Northern Ireland: Bakers have no right to free speech

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

Yet another gay wedding cake case, this one over in the UK, tho it goes slightly further than similar ones here in the States, as the cake in question wasn't for a gay wedding, but was an explicitly political cake for an event calling for Northern Ireland to recognize SSM.  As far as I can tell at this remove, it does appear that the case was decided correctly according to the law, but as I've said before, I find the idea that being in business means giving up all rights to free speech or freedom of religion to be abhorrent. In the Northern Ireland context, imagine if a Orangeman ordered a cake for The Twelfth from a baker who opposed their strident Unionism. Under the logic of this ruling, they'd have no choice but to produce the cake.

Let me be clear. I think the business here was acting stupidly, yet I think they should have the right to act.  Rather than tort, I think protest, including boycott or picketing would have been appropriate responses to their discrimination. People have no right to not be offended, and failure to make a cake with specific decorations creates no greater impingement upon someone than that of being offended.

[Hifly]

In a way this is good news because it will help advance our cause for Religious Freedom.
Gay Marriage will still remain illegal in Northern Ireland regardless of this ruling so the activists can suck on it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In a way this is good news because it will help advance our cause for Religious Freedom.
Gay Marriage will still remain illegal in Northern Ireland regardless of this ruling so the activists can suck on it.

Doubtful.  Even if the current court case fails,  I don't think it'll be that long before same-sex marriages in Northern Ireland are recognized as marriages instead of as civil partnerships.  I think it's only because, like many unrelated issues, SSM has gotten caught up in Unionist/Nationalist politics that it hasn't happened yet.  It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are treated equally under the law in Northern Ireland, as they ought to be.

[Hifly]

Marriage will depend on the stability of the unionist majority.

What really buggers people about this particular case, is that it redefines the scope within which the law can be interpreted.
What Asher's were doing was refusing to bake a cake with a slogan promoting something that is in fact illegal in NI. How the judge was able to rule the way she did was surprising to me, personally.
It will promote the cause of the Bakery itself. I don't know if there's word of appeals already.

[afleitch]

Actually, all the test cases brought by Christians (almost exclusively against gays I might add) against UK Equality Law on issues from cakes, to marriages to healthcare, counselling and massaging people's feet (seriously) have failed for pretty much the same reasons and have ultimately strengthened case law through precedent.

[MaxQue]

In a way this is good news because it will help advance our cause for Religious Freedom.
Gay Marriage will still remain illegal in Northern Ireland regardless of this ruling so the activists can suck on it.

Doubtful.  Even if the current court case fails,  I don't think it'll be that long before same-sex marriages in Northern Ireland are recognized as marriages instead of as civil partnerships.  I think it's only because, like many unrelated issues, SSM has gotten caught up in Unionist/Nationalist politics that it hasn't happened yet.  It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are treated equally under the law in Northern Ireland, as they ought to be.

Doubt it. DUP didn't went over legalisation of homosexuality yet.

[Famous Mortimer]

Marriage will depend on the stability of the unionist majority.

What really buggers people about this particular case, is that it redefines the scope within which the law can be interpreted.
What Asher's were doing was refusing to bake a cake with a slogan promoting something that is in fact illegal in NI. How the judge was able to rule the way she did was surprising to me, personally.
It will promote the cause of the Bakery itself. I don't know if there's word of appeals already.

The two Catholic community parties have never been big on social liberalism. So this isn't only a Unionist issue.

[ag]

The Baker has every right to produce a cake against gay marriage - in that sense his free speech is not infringed. Nor is the speech he finds distatesteful is imputed to him: everybody is aware that it is by some group he has nothing to do with. The issue is, merely, wheter he can discriminate in service provision based on the content involved. But that is very different from speech.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Baker has every right to produce a cake against gay marriage - in that sense his free speech is not infringed. Nor is the speech he finds distasteful is imputed to him: everybody is aware that it is by some group he has nothing to do with. The issue is, merely, whether he can discriminate in service provision based on the content involved. But that is very different from speech.

Nor was that the sense I was saying his rights were infringed. The argument that the baker had no role in the content of the intended speech is disingenuous, especially when it comes to weddings and the obvious symbolism of a cake with respect to wedding related issues. I seriously doubt that anyone here would argue that if that if the gay marriage advocates had been unable to find a baker who would make the cake they desired, then the failure to make their cake would not have impinged the free speech abilities of gay marriage advocates. (That they were able to find another baker who would make their cake, and apparently quite easily, shows clearly that the free speech rights of gay marriage advocates were not impinged at all.)

