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]

The B&B owner was different as they were providing a different service to gay couples than heterosexual couples (I can't remember, or ever knew, if opposite sex couples had to be married to share a bed there). I have no issue of them being taken to court, and think they should have to advertise such policies, if legal, so people can make an informed choice not to stay in a place run like that.

However, I assume that whoever asked for a cake with a political slogan would get the same refusal - so it's completely different. However, it does need clarified as to what would happen if two men wanted a wedding cake, for example, rather than a campaign cake. Would a standard cake be okay, but one with two male names on be refused?

Not only is the cake a red herring? So is the fact the buyers were gay and the message was about gay marriage. The message was a campaign for a change in the law that existed at the time. A change a lot of gay people disagreed with. It was a political message.

However, it does need clarified as to what would happen if two men wanted a wedding cake, for example, rather than a campaign cake. Would a standard cake be okay, but one with two male names on be refused?

I would have thought that would be a clear case of discriminating against them because they were gay.

The point of the case was that the bakers would have refused to do the slogan on the cake even if a straight person had asked for that cake. Their refusal was based on the service they were being asked to supply, not the person who was asking for the service.

@babeB

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

Totally agree. It baffles me as to why Christians are so keen to 'turn the other cheek'.

Totally agree. It baffles me as to why Christians are so keen to 'turn the other cheek'.

Matthew 5v39
...If someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also.

I think with the B and B case - the couple deliberately booked there because they knew the owner was a religious type, it was their home, and they would be unhappy with a same sex couple staying in their B and B (which was their home - I think that was their key issue). Whatever the details - I seem to remember it was deliberately intended to see what they would do

It breaks the cycle of violence that 'an eye for an eye' begets.

@KittenKong

I think with the B and B case - the couple deliberately booked there because they knew the owner was a religious type, it was their home, and they would be unhappy with a same sex couple staying in their B and B (which was their home - I think that was their key issue). Whatever the details - I seem to remember it was deliberately intended to see what they would do

I think the B&B owners were against unmarried heterosexual couples sharing a bed as well. If I remember rightly the gay couple went out of their way to book a Christian guest house.

I think sexuality (real) should trump religious belief (made up shit) at law.

@ElftonWednesday

I think sexuality (real) should trump religious belief (made up shit) at law.

Do you think people should be forced to write political statements that they deeply disagree with?

The message was a campaign for a change in the law that existed at the time. A change a lot of gay people disagreed with. It was a political message

I'm maybe a very simple person but to me the sentence above captures the issues exactly.

Gay marriage was illegal at the time in NI. How on earth then can it be discrimination on the part of the bakers to refuse to assist in a campaign to change the law? Lee's case should have been thrown out at the first level. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court.

So far as ECHR, issues- what were his lawyers at domestic level supposed to argue for anyway? The case turns on his attempt to compel them to support a political campaign they didn't support.

I’m not sure - someone’s religious beliefs, well if you believe that you are going to hell, that’s one heck of a reason to not make a cake. The person doggedly pursuing this seems to be doing it through malice (but who really knows?).

@KittenKong

I think with the B and B case - the couple deliberately booked there because they knew the owner was a religious type, it was their home, and they would be unhappy with a same sex couple staying in their B and B (which was their home - I think that was their key issue). Whatever the details - I seem to remember it was deliberately intended to see what they would do

The fact that it was their home may have been a key issue for the owners, but the key issue in law was that they were operating a business and there is no exemption from the law just because you are using your home for your business.

@ElftonWednesday

I think sexuality (real) should trump religious belief (made up shit) at law.

You have so missed the point.

I think the issue for the b&b owner was that it was their home. Not sure what the legal stance is - but I seem to remember it being targeted against them (as Christians).

So try to make people do what you (kind of, not really but pushing a point) want in their home even though you know it will make them feel that they are in mortal danger of losing their soul? That’s pretty nasty.

@ElftonWednesday

I think sexuality (real) should trump religious belief (made up shit) at law.

So who gets to decide what is real? Does the current gender ideology (real according to most of our mainstream political parties) trump gender critical views (not real by default according to most of our mainstream political parties)? Fact is, I have no confidence in our political, legal or social institutions being able to identify what is real and what is not.

You either have to have a position where NO businesses are allowed to refuse business based on their own beliefs and convictions (which does have its own attractions, it means businesses are free from pressures of political or campaign groups) or they they are allowed to refuse business based on their own beliefs or convictions.

@KittenKong

I’m not sure - someone’s religious beliefs, well if you believe that you are going to hell, that’s one heck of a reason to not make a cake. The person doggedly pursuing this seems to be doing it through malice (but who really knows?).

But the refusal was actually political as much as religious.

Lee wanted a symbolic cake with a political slogan on it. It wasn't a real wedding cake- it couldn't be a wedding cake as same sex marriage wasn't a thing in NI.

You either have to have a position where NO businesses are allowed to refuse business based on their own beliefs and convictions (which does have its own attractions, it means businesses are free from pressures of political or campaign groups)

Which would also mean you could not consider things like fair trade, slavery, arms trading etc when deciding how to do business. A sweatshop must be considered equally to a more ethical factory.

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).

I never knew that. Now I’m picturing all the opportunities for sectarian harassment that would be opened up if this had gone the other way.

And I also didn’t realise that they were asking for a cake that said “support gay marriage.” I think people not familiar with the details tend to assume that the service refused was along the lines of a cake that said “Congratulations Dave and Jonathan” with two little groom figures on it.

Why are the EHRC even funding this case? It seems obvious that no one should be able to force another person to express a political belief.

It's not the EHRC which took this case. It's the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI).

As far as I recall, the Bed and Breakfast owners applied the same rule to unmarried couples of whatever sex. They could not sleep in the same bed under their roof.

ElftonWednesday your comment describing religion as "made up shit" is very offensive as well as a beautiful illustration of exactly why this court case has failed. Thank you for ironically disproving what you thought you were saying.

It’s probably “gone on this long” because gay marriage is not just a political opinion it’s about equality and human rights, it’s not the same thing as writing “vote labour” on a cake.

I’m gay and I don’t have sympathy for either side, the cake owners are clearly homophobic and the gay couple were clearly looking to cause trouble. I think both of them are in the wrong, but to refer to objecting to gay marriage and gay rights as merely a difference of political opinion rather than homophobia is disingenuous, homophobia rooted in religion is still homophobia.

Quite, Elsie.

This case is an interesting one, and the Supreme Court judgement is well worth a read.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf

I'm just rereading it now and tbh I'd forgotten quite how clear the judgement is regarding the fact that you cannot compel someone to manifest a belief they do not hold.

Furthermore, obliging a person to manifest a belief which he does not hold has been held to be a limitation on his article 9(1) rights.

The freedom not to be obliged to hold or to manifest beliefs that one does not hold is also protected by article 10 of the Convention.

In my view they would be entitled to refuse to [supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed] whatever the message conveyed by the icing on the cake - support for living in sin, support for a particular political party, support for a particular religious denomination.

@KaptainKaveman I'm glad you found it offensive. There is a reason why as individuals we are allowed to criticise religion at law but not allowed to be racist, sexist or homophobic. Perhaps you can work it out.