Gay Cake’ case now going back to court

258 replies

FeminismandWomensFights · 15/08/2019 08:44

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

OP posts:
placemats · 15/08/2019 13:52

A lever to what though?

Catapultaway · 15/08/2019 13:52

It's interesting, both results have ups and downs. Clearly the bakers views are not alligned with most people (hopefully) but they are entitled to their views and business isn't about being compelled to offer services, there should always be a willing buyer and willing seller.

But looking from the other point of view, does that mean that Twitter etc are allowed and should be supported in their right to remove posters and posts based purely on what they find appropriate?

placemats · 15/08/2019 13:55

How can you possibly compare a local, family run bakery to Twitter?

placemats · 15/08/2019 13:57

"I have my own beliefs. But that's not what my case has ever been about," he said.

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

"It's such a dangerous precedent."

From the link:

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

placemats · 15/08/2019 13:58

They served him. They didn't like his sentiment.

placemats · 15/08/2019 13:59

And twitter silence women on an almost daily basis.

CassianAndor · 15/08/2019 14:09

Early so, on that basis you would think it fine for a bakery run by a transwoman to be obliged to ice a cake with the words 'transwomen are men', for example? Or for a woman baker to be forced to ice the words 'stoning is the correct punishment for immoral women'?

Absolutely tickety-boo by you, right? And pixie, for that matter?

whatsthecomingoverthehill · 15/08/2019 14:12

Early is just ignoring everyone who has pointed out the glaringly obvious consequences.

barelove · 15/08/2019 14:17

I can only presume early et al would be absolutely willing to write the vile examples I gave on a cake if they were in the cake decorating business? Hmm

CassianAndor · 15/08/2019 14:17

whatsthecomingoverthehill par for the course, then...

KatieAlcock · 15/08/2019 14:20

One of the banks refused to let a GC group open an account with them because the didn't support their goals. Is that OK?

No, it's not, but the account manager is perfectly free to refuse to write in their account opening letter "we support your aims".

DioneTheDiabolist · 15/08/2019 14:42

In a statement, Mr Lee's solicitor said the latest legal bid "does not directly implicate the owners of Ashers bakery or challenge their right to privately hold religious/political views".

"Instead the case will be against the United Kingdom, a member state of the European Court," the statement read.

It added: "The latest hearings will attempt to challenge that ruling at the highest human rights court in Europe, citing the Supreme Court failed to give appropriate weight to Mr Lee's rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mr Lee really believes that his right to force someone to do something they dont believe in is more important than the rights of everyone else to object to stuff.Shock

KTara · 15/08/2019 15:00

I think it is a form of abuse not to accept no for an answer and to continue to take someone to court until that no is overturned. It is using the law as a form of coercion.

I hope Mr Lee loses as otherwise it is a very dangerous precedent.

IfIShouldFallFromGraceWithGod · 15/08/2019 15:07

FFS this thread is frustrating. So many people missing the point

DejaVulva · 15/08/2019 15:19

Mr Lee, is seems, is a man who refuses to accept "No!" for an answer.

He seems to want to force himself on us [via his views] against our consent.

What kind of man behaves like this, I wonder?

GCAcademic · 15/08/2019 15:23

I feel like most adults in this country have lost the ability to assess a situation and look ahead to its unintended consequences.

I feel like this too, and it is really frightening. We are now completely at the mercy of whoever is in power, and whoever will come into power next. It seems so easy for the wool to be pulled over people's eyes.

FermatsTheorem · 15/08/2019 15:48

Yes, GC!

There's a reason why justice (interestingly traditionally portrayed as a woman) is shown blindfolded. It's meant to indicate that the law applies, impartially, without prejudice, to everyone - nice, nasty, morally virtuous, morally lacking... everyone should be treated the same before the law.

You don't get to introduce laws which say "free speech, but only for that subset of people who say things I agree with." Or "you can be compelled to say things I deem to be nice, but no-one gets to tell me to say things I deem to be nasty." It doesn't work like that. It can't work like that without being either completely arbitrary or hopeless partial and politicised.

Earlywalker · 15/08/2019 15:50

I think if a business says they provide a service, they should provide that service. Even if their morals and the person they’re providing a service too collide.

I am utterly against pharmacists and doctors etc refusing to provide access to abortion or contraception because of ‘religious beliefs’ and so on so would be a complete hypocrite to say this shouldn’t apply to all aspects of businesses.

Providing an icing on cake is what your job is, if you’ve stated ‘any words on any cake’ it’s not your job to police what people want on that cake. If you have certain criteria, you should make that clear.

Obviously if it said something like ‘kill all blacks’ that’s racism/incitement to violence and against the law so they can reasonably refuse.

Providing the service for which you are paid for, does not mean you agree with their views. God knows I’ve dealt with some absolute assholes in previous line of work, but my job and my personal opinions are two separate things.

You are consistently moaning about GC people being denied their right to talk or businesses refusing them entry to premises to discuss feminism.

By allowing businesses to refuse service based on them not liking your morals sets a dangerous president.

It was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was.

As individuals we all have the right to our beliefs and to hold those and say/not say what we want, as a business, if you provide a service I think you should perform it without discrimination.

Obviously some things are not black and white, e.g my salon has a disclaimer that they can refuse service based on personal hygiene reasons, which is fair enough if your service involves touching a client and your personal hygiene is a big factor within the service.

IStillMissBlockbuster · 15/08/2019 15:56

^By allowing businesses to refuse service based on them not liking your morals sets a dangerous president.

It was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was.^

This is about compelled speech. Not providing a service. x 10000

Propertyofhood · 15/08/2019 15:57

Earlywalker

So if a transwoman ran a bakery and someone went in and asked for a cake that said 'Women Don't Have Penises', you think the transwoman should be forced to do that?

NotBadConsidering · 15/08/2019 15:59

What about “abortion is murder” early? That’s not inciting anything. That’s just an opinion. Should be forced to ice?

Propertyofhood · 15/08/2019 16:00

As individuals we all have the right to our beliefs and to hold those and say/not say what we want, as a business, if you provide a service I think you should perform it without discrimination.

They did provide the service. They made the cake and they provided pens so that the customer could write the message themselves. They did not want to be forced to write something they did not believe.

CassianAndor · 15/08/2019 16:01

Early so you think that a transwoman who believes they are a woman should have to ice 'transwomen are men, get over it' on to a cake, if that is their business?

dancingcamper · 15/08/2019 16:02

was only recently you were all moaning about a pub that refused to serve the GC protestors who were wearing their AHF tops and how awful you all thought this was

Women have complained about being refused service for wearing either "adult human female" or "lesbian" tops.

Note that in both these cases the women were refused service because of their beliefs. They didn't ask the bartender to agree with them, merely serve them.

The cake maker was willing to serve the cake, just not willing to write something on it that they disagreed with.

The difference is quite obvious to me.

Manderleyagain · 15/08/2019 16:06

Earlywalker I realise this is all going around in circles but do you agree that the BNP (or similar) should be allowed to get all the local Asian, black or Jewish printers to print their election leaflets, even if they don't want to and other printers would do it? BNP is a legal party.

Do you think a small business owned by a couple who Id as lesbians where one is a trans woman should have to print banners saying 'lesbian= female homosexual. Same SEX attracted. Lesbians don't do dick' ?

The comparison with the women not being served because of their t shirts isn't right. It would be if you hired waiting staff for a function and asked them to wear adult human female t shirts.

I agree with those upthread saying people have lost the ability to see unintended consequences. It's really weird.