A victory for civil liberties.
The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have won their appeal in the so-called “gay cake” discrimination case.
The UK’s highest court ruled that Ashers bakery’s refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
The five justices on the Supreme Court were unanimous in their judgement.
Good. Excellent. Some sense at last. The justices are correct here. Being in business sometimes means that you decide not to do business with someone. It’s that old freedom of association thing. A basic right. Gay people do not have a right – and nor should they – to force a business to sell them a cake with a message contrary to the beliefs of the bakers in question. I’ve been turned away from places because I’ve turned up on a motorcycle. Annoying, yes, but I simply take my business elsewhere. That’s how a free society works. This case was a disgrace. An affront to liberty. The appeal outcome is a breath of fresh air.
A good day for liberty. A small victory in a war that we are losing.
Gareth Lee, the gay rights activist who took the case against Ashers, said the ruling made him feel like a second class citizen.
“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.
He said he was now concerned about “the implications for all of the gay community”.
Oh, grow up! You could have ordered any cake you wanted. Just not one that involved an overtly gay message from that baker. You could have gone to another baker. Get over yourself. You engaged in a spiteful and mean spirited vendetta and lost. Good. Unfortunately, Mr Lee won’t have to pick up the tab for his nasty little vexatious litigation.
Gareth Lee may well be a second class citizen – but not because he’s gay. Rather, because he tried to use his liberties to crap on somebody else’s. So far as I know, nobody has ever asked him which other baker supplied the cake he was so anxious to have. Does anyone know?
Whenever I see the term “activist” used, I know we are dealing with a self-righteous prick who thinks they have the right to crap over other people’s liberty.
These arseholes aren’t just a problem for Ashers, they’re a problem for a lot of people who actually enjoy having a life. They almost always tend to be left-wingers and often Corbynites, come to think of it.
Is it not also about slavery?
Slavery exists if you cannot say ‘No’ to being told how you use your body, your labour and its product.
Valid point
Unfortunately, Mr Lee won’t have to pick up the tab for his nasty little vexatious litigation.
A snip at almost £1/2 million (if the tax payer also has to pay the baker’s £200k legal costs?) for a £36.50 cake. Mr Kipling does make exceedingly….
(actually I’m surprised Mr.Kipling hasn’t had to change its name …I mean…Rudyard Kipling was a notorious white British colonial racist….oh dear I feel a hashtag coming on…. ).
Personally, I hope life becomes unpleasant for him for a while.
“Being in business sometimes means that you decide not to do business with someone. It’s that old freedom of association thing. A basic right.”
Actually, I’m afraid they haven’t decided that. To have denied service to someone because of who they are would have fallen foul of the law. The SC is very very clear that the distinction here is between the message and the messager. If Ashers had used a freedom of association argument, they would have lost.
However, Ashers were clear all along both that:
1) they were happy to bake a cake for Mr Lee and that therefore there was no discrimination because of Mr Lee’s protected status
AND
2) they would have refused to bake a cake with this statement to anyone at all, hetero or gay and that therefore this was entirely about compelled speech.
It’s the compelled speech that has been definitely, thankfully, correctly, struck down.
The SC has upheld that you cannot be forced to say something that you do not believe.
Indeed, fair point. I’ve now read more of the judgement. It’s still the correct decision though. No one should be forced to engage with a campaign that they are opposed to against their will.
Absolutely. You make this point at the end of your post – it was just the opener that was adrift. 🙂
Indeed and thank you for clarifying.
Hopefully this might (although it’s unlikely) make these vicious and arrogant attention whores think before they try this sort of thing in again in future.
A legal precedent has been made though, hasn’t it?
It has. I note that the usual suspects are claiming that it makes things uncertain for them. Yet the judgement is crystal clear. It’s just not the one they wanted.
The REEE for this from the left-wing retards is more delicious than many cakes.
It’s worth pointing out that Gareth Lee actually was demanding Ashers bake a cake with a message on it that’s presently unlawful in Northern Ireland – gay marriage is still illegal there, largely because of the social conservatism of the Democratic Unionists.
Correct verdict at last. Will EHRC staff be paying legal costs? Thought not, abolish EHRC.
Me too. Annoying, but we refused entry/jobs to some too.
Lunacy to compel businesses to have customers/staff they don’t want. Look at it another way: why would any sane person want to shop (give money too) or work for a business that doesn’t want them?
The EHRC doesn’t have any money of its own. It has your money. It viciously wasted it by allowing this argument to develop. In NI the separate provisions were to try to stop festering discrimination between Catholics and Protestants. It was always a misuse of those provisions to try to apply them spitefully to force someone to promote that which is odious to them, precisely because it is odious to them.
That’s pretty much the judgement in this case.
One wonders if this was the entire EHRC or just ECNI? If it’s just ECNI a regime change might well be needed there. They can’t be allowed to get away with stuff like this! Hopefully this puts down any more stupid challenges from left-wing bigots.
Cut off their munneee.
Not just them.
Same here – it was about 40 years ago at a seafront pub one summers evening, and because I was wearing a leather jacket & carrying a crash hat. I went back the following night (in the car) and had no problems. Was I discriminated against? Should I put in a retrospective claim for Com-Pen-Say-Shun???
My late father liked to wind up some of his clients by arriving at a site on his R100S, then remove his one-piece waterproofs to reveal a suit & tie…
Yeah, I’ve done that. When I was auditing. Turn up on the bike. Pop the oversuit in the panniers and walk in in full business suit.
Examples:
Pub lunch (some with Go-Go dancers*) when at school: pub bar-staff asked us to remove blazers & ties – we did, not offended/annoyed
Pub when biker: pub bouncers asked us to remove leather jackets – we did, but annoyed
With work, found if I do first few appearances sans bike, then all OK. Annoying, but I accept as msm portray all bikers as bad “Hells Angels”
* Frequent haunt of some teachers – we ignored each other.