Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

Pudney · 11 Oct 2018 at 10:37

Dis86 said:
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.

No I wouldn't be happy to put that message on, but I do accept that others are entitled to their opinion.

But I also think the UK is a country where everyone has access to justice if they feel they want it whether or not they are correct. It is for courts to decide whether a case is justified, not you, I or any other member of the public.

Tuppy_Glossop · 11 Oct 2018 at 10:37

The idea that if you 'publish' a phrase then you are necessarily showing support for it is, imo, facile. Is the baker worried that his God will immediately assume that the cake slogan must also be the baker's own position? Not the smartest God in the box...

ahar · 11 Oct 2018 at 10:41

Peter Tatchell (fervent gay rights campaigner for the last 30 years) put it very well I think:

“This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans. Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose. The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2018 at 10:53

@ahar watched an interview with him about it and he got it spot on. There was never a question of it discriminating against homosexuals. Ever. But the fool who took legal action couldn't grasp that. He made so much clear in his post trial interview.

@Pudney that's why it didn't need to go to court.

dowie · 11 Oct 2018 at 11:23

ahar said:
Peter Tatchell (fervent gay rights campaigner for the last 30 years) put it very well I think:

“This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans. Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose. The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

So basically the point made on page 1, post 1 in this thread. It is quite funny how this went on for 140 pages.

Tefal · 11 Oct 2018 at 11:31

Tuppy_Glossop said:
The idea that if you 'publish' a phrase then you are necessarily showing support for it is, imo, facile. Is the baker worried that his God will immediately assume that the cake slogan must also be the baker's own position? Not the smartest God in the box...

It's not facile its pretty obvious.

Classic example die hard 3 the sandwich board scene.

How about you? would you park your car up somewhere and sell something you know is gonna be grossly offensive (I'm thinking N words out or soemthing) and explain to people you're only selling them.not that you belive it?

Don't think it might say cost you your job or some friends?

Or perhaps this religious baker is worried it might lose him some of his religious customers.

Bigots do vote with thier wallets

Tefal · 11 Oct 2018 at 11:32

ahar said:
Peter Tatchell (fervent gay rights campaigner for the last 30 years) put it very well I think:

“This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans. Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose. The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

Thst seems a rather, not sure how to put it, disgusting beyond belief, maybe? Statement from a man who gained his fame from involuntarily outing prominent gay figures.

Where was thier freedom? Because when he wanted to force them to facilitate his political ideals he was happy to do it to them....

Pudney · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:07

Dis86 said:
@ahar watched an interview with him about it and he got it spot on. There was never a question of it discriminating against homosexuals. Ever. But the fool who took legal action couldn't grasp that. He made so much clear in his post trial interview.

@Pudney that's why it didn't need to go to court.

The fact that two lower courts didn't find in the same way suggests the law in this area wasn't clear, in which case clarity from the Supreme Court is always a good thing. If it had been left at the decision of the Court of Appeal in NI (which Mr Lee won at) then it would have been binding on lower courts that it was discrimination.

Happily common sense has prevailed in this case, but just like I believe in the right for people to express their own opinions, the UK also gives the right to individuals to take anyone or any body to court if they feel they have been wronged, which I also believe in. It is the courts who decide what is appropriate and changing that to public sentiment is wrong.

dowie · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:17

Tuppy_Glossop said:
The idea that if you 'publish' a phrase then you are necessarily showing support for it is, imo, facile. Is the baker worried that his God will immediately assume that the cake slogan must also be the baker's own position? Not the smartest God in the box...

I think that is rather irrelevant, what are you referring to re: showing support for it anyway?

Should a muslim baker have to make a Mohammed cake? Should a black baker have to make a white power cake?

What does showing support for it have to do with this? The main issue is that they disagree with the message/creation and simply don't want to make it.

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:24

Pudney said:
The fact that two lower courts didn't find in the same way suggests the law in this area wasn't clear, in which case clarity from the Supreme Court is always a good thing. If it had been left at the decision of the Court of Appeal in NI (which Mr Lee won at) then it would have been binding on lower courts that it was discrimination.

Happily common sense has prevailed in this case, but just like I believe in the right for people to express their own opinions, the UK also gives the right to individuals to take anyone or any body to court if they feel they have been wronged, which I also believe in. It is the courts who decide what is appropriate and changing that to public sentiment is wrong.

How can you not accept that even when a leading gay rights activist agrees with the outcome (that there was nothing wrong in the first place) that it needed to be challenged? It just didn't. Some idiot got their knickers in a twist and decided to play on the overly PC climate.
As I think it was Dowie pointed out, the reason it went through the 2 lower is they simply didn't want to take the responsibility due to the PC brigade and pushed it further up the chain.
Let somebody else shoulder that burden.

Not everything has to be a fight.

Tuppy_Glossop · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:25

[QUOTE="Tefal, post: 32188938, member: 61676"snip[/QUOTE]

Sometimes people's actions reflect their beliefs and sometimes they don't. The connection can't be assumed.

MookJong · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:28

Was a good ruling, it protects everyone.

