Gay Cake Controversy!

yoke

Green&Red wrote: »

<...>This protects the supplier. It means someone can’t go into a Jewish printer and ask them to print a book denying the holocaust

So it's OK to go to a non-Jewish printer and ask them to print a book denying the holocaust?


I don't see what the printer being Jewish has to do with it. It's either OK to print a book denying the holocaust, or it is not OK to do so. The printer's faith or beliefs or ethnic origin doesn't come into this at all.

yoke

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends on the importance that you attach to freedom of speech. But, assuming the degree of protection of free speech under current law, the answer is "yes". Freedom of expression includes the right not to be compelled to express an opinion to which you have a profound objection.

But you're not expressing an opinion, you're just making a cake.


The person who ordered it is expressing their opinion.




Take another example. Suppose you work for a company that supplies paper. One of the companies' customers uses that paper to spread hate speech. This does not mean you endorse or share their opinion.
If we took this above example to mean you do partly express your opinion by working for a company that sells paper to people who then write hate speech on that paper, then pretty much everyone has to immediately stop working right now, including the people who work for the government which supplies the water to the 'hate speech' person... this would be a bit draconian to say the least. It's unworkable anyway.

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

But you're not expressing an opinion, you're just making a cake.

You are expressing an opinion by baking the cake. It's not your opinion, but it's an opinion, and if you profoundly object to it your right to free speech means you can't be compelled to express it.

yoke wrote: »

Take another example. Suppose you work for a company that supplies paper. One of the companies' customers uses that paper to spread hate speech. This does not mean you endorse or share their opinion.

Big difference. I can't refuse to sell you blank paper because of what I think you might write on it. But I can refuse to print flyers for you with "Support Gay Marriage!" (or "Oppose Gay Marriage!") on them, because that involves me in the expression of the opinion.

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

So it's OK to go to a non-Jewish printer and ask them to print a book denying the holocaust?

It's OK to go to either a Jewish or a non-Jewish printer and ask them to print a book denying the holocaust. And it's OK for either the Jewish or the non-Jewish printer to decline to print it.

yoke wrote: »

I don't see what the printer being Jewish has to do with it. It's either OK to print a book denying the holocaust, or it is not OK to do so. The printer's faith or beliefs or ethnic origin doesn't come into this at all.

Good man. Lots of people have great difficulty with this point. It makes no difference whether the printer is Jewish, or whether the owners of Ashers Bakery were Christian. All that matters is that they have an objection to what they are being asked to say.

yoke

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are expressing an opinion by baking the cake. It's not your opinion, but it's an opinion, and if you profoundly object to it your right to free speech means you can't be compelled to express it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one - IMO if "you" express "an opinion", then that is also known as "your opinion". You cannot express someone else's opinion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Big difference. I can't refuse to sell you blank paper because of what I think you might write on it. But I can refuse to print flyers for you with "Support Gay Marriage!" (or "Oppose Gay Marriage!") on them.

Going down that path will eventually lead to policemen being allowed to choose who they protect, solicitors being allowed to choose who they represent, and doctors being allowed to choose who they treat. Some people might agree with that, I personally don't think it's a good model for society as it's hugely unfair. Basically popularity will decide everything.

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one - IMO if "you" express "an opinion", then that is also known as "your opinion". You cannot express someone else's opinion.

Certainly you can. It happens literally all the time. Newspapers are full of opinions which are not the opinions of the proprietor or publisher.

yoke wrote: »

Going down that path will eventually lead to policemen being allowed to choose who they protect, solicitors being allowed to choose who they represent, and doctors being allowed to choose who they treat. Some people might agree with that, I personally don't think it's a good model for society as it's hugely unfair. Basically popularity will decide everything.

Not unless you regard providing medical treatment or providing police protection as forms of "speech", which I think is a bit of a stretch. Whereas printing a slogan is definitely a form of speech, protected by the right of free speech.

The lawyer case is an interesting one, since representing a client is a form of speech. And the situation here is that lawyers are, in fact, generally free to choose not to represent a client. The exception is where the client is charged with a crime, and needs a defence for the criminal trial. The rule here is that a barrister who has the capacity to undertake the defence may not decline to do so. This is because the client's right to due process and a fair trial "trumps" the barrister's free-speech rights in this context. But note that this is a professional ethical rule of the bar; I'm open to correction but, so far as I know, it's not a rule of law.

yoke

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly you can. It happens literally all the time. Newspapers are full of opinions which are not the opinions of the proprietor or publisher.

I think there is a difference between my understanding of the words "express an opinion" and yours. We are arguing semantics here IMO, but if we're talking about "letters to the editor" sections in newspapers, my understanding is that the newspaper is helping the letter's writer express their opinion, the newspaper is not "expressing" their opinion - it is merely publishing it. I base my understanding on the etymology of the word "express" - you perhaps have a different understanding of the word "express", which is fine, but it means we will not agree on this one unless one of us changes our definition of express.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not unless you regard providing medical treatment or providing police protection as forms of "speech", which I think is a bit of a stretch. Whereas printing a slogan is definitely a form of speech, protected by the right of free speech.

Coming from a non-legal background, I would argue that printing a slogan is not technically speech



From a legal standpoint, I assume that printing a slogan is treated as speech based on what you have said. Is there also a "freedom of expression" law somewhere? If there is, then it could allow an employee various freedoms such as those I've described. If not, then there possibly will be in the future, as it's a small jump to go from freedom of speech to freedom of expression.

[edit] I did a quick google and it looks like everything pertaining to "freedom of expression" is focussed on freedom of speech. So based on that it doesn't look like there's anything (at least in countries which have laws easily found by a quick google) regarding freedom to express in other ways apart from the legal definition of 'speech' right now. Based on this, as far as the law is concerned in those countries, it's pretty clear, as you've said - you're allowed to refuse to speak (or print) an opinion that goes against your own beliefs, but you're not allowed to refuse to do other things such as serve food based on that.

I guess the question then becomes, should the law be changed? Why is speech free, but other things aren't? (or alternatively, how free do we want our speech? Is it OK to silence someone by canvassing all the people who make cakes, so they disagree with the request? The barrister example you gave earlier, which isn't set in law, seems to be a prime example of this - it's not OK to silence someone by canvassing all the people who provide the service IMO).

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

I think there is a difference between my understanding of the word "express an opinion" and yours. We are arguing semantics here IMO, but if we're talking about "letters to the editor" sections in newspapers, my understanding is that the newspaper is helping the letter's writer express their opinion, the newspaper is not "expressing" their opinion - it is merely publishing it. I base my understanding on the etymology of the word "express" - you perhaps have a different understanding of the word "express", which is fine, but it means we will not agree on this one unless one of us changes our definition of express.

I'm not talking about Letters to the Editor. (Or not just those.) Newspapers will often commission and publish opinion pieces. The opinions are those of the authors, not the publishers. Indeed, the newspaper will frequently print columns containing directly contradictory opinions; if one of them happens to be the opinion of the publisher as well as the author, the other cannot possibly be.

The point is that publishing a newspaper is an absolutely classic example of something that is protected by free speech rights. ("Free speech" is a conventional shorthand for freedom of speech, of the press, of publishing, printing, broadcasting, wearing a teeshirt with a message printed on it - all modes of expressing ideas.) And the other point is that it has long been held that freedom of speech must include the freedom not to speak; you can't be legally compelled to join in prayer, for example, or to express support for a politician or a political campaign.

yoke wrote: »

Coming from a non-legal background, I would argue that printing a slogan is not technically speech

See above; printing political material is a classic example of protected free speech.

yoke wrote: »

From a legal standpoint, I assume that printing a slogan is treated as speech based on what you have said. Is there also a "freedom of expression" law somewhere? If there is, then it could allow an employee various freedoms such as those I've described. If not, then there possibly will be in the future, as it's a small jump to go from freedom of speech to freedom of expression.

"Freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" are alternative expressions meaning basically the same thing.

The first amendment to the US constitution talks of "the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances". It's probably because "speech" is the first thing mentioned in this list that "free speech" has become the shorthand for the general freedom to communicate ideas, facts, beliefs, etc.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, produced in France during the revolutionary period, expresses the same idea without mentioning "speech": "The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man."

Skippinng to the 20th century, the Irish Constitution has "the right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions" as one of the rights guaranteed by the state.

The European Convention on Human Rights, which is the source of the relevant law in Asher's case, expresses the same idea in more modern language - "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."

So, yeah, whether you talk of "free speech" or "free expression", protection is always extended not merely to verbal speech but to writing, printing, publishing, painting, broadcasting, posting on bulletin boards, wearing clothes with slogans, etc, etc - all modes of communicating ideas, whether factual or not. Writing "support gay marriage" on a cake is not fundamentally different from writing it on a teeshirt or a flyer for a meeting, or putting it in an ad published in a magazine, or from speaking the words verbally. They're all forms of "speech" or "expression", whichever term you prefer.

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

I guess the question then becomes, should the law be changed? Why is speech free, but other things aren't? (or alternatively, how free do we want our speech? Is it OK to silence someone by canvassing all the people who make cakes, so they disagree with the request? The barrister example you gave earlier, which isn't set in law, seems to be a prime example of this - it's not OK to silence someone by canvassing all the people who provide the service IMO).

Well, couple of thoughts.

First, I doubt that merely by canvassing all the bakers, you can persaude them all not to bake the cake. Why would you expect this outcome? Bakers presumably have the same range of views as the population at large. They are not going to surrender their convictions merely because you urge them to.

Secondly, even if all bakers did spontaneously decline to bake the cake, that wouldn't prevent the idea being expressed; it would merely prevent it being expressed on a cake.

Thirdly, if, as we have seen, freedom of speech (in the extended sense of "speech", and note that I'm going to take that extended sense for granted from now on) includes the freedom not to speak, then if an idea is massively socially unacceptable in a particular society people will be reluctant to speak it, and an advocate for that idea will have difficulty in disseminating it. By way of illustration, it is famously the case that practically no mainstream newspaper or broadcaster in the use will print or broadcast the word "******" or certain other words considered to be grotesquely offensive and discriminatory. (What's the betting that the Boards.ie software will auto-censor the word I just typed, which rhymes with "trigger"?) They are all free do do so; few will. But that's what freedom means.

You raise a fair point about what the limits to free speech should be. The truth is that there are lots of limits on free speech; laws on confidentiality, data protection, advertising regulations, product labelling, child pornography - the list is endless. But most of them compromise free speech by decreeing that you may not speak certain things. Laws decreeing that you must speak certain things are rarer, and I think would require a strong justification. And I'm not seeing an obvious justification for a law that you must speak in support of gay marriage, if asked to do so. Such a law would not only limit free speech, but would limit democratic freedoms about whether or not to support political campaigns, call for legal change, etc.

yoke

Thanks for clarifying Peregrinus, based on this you are correct that as far as the current law is concerned, you are free to refuse to print something you do not wish to print.


Based on the above however, the bakers would still be obliged to bake a cake (if requested) which depicted two gay men kissing, as long as there was no message to go with the cake.



Is my understanding correct?

[edit] editing my post since I didn't see your last edit - you've already addressed what I'm trying to say in your last paragraph now

You raise a fair point about what the limits to free speech should be. The truth is that there are lots of limits on free speech; laws on confidentiality, data protection, advertising regulations, product labelling, child pornography - the list is endless. But most of them compromise free speech by decreeing that you may not speak certain things. Laws decreeing that you must speak certain things are rarer, and I think would require a strong justification. And I'm not seeing an obvious justification for a law that you must speak in support of gay marriage, if asked to do so. Such a law would not only limit free speech, but would limit democratic freedoms about whether or not to support political campaigns, call for legal change, etc.

Fair enough, I understand what you are saying as well. Thanks for the interesting discussion, and the info provided - it appears that popular opinion always has, and possibly always will, rule This is probably a side-effect of democracy - the challenge I guess is to ensure the popular opinion is correct through education, as far as we can.
I'm hoping we never have to have a discussion regarding a baker refusing to print "climate change is real" some time in the future!

Peregrinus

Well, the side effect of democracy, and the intention of "free speech" protection, is that a range of opinions, diverse, and both popular and unpopular, will get an airing. Despite the fact that there are many people in NI who object to equal marriage, and despite the law allowing them to refuse to bake the cake, Mr Lee had no difficulty finding a baker willing to bake the cake, and he had the cake in good time for the party. There's a huge gap between "people may refuse to print X" and "everybody will refuse to print X", and the one very rarely leads to the other.

The problem with a "bakers, you must print X" law - or one of the problems, at any rate - is, who gets to decide what X is? In a democracy, X is highly likely to end up being the socially acceptable, conventional, popular thing, so this is not a very promised route for ensuring the free circulation of radical, dissenting, provocative ideas.

gozunda

yoke wrote: »

I'll rewrite this to make the answer more obvious.A Christian fundamentalist in Northern Ireland looks for a cake made saying "Jesus Christ is the lord" or "The pope is great!". Should the owner of the cake shop be allowed to refuse to make this, as they don't agree with the sentiment?

Not what was referred to btw. Previous examples involved offence towards target groups. It's really not that difficult so figure out fcs!

For your example - see the judgement!

But enough of imaginary group sentiments already!

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are expressing an opinion by baking the cake.

Sure, just like a cake with a little mixed race couple on top, or a message saying "Congrats on your First Communion, you hellbound papist you", or a message as Gaeilge or in Polish, or "Happy birthday". What if I don't want the fecker to have a happy birthday?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not unless you regard providing medical treatment or providing police protection as forms of "speech", which I think is a bit of a stretch.

So it is not OK to force a baker to write something he disagrees with on a cake, but it is OK to legally compel a doctor to actually do something against his conscience as long as it is not speech?

Hmm.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bakers presumably have the same range of views as the population at large.

Yeah, right, so if Harland and Wolff don't hire Catholics, no worries, just run along to the giant Catholic ship building company and get a job there!

Oh, wait...

Nekarsulm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So it is not OK to force a baker to write something he disagrees with on a cake, but it is OK to legally compel a doctor to actually do something against his conscience as long as it is not speech?

Hmm.

Bakers don't swear an oath .
Doctors however, do.

Zubeneschamali

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Bakers don't swear an oath .
Doctors however, do.

No, they actually don't. Look it up.

Riskymove

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, even if all bakers did spontaneously decline to bake the cake, that wouldn't prevent the idea being expressed; it would merely prevent it being expressed on a cake.

indeed, and further again no one could stop the customer putting his own message on the cake once he had bought it

The bakers actually were happy to sell him a cake just not put the message on.




Essentially the customer decided that the baker would not ice th cake because he was gay.

The baker's view was they wouldn't ice a message they were strongly against - regardless of who the customer was. Their right to do this was held up


No firm is compelled to take an order from anyone. they are free to turn down business.

What they cannot do is hold a discriminatory policy such as "We wont serve women" or "ban a certain ethnic group from entry" etc.

pleas advice

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Bakers don't swear an oath .
Doctors however, do.

Is he on his oats?

gmisk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yeah, right, so if Harland and Wolff don't hire Catholics, no worries, just run along to the giant Catholic ship building company and get a job there!

Oh, wait...

Harland and wolff had a long history of not hiring catholic.
Plenty of companies in northern ireland basically had no catholics for years....thinking of one near where I am from Wrightbus in Ballymena was notorious.

When it comes to this particular case I think it was nonsense really and shouldnt have gone this far.
This is coming from a gay person from northern ireland.
Gay people in NI have actual issues to worry about (marriage equality, severe homophobia, bigotry etc).

Riskymove summed it up for me very well
No firm is compelled to take an order from anyone. they are free to turn down business.
What they cannot do is hold a discriminatory policy such as "We wont serve women" or "ban a certain ethnic group from entry" etc.

Zubeneschamali

gmisk wrote: »

Gay people in NI have actual issues to worry about (marriage equality, severe homophobia, bigotry etc).

And this is precisely the point.

If this happened in Dublin, it would not be a big problem. Like that stationary company, the victim would just have to tweet that Ashers are a crowd of homophobic cavemen , their rep would take a hit, folks would go elsewhere.

But this is Belfast we are talking about, discriminating against gays, catholics and immigrants while clutching your Bible and Union Jack will actually get you more business from one side of the divide. So people have to fight it, all of it, or it will be everywhere.

Nekarsulm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, they actually don't. Look it up.

You learn something new every day!
I always thought the Hippocrathic Oath was a real thing .....

gmisk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And this is precisely the point.

If this happened in Dublin, it would not be a big problem. Like that stationary company, the victim would just have to tweet that Ashers are a crowd of homophobic cavemen , their rep would take a hit, folks would go elsewhere.

But this is Belfast we are talking about, discriminating against gays, catholics and immigrants while clutching your Bible and Union Jack will actually get you more business from one side of the divide. So people have to fight it, all of it, or it will be everywhere.

I understand what you are saying but I think it is a case of picking your battles....and to me this wasnt a valid one.
I am a catholic who grew up near Ballymena so believe me I know how bible bashing, xenophobic, and homophobic northern ireland can be, its one of the main reasons I left!


Genuine question do you think Ashers should have lost their appeal?


I actually agree with Peter Tatchell article

https://rightsinfo.org/peter-tatchell-on-gay-cake-row-supreme-court-ruling-is-victory-for-freedom-of-expression/



The telling sections from that article for me
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.

In the light of this ruling, businesses can now lawfully refuse a customer’s request to emblazon a political message if they have a conscientious objection to it. This includes the right to refuse messages that are sexist, xenophobic or anti-gay, which is a good thing.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So it is not OK to force a baker to write something he disagrees with on a cake, but it is OK to legally compel a doctor to actually do something against his conscience as long as it is not speech?

Hmm.

I didn't say that. I don't think he can argue that obliging him to provide treatment is a violation of his right of free speech, but he may of course be able to argue that it's a violation of some other freedom protected by the Convention (such as the right of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 9) or his right not to perform forced or compulsory labour (Art. 4).

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yeah, right, so if Harland and Wolff don't hire Catholics, no worries, just run along to the giant Catholic ship building company and get a job there!

Oh, wait...

Again, Zub, this is not a response to anything you could rationally infer from what I have said.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And this is precisely the point.

If this happened in Dublin, it would not be a big problem. Like that stationary company, the victim would just have to tweet that Ashers are a crowd of homophobic cavemen , their rep would take a hit, folks would go elsewhere.

But this is Belfast we are talking about, discriminating against gays, catholics and immigrants while clutching your Bible and Union Jack will actually get you more business from one side of the divide. So people have to fight it, all of it, or it will be everywhere.

I understand your feelings. But think this through.

I don't know if its true to say that in Belfast a firm would generate more business for itself by being known to refuse an order for a pro-gay-marriage cake. But if it is true then the rational strategy is not to act so as to make it known that they have done this. Quietly take your business elsewhere. If you complain about this, or if you sue them, or whatever, you are doing them a commercial favour, and financially incentivising and rewarding the very behaviour you deplore.

Amirani

gozunda wrote: »

Not what was referred to btw. Previous examples involved offence towards target groups. It's really not that difficult so figure out fcs!

For your example - see the judgement!

But enough of imaginary group sentiments already!

Saying "Jesus is the lord" or "Jesus is the son of God" is blasphemous to certain groups.

Saying "Gay marriage is not marriage" is in-line with Northern Irish law, not sure how that could be construed as hate speech.

I'd be completely against forcing people to print those messages and thankfully the UK Supreme Court has sensibly decided similar.

Zubeneschamali

gmisk wrote: »

Genuine question do you think Ashers should have lost their appeal?

If you read back through the thread, there are lots of people on both sides arguing the law with judges, and I am not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to know if the judgment is correct legally per existing law or not.

But I can very easily imagine scenarios where a bigoted majority can use this "cakes are speech" excuse to refuse service to a minority. And I would very much like to avoid allowing a sectarian divide in simple services like bakeries, florists and newsagents shops.

gozunda

Amirani wrote: »

Saying "Jesus is the lord" or "Jesus is the son of God" is blasphemous to certain groups.

Not analogous to the message of " **** the pope" or similar which is what was being exemplified in the various examples given

Amirani wrote: »

Saying "Gay marriage is not marriage" is in-line with Northern Irish law, not sure how that could be construed as hate speech.

You are mixing up what was being discussed. You could certainly put that sentiment down to opinion but who wanted that particular cake? Ask youself the question Is "support gay marriage" hate speech? Nobody suggested it was tbh

Amirani wrote: »

I'd be completely against forcing people to print those messages and thankfully the UK Supreme Court has sensibly decided similar.

Good for you. Personally I think " happy birthday" is an gratuitously presumptuous type sentinent and shouldn't be allowed either ...

But there you go ...

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

Green&Red

yoke wrote: »

So it's OK to go to a non-Jewish printer and ask them to print a book denying the holocaust?


I don't see what the printer being Jewish has to do with it. It's either OK to print a book denying the holocaust, or it is not OK to do so. The printer's faith or beliefs or ethnic origin doesn't come into this at all.

It has very little to do with it, I suppose that example just shows they would definitely be opposed to it.

Imagine someone comes into the printer and says they want to print a book on the earth being flat, or the moon landing was staged, its the printers right to say well thats nonsense, I don't agree with it, I won't print it.