Gay Cake Controversy!

dav3 wrote: »

Am I'm supposed to be impressed with the name Peter Tatchell? Is he the most senior judge in the North of Ireland?

I don't think you've read any of the judgements in this case.

Why don't you have a quick read and get back to us on which points you have difficulty with understanding.

Original judgement

Summary of Appeal Judgement

Guidance for Service Providers following the case of
Lee -v- Asher’s Baking Co Ltd and others [2015]

He probably won't read them. He's already said he's not interested in the law or the judgement, just what's "right or wrong". And so far it seems that what's "wrong" is that gay people should stand up to discrimination...

Deise Vu wrote: »

Why don't you read some of the earlier posts instead?

Peter Tatchell is a well known gay activist. I think he might have been responsible for the controversial 'Out' campaign where Z list celebs were outed against their wishes. Although in fairness, I think that was another example of a the gay community shooting itself in the foot.:D

That's a wonderful piece of irrelevant trivia, thank you for that.

Do any of the earlier posts point to some errors by the judges in their interpretation of the law?

Read the links. All questions asked by people upset over this judgement were covered.

It is an absolute disgrace and I don't know where I stand on the issue.

Deise Vu wrote: »

Peter Tatchell is a well known gay activist.

His wiki page says he left school at 16, it doesn't mention his legal qualifications or experience.

Deise Vu wrote: »

An opinion doesn't matter, even if he is one of the most prominent Gay voices over the last 30 years because he doesn't have legal qualifications?

I find it hard to imagine that you would usually consult gay activists for legal opinions, but whatever works for you.

Deise Vu wrote: »

So the opinions of gays on matters effecting Gays doesn't matter?

When you write like that? You sound like my teenage niece? Who sounds as if she is asking questions? But they are really just, like clauses? In a sentence?

It's, like, confusing? For old folks like, like, me?

Deise Vu wrote: »

That's Ok I know you don't have any of the answers to any of the tough questions.

Feel free to ask one.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What basis have you for thinking they wouldn't?

That seems to be rather avoiding the question wouldn't you say?

I think I laid out my thinking already, but in short I think the EC would have balked at claiming a straight man was discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation by virtue of not being sold a cake, not least because it is so farcical. I think the amount of consideration Justice Browlie gave in her judgement to Mr Lees sexual orientation and the McArthurs apprehension of it indicates that it was a feature in her arrival at the conclusion she came to, which to my mind suggests she would have concluded differently if his sexual orientation were different.
Certainly, the Appeals Judges felt it was clear that the Judge spent some time explaining her conclusion that the appellants had knowledge or perception either consciously or unconsciously that the respondent was gay or associated with others who were gay, but they thought she did not rely on that finding in her conclusion. My own feeling is that they felt by dismissing that aspect of her conclusions they strengthened their own conclusion of direct discrimination based on association, rather than direct discrimination; the former being sufficiently nebulous to make stick, whereas the latter was more difficult to support when looking at the facts.

But don't let my thoughts persuade you from answering the question yourself

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If so, I think the gay community will take great pleasure in taking their cash, and thank them for the business.

Which is what the Ashes should do, if they want to stay in business.

Give in to blackmail ?????

osarusan wrote: »

He had he been heterosexual, I think it is fair to say he would not have obtained the judgement of direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He could still have obtained the judgement of direct discrimination based on association, or indeed, direct discrimination based on perception - the judge found that from the specific order he made, Asher's 'must have know or had the perception that he was gay', and and so even if he had been heterosexual, it's possible that she would have ruled on perception also.

Certainly, based on what has been said by the Appeals Court he could have obtained a judgement of direct discrimination based on association, though my thinking is that the conclusion they came up with is obviously (from her judgement) not a line of reasoning Judge Brownlie was considering, so absent their logic I doubt he would have.
Relying on the fact that the McArthurs must have known or had the perception that Mr Lee was gay is a bit tricky, not least because if that was the case for this transaction then equally it must have been the case for transactions with other gay customers in the bakery, who concluded satisfactory transactions. Which is why I think the Appeals Court deprecated Justice Brownlies statement on the subject, favouring instead the idea that anyone who is associated with a cause that can be linked to a protected class is protected by the legislation and therefore Mr Lees sexual orientation is not important, it's sexual orientation in general.

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think the ruling is merely 'technical' or 'farcical' at all. I'd say it's a textbook case of discrimination by association.
Would the equality commission have pursued the complaint? We can only guess, but I don't see why not.

Well, I'd say it will become a textbook case, sure. As for whether they would have pursued it... well your opinion was

osarusan wrote: »

The question of whether or not a heterosexual customer would have also been refused is not some irrelevance - it is central to the issue of establishing whether this is a case of discrimination.

It's only the rather odd logic that the Appeals Court worked up that makes it a possibility the EC might now consider pursuing such a case... in my opinion anyway. And still, I doubt they would.

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's not illegal to oppose marriage equality and no one is suggesting that it should be. However, in Northern Ireland, it is unlawful to refuse service to someone because they are in favour of marriage equality, i.e. because of their political beliefs.

And, apparently, illegal to refuse to provide the service of expressing that belief on their behalf, so long as the benefit of expressing that belief can be considered to accrue entirely to a protected class. So basically, illegal not to facilitate marriage equality once asked to do so.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't see much evidence of white heterosexual males aged 20 to 60 being discriminated against as a group. Can you give us some examples of what they need protecting from?

I too would like to know what I need protecting from. HOW am I meant to protect myself if I don't know what is going to attack me!

Well ok the current rental market is annoying for me but I feel that only affects me because I am in the younger end of that age scale and affects everyone of my age as well (well many of my age).

Absolam wrote: »

And, apparently, illegal to refuse to provide the service of expressing that belief on their behalf, so long as the benefit of expressing that belief can be considered to accrue entirely to a protected class. So basically, illegal not to facilitate marriage equality once asked to do so.

The bakery weren't asked to facilitate marriage equality. They weren't asked to campaign for it, or donate to advocacy groups, or canvass door to door, or vote only for politicians who would support it.

They were asked to make a specific product, and their refusal was found to be discrimination on two grounds, including on the basis of political opinion.