Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Quickmoose said:
Gay marriage is illegal in NI right now.
Is it illegal to 'support' Gay marriage in NI right now?
It is never illegal to run a campaign to have the law changed.Is it illegal to 'support' Gay marriage in NI right now?
It is never illegal to support the law as it stands.
It seems none of that was the issue. The issue was that they refused to sell something to a gay person because they didn't agree with the cause he was supporting.
If he was a straight person, they would not have done anything wrong.
sidicks said:
Eric Mc said:
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
So legally they could have refused to produce the same cake with the same slogan for a straight person?And this is supposedly 'equality' in action?
The law can be very weird.
Eric Mc said:
The judge reached the following conclusions:
1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
So the fact that the PERSON was gay made all the difference. If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case.
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
I disagree with no. 2 as surely making the cake is promoting and supporting gay marriage.1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
So the fact that the PERSON was gay made all the difference. If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case.
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
"If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case." If this is the case, then surely there was no discrimination.
Is the next step to sure the Irish govt.? This indicates that prohibiting gay marriage is in itself illegal. The law is illegal???
Eric Mc said:
The judge reached the following conclusions:
1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
So the fact that the PERSON was gay made all the difference. If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case.
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
No, absolutely not - that was part of the basis of the appeal, which was explicitly rejected;1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
So the fact that the PERSON was gay made all the difference. If he had been straight, the bakery could have rightfully refused to print the slogan and there would have been no case.
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
judgement said:
The judge concluded that the appellants disagreed with the religious belief and political opinion held by the respondent with regard to the change in law to permit gay marriage and, accordingly, they treated him less favourably by refusing to provide him with the service sought. In those circumstances the appellants had directly discriminated against him. The judge said that even if she had been persuaded that the appellants had not been aware of the respondent’s religious belief and/or political opinion, she would have found that the appellants discriminated against him by treating him less favourably on the grounds of their own religious beliefs and political opinion.
judgement said:
The questions included in the case stated are set out in the full judgment. We indicated that we do not intend to answer two of the questions:
(...)
· The second was whether the judge was correct as a matter of law in finding that the appellants “did have the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who are gay” in light of the reasoning contained in her judgment? Although it is 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, she did not rely on that finding in her conclusion. She found that the appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage. If she had come to the view that the order was cancelled because the respondent was perceived as being gay, this would have been the most straightforward case of direct discrimination and would undoubtedly have been plainly expressed by her. We conclude therefore that the finding was not material to her determination.
(...)
· The second was whether the judge was correct as a matter of law in finding that the appellants “did have the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who are gay” in light of the reasoning contained in her judgment? Although it is 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, she did not rely on that finding in her conclusion. She found that the appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage. If she had come to the view that the order was cancelled because the respondent was perceived as being gay, this would have been the most straightforward case of direct discrimination and would undoubtedly have been plainly expressed by her. We conclude therefore that the finding was not material to her determination.
judgement said:
Counsel for the appellants in this case submitted that in order to establish direct discrimination it was necessary to establish some protected personal characteristic and that such a characteristic could not be established by a difference in treatment in respect of a message on a cake.
We do not accept this. The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people. The appellants would not have objected to a cake carrying the message “Support Heterosexual Marriage” or indeed “Support Marriage”. We accept that it was the use of the word “Gay” in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled. The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly this was direct discrimination.
This is the core of the judgement, I would say;We do not accept this. The benefit from the message or slogan on the cake could only accrue to gay or bisexual people. The appellants would not have objected to a cake carrying the message “Support Heterosexual Marriage” or indeed “Support Marriage”. We accept that it was the use of the word “Gay” in the context of the message which prevented the order from being fulfilled. The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly this was direct discrimination.
judgement said:
The answer is not to have the legislation changed and thereby remove the equality protection concerned. The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation.
sidicks said:
Eric Mc said:
So the ACT carried out by the bakery was not unlawful. It was the PERSON they directed the act to that made it unlawful.
