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

ahar said:
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...
Click to expand...


Nah as a bisexual (and somone whos been "outed") i find him a repulsive character tbh.

You're right though it is misleading to say that's what made him "famous" but he is still a scumbag. But most people in political groups at that time seemed to be
 
kedge said:
But the financial outlay in this ridiculous case is not.
Click to expand...

Cost shouldn't be a factor, otherwise where would it end?

Edit: well that's actually probably a stupid comment by me. It should be a factor. But the state effectively won twice on the legal argument. It seems valid in that sense to defend it.
 
Pudney said:
Cost shouldn't be a factor, otherwise where would it end?

Edit: well that's actually probably a stupid comment by me. It should be a factor. But the state effectively won twice on the legal argument. It seems valid in that sense to defend it.
Click to expand...


I think they mean the cost to the baker.

Didn't they have to fight this not the state paying for thier lawyers etc?

The problem is if a complain results in years of legal expenses a lot of people will just cave in because they couldnt afford to fight
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
The Equalities Commission funded the losing prosecution case and they are Government-funded. The successful defence was funded by the Christian Institute.
Click to expand...

Hardly surprising, the argument was defensible (hell even i agree with the ruling as it stands) and the commission is clearly suffering from the same level of moronicity that the government in general is suffering from.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
The Equalities Commission funded the losing prosecution case and they are Government-funded. The successful defence was funded by the Christian Institute.
Click to expand...

Normally in civil cases the losing party is required to pay costs (subject to the costs being reasonable otherwise they are calculated on a standardised basis). I have no clue if that is happening here.
 
Pudney said:
Normally in civil cases the losing party is required to pay costs (subject to the costs being reasonable otherwise they are calculated on a standardised basis). I have no clue if that is happening here.
Click to expand...

Is that lawyer costs and/or court costs? The BBC article had somebody (the young Paisley, I believe) writing to the Gov about the Equalities Commission threatening to go further, or as he put it, waste more public money.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Is that lawyer costs and/or court costs? The BBC article had somebody (the young Paisley, I believe) writing to the Gov about the Equalities Commission threatening to go further, or as he put it, waste more public money.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I'm only aware of the general rule on costs as it's sometimes referenced in tax cases where the cost award rules operate differently to the general rule.
 
Pudney said:
I don't think it really matters. To break it down:
  1. Mr Lee felt he was discriminated against, possibly for immature/unfair reasons or biases.
  2. Mr Lee exercised his civil liberties and took the bakery to court.
  3. For whatever reason the county court felt that legally Mr Lee was correct.
  4. Again, the Court of Appeal in NI felt that Mr Lee was legally correct.
  5. 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 :D
Click to expand...

'Hugs' :D
 
Pudney said:
I don't think it really matters. To break it down:
  1. Mr Lee felt he was discriminated against, possibly for immature/unfair reasons or biases.
  2. Mr Lee exercised his civil liberties and took the bakery to court.
  3. For whatever reason the county court felt that legally Mr Lee was correct.
  4. Again, the Court of Appeal in NI felt that Mr Lee was legally correct.
  5. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in line with common sense.
[SNIP]
Click to expand...
Alternatively:
  1. Mr. Lee, a LGBT+ advocate with Queer Space is/was a "campaigner", he was attention seeking
  2. Mr. Lee convinced the Equalities Commission to support his campaigning
  3. The County Court incorrectly felt that legally Ashers Bakery were in the wrong
  4. The Court of Appeal in NI incorrectly felt that legally Ashers Bakery were in the wrong
  5. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Lee, the County Court and the NI Court of Appeal were wrong in their interpretation of the law and that Ashers Bakery were justified in their decision.
The upshot of this is that the lawyers who advised and acted for the NI Equalities Commission and various members of the NI County Court and Court of Appeal should seek other employment or undertake further training - the lawyers who advised and acted for the NI Equalities Commission should return their fees.
 
stockhausen said:
Alternatively:
  1. Mr. Lee, a LGBT+ advocate with Queer Space is/was a "campaigner", he was attention seeking
  2. Mr. Lee convinced the Equalities Commission to support his campaigning
  3. The County Court incorrectly felt that legally Ashers Bakery were in the wrong
  4. The Court of Appeal in NI incorrectly felt that legally Ashers Bakery were in the wrong
  5. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Lee, the County Court and the NI Court of Appeal were wrong in their interpretation of the law and that Ashers Bakery were justified in their decision.
The upshot of this is that the lawyers who advised and acted for the NI Equalities Commission and various members of the NI County Court and Court of Appeal should seek other employment or undertake further training - the lawyers who advised and acted for the NI Equalities Commission should return their fees.
Click to expand...

Christ, this must be the first time i've ever agreed with one of your posts! :eek:

I also think Mr. Lee was an attention seeking activist (LGBT+ activists are) and wanted to make an example out of people who disagreed with his lifestyle. The problem with that is you can't force someone to bake a cake against their will. We're still a (barely) free country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom