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

[dowie]

The whole thing surrounded whether it was discriminatory to either side, so naturally if there's no reason to be suspicious about that then no there would not have been a trial.

I imagine however if a bakery only served men and a woman tried to purchase a cake where said service is denied, they might have felt the need to go to court as well.

That’s just silly, they didn’t refuse to serve him because he’s gay, he could still buy a cake from them, they simply turned down a particular custom request.

A hypothetical bakery only serving men has nothing to do with this.

Incidentally it’s funny to look back at the start of the thread and see how many people couldn’t grasp these sorts of arguments, some people seem to have knee jerk reactions to this stuff and don’t think clearly about the principles etc..

 

[Caracus2k]

That’s just silly, they didn’t refuse to serve him because he’s gay, he could still buy a cake from them, they simply turned down a particular custom request.

A hypothetical bakery only serving men has nothing to do with this.

Incidentally it’s funny to look back at the start of the thread and see how many people couldn’t grasp these sorts of arguments, some people seem to have knee jerk reactions to this stuff and don’t think clearly about the principles etc..

Indeed no-one was denied a service that the bakery would have provided to another customer. The specific request would have been declined regardless of who was asking.

The implication for this ruling isn't about lgbtq+ people it about compelled speech.

A business can't refuse a service based on a protected charteristic.

But they can refuse to provide a particular service they would refuse to all groups.

A nuance apparenlty beyond a lot of people...

 

[dowie]

Indeed no-one was denied a service that the bakery would have provided to another customer. The specific request would have been declined regardless of who was asking.

I think some people are getting it now, especially after the result + see the article by Tatchell posted above from when the case went to appeal in 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

Like most gay and equality campaigners, I initially condemned the Christian-run Ashers Bakery in Belfast over its refusal to produce a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan[...] Now, two days before the case goes to appeal, I have changed my mind.
[...]
His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order.

But you only need to look at the first few pages of this thread to see where that same point was made and people really couldn't grasp it:

What people need to remember is that a business is not a person, you are allowed to not bake cakes for gay people if that's how you feel in a private matter. Once you start a business however you agree to comply with the equality laws of the land - it's that simple.

Illustrating the point re: the right to object to custom requests re: political messaging you don't endorse with more obvious analogies just leads to contempt for the analogy rather than stopping to think about the point being illustrated:

Should a Pakistani baker be able to refuse a BNP cake, a Romanian Baker a UKIP cake? A N.I. Catholic Baker an Orange Order cake?

Because equal rights for gay people cake is the same as a "we hate brown people" BNP cake.

More examples:

So as long as I let black guests book the other rooms for white people and let white guests book the attic for black people I am not discriminating?

They didn't refuse to serve because the applicants were gay, but they still refused for the reason that they discriminate against gays.

Why don't you replace gay with black, and then see how you feel about being denied the right to have what you want on your cake, so instead of having bert and ernie on there you have, say, beyonce and jay-z (only black couple i can think of right now). If someone said you couldn't have the cake because it's black people, would you be upset? I certainly would be.

Fact is that neither sexuality, nor race, are a choice, and therefore discriminating based on either is disgusting.

^^^ this sort of knee-jerk reaction, not getting that the bakers weren't discriminating based on sexuality but exercising a choice not to endorse a political message is what perhaps has led to this farce being drawn out for so long.

 

[jpaul]

- straight from horses mouth read the ruling https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf
for the judges it's down to the sublety/definition of writing a message on a cake being manifesting a belief

...
50. Furthermore, obliging a person to manifest a belief which he does not hold has been held to be a limitation on his article 9(1) rights. In Buscarini v San Marino (1999) 30 EHRR 208, the Grand Chamber held that it was a violation of article 9 to oblige non-believers to swear a Christian oath as a condition of remaining members of Parliament. The court reiterated that freedom of thought, conscience and religion “entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion” (para 34).

51. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council took the same view in Commodore of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force v Laramore [2017] UKPC 13; [2017] 1 WLR 2752. The Board held that a Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of conscience when he was obliged, on pain of disciplinary action, to remain present and doff his cap during Christian prayers at ceremonial parades and at morning and evening colours. This was a sufficiently active participation to hinder the claimant in the enjoyment of his conscientious beliefs. Nor had any justification been shown for it.

52. The freedom not to be obliged to hold or to manifest beliefs that one does not hold is also protected by article 10 of the Convention. Article 10(1) provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. …”. The right to freedom of expression does not in terms include the right not to express an opinion but it has long been held that it does. A recent example in this jurisdiction is RT

... so if the cake company had provided a computer controlled icing machine which could have printed directly a message on the cake, with no need for the defendents to perfrom any manual task could that similarly have been appealed.

 

[dowie]

... so if the cake company had provided a computer controlled icing machine which could have printed directly a message on the cake, with no need for the defendents to perfrom any manual task could that similarly have been appealed.

Doubt it. It's just an example precedent re: someone exercising freedom of expression, that their presence and physical action was sufficient active participation. The bakers don't really need this as it's literally their company that was requested to create the proposed cake, they're already participating when they choose whether to approve the design or not - whether the cake is then made by a machine or some employee isn't relevant (the owners might not even make most of the orders themselves anyway - it's still their company and their call re: what values, politics etc. they support).

The bottom line is really echoed in point 52. freedom of expression, the right not to express an opinion.