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]

Are you open to considering that the reason for her treatment was that this woman had it in for her for whatever reason, and the necklace was her excuse for her behaviour towards the woman?

I don't know if that's true or not obv. That's my feel.

Just thought as well. This is a country that is legally, culturally, historically massively predominantly Christian.

Practicing there are loads of people, and including people Christian culturally / by default it's millions.

Dunno about South London tbh, North London RC loads of people. (Including me by birth school etc as it goes!).

It just feels, and others of course may well disagree. That personal grudge with cross used as excuse for bullying, is way more likely than hostility due to dislike/hatred of Christians/ RC people?

And IF my read on both cases is true (of course may not be).

Then I feel uncomfy/concerned generally.

The separate laws about discrimination, around employment, and provision of goods and services.

To me seem to have been leveraged in both these cases for things that look like not really what intended for iyswim.

• Cake, customers set out to try get bakery to break law. It was contrived, not something that was unexpectedly encountered. The intent was to provoke bakery into something that meant customers could take legal action for discrimination.

And while obv it wasn't illegal to do so, it doesn't sit well with me. The point about the laws is to try to prevent discrimination occuring, give legal recourse if does, on basis that person discriminated against has been unfairly negatively impacted just because of a generally permanent characteristic. At least more or less I assume. A person who induces a situation so they can report beach of law, feels like not intention of law iyswim. Just the way I feel personally. Can't explain it more than that really.

• Nurse odds on it was personal. Should have been HR issue (though HR obv often shit!).

Cross was imo good way to do the actual issue ie bully nurse. Choice of lever meant religious discrimination obvious route to address what was a personnel issue. Again, just leaves a bad flavour. Widely reported case, religious intolerance, deep dislike of that religion so that's why picked on nurse. If that's not, as I think, the picture at all. Then to have it reported widely as such is not a good thing. Plus, the bully. I wonder what happened to her. Diversity training? Disciplined? For religious discrimination. That does nothing to address that she's a nasty piece of work and probably will do this again to other people that she simply doesn't like. Whatever their religion.

@CheeseMmmm

Are you open to considering that the reason for her treatment was that this woman had it in for her for whatever reason, and the necklace was her excuse for her behaviour towards the woman?

I don't know if that's true or not obv. That's my feel.

Just thought as well. This is a country that is legally, culturally, historically massively predominantly Christian.

Practicing there are loads of people, and including people Christian culturally / by default it's millions.

Dunno about South London tbh, North London RC loads of people. (Including me by birth school etc as it goes!).

It just feels, and others of course may well disagree. That personal grudge with cross used as excuse for bullying, is way more likely than hostility due to dislike/hatred of Christians/ RC people?

Are you open to considering that the reason for her treatment was that this woman had it in for her for whatever reason, and the necklace was her excuse for her behaviour towards the woman?

I think that's likely. However it doesn't alter the fact the nurse in question was on the face of the matter picked on because of her beliefs. Presumably the only peg to hang any complaint on.

I do have concerns that you seem to almost be quibbling that the nurse should have defended herself by relying on the fact she was discriminated or that she should use the services of an organisation set up to assist some- one in her position.

On the first point- well whatever ulterior motive might have existed the whole issue is predicated on the fact it was discrimination on the basis of religion.

On the second point, it seems to me that complaining about the existence of the group who helped her is dangerously close to the type of activists who complain about donations being made to support Maya Forstater, Fair Cop etc.

Oh the org who did the legal for the cake?

I didn't complain about their existence!!! What did I say that was taken as they should be shut down banned whatever?
Please do let me know as if that's what indicated, I have worded things really badly so want to know how made such a hash of it!

I did find interesting as had read and heard a lot about strategic legislation in USA to push changes to laws, create precedents for other cases, have a ruling to support their aims, get publicity etc.

The org with the nurse I found interesting as iirc they were clear on aims and doing legal side where case looked to them would be useful in some way.

I hadn't realised this was an active thing here, and I found it interesting.

No more than that.

I've worked out the discomfort about these two cases now as well. (And was clear that discrimination complaint legal so obv they could and not saying shouldn't have... Just my discomfort as per my PP).

My concern with these two cases is (I'll try to be brief I know I go on!).

