- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It sounds as if five Supreme Court judges don't agree.
I'm sure that a flock of lawyers will be along to encourage him to take his case to the ECHR - I wonder who will pay them?
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
I'm sure that a flock of lawyers will be along to encourage him to take his case to the ECHR - I wonder who will pay them?
Caporegime
I'd disagree. His decision to pursue a legal case has been wrong. It's been a spectacular waste of state funds that could have been better deployed elsewhere.
Caporegime
Caporegime
Firstly, no: deciding legal cases like this is never a "spectacular waste of funds", it's a necessary part of a functioning society based around the rule of law. Secondly, the cost is as much down to the Baker's appealing. It was them appealing, not him, remember.
Caporegime
Some fights don't need to be picked. Do you think this guy, had he been a baker, would have ever agreed to bake a cake saying "queers will burn in hell"? Heck no!
Any normal person would have just gone 'screw it' and bought a cake elsewhere. They didn't refuse to serve him because he was gay, they refused to put a political statement on a cake.
I've just seen him interviewed however and he clearly can't grasp this.
I agree with the supreme court here. As it was a specific slogan/statement they were asked to print, then I think that is fair.
Had the couple just not been served because they were gay, or had they refused to make them, for example, a standard wedding cake that they would have made for anyone else but just with two male figures or two male names on it then i would have sided with the gay couple as that would have been discriminatory.
Had the couple just not been served because they were gay, or had they refused to make them, for example, a standard wedding cake that they would have made for anyone else but just with two male figures or two male names on it then i would have sided with the gay couple as that would have been discriminatory.
Mr Jack is making lots of sensible points, including the fact that Mr Lee won the case he started. At all other times he has been defending.
Caporegime
The highest court in the country has ruled that the decisions of the original courts were wrong.
Despite the disgusting cost of it, this is how common law works.
The gay activist wanted the law to be clarified in his favour. The christian baker wanted it clarified in his favour.
Existing law was not clear on the exact point so it took all this arguing and multiple courts hearing the case to finally come to a solid decision for all future rulings which ought to now be much easier with this case as precedent.
The gay activist is wrong and the christian baker is right but neither was the case until the final ruling.
Someone has to take one for the team every time a law is challenged and in this case the gay activists feelings and the public purse and that christian group's funds are all worse off to bring us this newly clarified legal position and slightly richer lawyers.
The gay activist wanted the law to be clarified in his favour. The christian baker wanted it clarified in his favour.
Existing law was not clear on the exact point so it took all this arguing and multiple courts hearing the case to finally come to a solid decision for all future rulings which ought to now be much easier with this case as precedent.
The gay activist is wrong and the christian baker is right but neither was the case until the final ruling.
Someone has to take one for the team every time a law is challenged and in this case the gay activists feelings and the public purse and that christian group's funds are all worse off to bring us this newly clarified legal position and slightly richer lawyers.
Soldato
Yup. I would have simply called them religious zealots and gone elsewhere, what a waste of time and money.
Caporegime
That's what any normal human would have done.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
In this case, the Taxpayer appears unwittingly and probably unwillingly to have given 250,000 for the team.
Yes, but to make out that he shouldn’t have taken the case when 2 courts agreed with him (showing there must be some element of confusion in the law) is unfair.
Soldato
I dont get how the original courts couldnt come to the sensible decision in the first place. Why does it need courts of increasingly higher levels. All that happens in these situations is court 1 is scared of making a controversial decision, and with the knowledge that a higher court can take the responsibility its the easy choice to simply make the obvious ruling, get shot of the problem and leave it to others to sort. Court 2 does exactly the same. Court 3 cant pass the buck because they are end of chain.
The bakers aren't forcing their will on others.
The gay chap still got his cake baked (why does that sound like a euphemism?) Sure he had to go somewhere else in order to get it, but he at no point was forced to do anything against his will. The bakery simply declined his offer of business, on the grounds that they did not wish to reproduce the slogan he had chosen on one of their cakes.
They didn't decline to serve him; they declined to make a specific product for him.
Caporegime
Not really. He should have just been a grown up and not tried to enforce his opinion on others.
I've already asked it once in this thread and didn't get an answer but would you be happy to put a message on a product stating "gays, you'll burn in hell"? A view held by some religious fundamentalists. I know I wouldn't. Infact I'd be rather impolite about telling them where to go. Yet I also accept they're entitled to their opinion, just as I'm free to tell them they're wrong.
For reference only, backwards reasoning is deciding the best outcome then coming up with a framework to justify it.
Just the way their judgement is framed on the identity of the cake buyer being irrelevant - even though in reality it’s highly unlikely that any other cake buyer would buy said cake, so in that sense it is relevant.
I think the outcome is correct but it’s always interesting to see how they get there. I’m sure they could have decided the other way using other similarly phrased methods.
Reminds me of a silly case (with a silly outcome): a landlord painted some steps with unsuitable paint and someone stepped on the slippery when wet paint and tragically fall to their death. The whole case was framed around the landlord failing to keep the property in good repair so as not to be ‘defective’. The judge decided that occupiers liability was not relevant because landlords liability was set out in a different statute, and because parliament had framed that statute in terms of repair all liability stemming must be from repair, and not decoration (I.e. painting). So the landlord wasn’t liable. I’m not sure whether that got over tuned later but I hope so!! Utterly ridiculous.
Judges' don't decide cases off the top of their heads. Usually both the Pros and Def will present case law (legal authorities) to the bench. The Judge will take these into account when making his/her decision. However, they also do their own research and are also bound by/guided legal statutes.
Same with sentencing - the public outcry when they consider a defendant should have got a 100 years or worse. A Judge has to follow pretty strict guidelines handed down by Parliament including what's known as a 'sentence referencer'. Only under exceptional circumstances can a Judge sentence outside the guidelines. On top of this the Judge must have regard to the defendants antecedents plus mitigation to consider. It's quite a complex exercise.
Plenty of straight people support gay marriage and could buy a cake in general with such a slogan on it that the bakers would object too, parents often buy wedding cakes for their kids too (not that there was much about this cake to make it specifically a wedding cake). Taking it further plenty of black lives matter protestors are white etc...