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]

@KimikosNightmare

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.

And if you read what I wrote, I think that legislation should be introduced to make it easier for such arrangements to be formalised without using Civil Partnership for a purpose for which it was not intended.

@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.

Inevitably this is a mix of : 1) perfectly valid cases where they really are being discriminated against. Cases they should win. 2) cases where religious rights are in conflict with another protected characteristic (often sexual orientation). Cases which could conceivably go either way but afaik they tend to lose. 3) and also some cases where actually what they want is some sort of privilege not available to anyone else. There's a small subset who do this while self-righteously quoting Matthew 5:10-12 when they lose.

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"

Exactly. And I agree with pp that the closest analogy is to printers, who have refused to print stuff for women's rights campaigners, and billboard companies, who have taken down Woman: Adult Human Female posters.

Either the customer is always right and companies are not able to refuse to reproduce political slogans, or companies are allowed to refuse. It can't be fair that in some cases it's ok to say no and in other cases it ends up in seven years of legal battles.

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

*Inevitably this is a mix of :

1. perfectly valid cases where they really are being discriminated against. Cases they should win* 2) cases where religious rights are in conflict with another protected characteristic (often sexual orientation). Cases which could conceivably go either way but afaik they tend to lose 3) and also some cases where actually what they want is some sort of privilege not available to anyone else. There's a small subset who do this while self-righteously quoting Matthew 5:10-12 when they lose

Those categories apply to the other groups too albeit a different justification would be needed in 3.

Storminamu's quibbling of one group's use of legislation designed to protect it really isn't a good look. The courts and tribunals will determine if a claim has merit.

I read this in the metro this morning it came with a quote from the man saying everyone deserves equal rights....... well in that case he should agree that the shop has a right to refuse service based on their beliefs.

How would it be if it was farrage going into the shop to ask for a cake with "keep immigrants out" written on the top or something?

equal rights mean just that, not what you want to happen.

This has been a really interesting thread, even if it has meandered about a bit. I believe the right decision has been reached in this case, even though I support gay marriage. Businesses shouldn't be compelled to print material they disagree with. It would be different if they had refused to bake a cake because the customer was gay.
WRT to the B&B owners, they lost their case iirc, and I think they clearly were on the wrong side of the law. I understand that it was also their home, but when they opened their home to paying customers they undertook certain obligations to go along with that.
WRT to gay marriage, yes there were gay people who opposed or were apathetic about it. However, some Christians also supported it, some denominations wanted the right to marry gay people, and some gay Christians wanted to marry so I think it was right to give them that option. Just like gay people, Christians aren't monolithic in their views on marriage.
Finally someone mentioned wearing a crucifix at work vs. wearing a hijab- I think the difference is that Islam requires women to cover their heads, but Christians aren't required to wear a crucifix. I wear one, but I would understand it would be different if my employer had a no jewelry policy.

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 takeoink'sview 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.)

But that is specifically a matter of faith. Are you suggesting we should legislate what people must believe? Or that specific beliefs are unacceptable? Lots of countries certainly try to do that. Just look at the blasphemy laws in Pakistan...

Yes I agree - if you are not fine with abortion, contraception etc. do not enter the profession.

What about if they are not fine giving puberty blockers to children or mastectomy especially to healthy 13 year old's?

Mastectomy especially = mastectomies

But that is specifically a matter of faith. Are you suggesting we should legislate what people must believe? Or that specific beliefs are unacceptable?
Rather the opposite!

Yes I agree - if you are not fine with abortion, contraception etc. do not enter the profession

That's not an acceptable stance. You cannot possibly justify barring someone entering a career in medicine just because they are anti- abortion. That's only a tiny part of what a doctor or surgeon might expect to do.

It's often said on here " if you're opposed to abortion- don't have one". I think it's reasonable to extend that to " and don't carry them out"

I fully support the UK position on abortion, which despite the "2 doctor rule" is one of the most liberal anywhere, but I can't support either forcing a doctor to perform an abortion against their will or ending their career if they won't.

It's dumb racists who harass Muslims in RL and online and dumb woke lefties who harass Christians online.

Yep, that's what I'm trying to get at, exactly. But I'd also say it's more socially accepted to criticise and mock christians.

Errol...we are already legislating what people must believe! That's the point! Isnt that what Political Correctness is?
What if I disagree? I don't want to endorse gay marriage or wearing a crucifix...should I be forced to write a hundred times ; 'I support gay marriage' or wear the crucifix?
That's the point isnt it, the bakers didn't want to endorse the political leanings of another and neither should they be forced to by law...there was a film..1984 ...

@ScholesPanda
I think the difference is that Islam requires women to cover their heads, but Christians aren't required to wear a crucifix.

As far as I know, some Islamic traditions will definitely say the hijab is a requirement, others say it's not. Using the 'well, Christians aren't required to wear a crucifix' is a bit iffy, really, because you have to judge between one religion's 'obligation' versus another's 'matter of faith'.

The nurse did explain to her employers why her particular cross necklace wasn't 'jewellery' but was an important symbol of her commitment to her faith - a confirmation gift, I think. Sometimes, depending on the church, such a cross/crucifix would be specially blessed - in which case, it definitely wouldn't be 'oh, you can swap it with some earrings.'

