Gay Cake Controversy!

A man walks into a bakery, looking to order a cake:

Man: Good morning, I'd like to order a cake, please.
Baker: Certainly sir. What sort of cake?
Man: A cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage"

The baker takes a sharp intake of breath.

Baker: Sorry sir, but I'm afraid I'll have to refuse your custom. I can't possibly put that on one of our cakes due to my deeply held religious beliefs.
Man: Fair enough. I'll take my custom and my money elsewhere.

Man leaves shop, thinking to himself "How unfortunate that I chose a bakery with a ridiculously outdated religious ethos. I'm so glad I didn't spend my money there."

End of story.........or it should have been.

Wonderful decision by the "highest court in the land" This LGBT bullying nonsense challenged at last.
Simply go and buy your cake elsewhere.

I think this decision does all sides a favour. Like 90% of the population I couldn’t give a toss what God people believe in or what they do behind closed doors but I was always curious what was going to happen when one tiny minority clashed with another tiny minority over an issue that was fundamental to both sides but mutually incompatible.

A couple of obvious examples are Religious texts which can be interpreted as being anti gay and the subservient roles women are expected to play in Catholicism and Islam. What would happen if a woman took a case against the Catholic Church because she wanted to be a priest?

This decision has basically upheld the rights of all minority’s to hang on to views that might not be mainstream but they cannot force those views on others that the others would consider a humiliation or debasement of their particular minority view.

I suppose the cakebuyer now has a small window of opportunity pre Brexit to take his case to the ECHR, having exhausted all other avenues.

Will be interesting to see if he does take this further.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Just seen this guy on the TV saying he feels like a second class citizen. What a fecking self entitled fool.

He wants to force people to go against their beliefs because he thinks his beliefs trumps theirs.

It's not about that, it's about denying a business the rights of a "person" and insisting that it doesn't discriminate about who it offers its services to.

I'm surprised so many are siding with the bakery here, tbh. Businesses exist to provide the various services society needs, they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who they offer those services to on the basis of ideology. I apply that to every business, btw, not just this one. If a printing company refused to print flyers for a meeting of the KKK I'd be just as opposed to their actions as I am to the bakery's here.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm surprised so many are siding with the bakery here, tbh.

You must be astonished that not one judge of the supreme court agrees with you.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Well its not that simple, as far as I understand contract law.
The bakery made an "invitation to treat" the prospective purchaser to their wares.
They are not required to actually supply anything if they dont want to.
Their problem began as soon as they accepted payment for the cake, as there then a contract in place.

If the person behind the counter had said right away "we don't supply cakes with such slogans on them, I'm sorry", then the initial case would possibly gone Ashers way.

I'm aware of the current paradigm, I'm merely pointing out that I totally diagree with it and reckon it should be changed. Businesses should not be allowed to decline service in this manner. To allow them to do so threatens societal freedoms in a fundamental way.

This is unlikely to change in my lifetime, but I certainly hope that it might.

Gael23 wrote: »

So have we seen the end of the matter then?

Will Asher's take action to get their 500 Sterling refunded? !!!
How about looking for their expensis to date from Mr Lee?

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Will Asher's take action to get their 500 Sterling refunded? !!!
How about looking for their expensis to date from Mr Lee?

We might still make the 10,000 post limit on this thread then!

Green&Red wrote: »

This was explained very well on Matt Cooper by a BGLT activist who agreed with the verdict.
Basically they agreed to do a cake for this lad, they weren’t discriminating to him based on his sexual orientation. Instead they declined to make his cake because they disagreed with the sentiment. They have to have that right!
This protects the supplier. It means someone can’t go into a Jewish printer and ask them to print a book denying the holocaust

There's is a distinct difference with printed hate speach on mass murder justification / denial type and issues regarding personal rights such as gay marriage. That has been gone over many many times in this thread. If boards got a euro for every Nazi reference in this thread - they'd be able to go out for a good slap up meal at this stage.

Regarding 'printed material' for example - the press council of Ireland Code of practice' states that

Principle 8 − Prejudice
The press shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

http://www.presscouncil.ie/code-of-practice

Doesn't mean the bakery couldn't disagree with the order - They clearly did hence the whole shenanigans....

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about that, it's about denying a business the rights of a "person" and insisting that it doesn't discriminate about who it offers its services to.

Gotta point out that the MacArthurs were sued in person here. Your argument that "businesses" (by which you mean "people engaged in business") don't have the rights of a person is essentially a neoliberal materialist argument that fundamental human rights must give way to the needs of commerce and the imperative of the profit motive. "Business" is emphatically not a rights-free area.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm surprised so many are siding with the bakery here, tbh. Businesses exist to provide the various services society needs, they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose who they offer those services to on the basis of ideology. I apply that to every business, btw, not just this one. If a printing company refused to print flyers for a meeting of the KKK I'd be just as opposed to their actions as I am to the bakery's here.

The whole point of the judgment is taht the business wasn't picking and choosing who they would offer their services to; they were picking and choosing what services they would offer. The bakery was happy to bake cakes for Mr Lee and had done so in the past, but the particular cake that he wanted on this occasion was one that they wouldn't bake for anybody. Their decision not to bake the cake was a protected exercise of the right of free expression; they were free not to express this particular sentiment.

yoke wrote: »

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?

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.

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 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 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.