Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Gay Cake Case

298 replies

Lovelyricepudding · 06/01/2022 09:51

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]

OP posts:
Abitofalark · 06/01/2022 13:11

Here is a useful summary from RTE, the Irish national broadcaster, of what the ECHR court case is about:

'The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that an application over the long-running so-called "gay cake" case is inadmissible.

The court has said that the decision is final.

In 2018, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Northern Ireland gay rights activist Gareth Lee was not discriminated against when the Christian owners of a Belfast bakery refused to make him a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage".

Mr Lee then referred the case to the ECHR, claiming that the Supreme Court failed to give appropriate weight to him under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mr Lee claimed that his rights were interfered with by the decision of the UK's highest court to dismiss his claim for breach of statutory duty to provide services, and the interference was not proportionate.

However the seven-judge chamber of the ECHR said that in order for a complaint to be admissible, "the Convention arguments must be raised explicitly or in substance before the domestic authorities."

The court said Mr Lee had not invoked his Convention rights at any point in the domestic proceedings.

"By relying solely on domestic law, the applicant had deprived the domestic courts of the opportunity to address any Convention issues raised, instead asking the Court to usurp the role of the domestic courts," the ECHR ruling said.

"Because he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, the application was inadmissible." '

To read more:
www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/0106/1272110-european-court-bakery/

AssignedBlobbyAtBirth · 06/01/2022 13:12

It's an unpleasant world that thinks beliefs should be forced onto others. Everyone has the right to be treated with respect but we should accept that we do not all have the same beliefs
Unfortunately the authoritarianism seems to be coming mostly from those that preach tolerance
I work in a small team that includes a single parent, a gay person and a highly religious person. I know the belief system of each team member is different but we are all able to work together and get along well
I don't care if others don't agree with the way I live as long as we don't harm each other

nauticant · 06/01/2022 13:12

It's on the news that the plaintiff is looking to re-launch their case in the national courts. Since that should be an automatic non-starter unless something extraordinary were to happen, then this just looks like a harassment campaign against people targetted for having the wrong views.

Iamnotamermaid · 06/01/2022 13:15

I am with the bakers - they are entitled to their views as well but no one makes room for their beliefs (I am completely non religious btw). It was the message they objected to, not the individual.

Another baker was found who was happy to make the cake for them. Whole case was based on a twisted version of events to try to make a point.

TInkyWlnky · 06/01/2022 13:18

@nauticant

It's on the news that the plaintiff is looking to re-launch their case in the national courts. Since that should be an automatic non-starter unless something extraordinary were to happen, then this just looks like a harassment campaign against people targetted for having the wrong views.
Looks like it. There must come a point where this baker should be paid compensation for the harassment they have endured. This is stinking of discrimination against religious belief.
KaptainKaveman · 06/01/2022 13:21

I also agree with the judgment. The bakers were perfectly happy to make the cake and deal with the customer. The customer tried - for years - to force them to write a slogan they didn't agree with. How pathetic. It's also deeply ironic and hypocritical. It's OK for him to force his views on them but not the other way around? His views on sexuality trump their religious beliefs? What a hypocrite.

bishophaha · 06/01/2022 13:24

@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.
Exactly. But this point gets overlooked in the 'they wouldn't sell them a cake because they were gay' misinformation...
storkstalk · 06/01/2022 13:30

I’m with the bakers. It seems now like harassment and this hypocrisy of forcing your views of ‘tolerance’ on to someone else is becoming worryingly widespread. I am in favour of gay marriage, but I also support their right to have a different opinion.

KittenKong · 06/01/2022 13:40

This has been dragging on for years. How much has this cost - who is paying? I feel sorry for the bakers - they must be getting dogs’ abuse over this.

Shame all this effort wasn’t redirected into getting justice for the babies and mums that were separated forcefully because the mums were unmarrried, or the children abused in homes by members of the clergy, etc etc etc. But no, the man wants his Sesame Street cake.

Mochudubh · 06/01/2022 13:43

I can't believe this is still rumbling on.
I'm pretty sure the bakers wouldn't ice a cake with "I love Satan" on it either, whatever the sexuality of the customer.. If the complainant had asked for a cake with "Jesus is nice" on it, I'm sure that wouldn't have been a problem.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 06/01/2022 13:48

So, when do the bakers get their opportunity to start their equally written about, SM shared, front page headline case about his years long harrassment in their shop and through the court system?

I hope they do, or if they have and they have a funding page....

