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]

Cheesemum
Not sure if you actually read my post properly but it specifically said it COULD NOT BE A LAST MINUTE DECISION for the very reason it would impact on the timelines of abortion! And you quoted me too, not sure how your mind was working there...

I wish this thread would stop trending because each time I see it I want cake - those little ones that were popular in the 70s with the pastel icing and the light marzipan covering with apricot jam and the pretty decorations.

Elton
Whether being gay is a choice is a whole other discussion.. personally I think everything we do is a choice of sorts..at least I hope so.
Also you have to ask yourself do people choose what to believe or do they see a set of circumstances/facts in such a way that to them there is an unavoidable conclusion?
I have long asked myself the question if our sexuality is choice or not? Society has put and does put constraints on how we express it for example there are definite no no's for example most cultures see child sex as wrong, others do not, people therefore put constraints on themselves and others by law or society...the age of consent is one. At different times in history or in a different culture you might find yourself a criminal or not, who is right?
At one time society and our laws outlawed gay sexuality, what might the future hold? I suppose time and the people of the time will tell us that...and that is the point, people choose what they will accept, express and legislate for.
And quite honestly I hold the same right to express my opinion as any other purpose and loud voices shouting it down won't change my mind BUT then I don't generally shout mine out, why? because I do believe in respecting everyone's life course/choice, I do get a bit ratty though when people want to force me to have the same mind set, if I dont decry your choice, dont decry mine.

Janice Turner's column in the Times today is about this. Clear as ever.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-gay-cake-battle-wasnt-worth-fighting-76jrhk60b?shareToken=9e79147156a05d4e7cb0e1aed2b6566f

@KimikosNightmare

Using it for a couple of mates to get out of paying tax is a slap in the face. The Tories made these arguments when Civil Partnership was being debated, i.e can two elderly sisters have a Civil Partnership etc

I doubt very much it would be used "by a couple of mates to get out of paying tax" as most people do have family they would rather leave their assets to. However I don't think it's outwith the bounds of possibility that 2 people could have a strong, loving friendship bond to the point they would like the survivor to benefit or indeed someone to deal with decisions about care etc.

There was a thread a little while ago where two single mothers were considering moving in together to help raise each other's kids. That's the sort of situation that would be appropriate.

But what a shame political discourse has come to this sad polarised place, where everyone who disagrees with you is a foe, and instead of building something worthwhile you battle through a court for seven years to force Christians to bake a cake.
THIS! Thank you!

CheeseMmmm

KimikosNightmare

I missed out Scotland too because at the moment I can't be bothered trawling through 2 further sets of data . E & W are by far the biggest by population

Have you read my posts even?

You can't be bothered about NI?

If you did read posts why not focus there in the first place?

I couldn't be bothered because it was 5 in the morning and I wasn't going to spend any more time analysing statistics- hence ignoring Scotland as well. Plus not sure how relevant NI statistics would be given they might be absorbed in the English stats anyway if women had travelled to England. The NI situation is changing.

To get an abortion a woman has to get the 2 GP sign off - pretty much a tick box exercise. The vast majority of abortions are medical. Do you really think in the cases where surgical intervention is needed that the BPAS/ Marie Stopes or NHS doctors are referring to a surgical team with the risk the surgeon will refuse? Of course they aren't. There may well be individual workers who opt out but the hospital receiving the referral will have to do it.

I have long asked myself the question if our sexuality is choice or not? Society has put and does put constraints on how we express it for example there are definite no no's for example most cultures see child sex as wrong, others do not, people therefore put constraints on themselves and others by law or society...the age of consent is one. At different times in history or in a different culture you might find yourself a criminal or not, who is right?

Ah the old slippery slope argument. Boris, is that you?

At one time society and our laws outlawed gay sexuality, what might the future hold?

"I might as well marry my dog"

There was a thread a little while ago where two single mothers were considering moving in together to help raise each other's kids. That's the sort of situation that would be appropriate.

That's the sort of situation where a different law should apply. Not a Civil Partnership and not a marriage. If there is demand for legal recognition of platonic or social or familial (or whatever word clearly means I'm not talking about a couple in a relationship) partnerships then a law can be passed to accommodate this.

"But I don't mind" is the old "giving away what's not yours and feeling smug about it" that cool-girl liberal feminists do with other women's rights.

