Gay Cake Controversy!

Overheal · 17-06-2021 4:36pm

brenbrady wrote: »

I don't believe it says that in the ruling either?

okay then, believe that.

17-06-2021 4:46pm

Overheal wrote: »

okay then, believe that.

If you can show me where in the ruling or the facts of the case that the couple were discriminated against "for not being a cis couple" I'll stand corrected.

Meanwhile:

Tiny little bakery shops have no right to decide what cakes they do and don't want to make based on their religious and moral principles.

Tech monopolies are private corporations and can platform or not platform whoever they want based on political bias without being told what to do because they're "a private company bro"

Overheal · 17-06-2021 4:56pm

brenbrady wrote: »

If you can show me where in the ruling or the facts of the case that the couple were discriminated against "for not being a cis couple" I'll stand corrected.

Meanwhile:

Tiny little bakery shops have no right to decide what cakes they do and don't want to make based on their religious and moral principles.

Tech monopolies are private corporations and can platform or not platform whoever they want based on political bias without being told what to do because they're "a private company bro"

Religious and moral principles are only protected so far under the first amendment, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc. and indeed, refusing service because someone is transgender is not protected practice. This should be unsurprising, we've had a number of modern rulings in this regard, like Obergefell v. Hodges which was cited here, and Kim Davis v. Ermold which was decided in a lower court that SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal to, in which a government clerk lost where she attempted to deny marriage certificates to homosexuals, having cited her profound religious and moral principles for not doing so.

17-06-2021 5:24pm

Overheal wrote: »

Religious and moral principles are only protected so far under the first amendment, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc. and indeed, refusing service because someone is transgender is not protected practice. This should be unsurprising, we've had a number of modern rulings in this regard, like Obergefell v. Hodges which was cited here, and Kim Davis v. Ermold which was decided in a lower court that SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal to, in which a government clerk lost where she attempted to deny marriage certificates to homosexuals, having cited her profound religious and moral principles for not doing so.

But this is what you said previously...

Overheal wrote: »

They were discriminated against for not being a cis couple.

Overheal · 17-06-2021 5:25pm

brenbrady wrote: »

But this is what you said previously...

Correct it was discrimination on the basis of sex.

United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission wrote:

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.

Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. For more information about LGBTQ+-related sex discrimination claims, see https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-eeoc-and-protections-lgbt-workers.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act here

Now this is not an issue of employment but the federal definition of sex discrimination still applies.

17-06-2021 6:40pm

How do you reconcile these two statements

Overheal wrote: »

Correct it was discrimination on the basis of sex.

Now this is not an issue of employment but the federal definition of sex discrimination still applies.

Overheal wrote: »

Religious and moral principles are only protected so far under the first amendment, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc. and indeed, refusing service because someone is transgender is not protected practice. This should be unsurprising, we've had a number of modern rulings in this regard, like Obergefell v. Hodges which was cited here, and Kim Davis v. Ermold which was decided in a lower court that SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal to, in which a government clerk lost where she attempted to deny marriage certificates to homosexuals, having cited her profound religious and moral principles for not doing so.

Overheal · 17-06-2021 6:48pm

brenbrady wrote: »

How do you reconcile these two statements

it was discrimination on the basis of sex; you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex.

What do you find logically incongruent about that?

Gael23 · 17-06-2021 11:40pm

I thought this thread was finally dead

17-06-2021 11:46pm

I don't understand why they don't just deliberately make really sh/tty cakes for gay people, or black people, or women or whoever it is they are 'against'? That'd get word out when a certain person orders from them, that they'll half-ass it, and also give them the ability to say "well we did serve them"? Help them to avoid all the courtroom drama of it all.

SupaCat95 · 17-06-2021 11:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand why they don't just deliberately make really sh/tty cakes for gay people, or black people, or women or whoever it is they are 'against'? That'd get word out when a certain person orders from them, that they'll half-ass it, and also give them the ability to say "well we did serve them"? Help them to avoid all the courtroom drama of it all.