Essentially, I'd say that the nurse was discriminated against because she was told to remove a meaningful religious symbol, whereas other nurses (of a different religion) were allowed to retain theirs.

The "nurse with a necklace" case I remember was that no one was allowed to wear any necklace for HSE reasons. The fact it was religious was immaterial, and would have been allowed to wear the symbol in badge form. She was actually demanding a privilege versus other colleagues, not being discriminated against.

@Anactor I still think it's true to say that some schools of Islam do require a head covering, whilst no denominations of Christianity require the wearing of a crucifix (that I'm aware of).
Making it about a personal matter of faith, no matter how deeply and sincerely held, opens a can of worms in my opinion- is it ok then for a civil servant to wear a 'Vote Conservative' t-shirt to work, or a vegetarian waitress to wear a 'meat is murder' lanyard whilst serving at the Toby Carvery? Both could be sincerely held personal beliefs.
I definitely agree that organisations shouldn't ban crucifixes for the sake of it, or on spurious 'could cause offence' grounds, but I'm assuming a nurse couldn't wear jewelry of any kind for hygiene reasons, apologies if I've got that wrong.

I'm assuming a nurse couldn't wear jewelry of any kind for hygiene reasons, apologies if I've got that wrong.

The employment tribunal certainly didn't accept the 'hygiene' argument. Whether that was because they felt that the employer hadn't attempted a reasonable adjustment, or because evidence was presented that other items of religious jewelry were mysteriously acceptable, I don't know.

@ErrolTheDragon - again, the employment tribunal found constructive dismissal. So if there was a 'no necklace' policy, perhaps they felt there was some reason it was being rigorously applied to this particular nurse, but not to others.

Panda
It was the gay man that wanted a slogan, not the baker.
Really it's the legislators that decide to separate faith and politics..and what politics are acceptable.
Who decides then IF faith can be a point of objection? Same legislators..of whatever political party/government is in power or flavour.
So if I feel my faith trumps your politics who is right? Whomever is in power or shouts the loudest it seems..so all things considered everyone deserves to hold the right to object...to a point.
As has been rightly said, the man was not denied a cake HE WAS DENIED A POLITICAL SUPPORTER.

@ErrolTheDragon

The "nurse with a necklace" case I remember was that no one was allowed to wear any necklace for HSE reasons. The fact it was religious was immaterial, and would have been allowed to wear the symbol in badge form. She was actually demanding a privilege versus other colleagues, not being discriminated against.

How does that stack up against a rainbow lanyard or badge?

She won her case though? If you are able to wear other religious symbols the a wee crucifix isn’t the worst you can do is it?

@Anactor Ok, I wasn't familiar with the case, hence the assumption. Stopping someone from wearing a crucifix without good reason is discriminatory and wrong.

@Tropics4 I think your post is aimed at me? As I've already been clear that I think the right decision in the cake case and that the bakery shouldn't be compelled to support a certain political position, I'm not sure that we are in disagreement.

Hi Panda, not aimed at you specifically but really I think the whole gay cake saga perfectly highlights that to not discriminate against someone has to have boundaries otherwise you will stamp over the rights of others making them feel discriminated against.
For example if I'm a medic then to preserve life and do no harm is my priority, I dont care what your politics or faith system is, you will be treated the same as any other patient, if you want a sex change or abortion then I reserve the right to my own belief system.
If I'm a baker, I bake for everyone without asking their religion or political leaning, IF they ask me to join in their campaign I reserve the right not to.
The point I'm making is this man is shouting for the right to get another human being to be forced into his ideology.. that is wrong on every level. As wrong as converting by the sword etc and the day anyone is forced to capitulate to such policies will be the day we are no longer free in every sense.

@KimikosNightmare

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.

The knock on effects of requiring all doctors to participate in all procedures offered legally would have a lot of knock on effects.

You would for example be excluding practicing members of certain groups from medical practice.

I'd point out with abortion that women are more likely than men to be conservative about it, so you would be excluding more women than men.

There are serious questions about what freedom of conscience means when certain beliefs that are allowed for are limited in practice. This is never a binary question but in totalitarian states it's actually a common technique to control thought by making it theoretically allowable but suppressing it materially.

And do we really want to say that anything the state may deem morally acceptable and offered as medical care must be performed by all doctors or they must be willing to do it? What about something like elective circumcision? What about assisted death, or euthanasia? What if it's allowed for infants or disabled children or the mentally ill? None of those is far-fetched in the near future.

What annoyed me about this case was that the cake buyers deliberately went to a bakery with known strict Christian ownership rather than one of the other options in the area they asked for a cake with a political message, they wanted to make a point basically, they wanted a refusal. Refusing political wording on a cake isn't the same as a b&b refusing to allow double beds for gay couples.

Personally I don't like discrimination against anyone but I also get annoyed at deliberately antagonising Christians when there are other options. Eg 99.9% of hotels wouldn't bat an eyelid at a same sex or unmarried couple checking in so don't book the one run by bigots, they don't deserve our money