1. For a host of reasons, the antipathy and resentment of a massive amount of the population towards anything to do with equality, diversity, and those sorts of things.

There was always a massive amount of population who felt that way, and the numbers and noise made have for some time being rapidly increasing.

My feel is that soon the call for action to change/bin certain laws will be incredibly loud, and half or more of population that feel that way.

1. That's the situation IRL. And every single news item that can be taken as evidence of PC gorn mad etc will be read, how ridiculous it all is look at this will be related irl at every opportunity.

Whatever internet hangouts exist for people who feel things gone too far, these articles will provide a really good focus for everyone getting nice and worked up.

1. And of course the characteristics are things that loads of people have issues with anyway full stop. Or characteristics which they connect to current issues around country.

Over the last few years these views are being seen more and more, and expressed more and more bluntly, as the days pass.
And being seen in mainstream news output and other media when few years ago would have been way less time given to those views, and people usually were careful how they expressed them.

1. And of course Tory govt. I remember they were going on about changing employment equalities law a while back. They indicated leaving EU would mean could look at what to do.

Just googled, quiet for a while apart from Truss speech or 2 taking line protected characteristics no good, too narrow. She has she says a different view of equality. Watch this space. I think noises about possible law changes might come soon.

So my feelings of discomfort, are not because of just these 2 cases. Nor the nature of discrimination of the complaints.

It's because anything that can be seen by random members of public as trivial. No need could have easily sorted out. 'Crying' discrimination in order to get own way. Playing on victimhood, special treatment. Waste of courts time. Waste of time for others.

Add in that gay men and black women are not exactly people who garner much public sympathy or often any concern at all.

And my discomfort is because I know these will be added to evidence to bin this stuff.

In short.

I'm very worried that we're fast approaching massively altering, decimating, even getting rid of EA, goods and services discrimination law. And of course the most despised of the trio, hate crime law. (Although even MORE people hate that law!).

Is this case still going? Blimey.

Kimoko

I'm not a fan of essentially driving anyone you disagree with underground.

For anyone interested in finding out more about the org that covered the legal side for the Christian nurse who Vs NHS religious discrimination case.

Or who might want to donate or support in another way.

This is the org-
christianconcern.com/

Their 'About' page -
'Equipping you to be an effective ambassador for Jesus Christ in today’s culture.'
christianconcern.com/about/

Here's their statement of faith:
christianconcern.com/about/statement-of-faith/

They have adopted this Statement, which they explain 'expresses a Biblical view of sexuality and gender.'
cbmw.org/nashville-statement/

If anyone is in a situation where could do with legal support, you can contact them.
'Through our Christian Legal Centre, we provide legal support to Christians who are unashamed of Jesus and the truth that flows from him.'
christianconcern.com/cases/

Oops missed this one-

You can donate here:
christianconcern.com/donate/

Also just seen the nurse we're talking about works for them, she's on the contact for legal support page!

That's a good fit for her. They should say she's working with them now, I think that's definite home page news!

I would do that if it were my org for sure.

Just found pages about their beliefs.

Will share in brief as v comprehensive and supporting external links etc.

1. God created us
2. Pro life
3. Against IVF, embryo storage, use of embryos in **medical research
4. Against any laws which would legalise anything to do with euthanasia or assisted suicide
5. Marriage one man one woman. Against same-sex marriage, polyamory, civil partnerships and cohabitation.
6. Divorce laws changed as against no contest or unwarranted divorced example where one party does not want divorce
7. Men and women equal but different. Anyone experiencing inner turmoil around embodied sex would support spiritual/psychological help. Return to sex based policies.
8. Against adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography, homosexuality, polygamy and other harmful sexual practices. Against inappropriate school curricula and homosexual campaigning.

I'm finding this fascinating. It's a flavour of Christianity I associate with USA tbh. I knew there were Christian branches who had beliefs aligned to these, I had no idea that orgs here were active on the legal strategy side. I wonder what else I've missed!

** There is I think a 14 day limit on research, going to Google find out more. That to me if not right rules could be v v iffy indeed

Oh sorry theres more on beliefs but thought best to stop there!

@quietdaysandnights

I think the difference between Elsiebear and others is that she sees equality as two groups having exactly the same provisions/ opportunities. Whereas Oink et al are arguing that gay people have a different culture and so wanted equality in a way that reflected their distinctive culture and history.