So legally they could have refused to produce the same cake with the same slogan for a straight person?And this is supposedly 'equality' in action?
MTech535 said:
I thought that both religious beliefs and sexual orientation were both protected characteristics under European equality laws.
From this case it would appear that one is more protected than the other.
From this case it would appear that one is more protected than the other.
judgement said:
District Judge Brownlie then considered the application of the Human Rights Act 1998. She considered that she was required to read down the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order so as to include reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of the appellants’ beliefs. The judge determined that the relevant anti-discrimination provisions were necessary in a democratic society and were a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the respondent. To do otherwise would be to allow religious belief to dictate what the law is. The first and second appellants were entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them, but this must be done in accordance with the law and that included not manifesting them in the commercial sphere if the manner of doing so was contrary to the rights of others. Finally, having made the finding of fact that the appellants were not required to support, promote or endorse the respondent’s viewpoint, the judge went on to find that, in any event, the anti-discrimination provisions in the relevant legislation were a proportionate interference permitted under Article 10(2) of the ECHR.
First and second appellants are the directors of the company, third appellant is the company itself.otolith said:
MTech535 said:
I thought that both religious beliefs and sexual orientation were both protected characteristics under European equality laws.
From this case it would appear that one is more protected than the other.
From this case it would appear that one is more protected than the other.
judgement said:
District Judge Brownlie then considered the application of the Human Rights Act 1998. She considered that she was required to read down the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order so as to include reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of the appellants’ beliefs. The judge determined that the relevant anti-discrimination provisions were necessary in a democratic society and were a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the respondent. To do otherwise would be to allow religious belief to dictate what the law is. The first and second appellants were entitled to continue to hold their genuine and deeply held religious beliefs and to manifest them, but this must be done in accordance with the law and that included not manifesting them in the commercial sphere if the manner of doing so was contrary to the rights of others. Finally, having made the finding of fact that the appellants were not required to support, promote or endorse the respondent’s viewpoint, the judge went on to find that, in any event, the anti-discrimination provisions in the relevant legislation were a proportionate interference permitted under Article 10(2) of the ECHR.
First and second appellants are the directors of the company, third appellant is the company itself.Eric Mc said:
Conversely, how can it be a right decision - when the bakery's stance is in line with Northern Irish law?
It isn't. NI law doesn't say a baker is implicitly endorsing whatever he writes on a cake. NI law doesn't say you can discriminate against homosexuals.They can consider their legal options as much as they like, but they've just lost on appeal. Given they're talking about wanting "a change in the law", I think we can conclude they've decided they have no further legal options. And the chance of shifting the law in their favour is minute.
Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society and that they need to make a concession to that society or stop making bloody cakes. It'll probably boost their business anyway as wags request inuendo-laden cakes. Fruit cake, sir? Etc.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
popeyewhite said:
ATG said:
Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society
No, they're out of step with the law. Eric Mc said:
It is a lot more complex than some people here think.
I think the law regarding Gay Marriage in Northern Ireland is wrong and should be changed.
I just think that this particular attempt at highlighting the issue was very unfair and vindictive.
It has a stink of "entrapment" about it and I really hate that technique - in whatever context it is used, whether by the authorities, journalists or people trying to promote a cause.
My thoughts too.I think the law regarding Gay Marriage in Northern Ireland is wrong and should be changed.
I just think that this particular attempt at highlighting the issue was very unfair and vindictive.
It has a stink of "entrapment" about it and I really hate that technique - in whatever context it is used, whether by the authorities, journalists or people trying to promote a cause.
In fact I know one of the people involved in commissioning the cake and he and I have a mutual acquaintance with a local cake maker (gay) who could easily have made the offending cake no problems whatsoever.
popeyewhite said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
popeyewhite said:
ATG said:
Time for them to accept that they are out of step with society
No, they're out of step with the law. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff