The supreme court overturned it after the initial decision then appeal went in favour of forcing a bakery to make a gay cake.
ECHR had nothing to do with that.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
The supreme court overturned it after the initial decision then appeal went in favour of forcing a bakery to make a gay cake.
ECHR had nothing to do with that.
Caporegime
Should have just been chucked out for being a load of old nonsense
Soldato
No I understand that part - I’m referring to the latest review.
It’s not clear to me why it was overturned.
Did the ECHR look at the case and go “oh they’ve not done it right, we need to reject it” or was it at the request of the bakery?
It's not a strange reason, it's in fact a very standard reason that is commonly seen in the English legal system. Appeal courts are generally to dispute matters of legal interpretation disputed at lower levels rather than facts, but courts don't like new arguments being introduced as it creates unfairness, inefficiency and costs to the process. That's not to say they won't accept a new legal argument in an appeal, but that is the exception rather than the rule.
*note - I am presuming a lot about general legal processes from my knowledge of tax legal processes, but my understanding is that the principle is the same, mainly because tax cases say they are the same as general principles!
From what i'd read it was over-turned because Mr Lee didn't bring up the "breach of his human rights" in earlier courts. Which i'm sure if he had done the case would have probably been thrown out in the lower courts rather than finding in his favour. This just stinks of throwing toys out of pram. The supreme court had over-turned the ruling, so now it's a case of well this must be breaching my human rights so i'll go to the ECHR.
They looked at the case and said it wasn't their business because the gay cake man didn't bring up his european human rights in the UK courts therefore there's no argument to be had with the UK courts.
So the last decision of the Supreme Court saying the bakery was within its rights still stands.
He has no right against the bakery in the same way no one has any right to stop him being gay. The two can be mutually exclusive and still be fair in our country in my opinion. He can buy a cake elsewhere and this very much feels like he is wasting everyone’s time.
I'm pretty sure he was able to buy a cake at the bakery as well. The key point was it was just the message that wouldn't be provided. This is from a vague memory of the case.
Indeed, the commentary/arguments around it were a load of bunk - the political message was the reason for the refusal (could have probably turned him down on copyright grounds too), they didn't refuse to bake him a cake or to bake him a wedding cake they refused to bake him a cake with that message on.
If people think the baker should be forced to bake such a cake then I'd like to hear their arguments on a Muslim baker making a Jesus & Mo cake for a gay atheist or a pro-remain printer printing UKIP flyers for a gay UKIP candidate etc...
That's the other issue, if you really thought the bakers were nasty bigots who hated you would you really want them anywhere near your food. I do wonder if it was in part a political stunt knowing full well they'd turn him down.
Caporegime
It wasn't illegal; it just wasn't legally recognised. That's not the same thing.
And he didn't go to every bakery; it was a bakery he'd used before.
At the time, same-sex marriage was still illegal in Northern Ireland, but the law has since changed and same-sex weddings have been taking place since February 2020.
Quoted from the article
Mr Jack's correction is more accurate. It wasn't illegal, i.e. a gay couple could travel to England, get married and not be arrested or prosecuted for being married on their return. NI just wouldn't recognise them as married.
Time to de-fund the equality commissions legal department for the monumental waste of taxpayer money spent on this ridiculous case.
Soldato
From what I know of the case it should have been thrown out for trying to force someone to make a political statement.
Also why is the guy assuming Bert and Ernie are gay?
Also why is the guy assuming Bert and Ernie are gay?
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You're missing an important bit in the middle:
A lower UK court ruled in favour of Mr Lee.
The bakers appealed, so it went to a higher UK court. The UK supreme court overturned the lower court's ruling and ruled in favour of the bakers.
Mr Lee appealed to the ECHR, which recently chose to not rule on the appeal because it had no grounds to do so.
It wasn't the ECHR that overturned the initial ruling. The ECHR hasn't made any ruling. The initial ruling wasn't overturned due to a discrepency in the process. It wasn't overturned on a technicality. It was overturned because the UK supreme court heard the case and overturned the earlier ruling from a lower UK court.
Man of Honour
He can buy a cake from that bakery. They have no objection to selling cakes to him. Their objection was to his demand that they play an active role in supporting his political position (while also making themselves guilty of breach of copyright, but that wasn't the meat of the argument).
Soldato
Will read the judgment with interest.
Soldato
Though I agree with what you say, I think it was a bit more complicated than that. For example-it would have similarities to trying to force a Muslim to sell/handle pork or a vegan or vegetarian refusing to sell/cook meat