This latter view is well established in equalities work, that equality does not mean treating everyone the same but understanding and accommodating differences between different groups.

Whether this should apply in this case is up for debate but I think both views are worthy of respect.

I agree with this, and have found both Elsie and flying’s viewpoints valid. What I do think is relevant is that we now have marriage and CP for both same sex and het couples. At the time there was only one for each, so there was going to be a spectrum of opinion of what the legal union for same sex people should look like, as the debate above proves. It is much better that we are where we are now.

I would also point out that it does highlight that a word can mean different things to different people. For a feminist the word marriage may be associated with patriarchy and oppression, for many Christians marriage means “holy union between a man and woman” so to them gay marriage itself is a contradiction.

It comes back to the crux of the case about people’s right to disagree with another persons viewpoint and abstain from endorsing it.

I think it’s good to ‘respect’ others beliefs (by which I mean not interfering anyone’s right to believe all kinds of things that the majority might find outlandish) even if my/your own beliefs are radically different. Fine. I don’t have to ‘respect’ the actual beliefs themselves though and I find many on that list Cheese pasted in abhorrent. I would argue against them and demonstrate against them if they ever got close to being legislated in. Some I agree with - but I don’t need any religious context to know that men and women are different but equal. Nor that God didn’t create us, nor that male or female homosexuality is normal and fine. Nor that divorce is normal and fine.. and so on.
I don’t know what I’m trying to say. Tolerance and debate all good. Some views that seek to control others’ lives in key ways (like anti abortion views) should remain as views, not be incorporated into law though.

I’ve always thought this gets to the heart of it pretty pithily…

'For a feminist the word marriage may be associated with patriarchy and oppression, for many Christians marriage means “holy union between a man and woman” so to them gay marriage itself is a contradiction.'

Yes for sure.

In this case though their published views and why org exists go much further.

• Yes marriage man woman god is a basic for loads branches Christianity, and for RC church just that's that. Agree that any views held are just what they are.

Agree everyone has own views/beliefs and so they should.

There's IMO a point though where holding a view, and expressing it to cast judgement, insult, upset etc, crosses a line.
Where that line is, is very individual, and muddy (for me at least!).

Example.

My RC friend had a baby after years of trying, through IVF.

She has been told by a couple family members/friends who Worship same church. And this is after her DD was born.

That IVF is a sin. That her DD is an affront to God. That sort of thing.
That's their honest views and they entitled to them obv.

Expressing their views in this context though, frankly, makes them total and utter vicious bastards IMO.

And (sorry to the posters who are devout) going entirely against the message of Jesus.

Well you can't legislate for that.

The massive wielding of belief to cause harm from upset to death, is a clear global and historical pattern though.

I'm not at all happy about that.

TBC

Then onto activism around obtaining changes to the law, in order to force population to live according to beliefs of activists.

Of course this is done by loads of groups. With all sorts of views, prorities, across the entire spectrum of... Everything.

All flavours of political, religious, cultural, philosophical approaches and so much more.

Different ball game. And again. Muddy. Whatever beliefs/views. The person who holds them obviously believes they are the best/only way.

This org doesn't just believe in various ways everyone should live.

It exists (as per their site) to pursue legal action for those who have legal cases they believe will help their aims. In terms of precedent, media attention etc.

*Marriage is between man woman, as per God.

Then.

*Civil partnership, cohabitation, sex before marriage, homosexuality, adultery need to stop.

*Divorce needs much stricter rules saying when can happen.

Off top of head.

The aims are for most population v extreme, just totally incompatible with our society.

Our (England, for sure. Scotland Wales I'd bet large on. NI of course very different tricky however currently easing up on laws around these areas, so overall sure wouldn't go down well population level).

In short. I find activism to bring legislation. And either enormous widespread social change, or heavy enforcement to impose.

Makes me very uncomfortable.

No not saying stop this at all.

Just saying. I don't understand the mindset that seeks to impose by law such incredible social changes because God. When the global historical FACT is that when societies run on religious fundamentalist beliefs. When is it not incredibly harmful to large numbers of the population? And when is it not certain types of people who are massively more likely to be harmed?

sloth btw I enjoyed your post and yes I know exactly what you're trying to say!

