https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

Sensible judgement.

Now I understand the issue I can’t see how it went the other way in the first two courts.

I can only think they did not believe the witnesses.  £250,000 of public money was spent on this case, assuming costs aren’t being awarded – even more if they are.

Im trying to find the summary findings from the earlier appeal to understand how the finding could change so much. still looking. Post up here if any of you find it

So Bigotry is ok as long as you apply it universally.

found it:

Original Case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2015/NICty_2.html

Appeal judgement http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2016/39.html

Supreme court judgment http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/49.html

I agree with the judgement – as they said they had served the guy that requested the cake before, they had no issue with providing a service to him regardless of his sexuality. Their objection was the requested message on the cake was something they didn’t agree with, to me that should be at the business’ discretion (and all it should mean is loss of business to them not a ridiculous waste of public money that simply puts cash in lawyer’s pockets).

what fuzzywuzzy said

I was more upset by the blatant misrepresentation of Bert and Ernie

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/18/entertainment/bert-and-ernie-not-gay/index.html

It’s not ok to exploit muppets for your own political gain

#sesamestreettoo

found it:

Original Case <span class=”skimlinks-unlinked”>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2015/NICty_2.html</span&gt;

Appeal judgement <span class=”skimlinks-unlinked”>http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2016/39.html</span&gt;

Supreme court judgment <span class=”skimlinks-unlinked”>http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2018/49.html</span&gt;

Thanks, I’ve only read the first appeal and not in great detail. The first appeal seems to have considered the issue the BBC claim was fundamental to this, so I’m less sure now.

Can someone who understands this stuff explain exactly why the conclusions were different in a couple of sentences!

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>wwaswas
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>

<div class=””>Subscriber</div>

</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

So Bigotry is ok as long as you apply it to cakes.

HTHs

</div>

If that shop was local to me, I’d be ordering cakes saying “I hate Christians” and “god is a homosexual” etc.

That was hard graft.

So as I understand it there are two issues to decide which are mentioned in section II and section III.

Was the buyer discriminated against on the grounds of his sexuality? Answer: No. That seems reasonable to me, he wasn’t, the bakery just didn’t want to print the slogan. (I’m sure you could argue it the other way.)

Since he wasn’t discriminated against on the grounds of his sexuality they had to decide was he discriminated against on the grounds of his political opinion. Apparently not. In fact the McArthur’s political opinions are protected by law. Ultimately “FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel providers of goods, facilities and services to express a message with which they disagree, unless justification is shown for doing so.”

Anyone with some kind of legal training confirm or debunk my feeble attempt to understand?

Was the buyer discriminated against on the grounds of his sexuality? Answer: No. That seems reasonable to me, he wasn’t, the bakery just didn’t want to print the slogan. (I’m sure you could argue it the other way.)

Awaits case 3, now they know he is…..

Awaits case 3, now they know he is…..

I’m pretty sure that’s discussed in at least two of the judgements and they did know. They just didn’t discriminate on that basis.

“To me, this was never about conscience or a statement. All I wanted to do was to order a cake in a shop,” he said.

If that shop was local to me, I’d be ordering cakes saying “I hate Christians” and “god is a homosexual” etc.

Pointless. They would just refuse the order. The law is on their side.

Pointless. They would just refuse the order. The law is on their side.

I think you’re right, but maybe those are religious messages, not Political. The judgement draws a distinction and the message in this case was deemed to be political.

http://newsthump.com/2017/04/28/if-i-was-that-bothered-about-men-bumming-each-other-id-have-put-it-in-a-commandment-insists-god/

It was deemed political because the religious belief has to “belong” to the person being discriminated against not the person carrying it out.

It was deemed political because the religious belief has to “belong” to the person being discriminated against not the person carrying it out.

I think there was more to it than that, it was also deemed political because there was a political debate about gay marriage going on at the time in NI.

Shame these judgements aren’t written in a clearer fashion.

Sorry I was a bit lazy, it was not religious for the reason I stated so then it could only be political if there was going to a case on these grounds – it could be political because of the current political debate.

To be honest this is a well written and pretty clear judgement – higher courts generally have judges with greater clarity of thought.

Big win for the headbangers af The Christian Institute. There won’t be a chastity belt left locked tonight in a feverish celebration of heterosexuality.

Big win for the headbangers af The Christian Institute.

You think? If cake makers can’t be compelled to write “Support Gay Marriage” on a cake, they also can’t be compelled to write “Oppose Gay Marriage”  on a cake.

Would it be a better world if cake makers could be forced to write “Oppose Gay Marriage”  on a cake?

You think?

Yes, I do think it’s a big win for the headbangers at The Christian Institute. Not sure why you needed me to clarify that, but there you go anyway.

Yep,

God teaches us to be tolerant here, just not that kind of tolerant….

I think the headbangers will think it is a big win, but it’s not such a big win as they think it is (if that makes sense)…

Contrast this with the b&b case for example where that showed clear discrimination.  Having said that I don’t think it is an accident at all that this case happened where it did.

Having said that I don’t think it is an accident at all that this case happened where it did.

Quite.

