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]

Seven years!

Because of a cake that iirc was requested from that bakery to make a point... Correct me if wrong.

Gay marriage was legalised NI Jan 2020 ish.

Time to move on?

'I believe it’s right that doctors can opt out of providing care they disagree with (primarily on practical/emotional grounds for the patient, nobody wants to be given reluctant, disapproving medical care).'

Nope.

If you have objections to certain legal medical interventions, then don't go into an area of medicine where it will come up.

No doctor should be as unprofessional as to let patient know they are judging them in any way.

As for reluctant judgemental...

I had more than one experience of going GP for pill prescription, and they certainly got their message across loud and clear. When they explained at length why another doc would have to sign prescription. They were unable to sign because of religious beliefs that meant they were totally against contraception, even signing it would be against their beliefs, and generally laying it on thick.
Rather than eg. Wait at reception just need few mins to get this printed and signed etc.

Also mum hosp doc this is maybe 20 years ago. Real problems with abortion clinic due to number of docs who would not do on religious grounds. Meaning delays etc.

So that's a no from me.

You don't go for job in offy if believe booze too awful to touch.
You don't apply for butcher job if for whatever reason won't handle raw meat.
You don't decide as doc your place is in sexual health clinic if you believe sex before marriage and homosexual sex is a sin.
And you don't go into women's reproductive medicine if you refuse to provide certain legal care.

Any turning away, come back later, delay, hint of negative judgement.
These things some esp younger can be a huge deal to book etc.
Get that. May not come back.
It happens.

@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

That's discrimination for sure.

Anti Christian feelings are WAY more prevalent than anti Muslim feelings.

Quick Google-

-Muslims attending a mosque in London have been pelted with eggs and stones in a suspected Islamophobic attack.

• In its annual report, the group noted a surge in Islamophobic attacks, with 1,201 verified reports submitted in 2017, a rise of 26% on the year before and the highest number since it began recording incidents...

Of the victims six out of 10 were women and of the perpetrators eight out of 10 were men, with the majority aged between 13 and 18.

• LONDON — Police officers and counterterrorism officials in Britain were investigating attacks on five mosques Thursday, including one in which a man took a sledgehammer to smash the windows of a house of worship in Birmingham, England. Etc etc

I wonder how anyone on baker side would feel if refused to write on cake because beliefs-

Women matter
Black lives matter
Happy Hanukkah
Thank you to all at refugee support centre
Conservative supporters annual dinner
And whatever.

In the end there's a strong flavour of massive previous mutual antagonism here.

@ArabellaScott

We can haz right to cake?

No, only cheeseburger, nom.

@CheeseMmmm

I wonder how anyone on baker side would feel if refused to write on cake because beliefs-

Women matter
Black lives matter
Happy Hanukkah
Thank you to all at refugee support centre
Conservative supporters annual dinner
And whatever.

In the end there's a strong flavour of massive previous mutual antagonism here.

If I wanted those messages I’d be annoyed and think badly of them (if I was prone to judging those with different views - as realistically we all are) but I wouldn’t want the baker prosecuted for it.

Although I supported the campaign for gay marriage (as a straight ally) I can see Oink’s point.

Yes, there is a cultural component to marriage that is important to many people. However the crux is what legal RIGHTS are conferred by marriage? Gay couples historically had no right to be considered their partner’s next of kin, no inheritance or pension rights, no right to the tax allowance breaks offered to married people etc. They had no legal “partner” status.

That was corrected with the Civil Partnerships Act. All of the legal rights denied to gay couples were now available to them. And in the same way “marriage” was not available to gay couples, so civil partnerships were not available to heterosexual couples. Both groups had something specific to them that conferred the same legal rights. Equity, rather than equality (and some would argue that equity is preferable).

As said at the beginning, I can’t see the harm in both things being available to both groups and couples choose which suits their needs, and I’m glad the law reflects that now. But I can see the logic behind the alternative view held by Oink, especially considering marriage was originally a religious sacrament meant to provide a morally approved framework within which to procreate (very heteronormative) and most religions did not embrace homosexuality, to put it mildly! So I can completely understand why some gay people would wish to have their own ‘sacrament’ entirely separate from that previously-homophobic (and sadly still homophobic in some religions/sects) tradition.

It does require the ability to see nuance to grasp that though, and as others have said we’re in danger of losing that to binary tribalism.

For religious groups it was taking a word with a specific meaning and using it for a different purpose - changing the meaning of the word. Though really that battle was lost in 1836 when civil weddings were allowed.