There isnt that many of them, they are just really loud and vocal on twitter. If there were that many Tesco would be knocking them out like they were going out of fashion.

dxhound2005 · 17-06-2021 11:58pm

Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833

Ultrflat · 18-06-2021 12:00am

Cake Gate

18-06-2021 12:05am

Ultrflat wrote: »

Cake Gate

Cake Gayte

Peregrinus · 18-06-2021 3:40am

Overheal wrote: »

They were discriminated against for not being a cis couple.

Nitpick: They were a cis couple - as in, they were both cis. Their complaint was that they were discriminated against not because they were cis, but because they were gay.

Were they discriminated against for being gay? Possibly. Or possibly not.

The complainants took the view, not unnaturally, that they had been discriminated against for being a same-sex couple. Had they not been gay, they would not have been seeking to buy a same-sex wedding cake, so the refusal to provide the cake they wanted was intrinsically linked to their sexual orientation.

Masterpiece's reply was no, they were happy to sell cakes to gay people and did so all the time, and in particular were happy to sell cakes to this couple (and had offered to do so). What they were not happy to do was to sell a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. They wouldn't sell such a cake to any customer, gay or straight - so a straight person, for example, wanting to buy such a cake as a present would also have been refused.

Their argument, in essence, was that they did not object to the sexual orientation of the customer, but to the nature of the cake. They argued that their cakes were creative works of art, and it's already established in US law that artistic freedom is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. So, they argued, they couldn't be compelled to create a work of art expressing a view which they didn't wish to express. They pointed to a previous case in which three bakeries had refused to bake a cake with the slogan "Homosexuality is a detestable sin —Leviticus 18:22". The customer complained that he held this view because he was Christian, and that the refusal of the bakeries to provide the cake was therefore discrimination against him because he was Christian. The bakeries were held to be entitled to refuse to supply the cake.

They did not succeed with that argument before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or in the Colorado Court Appeal. However they did succeed in the Supreme Court — but not with this argument. The Supreme Court set aside the Civil Rights Commission's decision because they considered that its approach to the case, and the ruling it handed down, had displayed overt hostility to religion, towards which it was constitutionally required to be neutral. Its lack of neutrality vitiated its ruling.

Because Masterpiece won on this ground, their "cake-baking is protected free speech" argument didn't have to be considered, and wasn't ruled on. So perhaps it's not entirely astonishing that we now have another case raising the same issues; someone wants to get the Supreme Court to consider and rule on that argument.

ohnonotgmail · 18-06-2021 10:15am

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833

being an arsehole is not a protected class.

Peregrinus · 18-06-2021 10:33am

Arseholes - the last victimised minority!

robinph · 18-06-2021 10:55am

The right to practice a religion is protected, right up until the point at which that religion tells you to discriminate against others, then it is no longer protected.

Religion not being able to discriminate against others is not discrimination against that religion.

ohnonotgmail · 18-06-2021 11:49am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Arseholes - the last victimised minority!

First they came for the arseholes ...

dxhound2005 · 18-06-2021 11:51am

robinph wrote: »

The right to practice a religion is protected, right up until the point at which that religion tells you to discriminate against others, then it is no longer protected.

Religion not being able to discriminate against others is not discrimination against that religion.

Going back to the start, the cake shop refused to put a political message on the cake, and the courts found in their favour. At the time same sex marriage was not legislated for in the North, and the political message was promoting a change to this legal/political status quo.

Now that Westminster has gone over the heads of Stormont and made same sex marriage legal, every bakery has to provide wedding cakes for all couples. But they still do not have to accept orders for cakes with political slogans, if they are against the political message. Same way that publishers will not accept Trump's book, because of the political views of the owners and/or workers.

ForestFire · 18-06-2021 11:59am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being an arsehole is not a protected class.

If I go into Hala meat shop, can I insist they go out the back, find a chicken still running around, and shoot it dead, no Bismillah prayer, no blades etc.

