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]

@FlyingOink

I don't understand the attachment to the word marriage, we don't ask straight people to call us husband and wife when we are two women or two men, we don't ask straight people to call us Mr and Mrs when we are Mr and Mr, we don't demand an annulment because we can't conceive naturally in our same sex couple (one of the nastier aspects of straight marriage), but somehow the word marriage is a human rights issue and I'm a big meanie for disagreeing.

Marriage has a long history, not all of it is very nice, particularly for women. Why would I want to copy that? Other people might see it as making it their own, I guess. I'm conscious I'm contributing to a derail here, my only point was that gay marriage in its current form was not supported by every gay or lesbian person in the UK when it was being debated.

You’re absolutely right and I’m pretty surprised that this view has come as a shock to any gay person.

My gay best friend opposed campaigns for same sex marriage. His reasoning was as yours, that he felt it was trying to mould gay and lesbian couples into a heteronormative institution. He was very proud to belong to a long tradition of gay men who have lived outside that heteronormativity, he wanted to honour that history and continue to have the kind of “outsider” status that has shaped his understanding of the world as a gay man.

He feels that marriage, and incidentally monogamy and cohabitation to be limiting to people, he feels as you do that the institution of marriage is excessively burdened by moral baggage that has contributed to hardship and misery for untold millions of people, and the thought that it is aspirational for anyone seemed, to him, risible.

Now, for myself, this isn’t my view, as despite my feminism, I quite like being married. However, had the option of a heterosexual civil partnership been open to me, I’d have taken that over marriage. As an atheist, I am entirely left cold by the religious elements, and all I wanted was the civil, legal and financial protections and responsibilities.

On the legal case, this is a good decision. Much as I find homophobia repellant, I also don’t want to live in a society where people can be compelled To write, say or think things they don’t believe.

@FlyingOink

You still haven't explained what rights are gained by calling the contract a "marriage" or are lost by a "civil partnership"

Because she doesn't know

As you clearly can’t use Google:

In terms of officially committing to spending your life with your partner, there aren’t many significant differences between marriage and civil partnership.

However, some do exist:

Civil partners cannot call themselves ‘married’ for legal purposes

A marriage is ended with divorce by obtaining a decree absolute, while a civil partnership is ended with dissolution by obtaining a dissolution order

Adultery is not a valid reason to dissolve a civil partnership, but it can be used to divorce

First of all if you’re in a civil partnership you aren’t married, many of us want to be married, marriage has huge cultural significance

Ok last response because my forehead hurts from banging it against the wall.
You clearly state that the word is the important thing, because of its cultural significance. Can you perhaps think about how that cultural significance is further augmented by your assertion that only something called marriage is the real deal? That something called marriage is somehow more worthwhile? That unless it's exactly like what straight people have, it's somehow lesser? Can you see how that elevates what straight people have and do; how it makes their practices somehow more valuable? Can you see how not everyone would agree with this?

Many of us also want to be able to call our partner our wife or husband not just our civil partner
And again with this - if you think there's more kudos to being a wife than being a partner (although tbh a lot of Civil Partnered people I knew used wife or husband anyway, and not just those who had a marriage after the law changed) then maybe think about why those words add so much legitimacy for you.

we don't demand an annulment because we can't conceive naturally in our same sex couple (one of the nastier aspects of straight marriage)

Actually Oink you've just pointed out a benefit of a civil partnership over marriage. There's no requirement for consummation of a civil partnership. Technically marriages can be annulled if not consummated.

There are plenty of reasons why 2 people, especially in their later years , might want an arrangement to formalise a friendship
e.g to deal with tax and inheritance issues and to get the benefit of IHT relief , to deal with decisions on end of life care without being obliged to have sex with each other.

The view isn’t shocking to me, what is shocking is that a gay person would want to deny other gay couples the right to get married because they personally think it’s “copying straight people” or they have no interest in it. But then again I don’t tend to want to deny others their right to do something just because it holds no importance or interest to me. It’s akin to the a black person during the civil rights movement saying “I don’t think black people should be able to sit at the front of the bus because it’s just copying straight people and we’re not the same as them, also I prefer sitting at the back of the bus, it’s really no different to sitting at the front anyway.”

“First of all if you’re in a civil partnership you aren’t married, many of us want to be married, marriage has huge cultural significance

Ok last response because my forehead hurts from banging it against the wall.
You clearly state that the word is the important thing, because of its cultural significance. Can you perhaps think about how that cultural significance is further augmented by your assertion that only something called marriage is the real deal? That something called marriage is somehow more worthwhile? That unless it's exactly like what straight people have, it's somehow lesser? Can you see how that elevates what straight people have and do; how it makes their practices somehow more valuable? Can you see how not everyone would agree with this?

Many of us also want to be able to call our partner our wife or husband not just our civil partner
And again with this - if you think there's more kudos to being a wife than being a partner (although tbh a lot of Civil Partnered people I knew used wife or husband anyway, and not just those who had a marriage after the law changed) then maybe think about why those words add so much legitimacy for you”

No I clearly stated the most important reason was equal rights, but you continue to gloss over that and debate the semantics such as wording and the difference between civil partnerships and marriages.

an arrangement to formalise a friendship e.g to deal with tax and inheritance issues

See I think this is misuse of the legislation. Civil Partnerships were designed to formalise homosexual relationships and afford couples the same legal rights as straight couples were able to have by paying £150 or whatever to get married. Stuff like being next of kin, being able to visit in hospital or prison, etc. Being able to claim pensions of a deceased partner, being able to form a family unit, being able to take on a council lease after a partner dies, all that kind of stuff.

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. Boris famously said he might as well marry his dog.

Making Civil Partnership into a kind of business structure means the polyamorous lot will argue that six of them should be able to form a Civil Partnership (or indeed, get married). It's something the Queer Theorists would have a field day with, seeing as they see homosexuality as just another kink anyway.

There should be a review of tax legislation and perhaps an easy way to take on next of kin status etc without using Civil Partnership for something it was not intended.

Civil partners cannot call themselves ‘married’ for legal purposes

Not sure what you mean by "legal purposes" but if you are legally hitched to someone else the same "legal purposes" apply whatever the format of the legal hitching. You can't get hitched to anyone else and you have better inheritance and inheritance tax status than any non- hitched person

A marriage is ended with divorce by obtaining a decree absolute, while a civil partnership is ended with dissolution by obtaining a dissolution order

And so what? In both cases the legal hitching has been unhitched

Adultery is not a valid reason to dissolve a civil partnership, but it can be used to divorce

That's plain wrong

Grounds for ending a civil partnership

When you apply to end your civil partnership (‘dissolution’), you’ll need to prove your relationship has broken down and cannot be saved

You’ll need to give one or more of the following 4 reasons (also known as ‘facts’).

Unreasonable behaviour

Your civil partner has behaved in a way that means you cannot reasonably be expected to live with them

This could include:

physical or mental cruelty verbal or physical abuse
being irresponsible with money
being sexually unfaithful
www.gov.uk/end-civil-partnership/grounds-for-ending-a-civil-partnership

In the context of this thread, regardless of our own personal stance, the relevant point is that some gay people did oppose gay marriage.

So if they'd been the bakers and had objected to writing the message which opposed their view - would anyone have thought there was a case? Because it would essentially be exactly the same.

No I clearly stated the most important reason was equal rights, but you continue to gloss over that and debate the semantics such as wording and the difference between civil partnerships and marriages. But they are equal, you just proved that upthread. Unless you think not being able to specifically use adultery as a reason for dissolution of a Civil Partnership is a huge human rights issue (it just gets called unreasonable behaviour and the dissolution happens anyway).

It’s akin to the a black person during the civil rights movement
No. Don't even go there. You're being racist. You're basically calling me an Uncle Tom at this point. You can't even articulate what it is that is so important to you about the word marriage. I've stated ad fucking nauseam that I want equal rights but that I didn't see the point in copying the same words or the same ceremony or whatever.

@ErrolTheDragon

In the context of this thread, regardless of our own personal stance, the relevant point is that some gay people did oppose gay marriage.

So if they'd been the bakers and had objected to writing the message which opposed their view - would anyone have thought there was a case? Because it would essentially be exactly the same.

It would be like that woman who took Miranda Yardley to court

It would be like that woman who took Miranda Yardley to court

Maybe, but that's not really the point.

@ErrolTheDragon

It would be like that woman who took Miranda Yardley to court

Maybe, but that's not really the point.

No but I thought it was funny.

The case wouldn't have had so much backing, I agree. It would be one gay person attempting to compel another gay person to support or promote their political views.

@FlyingOink

No I clearly stated the most important reason was equal rights, but you continue to gloss over that and debate the semantics such as wording and the difference between civil partnerships and marriages. But they are equal, you just proved that upthread. Unless you think not being able to specifically use adultery as a reason for dissolution of a Civil Partnership is a huge human rights issue (it just gets called unreasonable behaviour and the dissolution happens anyway).

It’s akin to the a black person during the civil rights movement
No. Don't even go there. You're being racist. You're basically calling me an Uncle Tom at this point. You can't even articulate what it is that is so important to you about the word marriage. I've stated ad fucking nauseam that I want equal rights but that I didn't see the point in copying the same words or the same ceremony or whatever.

How dare you, equal rights for gay people is not second rate to equal rights for black people. At the end of the day you either want equal rights which is the right to marriage for gay people or you don’t, and if you’re going to resort to calling me racist rather than debating my points then I’m not engaging with you any further. That’s below the belt and cheap shot.