This area is just really really difficult.

And for the posters who express views relating to importance of religion, belief, and freedom to hold those views.

I also totally get where you're coming from as well!

In the end it's just an incredibly hard topic.
Plus I know that most who have beliefs that are not compatible with mainstream social views here, genuinely want to make a positive change for humanity.

I hate this polarised straight to massive rage thing

While I deeply believe.. Know the harm that results because can see all over world and for millennia. And I cannot understand how anyone sees that as a good thing.

I understand that applies vice versa.

So far been open and pretty calm discussion which doesn't happen too often!

@Sophoclesthefox

I’ve always thought this gets to the heart of it pretty pithily…

I just don't see that as useful in many cases. Sure, it's easy when you are talking about whether people should be obligated to go to church or fast on Friday or something like that. But less useful when deciding what constitutes meaningful freedom or who should have legal status as a person.

Everyone holds their views on ethics according to some sort of basic understanding of reality, the purpose of human life, etc.

Atheists who make arguments about freedom, the nature or social purpose of marriage, the nature of bodily autonomy, the legal status of unborn humans, etc, are making a variety of ethical, scientific, and other types of arguments, and working from certain assumptions, just like religious people who make arguments about those same things.

Neither are neutral or naturally obvious.

Yeah, I wasn’t seriously suggesting it explained it all, obviously.

I don’t think there was anything wrong with that meme Sophocles. It sums it up for me fine as regards other people’s (religious) objections to abortion. I don’t believe anyone should be compelled to perform an abortion (or to ice a pro-choice slogan on a cake) if they disagree with it. And I absolutely do object to the people who try to prevent women who want/need an abortion from getting one.

A woman’s physical autonomy and her autonomy regarding her own pregnancies are way more important to me than any theological thinking (of whatever religion) that says it’s wrong and so it can’t happen. Absolutely fine of course for anyone on any grounds, religious or otherwise, to refuse an abortion for themselves, it’s the compelling of others that is unacceptable.

I just can’t accept that someone else’s objection (religious or otherwise) is a reasonable basis to stop any woman ending a pregnancy that she needs to end, for whatever reason is important to her.

It’s interesting to think this through, because there will be other kinds of issues where religious or other beliefs can be reasonably accommodated or completely win out much more, at which point then the secularists or non believers will just have to ‘fuck off’. Like with forcing someone to do cake icing using a slogan that is unacceptable to their religion. That seems fair.

We haven’t talked about when believers want to break away from the rules of their religion, which happens. People should be free to follow their religion and at the same time be free not to follow requirements that are harmful to themselves, or other people. So the way that we implement secular-intended protections always needs to carefully make sure that they also protect religious people who don’t follow on specific issues, which can be a very vulnerable position to be in.

Santa -

Atheists of the type who seem to me to be 'protesting too much'. Some of what I've seen they go beyond simply not feeling like there's any higher being (can't think best way to put that!), and firmly into a belief system themselves.

The aggression, unpleasant goading, intense focus imo screams got issues to work through.

I mean if you just don't believe, well speaking for myself. You just don't. Have had interesting conversations with friend.

She cannot imagine never having had a feeling, a deep seated understanding, a knowledge that there is an external something involved. That is focused on this planet, on us. Something that is interested, paying attention. I didn't ask specifics of what, where, how etc because I'm not a goady git!

DH dislikes organised religion but he also just... Believes there's something.

I just don't have that in my brain at all. Never have even as 5yo at convent school. There's no reason in background for it. And I can't imagine that feeling at all.

I suggested to my friend that maybe good way of looking at it, is that some people are born with spirituality and some just aren't. No right or wrong, just how different brains are.

When I criticise it could be any religion, any aspect. It's for me about harm. Oppression esp of women/girls. Control. No concern for those who suffer directly because of belief based attitudes, laws etc.

Eg-

The appalling things done by those who... Did not practice what they preached (literally)... RC sexual abuse.
The despicable reaction of the church which I'm sure we're all aware of.
I'd feel the same if it were any other org. I do feel the same in fact. Sadly institutional CSA which is ignored, covered up, left to continue isn't uncommon.

Anyway.

The angry atheist types have issues, and they are practicing a faith. Imo.