I couldn't have a Civil Partnership for 99.999999% of history, now I have been able to since December 2005 everyone is so keen to make sure mates can avoid inheritance tax or coworkers can get married couples allowance or whatever. Make your own law.

Flyingoink...
Not a slippery slope just a view...you know.. the ones that are not allowed!

Personally I think the future holds some Totalitarian regime where opinions are unlawful and we must all nod to a political correctness and the gross crime of actually offering an alternative view is punishable by law - a law set by people with a different view!
Anyway girls, it's been a lively and thought provoking discussion, loved the debate.
Thankyou. x

Apologies for misunderstanding tropics.

'However it should be the individual that decides what his/her conscience allows and of course it's not quite that simple: if I'm a practising medic I can't at the last minute decide I can't carry out an abortion, that would have to be declared on employment and yes it could limit employment opportunities but then conscientious objectors usually and historically must pay a price.'

There's a double negative in there and the context as well made it difficult to follow, thanks for the clarification.

Your reason for saying that a doctor can't refuse to perform an abortion at last minute is because of risk to their employment opportunities, then?

I still find with the context that bit confusing though.

They should of course adhere to their principles.

Then can't decide at last minute they can't perform an abortion.

Because of damage to employment record.
But then the conscientious objectors must always pay s price.

I initially read that as meaning. If they decide they can't at the last minute, they could well pay a price ie negative point on employment record.

Having thought about your comment just now,

Did you mean the price that pay is that although their beliefs are imperative, in practice they wouldn't want to have any negatives on employment record, and the price they pay is performing the procedure despite it being against their fundamental beliefs?

'Historically in the west reproductive role has been one of the most basic purposes of marriage, more so than romantic love by a fair way'.

That's not correct though surely?

It was to hand a piece of property from one male (father) to another male (husband).

Around the world plenty of places women are still seen, treated and considered as property. Whether legally, or by social convention, or a mix.

Laws here pointed to this, albeit tangentially, until v recently.

Eg
Legal to rape wife (illegal early 90s)
Women not able to get credit in their own right (70s I think that changed).

Married Women's Property Act 1882

'English common law defined the role of the wife as a feme covert, emphasising her subordination to her husband, and putting her under the "protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord".[4] Upon marriage, the husband and wife became one person under the law, as the property of the wife was surrendered to her husband, and her status as a separate legal personality, with the ability to own property, and sue and be sued solely in her own name, ceased to exist. Any personal property acquired by the wife during the marriage, unless specified that it was for her own separate use, went automatically to her husband'

It's not totally true that women passed from the same state from fathers to husbands - unmarried women could largely represent themselves legally in medieval Europe, if we are restricting outselves to medieval Europe. Women were also required to consent to marriage and that does not really fit with the idea that they were just property.

But in any case, I'm not at all sure how handing over property as the primary purpose of marriage would make sense, even if we accept your premise. Are you suggesting that these fathers are handing over daughters for some random reason, and the husbands want them for some random reason?

It's just for shits and giggles that so many societies, including ones with completely different legal traditions or only traditional practices, see a benefit in creating an institutional structure around the father-mother-child triad? Or even around the husband-wife bond including things like rules about who you can marry - which generally follow blood relationships or economic and social cohesion? That they are tied to rules of inheritance, or legal obligations toward spouse and child?

What do you think the contract you are suggesting existed was for?

'I'm not at all sure how handing over property as the primary purpose of marriage would make sense, even if we accept your premise. Are you suggesting that these fathers are handing over daughters for some random reason, and the husbands want them for some random reason?'

It's not a premise it's basic history.

I am not keen on having to research every country in Europe until I have a full grasp of essentially their entire history for centuries back tbh. That would of course meaning getting to grips with pretty much all their history to really understand the religious, historical, social, political factors in good depth, plus the impacts of things like war, poverty, invasions and wars, the intricacies of a succession of royal, military, political leaders, and.. everything else.

And you're genuinely not aware of any places in the world whether by law or custom/tradition/beliefs. Women's fathers/husbands have huge control, sometimes as good as total control over their lives? That it's aok for them to enforce, punish, and do the most appalling things to women (girls) they deem necessary?

'It's just for shits and giggles that so many societies, including ones with completely different legal traditions or only traditional practices, see a benefit in creating an institutional structure around the father-mother-child triad?'

Oh come off it. Really?

Noooooo...

The historical global benefit was to men.

You seem to have overlooked. Well, let's just say a lot.