MrsMadderRose · 06/01/2022 13:54

I've never understood this case - surely no private bakery business has to write anything they don't want to, whether it's against their religious or political beliefs, too sweary, violent or whatever. I wouldn't agree to do a misogynist, racist or anti-gay text for example. They might get more business by being happy to write anything, but it's their choice. It's not even as if it's a service only they can do - anyone can put some writing on a cake or find someone who can somewhere.

It's bonkers to keep pursuing this - poor bakers.

Maybe it's something to do with the way modern wokery holds that people are good or bad because of their beliefs and politics – failing to see that most people can defend someone's rights and freedoms and support them, even if we don't have the same beliefs as them.

ErrolTheDragon · 06/01/2022 13:54

@KittenKong

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?
The B&B case was significantly different, I thought? That was straightforward discrimination, not providing a standard service because the couple were gay.

The baking case is different - it's about the right not to be compelled to print something, in this case a political statement.

Lovelyricepudding · 06/01/2022 13:55

@Georgeskitchen

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 think it is the EHRC on one side (they who see no value in taking a case to clear up women's rights eg to not be incarcerated with male sex offenders) with the Christian Institute on the other.
OP posts:
ErrolTheDragon · 06/01/2022 13:56

The cake is a red herring - I assume that whatever pertains in this case would be the same as would apply to a printer or sign writer. I assume (hope!) they have the right to reject anything they don't want to print?

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 06/01/2022 13:59

The baking case is different - it's about the right not to be compelled to print something, in this case a political statement.

Yes. The baking case could be argued to sit right on the line of discrimination. Which is why it has rumbled on for so long. Basically they are arguing about whether gay rights trump religious rights and vice versa. The 'least intervention' route has, to date, appeared to support the religious rights., though that isn't actually what has been said.

This is why the case is being battered back and forth. Nobody wants to make that judgement. Odd, as the same courts, police, EHRC etc don't seem to take the same stance when it comes to sex based rights, which do exist, and gender based rights, which do not (as in the rights that are protected are gender reassignment not self id).

All sorts of weird.

FlyingOink · 06/01/2022 14:00

If this went in favour of the activist, and a ruling was made that because he paid for a cake, he should get what he wants, regardless of anything else, then surely Posie Parker could use that to sue various billboard companies too?

FlyingOink · 06/01/2022 14:01

And printers, and sticker manufacturers...

quietdaysandnights · 06/01/2022 14:01

I am with the bakers on this one too. If they had refused to bake a cake for gay customers that would rightly be illegal. But that is not what happened.
They refused to make a cake supporting a political position that they disagreed with. I think businesses should be free to do this.

My understanding is that as this case was in NI, it came under their laws that you cannot discriminate on grounds of political opinion (designed to stop sectarian discrimination). So I am not sure what would have happened if that case happened in one of the other UK countries.

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 06/01/2022 14:02

@FlyingOink

If this went in favour of the activist, and a ruling was made that because he paid for a cake, he should get what he wants, regardless of anything else, then surely Posie Parker could use that to sue various billboard companies too?
Again I have to admonish you

STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

ErrolTheDragon · 06/01/2022 14:03

I don't see why it's necessarily even couched as a matter of competing rights. Is a printer required to take a job if it's to print a political statement (or anything else) they don't agree with?

HoardingSamphireSaurus · 06/01/2022 14:06

@ErrolTheDragon

I don't see why it's necessarily even couched as a matter of competing rights. Is a printer required to take a job if it's to print a political statement (or anything else) they don't agree with?
I don't think so, no.

Nothing about this case has made much sense from the get go.

There has always been an undercurrent of the personal in it. Why target this one shop? What had gone on before? I'm not one for seeing more in things but this has never made much sense to me.

FlyingOink · 06/01/2022 14:06

Being refused service is one thing, compelling a company to promote your opinions when they don't want to is another.

I mean, a local newspaper might refuse to print a full page advert calling for Sharia law, that doesn't make them islamophobic. But refusing to sell a newspaper to a Muslim person would be discriminatory, as would refusing to hire a Muslim reporter etc.

If he'd got his way no doubt he'd have made a point of the fact he'd forced a Christian bakery to produce the cake too. Not just "look at my cake" but "look at my cake, I got Ashers to make it haha".

He sounds like a nasty piece of work.

FlyingOink · 06/01/2022 14:09

Again I have to admonish you

Sad Grin
quietdaysandnights · 06/01/2022 14:10

Maybe it's something to do with the way modern wokery holds that people are good or bad because of their beliefs and politics

This! Its ironic that so many people who claim to be against gender and sex binaries are totally for the binary in their splitting of the world's population into good and bad people. They must have watched too many Disney films as children Grin