@KimikosNightmare

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.

For Christians it's a covenant with God, so some of them take it seriously - obviously marriage would only be for man and woman for them

Anyone who's not religious, I don't know why you'd be bothered

@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

There was the Canadian transgender guy who picked on ethnic minority women when he wanted his testicles waxed.

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.

@CheeseMmmm

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

Yes, people do love to antagonise christians with no consequence. There would be massive backlash if a Muslim baker was forced to write such a message on a cake

They are openly mocked etc., accused of being homophobic etc. (True or not, I don't think anyone would take a Muslim baker to eu court over this. It's accepted that they believe xyz)

I imagine there are fewer Christian attacks because Christians have a more discreet appearance (ie not easily identifiable) and are a larger majority than other religions.

Nobody's denying the fanatics who commit hate crimes against other religions exist. Those are more right wing people. Left wing people tend to dislike christians more.

How many Christians in this country strongly believe that gay marriage is wrong?
We have a lot of "soft" Christianity in the UK (happily). Traditional Islamic beliefs are taken far more seriously by Muslims.

@Lovelyricepudding

For religious groups it was taking a word with a specific meaning and using it for a different purpose - changing the meaning of the word. Though really that battle was lost in 1836 when civil weddings were allowed.

Well, except of course that for gay Christian couples, they'd see it as using it for the same purpose and that's the right that civil partnership didn't confer - the right to this specifically religious rite. Sure, the procreation part wouldn't work exactly by the book, but afaik Christians had never barred elderly couples or ones with clear medical reasons for infertility from marrying. So on one side 'nope, marriage only means a man and a woman' and on the other 'ah, continuing revelation, God doesn't really mind if we're same sex any more than he's bothered about mixed fabrics and prawns'. That sort of thing. While I can certainly see why some gay people would take oink's view that CP was sufficient or preferable, it's a bit odd to talk about 'gay culture' as if all gay people had one specific culture. There would surely have been many living lives of quiet guilt or unwanted celibacy because despite CP they couldn't 'be married in the eyes of god'. (Im a atheist, I'm not saying this is rational but it's a comprehensible viewpoint.)

[quote babeB]@CheeseMmmm

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.

Yes, people do love to antagonise christians with no consequence. There would be massive backlash if a Muslim baker was forced to write such a message on a cake

They are openly mocked etc., accused of being homophobic etc. (True or not, I don't think anyone would take a Muslim baker to eu court over this. It's accepted that they believe xyz)

I imagine there are fewer Christian attacks because Christians have a more discreet appearance (ie not easily identifiable) and are a larger majority than other religions.

Nobody's denying the fanatics who commit hate crimes against other religions exist. Those are more right wing people. Left wing people tend to dislike christians more. [/quote]
It's dumb racists who harass Muslims in RL and online and dumb woke lefties who harass Christians online.

Muslims are at risk of physical attacks in the UK/ EU in a way which Christians are not. There are other places in the world where Christians are attacked.

On the other hand in the UK it's acceptable to laugh at, mock or ridicule Christians in a way which would never be acceptable for any other religious group.

One example is the poster on here who has "Jesus" as part of her username. I don't know why she chose that name or whether she means any mockery or malice by it but I wonder how long a username referring to "the Prophet" or "Muhammed" would last?

@CheeseMmmm

'I believe it’s right that doctors can opt out of providing care they disagree with (primarily on practical/emotional grounds for the patient, nobody wants to be given reluctant, disapproving medical care).'

Nope.

If you have objections to certain legal medical interventions, then don't go into an area of medicine where it will come up.

No doctor should be as unprofessional as to let patient know they are judging them in any way.

As for reluctant judgemental...

I had more than one experience of going GP for pill prescription, and they certainly got their message across loud and clear. When they explained at length why another doc would have to sign prescription. They were unable to sign because of religious beliefs that meant they were totally against contraception, even signing it would be against their beliefs, and generally laying it on thick.
Rather than eg. Wait at reception just need few mins to get this printed and signed etc.

Also mum hosp doc this is maybe 20 years ago. Real problems with abortion clinic due to number of docs who would not do on religious grounds. Meaning delays etc.

So that's a no from me.

You don't go for job in offy if believe booze too awful to touch.
You don't apply for butcher job if for whatever reason won't handle raw meat.
You don't decide as doc your place is in sexual health clinic if you believe sex before marriage and homosexual sex is a sin.
And you don't go into women's reproductive medicine if you refuse to provide certain legal care.