Does the local Islamic butcher have to provide me this service? Or can he tell me to find another butcher?

ohnonotgmail · 18-06-2021 12:01pm

ForestFire wrote: »

If I go into Hala meat shop, can I insist they go out the back, find a chicken still running around, and shoot it dead, no Bismillah prayer, no blades etc.

Does the local Islamic butcher have to provide me this service? Or can he tell me to find another butcher?

why don't you give it a go and let us know how you get on.

Fr Tod Umptious · 18-06-2021 12:06pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: They were a cis couple - as in, they were both cis. Their complaint was that they were discriminated against not because they were cis, but because they were gay.

Were they discriminated against for being gay? Possibly. Or possibly not.

The complainants took the view, not unnaturally, that they had been discriminated against for being a same-sex couple. Had they not been gay, they would not have been seeking to buy a same-sex wedding cake, so the refusal to provide the cake they wanted was intrinsically linked to their sexual orientation.

Masterpiece's reply was no, they were happy to sell cakes to gay people and did so all the time, and in particular were happy to sell cakes to this couple (and had offered to do so). What they were not happy to do was to sell a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. They wouldn't sell such a cake to any customer, gay or straight - so a straight person, for example, wanting to buy such a cake as a present would also have been refused.

Their argument, in essence, was that they did not object to the sexual orientation of the customer, but to the nature of the cake. They argued that their cakes were creative works of art, and it's already established in US law that artistic freedom is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech. So, they argued, they couldn't be compelled to create a work of art expressing a view which they didn't wish to express. They pointed to a previous case in which three bakeries had refused to bake a cake with the slogan "Homosexuality is a detestable sin —Leviticus 18:22". The customer complained that he held this view because he was Christian, and that the refusal of the bakeries to provide the cake was therefore discrimination against him because he was Christian. The bakeries were held to be entitled to refuse to supply the cake.

They did not succeed with that argument before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or in the Colorado Court Appeal. However they did succeed in the Supreme Court — but not with this argument. The Supreme Court set aside the Civil Rights Commission's decision because they considered that its approach to the case, and the ruling it handed down, had displayed overt hostility to religion, towards which it was constitutionally required to be neutral. Its lack of neutrality vitiated its ruling.

Because Masterpiece won on this ground, their "cake-baking is protected free speech" argument didn't have to be considered, and wasn't ruled on. So perhaps it's not entirely astonishing that we now have another case raising the same issues; someone wants to get the Supreme Court to consider and rule on that argument.

Getting back to the NI case here the bit in bold was exactly what won it for Ashers in the British Supreme Court.

Ashers were not baking a cake with the slogan in support of gay marriage for anyone, regardless of who asked for it, thus they were not discriminating against a gay person.

18-06-2021 12:14pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833

Discrimination is only prohibited when it is done against certain protected characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability and majority age. That's the British and Irish position anyway, I assume this applies to the United States.

Lack of talent, or even megalomania, is not a protected characteristic, so discrimination on that basis is above board.

ForestFire · 18-06-2021 12:18pm

OSI wrote: »

They do not have to provide you with that service because it's not one they provide. If however you go in and ask for a product/service they do provide and they refuse to provide it to you specifically because you are gay/catholic/female etc, then that is discrimination and they are in the wrong.

How is this stuff so difficult to grasp

But they did not refuse to supply this couple with any multitude of cakes buns and products they normally supply to everyone else.

What they refused was to supply a product, that they would not supply to any customer that requested it.

"It's not one they provide"...just like you said!

It was the product they refused to make, not refusing to sever this couple.

Is that difficult to understand?

dxhound2005 · 18-06-2021 12:23pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Discrimination is only prohibited when it is done against certain protected characteristics, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, disability and majority age. That's the British and Irish position anyway, I assume this applies to the United States.

Lack of talent, or even megalomania, is not a protected characteristic, so discrimination on that basis is above board.

If Donald was gay, he could claim that he was being discriminated against for that reason. But it would be a spurious claim. That was the gist of the case in the North. A gay activist asking for a political message on a cake, made the spurious claim that the refusal was because he was gay.

