On the subject of civil liberties.
The Guardian takes the free speech line on the matter of the Ashers Bakery case.
The decision of the court of appeal in Belfast in the case of Ashers bakery cannot be welcomed by anyone who cares about free speech.
Actually it is more a case of freedom of association – that is, the freedom of a business owner to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. It being their business. They might damage that business in the process, but that is their choice. No one should be forced to do business with a potential client if they choose not to for any reason that they decide. In this case, they objected to promoting gay marriage. There are other bakers who, doubtless, would have been happy to do business with this client and that should have been the end of the matter.
The original judgement was appalling. The court of appeal has merely underpinned that dreadful decision.
I’d have more sympathy with the Guardian if it didn’t have a history of agitating for identity politics, mind…
I completely agree, LR. Freedom to speak your mind and indeed to hold views that others might find offensive is something we should treasure, not squander on smoothing artificially ruffled or even self-ruffled feathers of some demanding minority. In fact this squandering is what I find really offensive and I wish there was some way to stop it.
“Offence can only be taken, not given” – discuss
If I understood the NI ‘equalities’ spokesman correctly Ashers failed in their appeal because they hadn’t qualified their ‘offer’ to make cakes. Does that mean that if they put a sign up to the effect that they reserve the right to withdraw their offer that would be OK? So if someone gave a typically ‘catholic’ surname they could refuse to trade? Somehow I think not.
Where they went wrong then is not putting the price up to, say, £1000, but then for people of principle no price is enough.
When I was 17 or so I would debate strongly on the subject of ‘freedom’, I wouldn’t have believed that anyone with it would give it up but now, daily, I see our snowflakes backing off in all directions less they ‘give offence’.
I’d be happy to agree with them too, if not for the 39+ other articles they’ve run throwing fuel on this particular fire….
Well, yeah, hence my qualification.
This is an interesting one. If the cake people had refused service just because the customers were gay, I would have agreed with the judgement. However, since it was the message that they had a problem with, I think that the judgement was wrong. Having said that, I think that the cake shop is being very unprofessional. I am an atheist, if I was running a business, I would have no problem whatsoever with producing cakes,or whatever, promoting any daft religion my clients required. If the message was particularly hateful toward a certain group of people, I would refuse and I would be right to do so. So, on balance, the cake shop is in the right.
Of course, on past form, in ten year’s time, Christians will be selling themselves as champions of gay rights.