Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[Bill]

Eric Mc said:

And I certainly do not think that the law should be used to force people to actively PROMOTE a political view with which they do not agree.

They were asked to bake a cake with a slogan on it. How is that being "forced to actively promote" anything?

[anonymous-user]

Einion Yrth said:

djstevec said:

Stevanos said:

djstevec said:

No it isn't against the law to hold a political opinion. It is against the law to treat those with a different political opinion less favorably (ie refuse service) to how you would treat those with the same political opinion as you, in a commercial transaction.

Come on Eric, you're better than this.

So, I cannot refuse business from Nazis?

Depends on the reason of your refusal, you could simply be "too busy" to complete the order in the required time frame.

Edited by djstevec on Thursday 21st May 11:26

So it's fine to discriminate against people just so long as you lie about it. Ok.

Im sure you could call it "being savvy".....or...just bake the damned cake and realise in a public facing business, you have to accept the public as it is constituted.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Stevanos said:

So, I cannot refuse business from Nazis?

Is there a law that demands Nazis should get equal treatment?

But, you cannot refuse business from gay Nazis having accepted business from straight Nazis. (although I suspect gay Nazis are thin on the ground, given the Nazi view on homosexuality.

[ATG]

Eric Mc said:

But they were being asked to promote a political opinion they didn't agree with.

Is the law saying that if asked to print or display a message you don't agree with (whether on religious or other grounds), then you have no choice but to comply?

What if a pair of Republicans had entered the shop and asked the bakery to put "Ireland Divided will never be free" on a cake, would the bakery have been prosecuted for refusing to comply?

I think that you cannot use the law to make people promote political messages they don't agree with.

The judge makes it quite clear that decorating a cake is not the same thing as supporting the message written on the cake.

[Eric Mc]

Bill said:

Eric Mc said:

And I certainly do not think that the law should be used to force people to actively PROMOTE a political view with which they do not agree.

They were asked to bake a cake with a slogan on it. How is that being "forced to actively promote" anything?

Depends on your definition of "promotion" I suppose.

I would look on it as a promotional stunt by the couple who asked for the cake. Indeed, the whole point of the project was to highlight discrimination" against gays - so in the context of this particular case I would argue that the sole reason behind the cake was "promotion".

The one thing it most definitely wasn't was the simple purchase of a cake.

[Mr_B]

Mate of mine works in a printers. Where do you want to draw the line on this promoting of stuff ? Ukip flyers, charity begging letters, adverts for religious events, Mandingo the 10 inch cock hen party dancer ? If you can't deal with the public and can't offer your trade to all, then maybe dealing with the public isn't for you.

[Eric Mc]

ATG said:

The judge makes it quite clear that decorating a cake is not the same thing as supporting the message written on the cake.

And I would not agree with that judgement.

Providing someone with the means to support a message could be seen as being involved in supporting that message. The bakery did not want to support that particular message and I believe they were totally within their rights as free citizens in a democracy to decline to support that message.

[Bill]

Eric Mc said:

Depends on your definition of "promotion" I suppose.

[Eric Mc]

Bill said:

The law is all about "definitions" and judges often come to different conclusions on similar sets of facts based on their understanding of what that definition should be.

That is why this case could be appealed - I think successfully - if the bakery so wishes.

[vetrof]

Eric Mc said:

as free citizens in a democracy to decline to support that message.

They are, but as a commercial enterprise they are not.

[JonRB]

vetrof said:

Eric Mc said:

as free citizens in a democracy to decline to support that message.

They are, but as a commercial enterprise they are not.

Indeed.

Eric, you're very quick to jump on anyone who operates through a (personal service) Limited Company yet dares to refer to themselves as "self-employed", pointing out (quite rightly, I should add) that they are not self-employed but are employed by their company and that the person and the company are two different things. And yet, ironically, here you seem to be confusing the rights and obligations of an individual and the rights and obligations of a company.

[Eric Mc]

The direct link between a "company" and its "directors" is very much reinforced by recent changes to law. In other words, courts are much more inclined to go for directors as much as companies, especially in respect of negligence cases.

Therefore, for the purposes of a case like this, it is the thinking process of the directors that determined what happened. So their conduct as individuals is very much at the fore of what the company did. The company itself is "mindless". It cannot hold opinions or make judgments of a political or sexual nature - but its directors can.

Did the plaintiffs bring their case against a limited company or the individuals who ran the business?

[Bill]

Eric Mc said:

The law is all about "definitions" and judges often come to different conclusions on similar sets of facts based on their understanding of what that definition should be.

That is why this case could be appealed - I think successfully - if the bakery so wishes.

You seem to feel that being involved in the production of promotional material counts as promotion in itself. I disagree. They could have provided the cake in plain packaging.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

The direct link between a "company" and its "directors" is very much reinforced by recent changes to law. In other words, courts are much more inclined to go for directors as much as companies, especially in respect of negligence cases.

Therefore, for the purposes of a case like this, it is the thinking process of the directors that determined what happened. So their conduct as individuals is very much at the fore of what the company did. The company itself is "mindless". It cannot hold opinions or make judgments of a political or sexual nature - but its directors can.

Did the plaintiffs bring their case against a limited company or the individuals who ran the business?

IN THE COUNTY COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND

GARETH LEE - Plaintiff
V
ASHERS BAKING Co Ltd - 1st Defendant
and
Colin McArthur - 2nd Defendant
and
karen McArthur - 3rd Defendant

[Eric Mc]

So they went for the blunderbus approach - sue everybody connected with the operation.

So is the verdict against the company on its own or the company and its directors?

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

So they went for the blunderbus approach - sue everybody connected with the operation.

So is the verdict against the company on its own or the company and its directors?

Just read the judgment Eric - tired of spoonfeeding you.

[JonRB]

Eric Mc said:

The company itself is "mindless". It cannot hold opinions or make judgments of a political or sexual nature - but its directors can.

Indeed. And, likewise, a company therefore also doesn't have rights to "free speech" and opinion either.

What a company *does* have rights to, though, is laying out Terms and Conditions of business that could include such things as non-endorsement clauses, right to refuse to print political statements or slogans, etc. However, those would have to be applied fairly to all customers and have to be arranged beforehand.

What it can't do is cancel an order based on the prejudices of one of the directors, and then the director claim that they are excercising their right to free speech. You of all people should know this Eric, which is why I'm quite surprised by your stance on this.

[Eric Mc]

Why surprised?

Even though in many areas of law it is right and proper that the distinction between the limited company and its directors are properly distinguished - there are occasions when the law is happy to blur those distinctions and link the company inextricably with the people who run it.

This judgement opens a bit of a can of worms regarding businesses and the moral (and sometimes religious) beliefs that may lie behind their business practice. There is a local toy shop to me that sells a nice range of models. Unfortunately, I can only ever get to it on Sunday - but they refuse to open on Sundays for religious reasons. Should I sue them for inconveniencing me?
I don't hold the same religious views they do and it seems wrong that refuse me the "right" to shop when it suits me.

[ewenm]

Eric Mc said:

Why surprised?

Even though in many areas of law it is right and proper that the distinction between the limited company and its directors are properly distinguished - there are occasions when the law is happy to blur those distinctions and link the company inextricably with the people who run it.

This judgement opens a bit of a can of worms regarding businesses and the moral (and sometimes religious) beliefs that may lie behind their business practice. There is a local toy shop to me that sells a nice range of models. Unfortunately, I can only ever get to it on Sunday - but they refuse to open on Sundays for religious reasons. Should I sue them for inconveniencing me?
I don't hold the same religious views they do and it seems wrong that refuse me the "right" to shop when it suits me.

The toy shop is not discriminating - they serve no-one on Sunday.

[Halb]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But, you cannot refuse business from gay Nazis having accepted business from straight Nazis. (although I suspect gay Nazis are thin on the ground, given the Nazi view on homosexuality.

Oh you'd be surprised, dar-link!

Mr_B said:

Mate of mine works in a printers. Where do you want to draw the line on this promoting of stuff ? Ukip flyers, charity begging letters, adverts for religious events, Mandingo the 10 inch cock hen party dancer ? If you can't deal with the public and can't offer your trade to all, then maybe dealing with the public isn't for you.

I concur.