Any turning away, come back later, delay, hint of negative judgement.
These things some esp younger can be a huge deal to book etc.
Get that. May not come back.
It happens.

Yes I agree - if you are not fine with abortion, contraception etc. do not enter the profession. We have so called 'conscience clause' in my home country and on paper it should work like this: if you get denied service the doctor in questions is obligated to find and refer you to medical care provider who they know would perform the procedure. Seems like a fair compromise, however in practice:

1. doctors stall the referral process, so the strict deadline for abortion passes
2. doctors refuse to refer you and are very unlikely to be punished even when what they do is illegal
3. even if there is a referral people in less densely populated and badly communicated areas, with little choice of health providers have troubles accessing an alternative provider; what aggravates the issue is that very often social characteristics like religiousness are concentrated in particular parts of the country, so it might impossible to buy contraceptives anywhere within an hour drive of where somebody lives

I am fine with private business not baking a cake, but medical care as it is currently in majority of Europe is a public service, delivered by state which should be impartial on religious questions, and therefore religious exemptions should not be possible.

I'm not sure the analogy with doctors, butchers etc really holds. Afaik the bakers didn't refuse to bake a cake. They refused to ice a particular message on it. So, the direct comparison is with printers, it's about words.

Should a printer be allowed to refuse to print a slogan they don't agree with? Or do you think it's unreasonable for someone to set up a business printing posters, t-shirts, sign writing or whatever, unless they're willing to print anything and everything (legal)?

When I first heard about this case it was presented as if two gay men had been refused a wedding cake for their wedding. That would have been discrimination. Regardless of your religious beliefs, if you open a business to the public, you can't pick and choose which members of the public you will cater to. If your business makes wedding cakes, you have to make wedding cakes for everyone, even if you don't believe in their marriage due to their sex, past divorces, a mixed religious couple, etc.

However, the reality is that this was a cake with a political slogan. A political slogan I wholeheartedly agree with and have actively campaigned for. But you can't compel a business owner to make products with political slogans.

We're getting off topic but presumably the medical exemption clause was needed as a sop to get the 1967 Act through?

I don't think that was unreasonable at the time and I'm not convinced it still isn't reasonable.

The comparisons with other trades and professions aren't proper comparisons. If you are a butcher your entire working life is centered on dead animals; a GP or even a surgeon's day isn't centred on one aspect.

Obviously it is wrong to refuse to immediately refer a patient seeking an abortion but I don't think it's wrong to be able to decline such a patient.

There was a case a few years ago where 2 Catholic midwives were found to be within their rights to not act positively in abortion procedures but were not entitled to refuse to supervise or give guidance to midwives in their teams who did.

I'm also firmly on the side of the baker. Would this stunt be tried with businesses in Muslim/Jewish/any other religion's ownership? No it would not, but Christians are seen as fair game these days, which is wrong. (Same as the recent case of the nurse who lost her job because she wore a crucifix, while all around her colleagues were in hijabs etc.)

Christians in the UK are pretty trigger happy when it comes to litigation. There's a group which encourages and funds religious discrimination claims by Christians.

@Storminamu

Christians in the UK are pretty trigger happy when it comes to litigation. There's a group which encourages and funds religious discrimination claims by Christians.

Not sure what your point is. Anti- discrimination legislation is there to be used.

No doubt there are groups which assist and fund other persons to make use of the benefits of anti- discrimination legislation.

I'm not a Christian but I don"t see why Christians shouldn't seek redress if they think they have a valid case.

@ElftonWednesday

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

But he wasn't being discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality. It was the political slogan they were refusing. In the same way that a baker would be well within their rights to refuse to bake a cake with "vote SDLP".

Storminamu

The CEO of The Robertson Trust sacked an employee because he believed, as per his Church's belief, that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. His personal beliefs had no impact on his work with the Robertson Trust. Do you think seeking compensation for being wrongly fired is being "trigger happy"?

The CEO seems to have wasted quite a lot of the Trust's money fighting, losing and paying compensation for discriminatory behaviour.

www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-ceo-wins-religious-discrimination-case/

www.christian.org.uk/press_release/church-groups-settle-discrimination-claim-against-robertson-trust-we-are-grateful-and-relieved/

The CEO left before the end of her contract. I don't believe for one minute the CEO would have taken the same action over a Muslim employee with the same beliefs or that a Muslim, Hindu or Sikh group would have been refused permission to hire a venue.