Gay Cake Case

[Lovelyricepudding]

The ECHR has ruled that their case was inadmissible. The was the case where the supreme Court ruled Christian bakers should not be forced to say/write something they disagreed with.

My understanding is up to now the case has been based on domestic law which is not the remit of the ECHR. In order to bring a case to them they must pursue a human rights case through the domestic courts first.

[title edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444

I've reported myself to ask for the typo in the title to be corrected

The BBC article says you'll not succeed at the ECHR if your approach is that if a case didn't go as you'd hoped in the national courts you can have another go, this time at the ECHR. The aspects you'd like to rely on at the ECHR have to be built-in at the national level so that the nation state has been given an opportunity engage with them and possibly provide a solution there.

One can wonder whether the ECHR found the perfect way to dispose with the case without needing to decide on it and breathed a big sigh of relief. It relates to one of the hottest potato topics right now: to what degree can you use your identity/minority status to compel speech by others that offends them at a deep level because of their legally held, and in some case protected, beliefs.

Human Rights? For the love of the wee man…

We can haz right to cake?

You can't have your cake and eat it.

I’m with the bakers on this one. Conscientious objection based on religious belief is reasonable grounds for not doing something. It’s not about him as a gay man. I am pro choice on abortion and contraception and I believe it’s right that doctors can opt out of providing care they disagree with (primarily on practical/emotional grounds for the patient, nobody wants to be given reluctant, disapproving medical care).

However the rates of objections must be monitored by the authorities to prevent black holes forming where no care is provided and willing doctors incentivised to practice there. So there is a practical context around this right that has to be very carefully managed. Hurt feelings on behalf of the ‘gay cake’ customer are a pity, but not enough to overturn someone else’s right to not be involved in decorating a cake due to their religious belief.

Was this the one where the cake eaters deliberately went to a shop that they knew was run by a religious type, so we’re anticipating / provoking a stushie? Like the couple who made a point of checking into a B&B run by a very religious owner who didn’t want them sharing a bed?

Sounds like their lawyers got it wrong somewhere along the line.

I'm an atheist but people really love to antagonise christians. Nobody what think to go into a Muslim's bakery and demand them write a cake with a message they disagree with

I'm with the baker. Where's his freedom to not be forced in to producing something that goes against his religious beliefs. Was there really no other baker who could make this (very cheap) cake? It seems to me a deliberate attempt to undermine the beliefs / rights of others in the hierarchy of 'rights'. I'm not religious. But I find this attack against the baker sickening.

I'm with the bakers too. They were happy to make the case but not put the message on
I wouldn't want to be forced to put TWAW or God is real on a cake. Bakers would be targeted all the time if this was forced

I am disappointed that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is still pursuing this case. Obviously, discrimination would have occurred if Ashers had refused to serve the man with baked goods because he is gay, but this case is about a particular message that they disagreed with. He could have bought a cake without the message from Ashers and there are other bakers in that part of NI.

It does sound like this was a failure by his lawyers to set up the case in a way it could be taken to the ECHR.

The slogan was about same sex marriage which the bakery didn’t agree with. I support same sex marriage but I think people have a right to have a different view. I don’t think it’s homophobic not to bake the cake with that slogan. It would be if they wouldn’t bake any cake for a gay person.

I support abortion rights. I would want to be able to choose not to bake a cake for a customer who wanted an anti-abortion slogan decorated on it. And similarly a bakery could choose not to bake a cake for me if I wanted a pro choice slogan on it.

Or had a topped made and stuck it on himself. Like the rest of us. Just put to cause mischief. It’s not like the courts have any real crime to handle.

What a bloody idiot (a deliberate trouble maker I suspect). He could easily have gone to another baker but desperately wanted to make “an example” of this bakery.

As pp said would he have gone to a Muslim bakery and asked them to write something they found offensive and out of line with their faith?

Put him on the bake off and force him to bake his own

@TInkyWlnky

I'm with the baker. Where's his freedom to not be forced in to producing something that goes against his religious beliefs. Was there really no other baker who could make this (very cheap) cake? It seems to me a deliberate attempt to undermine the beliefs / rights of others in the hierarchy of 'rights'. I'm not religious. But I find this attack against the baker sickening.

I agree.

It would be entirely different if this couple had walked in asking for a birthday cake and been told "I won't do it because you're gay."

But there's something quite unpleasant in trying to force someone to write something you know they profoundly disagree with. We have gay marriage and there's no prospect of it being overturned since the vast majority are in favour of it - the small minority who don't agree can be allowed to hold this opinion without harrassment.

I recently had a cake made for a friend saying "Fuck Cancer" and when I filled out the nice family friendly bakery's form online I was half expecting to receive an email the following day saying it was rejected because they don't write swear words.

I would never expect to be able to force someone to write something they object to.

This also means that a business run by gay people has the right to refuse to produce an item that says Save Ulster from Sodomy on it.

Yes, if they were happy to make a cake then I don't see the problem.

I really don't get to require that people write anything I want them to write on a cake for me. Whether what I want written is innocuous, offensive, bigoted or uplifting, they can say no.

My guess is that they were confident they were looking at a straightforward win Rightsraptor, they had the spirit of the age on their side and they won in the High Court and then in the Court of Appeal. They didn't expect the reversal in the Supreme Court and, wrongfooted by that, they then thought "fuck, we're going to have to go to the ECHR" and at that point they were in a mess because they'd not formulated their case in the domestic courts in the kind of way needed to support an ECHR case .

I’m with the bakers as well- this whole case is petty and malicious

@Rubidium

This also means that a business run by gay people has the right to refuse to produce an item that says Save Ulster from Sodomy on it.

Well indeed. And I’d support a baker, gay or straight, who turned down that commission.

I wonder who was paying for this legal action
I should imagine it wouldn't be cheap
Cost far more than a cake I should think!!

I also think this is the right result. The BBC report omits quite a lot of what the ECHR said. From other sources, the ECHR didn't refuse to hear the case on a technicality, but rather agreed with the Supreme Court that the issue was whether Ashers could be compelled to write a statement that they disagreed with - and because of that, concluded that this was not a case appropriate for them to hear.

“The supreme court found on the facts of the case that the applicant was not treated differently on account of his real or perceived sexual orientation, but rather that the refusal to supply the cake was because of the defendants’ religious objection to gay marriage.

“What was principally at issue, therefore, was not the effect on the applicant’s private life or his freedom to hold or express his opinions or beliefs, but rather whether Ashers bakery was required to produce a cake expressing the applicant’s political support for gay marriage.”