You've never heard at all of anything at all ever anywhere to make you give any pause in describing some v well known stuff as my personal premise?

I don't get it.

Maybe we should go back to our fundamental starting points when it comes to men and women. Looking around the world now and thinking back about the things we've learned about how it broadly worked through history, what understanding of men/women/positions in society were (are now)?

I don't think it will be productive to think about this region of Argentina in the 1500s, or that group in a corner of the Mongol empire. More about generally what's the feel on our position relative to husband.

Sound ok?

The decision in the nurse and the crucifix case.

She was discriminated against. Grounds- Lack of consistency, other jewellery was allowed; other religious jewellery (kalava bracelets) was allowed; turbans and hijab allowed ; she had been wearing it for years before the matter was raised.

3 links to avoid anyone having to click on The Mail or The Guardian. The Mail's coverage is the most detailed.

thestreetjournal.org/tribunal-rules-in-favour-of-nigerian-catholic-nurse-forced-to-leave-job-in-uk-for-wearing-a-cross/

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/05/nurse-victimised-for-wearing-cross-at-work-was-unfairly-dismissed-tribunal-rules

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10382789/Christian-nurse-forced-wearing-crucifix-tells-troubling-story-time.html

Oh I looked at this!

I found the group who assisted her legally very interesting.

In short. Their remit is to find incidents that are suited to their beliefs, and then to provide the legal necessities to strategically prosecute.

I found the way their past cases were described, left out info, was very biased compared to other sources I could find.

It was ages ago so can't remember what where looked I think I can remember the cross thing though. It was to do with her exact role iirc. Not as straightforward as presented...

Ah yes DM reminded me what it was.

She was a theatre nurse and wore a small cross on chain round neck.
The news reported she cited other religious apparel. I haven't seen proper detail, who was wearing what and where.

I seem to remember a turban and a hijab being mentioned.

Thing is stuff sometimes gets left in patients. Can't remember random things getting into any but haven't researched!

To me and knowing the strictness of theatre garb etc. And given surgery.

A small cross round neck to me anyway is something that, assuming her role involved bending over patient while they were opened up, the exact type of risk that would be and should be on the nope list.

It's being sold as religious discrimination when I think (unless more info now haven't looked for years at this) it's about the nature of the apparel.

Eg if she had spray painted that fish symbol on one of her clogs, suspect different matter whether ok or not.

Other link says

'Further efforts by the trust to get Onuoha to remove the necklace, or wear it inside her uniform, failed'

What's wrong with inside fgs?
I mean that feels like a totally fair compromise.

No one wants jewellery dropping into patient when chest opened right up, for eg!

And that explains the germs point as well. Even if noticed immediately it's still a non sterile item that could come into contact open wound.

And wouldn't the dangling be distracting?

The hospital apparently allowed the wearing of kalava bracelets. Those are bracelets made out of red string, which to me seem more likely to be a cause for concern than an item made of gold.

In short. Their remit is to find incidents that are suited to their beliefs, and then to provide the legal necessities to strategically prosecute

There is no prosecution here. The nurse took a civil case to an employment tribunal, as she is fully entitled to. The tribunal found there had been discrimination.

I'm a bit surprised at the judgemental tone of your comment.

Apparently?

Got anything that turns apparently into did?
Who were in same theatre role , surgeon, not sure who else hangs around the site of surgery.

I found the way their past cases were described, left out info, was very biased compared to other sources I could find

Well, it's not really your call is it? If a substantive case was established it's for a court or a tribunal to assess and determine.

Anti- discrimination protection isn't just for people you agree with.

Semantics.

Thank you for your correction.

Makes no difference to my comments about the org, and how I found it interesting.

Replace with strategic .. cases for religious discrimination. That's better?

You really can't see the H&S issues with little necklace dangling? Over operating table with surgical incision to access insides and held open?

I mean. Depending on what being done. There is metal knocking about.
I know a bit about orthopaedic surgery. A little.
Or black and decker as I have heard it referred to years ago.
My relative in that area said that the reason there were so many rugby types in orthopaedics was because it can require strength and sometimes brute force.

Drilling through bone, cutting through, metal staples, metal rods through bone... With area cut open deep and secured open for access...

I dunno if you've done any butchery. You've seen it in the shops though.

Massive cleaver and powerful chop to cut joint meat in half, generally after a few goes. And we're not like chicken sized we're fairly large.

I don't know what surgical area/s she was in theatre before.

But I mean. It's a messy business.