The DUP spend half their time insisting they be treated the same as the rest of the UK and the other half insisting on social and medical restrictions within NI that the rest of the UK got rid of half a century ago in some cases.

The DUP spend half their time insisting they be treated the same as the rest of the UK and the other half insisting on social and medical restrictions within NI that the rest of the UK got rid of half a century ago in some cases.

Almost as though political dogma can be a handy front for self interest, isn’t it?

I can’t help but feel that this can be reduced down to two pretty tedious groups of people who actually share a common desire to ram their opinions down everyone else’s throat and get the taxpayer to pick up the bill. It was probably a put-up job from the start, albeit one that started out with a vague intention of spotlighting bigotry and intolerance. But everyone got their day in court, no doubt there’ll be appearances on talk shows aplenty in the offing and the normal, tolerant folk in the middle just have to do their bit and pay for it.

I can’t help but feel that this can be reduced down to two pretty tedious groups of people

Not really. It was one tedious individual full of his own self-importance who refused to just nip to Greggs for a nice doughnut instead, and who is totally intolerant of views that are not his own. He wasn’t being denied a job or under the threat of jail for being gay.

He wasn’t even being discriminated against. Plenty of other bakers who’d have been happy to make his cake. There are lots of problems in the world, including gay people in many countries still facing imprisonment. Not being able to buy a cake is not one of them.

To be honest this is a well written and pretty clear judgement – higher courts generally have judges with greater clarity of thought.

Except in the US obviously.

ah newsthump is just sending out  it’s old ones 😉

http://newsthump.com/2015/05/20/jesus-disappointed-bible-verse-on-gay-cakes-somehow-lost-over-the-years/

<h4>Gay cakes</h4>
Upon hearing Jesus’ views, Christian bakers have asked Jesus to provide some proof of identification.

Baker Simon Williams said, “Look, you can’t just ask someone to stop finding something a bit ‘yucky’ just because a two-thousand-year-old deity told them to, not without asking for some proof of ID.

“Maybe it’s just easier if we carry on being homophobic and ignore this new Jesus fella?”

There are lots of problems in the world, including gay people in many countries still facing imprisonment.

We need to stop tackling any discrimination (while taking into account the SC’s decision this morning) – there’s almost certainly a worse version of any given  example somewhere in the world.

A fair point but this case there was no discrimination at all. The chap was very welcome in the shop and they have said he still is. This case is nothing more than a difference of opinion.

I suspect he picked that bakers deliberately just so he could be offended and/or sue for lots of money. He comes out of it as very intolerant and unpleasant.

I suspect he picked that bakers deliberately just so he could be offended. He comes out of it as very intolerant and unpleasant.

Where as the bakers just come across as intolerant sheep blindly following some shouty intolerant man shouting from a book he really doesn’t understand.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>Boba Fatt
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

I was more upset by the blatant misrepresentation of Bert and Ernie

Mark Salzman, who was Bert and Ernie’s main scriptwriter, says of course they’re bloody gay you idiots.

</div>

I suspect he picked that bakers deliberately just so he could be offended.

These bakers were most likely targeted to create a bit of case law, for sure. LGBT rights in Northern Ireland are still very much more of a struggle than here on the “mainland”. Ashers were helped financially by The Christian Institute (in the original cases, not sure about this one yet). The Christian Institute is a crowd of headbanging fundamentalists who merrily (financially) oppose expansion of LGBT rights wherever possible, but NI is one of their favourite places to do so.

As for who comes out of it as unpleasant, I think they all do. I certainly believe that the cake guy should have picked a better hill on which to die.

Assuming, as seems to be the case here that the request has been refused because the bakers were uncomfortable with the message and not because the person was gay…

I think it helps to imagine someone requesting some other controversial* but not illegal message on a cake like say Support the BNP. If I was a baker I’d like to be able to refuse such a request as I wouldn’t be comfortable with it. The fact that many (most?) of us would say that pleas to support the BNP were wrong and support gay marriage right is pretty much irrelevant in the eyes of the law, that’s not what it’s there to do. The purpose of the existing laws should be to make sure no one’s rights are impinged upon and the role of the judges is to interpret those laws and relevant precedents in the light of the details of each case.

To summarise: if you want the law to force businesses to print support gay marriage on a cake you have to accept that law can also be used to force them to print support the BNP on a cake. Now put yourself in that situation and ask if you want the law to do that.

I’m very much pro gay rights but I also think this is absolutely the right judgement.

*Gay marriage shouldn’t be controversial but sadly it remains so in some sectors of society.

than here on the “mainland”.

I made the mistake once in an Irish post office of asking for a stamp for the mainland. I was put firmly in my place. Admittedly it was the GPO on O’Connell Street, just about the most inappropriate place for my faux pas.

The real issue was that they broke their contract.  The cake was ordered and paid for and then they went back on it a few days later.  So a simple breach of contract case for a cake, what is that a few quid?

I think a shop should be able to decide what to sell but they should have done that before taking the money.  If I owned a cake shop and someone wanted a cake with ‘vote tory’ written on it I would not make it (but I also would not have taken their money)