18-06-2021 12:42pm

ForestFire wrote: »

It was the product they refused to make, not refusing to sever this couple.

Is that difficult to understand?

The question the court would have to ask there is whether this isn't de facto illegal discrimination. Nobody is ever going to buy a gay-wedding cake except, guess what, in relation to a gay wedding. If those are the only wedding cakes a shop refuses to provide, then there is certainly discrimination on the basis of civil status, whether illegal or not.

It's more complicated than people are letting on, on both sides.

Consider this alternative example. In the United States, school segregation was often executed on a de facto basis, simply because blacks and whites lived in segregated districts, so all the white kids went to one school and all of the black kids went to another. Politiicians could (implusibly) deny that the school systems were segregated, because a policy that kids must attend their local school is nominally sensible, and the segregation was therefore only de facto.

Here, the shop can claim they are only adhering to a policy, and it's unfortunate that the only people negatively impacted are gay. Is such de facto discrimination illegal at all? Can you rely on a political belief to de facto discriminate? I do not know.

astrofool · 18-06-2021 2:00pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Donald Trump is writing a new book. If publishing companies refuse to publish it, can he take them to court? If bakers are forced by law to put any and every decoration on a cake, including political slogans, then publishers should be forced to publish every book.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/donald-trump-says-he-s-writing-book-of-all-books-but-big-publishers-unlikely-to-touch-it-1.4594833

I think you misunderstand book publishing.

In book publishing, the publishers take on the printing and distribution costs to earn a % of the book sales along with the author.

If trump approached a printing service and paid them to print copies of his book, under this law, they wouldn't be able to refuse (provided the content of the book wasn't illegal in any way), they act as a printing and manufacturing service not a publisher which puts their name on and stands by the book (the printing service would not need to stand by the contents of the book).

Often you will see publishers withdraw books due to author behavior.

ohnonotgmail · 18-06-2021 4:10pm

astrofool wrote: »

I think you misunderstand book publishing.

In book publishing, the publishers take on the printing and distribution costs to earn a % of the book sales along with the author.

If trump approached a printing service and paid them to print copies of his book, under this law, they wouldn't be able to refuse (provided the content of the book wasn't illegal in any way), they act as a printing and manufacturing service not a publisher which puts their name on and stands by the book (the printing service would not need to stand by the contents of the book).

Often you will see publishers withdraw books due to author behavior.

why would they not be able to refuse? On what grounds would the request be protected?

astrofool · 18-06-2021 5:02pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would they not be able to refuse? On what grounds would the request be protected?

What is your specific question? That a publisher would refuse to publish a book (they can) or that a printer/binder would refuse to print/bind a legal book (under the NI legislation they wouldn't be able to, but nor would they be seen to support the contents of the book).

18-06-2021 5:08pm

astrofool wrote: »

What is your specific question? That a publisher would refuse to publish a book (they can) or that a printer/binder would refuse to print/bind a legal book (under the NI legislation they wouldn't be able to,

What are you basing the boldened statement on? There must be some specific legal provision that you think prohibits a publisher from printing something which they find disagreeable?

I don't know what law you're referring to, but as a general rule in liberal democracies, people are free to do whatever they want, unless the law intervenes. How does the law intervene to force a publisher to produce material with which they disagree/ dislike?

You can't illegally discriminate against people under a small number of protected characteristics, but that doesn't mean you can never discriminate.

astrofool · 19-06-2021 12:34pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What are you basing the boldened statement on? There must be some specific legal provision that you think prohibits a publisher from printing something which they find disagreeable?

I don't know what law you're referring to, but as a general rule in liberal democracies, people are free to do whatever they want, unless the law intervenes. How does the law intervene to force a publisher to produce material with which they disagree/ dislike?

You can't illegally discriminate against people under a small number of protected characteristics, but that doesn't mean you can never discriminate.

Are you getting confused between a publisher and a print shop? On your post, I completely agree.

If someone wanted to get a "gay page" printed by a photocopy shop (which the consumer was paying for), the shop wouldn't be able to discriminate against them.

Gwynplaine · 19-06-2021 1:30pm

Does the cake turn you gay?

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2021 7:19pm

astrofool wrote: »

What is your specific question? That a publisher would refuse to publish a book (they can) or that a printer/binder would refuse to print/bind a legal book (under the NI legislation they wouldn't be able to, but nor would they be seen to support the contents of the book).

very simple. Why would the printer not be able to refuse? Anybody can refuse business from people they don't want to do business once they don't fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.

jaxxx · 19-06-2021 7:28pm

Jesus christ is this STILL being debated? How f*cking retarded [retarded as in the more modern definition of the word, nothing to do with those with disabilities but anyone with a ridiculous level of stupidity - words evolve too people, get used to it - gay originally meant cheery/carefree remember] are people..?? Were the couple refused service because they were gay? NO, THAT would have been discrimination. They were refused service because the owners did not wish to print the message on the cake as it was against their beliefs. THAT IS NOT F*CKING DISCRIMINATION! Jesus christ is there any actual limit to human stupidity.. .. .. ..

Christy42 · 19-06-2021 7:35pm

jaxxx wrote: »

Jesus christ is this STILL being debated? How f*cking retarded [retarded as in the more modern definition of the word, nothing to do with those with disabilities but anyone with a ridiculous level of stupidity - words evolve too people, get used to it - gay originally meant cheery/carefree remember] are people..?? Were the couple refused service because they were gay? NO, THAT would have been discrimination. They were refused service because the owners did not wish to print the message on the cake as it was against their beliefs. THAT IS NOT F*CKING DISCRIMINATION! Jesus christ is there any actual limit to human stupidity.. .. .. ..

And would it be discrimination if they didn't want to put to non White people cake toppers on top? Again they could say they would ban anyone from asking for it when they know damn well that the reason for denying it would be the race of the people the cake is for.

astrofool · 19-06-2021 7:58pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

very simple. Why would the printer not be able to refuse? Anybody can refuse business from people they don't want to do business once they don't fall foul of anti-discrimination laws.

While people seem to be getting tetchy, my point was that, based on the anti-discrimination laws, a printer can't refuse business but that there is a difference between a publisher and a printer, if I wrote a book with gay content, I can't force the church to publish it for me, I can however expect that any printing and manufacturing business wouldn't be able to discriminate against me and not print it if I pay the price to do so.

jaxxx · 19-06-2021 8:12pm

Christy42 wrote: »

And would it be discrimination if they didn't want to put to non White people cake toppers on top? Again they could say they would ban anyone from asking for it when they know damn well that the reason for denying it would be the race of the people the cake is for.

Jesus f*cking christ it was a STATEMENT, NOT A DEPICTION OF SOMEONE! F*cking hell..... Forcing someone to believe in something just because you believe it is called fascism! People are entitled to believe differently, regardless of what you think! The only thing that matters is that they're not treated any differently!

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2021 8:14pm

astrofool wrote: »

While people seem to be getting tetchy, my point was that, based on the anti-discrimination laws, a printer can't refuse business but that there is a difference between a publisher and a printer, if I wrote a book with gay content, I can't force the church to publish it for me, I can however expect that any printing and manufacturing business wouldn't be able to discriminate against me and not print it if I pay the price to do so.

nobody is getting tetchy. and you have changed the question you asked. this is what you asked and what i responded to. you are quite wrong. they could refuse. Being an arsehole is not protected by discrimination laws.

If trump approached a printing service and paid them to print copies of his book, under this law, they wouldn't be able to refuse (provided the content of the book wasn't illegal in any way), they act as a printing and manufacturing service not a publisher which puts their name on and stands by the book (the printing service would not need to stand by the contents of the book).

astrofool · 19-06-2021 8:40pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody is getting tetchy. and you have changed the question you asked. this is what you asked and what i responded to. you are quite wrong. they could refuse. Being an arsehole is not protected by discrimination laws.

My point was they couldn't discriminate against him (e.g. we don't print books written by white people), as you say, they can refuse business with him because he's an asshat.

ohnonotgmail · 19-06-2021 8:58pm

astrofool wrote: »

My point was they couldn't discriminate against him (e.g. we don't print books written by white people), as you say, they can refuse business with him because he's an asshat.

you made your point very poorly so considering you said

they wouldn't be able to refuse

Peregrinus · 21-06-2021 2:07am

astrofool wrote: »

While people seem to be getting tetchy, my point was that, based on the anti-discrimination laws, a printer can't refuse business but that there is a difference between a publisher and a printer, if I wrote a book with gay content, I can't force the church to publish it for me, I can however expect that any printing and manufacturing business wouldn't be able to discriminate against me and not print it if I pay the price to do so.

I don't think this is correct.

A printer, like a publisher, like any other business, can't discriminate against a customer on one of the prohibited grounds. If I turn away your business because you're gay, then I'm in breach of the equal treatment legislation; this is true whether I am a printer or a publisher or a shoemaker or anything else.

But what we have here is a case of the right to equal treatment running up agains the right to freedom of speech.

Can a publisher decline to publish a book by Donald Trump? Yes, absolutely. Can a printer decline to print the book? Yes, absolutely. The publisher and the printer both have a right to free speech which means they can't be compelled to produce, or join in the production of, statements that they don't wish to make. And in neither case is there an issue with the equal treatment legislation because there is nothing to suggest that Trump's business is being turned down because of his race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Can a publisher decline to publish a book (a) supporting marriage equality, or (b) opposing marriage equality? Can a printer decline to print it? The publisher's argument will be that he doesn't care, and quite possibly doesn't know, about the sexual orientation, religion, etc of the author; his refusal to publish is based entirely on the contents of the book, with which he does not agree. The author, however, will argue that - whether or not the printer and publisher knew it - he is gay, or he is a fundamentalist Christian, and in the work he wrote is an expression of that identity, and the refusal to publish or print it impinges on him to such an extent as to amount to discrimination on the grounds of his sexual orientation/religious belief.

As we've already seen in this thread, in the Masterpiece Cakes case the US Supreme Court decided the case on other grounds, so this question remains open (which no doubt is why another attempt is being made to get the issue back to the Supreme Court). But in the UK, in Asher's Bakery, the Supreme Court confronted the issue and ruled that no-one can be forced to promote a belief or opinion they did not believe in or profoundly disagree with. I don't think there's anything in either the UK or US cases to support a publisher/printer distinction.

Gael23 · 06-01-2022 10:29am

Hello again everyone😁

Into year 8 of this sorry saga!

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/0106/1272110-european-court-bakery/

TooTired123 · 06-01-2022 11:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118425306#Comment_118425306

I think the saga is over now. If you feel the overwhelming urge to physically force other people to change their point of view on the grounds that you’ve decided that they should be forced to agree with you, then resist that urge and busy yourself with a pursuit that will be beneficial to society in general in the short/long term. Life is too short to be wasting it like this.

Dempo1 · 06-01-2022 11:53am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118425765#Comment_118425765

Astonishing this farce going on so long, I see the thread started in 2014 .

06-01-2022 11:58am

It'll keep rolling. There's plenty of money still to be made.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-01-2022 12:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118425812#Comment_118425812

Did they pay for the royalties to use Bert and Ernie ?

dxhound2005 · 06-01-2022 12:09pm

Again common sense has prevailed. We won't have the courts clogged up with compensation claims from people who went to a baker in Crossmaglen for a No Surrender To the IRA slogan. Or a Portadown baker who refused to put a Support a United Ireland slogan on a cake.

Now that same sex marriage is legal in the North, I would support the prosecution of any baker who refuses to supply a cake for a gay wedding. But the case was only ever about whether a trader could be forced to put a political message on a bespoke product.

06-01-2022 12:14pm

Has anybody looked into the actual laws the ECHR is based on. It’s not surprising that it doesn’t mention sexual orientation but does mention religious rights, given that it’s a 1953 document

and religious people have won cases before:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eweida_v_United_Kingdom