Lucky I don't bake cakes really, otherwise I'd be sued by Elsiebear

How dare you, equal rights for gay people is not second rate to equal rights for black people. At the end of the day you either want equal rights which is the right to marriage for gay people or you don’t, and if you’re going to resort to calling me racist rather than debating my points then I’m not engaging with you any further. That’s below the belt and cheap shot

You have completely misinterpreted what Oink said. My eyebrows went up at your black rights comment too.

You still haven't been able to list what rights are gained by calling the contract a "marriage".

If anything, civil partners have greater rights because of the non- consummation element.

“You have completely misinterpreted what Oink said. My eyebrows went up at your black rights comment too.

You still haven't been able to list what rights are gained by calling the contract a "marriage".

If anything, civil partners have greater rights because of the non- consummation element”

Hard to misinterpret “you are racist”.

I don’t know how else to explain to you that gay couples not being able to get married only being allowed a civil partnership is not equal rights, maybe you should look up the definition of equal rights and you both seem confused, because saying “no you can’t get married like straight couples, but you can do this thing that’s similar but we won’t call it marriage because that offends homophobes” is not equal rights, and that’s reason enough to be pro gay marriage. So yeah I’m bowing out, this is off topic and I’m not gonna be accused of being racist and debate the semantics of civil partnerships all evening because apparently I should have just been happy I was offered that as wanting to be married was unnecessary and too big of an ask

This entire thread strikes a nerve to be honest. I have long thought that we are becoming like some Totalitarian state! People are afraid to voice their thoughts, or hold a different opinion to the current gender ideology or offend a religion. If the bakers had been forced to write a political statement then it is one step closer to this end, to disagree is not to hate and every person has the same right to freedom of conscience, belief or thought, or should I take the hand of a Muslim and force him to deny Allah, a Jew to eat pork or insist a gay person denounce his stance?
Terrifying, absolutely terrifying that people are cancelled, taken to court or name called because they choose to have their own opinion. Once you decide on a belief system or politics that is above debate, progression or the rights of the individual then we have all lost our freedom.
You cannot legislate conscience.

As Oink said, you can't articulate what it is that is so important to you about the word marriage.

You keep saying "there's a difference" but haven't come up with any examples beyond to end one takes a divorce and to end another a dissolution. And you were wrong about the grounds for ending both.

I'm glad this case has hopefully now reached the end of the road and I think the Supreme Court decision was correct.

I feel that this was the right decision - in my view the bakers were not discriminating against the customer they were refusing to ice the cake with something they fundamentally disagreed with. Christians have rights too and all too often they are ignored.

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 support gay marriage, I don’t support compelled speech so I think right decision.

Is the separate debate in this thread more about having the exact same options/routes in order to get those equal rights. Which I’m for but maybe that’s where the difference of opinion is.

It doesn't matter what the difference is between a civil partnership and a marriage.

If a straight couple can have a thing and a gay couple can't have a thing, it's not equal, whether or not the thing is desirable.

@Lovelyricepudding

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

It's a really interesting text, a friend who is a theologian explained it to me.

'An eye for an eye' (in its Old Testament context) was intended to limit rather than aggravate the cycle of violence. So the victim could demand a punishment equivalent to the offence but could not demand a punishment greater than the offence. In practice it means 'ONLY an eye for an eye, not an eye and a hand, for example.' The punishment must fit the crime.

Similarly, the instruction to turn the other cheek is not just about letting yourself be beaten up in the guise of forgiveness, it's actually an act of defiance.

Jesus very specifically described a hit to the right cheek. If a person hits you on the right cheek, assuming they're right handed, they've hit you with the back of their hand. Back-handed slaps were not only an act of aggression but an insult too, a display of dominance - hitting with the back of the hand was done by slave owners to slaves, men to women, etc.

To offer the other cheek (ie your left) means that you forced the abuser to hit you with an open hand, as though you were an equal. So it's actually quite subversive.

Totally off topic - sorry!

@Elsiebear90

Calm down, I’m just trying to understand your view as it’s quite bizarre, I’ve never met another gay person who doesn’t think we should have equal rights because that would be copying straight people. Is that what you meant when you said “ape the heterosexuals”?

It's really not that uncommon.

Not everyone sees marriage in itself as good, for one thing. So they'd be more keen to get rid of it altogether.

Others think marriage exists as a social mechanism for dealing with the different reproductive roles of the sexes. That's a long held understanding and why historically lots of cultures that were fine with homonsexuality didn't have gay marriage - it wasn't to the point, as they saw it. I know gay couples who haven't chosen to marry even where it was legal for this reason, they see it as disrespectful to women.

Human rights, what counts as a right and how it should be enacted politically is not a simple question, there are a lot of different viewpoints in almost any aspect of it. Political science doesn't have one right answer. Can the law differentiate between people (or couples) in a way that reflects reproductive role? Saying no has some significant repercussions.