So basically just a point of law rather than a ruling on the merits of his case. But really no business should be compelled to endorse political speech by anyone.
Nearly 8 years because he couldn’t get a cake baked. Pretty embarrassing all round really
*”None of us should be expected to have to figure out the beliefs of a company’s owners before going into their shop or paying for their services,”* Mr Lee said.
In the same spirit, would it be appropriate to sue a bakery owned by an LGBTQ person if they refused to bake a cake with a picture of JK Rowling with the words ‘Support Women’s Rights’ on it then?
I thought private businesses could support what they want? See Twitter.
I suppose the result is almost academic as they are now known, as per the title of this thread, as the ‘Ashers Gay Cake Company’
Fucking hell Karen 8 years of legal action over a cake just go to another bakery.
What I’ve never got with stuff with this that I’ve not seen explained is –
Why would you want to give money, business to a company that is bigoted against you?
Why are you not taking you’re money else where?
It’s an interesting case. On one hand the baker is wrong because they suggest being gay is wrong by virtue of this briefs (it’s just a cake, no harm done to them to get it made despite beliefs) but on the other hand the claimant could vote with their wallet and go elsewhere (plenty of bakers, it’s just a cake nothing deeply challenging).
The real issue here is that the claimant in this instance seems to have taken having a cake baked as a media, political or social issue rather than a legal issue by not using all UK options by jumping straight to the ECtHR which, rightfully, have ruled against the claimant. All options were not exhausted in the UK. It’s not for the ECtHR to make these decisions so early on.
If a standard business doesn’t want your custom you would go elsewhere and use word of mouth to vent criticism. A customer does not have a legal right to force a business to work with or for them *(unless the business is actively doing it to discriminate against the individual – the product itself doesn’t count as was the case here)*. Standard here meaning no extremely complex skills required. Going to court isn’t needed and is only necessary when there’s a legal issue, and the bakers were pretty civil if I recall clearly (it was 8 years ago). They did not use hate speech or issue anything threatening or nasty, it’s up to them if they have dated views and if they’re happy to lost business that’s up to them. It feels to me it’s an issue of a fragile ego than a need to do good by the claimant.
*Edit: To clarify.*
I’m gay and I agree with this decision. You can’t force anyone to do something against their beliefs even if you believe those beliefs are incorrect.
It’s a pretty shitty thing to do to try to force your will on others , that’s not equality that’s inequality to your own side.
Religion: Driving wedges in communities since time immemorial.
Just say “No” to imaginary friends.
The whole story takes a funny turn when you learn he had to ask several bakeries before he found one that wasn’t happy to make the cake. Fishing for victim hood, very lucrative.
As a big advocate for LGBT rights, I think this is the right call.
While the baker in question is clearly bigoted, I’d say that a business being asked to make something specific and turning that down shouldn’t be a problem.
Now if the bakery was refusing to serve the man because he’s gay, then sure that’d be a problem. But that’s not the situation at hand.
I dread to think the amount the lawyers and courts have spent on this. What a farce
The bakery should’ve taken all the details and refused with a neutral answer “Sorry we can’t fulfil your order we’re too busy.”
The person ordering it should’ve let this shit go by now. It’s JUST a cake. Leave them a bad review and kick up a stink on North Down Mums 2 like the rest of us.
Important that this isnt misconstrued-
As i understand it this decision is purely a technical one- the European Court of Human Rights couldnt consider the case because at no point had the case explicitly brought up human rights while it was going through the UK courts.
The ECHR requires that applicants have exhausted their domestic remedies for human rights before theyll consider a case, so that hadnt happened here.
15 comments
So basically just a point of law rather than a ruling on the merits of his case. But really no business should be compelled to endorse political speech by anyone.
Nearly 8 years because he couldn’t get a cake baked. Pretty embarrassing all round really
*”None of us should be expected to have to figure out the beliefs of a company’s owners before going into their shop or paying for their services,”* Mr Lee said.
In the same spirit, would it be appropriate to sue a bakery owned by an LGBTQ person if they refused to bake a cake with a picture of JK Rowling with the words ‘Support Women’s Rights’ on it then?
I thought private businesses could support what they want? See Twitter.
I suppose the result is almost academic as they are now known, as per the title of this thread, as the ‘Ashers Gay Cake Company’
Fucking hell Karen 8 years of legal action over a cake just go to another bakery.
What I’ve never got with stuff with this that I’ve not seen explained is –
Why would you want to give money, business to a company that is bigoted against you?
Why are you not taking you’re money else where?
It’s an interesting case. On one hand the baker is wrong because they suggest being gay is wrong by virtue of this briefs (it’s just a cake, no harm done to them to get it made despite beliefs) but on the other hand the claimant could vote with their wallet and go elsewhere (plenty of bakers, it’s just a cake nothing deeply challenging).
The real issue here is that the claimant in this instance seems to have taken having a cake baked as a media, political or social issue rather than a legal issue by not using all UK options by jumping straight to the ECtHR which, rightfully, have ruled against the claimant. All options were not exhausted in the UK. It’s not for the ECtHR to make these decisions so early on.
If a standard business doesn’t want your custom you would go elsewhere and use word of mouth to vent criticism. A customer does not have a legal right to force a business to work with or for them *(unless the business is actively doing it to discriminate against the individual – the product itself doesn’t count as was the case here)*. Standard here meaning no extremely complex skills required. Going to court isn’t needed and is only necessary when there’s a legal issue, and the bakers were pretty civil if I recall clearly (it was 8 years ago). They did not use hate speech or issue anything threatening or nasty, it’s up to them if they have dated views and if they’re happy to lost business that’s up to them. It feels to me it’s an issue of a fragile ego than a need to do good by the claimant.
*Edit: To clarify.*
I’m gay and I agree with this decision. You can’t force anyone to do something against their beliefs even if you believe those beliefs are incorrect.
It’s a pretty shitty thing to do to try to force your will on others , that’s not equality that’s inequality to your own side.
Religion: Driving wedges in communities since time immemorial.
Just say “No” to imaginary friends.
The whole story takes a funny turn when you learn he had to ask several bakeries before he found one that wasn’t happy to make the cake. Fishing for victim hood, very lucrative.
As a big advocate for LGBT rights, I think this is the right call.
While the baker in question is clearly bigoted, I’d say that a business being asked to make something specific and turning that down shouldn’t be a problem.
Now if the bakery was refusing to serve the man because he’s gay, then sure that’d be a problem. But that’s not the situation at hand.
I dread to think the amount the lawyers and courts have spent on this. What a farce
The bakery should’ve taken all the details and refused with a neutral answer “Sorry we can’t fulfil your order we’re too busy.”
The person ordering it should’ve let this shit go by now. It’s JUST a cake. Leave them a bad review and kick up a stink on North Down Mums 2 like the rest of us.
Important that this isnt misconstrued-
As i understand it this decision is purely a technical one- the European Court of Human Rights couldnt consider the case because at no point had the case explicitly brought up human rights while it was going through the UK courts.
The ECHR requires that applicants have exhausted their domestic remedies for human rights before theyll consider a case, so that hadnt happened here.