Tefal · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:29

Tuppy_Glossop said:
[QUOTE="Tefal, post: 32188938, member: 61676]"snip

Sometimes people's actions reflect their beliefs and sometimes they don't. The connection can't be assumed.

But it will be.

That's judt fact of life we don't live in some ideal world the whole "'jungle monkey" **** storm proved that.

Would you wear a pro paedophilia shirt and expect no negative reaction?

There's wonderful idealism land and then There s the real world you will be judged by actions hell you'll be judged by the Chinese whispers of your acrions

Pudney · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:33

Dis86 said:
How can you not accept that even when a leading gay rights activist agrees with the outcome (that there was nothing wrong in the first place) that it needed to be challenged? It just didn't. Some idiot got their knickers in a twist and decided to play on the overly PC climate.
As I think it was Dowie pointed out, the reason it went through the 2 lower is they simply didn't want to take the responsibility due to the PC brigade and pushed it further up the chain.
Let somebody else shoulder that burden.

Not everything has to be a fight.

Because the nature of the case is irrelevant to my belief that it was acceptable to take it. In the same way (we both) believe in the right of freedom of expression, I also believe in the freedom for individuals to take others to court. That is the fundamental basis to my belief it was fair to do so.

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2018 at 12:57

Pudney said:
Because the nature of the case is irrelevant to my belief that it was acceptable to take it. In the same way (we both) believe in the right of freedom of expression, I also believe in the freedom for individuals to take others to court. That is the fundamental basis to my belief it was fair to do so.

The issue you're still having though is you're conflating right to do something with the need to.
I believe he had the right to do it but not the need. It was nothing more than spite.

Pudney · 11 Oct 2018 at 13:09

Dis86 said:
The issue you're still having though is you're conflating right to do something with the need to.
I believe he had the right to do it but not the need. It was nothing more than spite.

The courts have the power, knowledge and experience to judge whether proceedings are brought maliciously. They have the power to dismiss a case purely on that basis. So I don't accept it was spite.

I also believe that given the fact the two lower courts ruled in his favour, either the law or precedents as they stood were not clear. From purely that basis it justifies the need to take the case. The Supreme Court will not hear a case if it has does not have an arguable point of law (which clearly there was as the lower courts were wrong). So I don't believe it is fair to say there was no "need" either. The fact that it took the Supreme Court to clarify the law and its application shows the need.

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2018 at 13:09

Pudney said:
The courts have the power, knowledge and experience to judge whether proceedings are brought maliciously. They have the power to dismiss a case purely on that basis. So I don't accept it was spite.

I also believe that given the fact the two lower courts ruled in his favour, either the law or precedents as they stood were not clear. From purely that basis it justifies the need to take the case. The Supreme Court will not hear a case if it has does not have an arguable point of law (which clearly there was as the lower courts were wrong). So I don't believe it is fair to say there was no "need" either. The fact that it took the Supreme Court to clarify the law and its application shows the need.

So you don't think political/social factors were an influence at all?

Tuppy_Glossop · 11 Oct 2018 at 13:43

Tefal said:
But it will be.

That's judt fact of life we don't live in some ideal world the whole "'jungle monkey" **** storm proved that.

Would you wear a pro paedophilia shirt and expect no negative reaction?

There's wonderful idealism land and then There s the real world you will be judged by actions hell you'll be judged by the Chinese whispers of your acrions

I'm sure people do... regardless of what is or isn't published. Wasn't his defence about not having to contradict his own beliefs, rather than how others might interpret it? I don't think courts should be acting to protect people from the "not so critical" thinking of others.

ahar · 11 Oct 2018 at 14:04

Tefal said:
Thst seems a rather, not sure how to put it, disgusting beyond belief, maybe? Statement from a man who gained his fame from involuntarily outing prominent gay figures.

Where was thier freedom? Because when he wanted to force them to facilitate his political ideals he was happy to do it to them....

I don't want to derail the thread discussing his history and I have no reason to defend or condemn him, but that is a pretty narrow (some might say misleading) interpretation of some of his past actions. And he was well know before the whole 'Outrage!' thing thanks to the election campaign against Simon Hughes...

Pudney · 11 Oct 2018 at 14:15

Dis86 said:
So you don't think political/social factors were an influence at all?

I don't think it really matters. To break it down:

Mr Lee felt he was discriminated against, possibly for immature/unfair reasons or biases.
Mr Lee exercised his civil liberties and took the bakery to court.
For whatever reason the county court felt that legally Mr Lee was correct.
Again, the Court of Appeal in NI felt that Mr Lee was legally correct.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled in line with common sense.

Importantly (and why I just listed out the above) the fact that 3 and 4 shows there was a legal need for the case.

Was there a moral/ethical/emotional need for the case? Probably not, but it doesn't really matter because I firmly believe he had the right to do so.

Edit: To be clear I started disagreeing with you on the basis there was a legal need for the case. Given you have clarified that you mean more along the moral/ethical/emotional (not sure how you'd prefer it described) basis then there's much less argument from me for that. But I also feel that about a lot of civil cases