You are arguing that providing service is purely business and never has political implications.  Yet if that were the case then boycotting and sanctions would be an invalid method of affecting change.  After all, doing business with say, apartheid-era South Africa, a company owned by Zionist settlers in the West Bank, or a Russian oligarch who supplies the sham Novorossiyan "republics" is merely business and should not be interfered with if business never has implications other than business.

However, clearly business is not always "mere" business, and I strongly believe that the state should never act as if it were.  Now at times, it is necessary for the state to decide which right will be impinged when two rights come into conflict. I fail to see what right of gay marriage advocates was impinged when the baker asserted a free speech/freedom of association right by refusing to make a political cake.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In a way this is good news because it will help advance our cause for Religious Freedom.
Gay Marriage will still remain illegal in Northern Ireland regardless of this ruling so the activists can suck on it.

Doubtful.  Even if the current court case fails,  I don't think it'll be that long before same-sex marriages in Northern Ireland are recognized as marriages instead of as civil partnerships.  I think it's only because, like many unrelated issues, SSM has gotten caught up in Unionist/Nationalist politics that it hasn't happened yet.  It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are treated equally under the law in Northern Ireland, as they ought to be.

Doubt it. DUP didn't went over legalisation of homosexuality yet.

There were a few Unionists who voted in favor of recognition and no non-Unionists who voted against it.  It will have to wait until at least the next Northern Ireland Assembly is elected next year and maybe until after the 2021 elections , but I think that as younger Unionists take office, the number of Unionist MLAs supporting full recognition of SSM will only increase.  As it was, the 2013 vote was defeated by only a plurality of the Assembly and not a majority. It would take only a net change of 6 votes from nay to yea (6 full changes, 12 half changes of nay to not voting or not voting to yea, or some combination thereof) to pass recognition. 2016 would be optimistic but not impossible. 2021 looks almost certain.

[MaxQue]

In a way this is good news because it will help advance our cause for Religious Freedom.
Gay Marriage will still remain illegal in Northern Ireland regardless of this ruling so the activists can suck on it.

Doubtful.  Even if the current court case fails,  I don't think it'll be that long before same-sex marriages in Northern Ireland are recognized as marriages instead of as civil partnerships.  I think it's only because, like many unrelated issues, SSM has gotten caught up in Unionist/Nationalist politics that it hasn't happened yet.  It's only a matter of time before same-sex marriages are treated equally under the law in Northern Ireland, as they ought to be.

Doubt it. DUP didn't went over legalisation of homosexuality yet.

There were a few Unionists who voted in favor of recognition and no non-Unionists who voted against it.  It will have to wait until at least the next Northern Ireland Assembly is elected next year and maybe until after the 2021 elections , but I think that as younger Unionists take office, the number of Unionist MLAs supporting full recognition of SSM will only increase.  As it was, the 2013 vote was defeated by only a plurality of the Assembly and not a majority. It would take only a net change of 6 votes from nay to yea (6 full changes, 12 half changes of nay to not voting or not voting to yea, or some combination thereof) to pass recognition. 2016 would be optimistic but not impossible. 2021 looks almost certain.

Doesn't NI require a double majority to pass bills (a majority of Catholic and a majority of Protestant MLAs?)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Doesn't NI require a double majority to pass bills (a majority of Catholic and a majority of Protestant MLAs?)

Not on every vote.  This isn't one that would automatically trigger a double vote, and even then the support level required is 60% overall plus 40% of both the Unionists and Nationalists.  Conceivably, one could be called for, but even then, that probably only delays adoption of SSM by a decade at the most assuming neither the courts nor Westminster intervene in the interim.

Oddly enough, how SCOTUS rules on the issue here may affect the outcome of the NI case.  If SCOTUS rules that States can refuse to recognize SSM directly but must recognize SSMs done in other States, I could see the British courts ruling similarly thus giving NI de facto SSM by same-sex couples there going to Britain to get married.

[Hifly]

Marriage will depend on the stability of the unionist majority.

What really buggers people about this particular case, is that it redefines the scope within which the law can be interpreted.
What Asher's were doing was refusing to bake a cake with a slogan promoting something that is in fact illegal in NI. How the judge was able to rule the way she did was surprising to me, personally.
It will promote the cause of the Bakery itself. I don't know if there's word of appeals already.

The two Catholic community parties have never been big on social liberalism. So this isn't only a Unionist issue.

I think social liberalism is the wrong word here; they're pro-life parties.

[Lief 🗽]

since when is piping icing on to a cake considered speech?! jesus christ.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

since when is piping icing on to a cake considered speech?! jesus christ.

Since when does the form of speech affect whether it's speech? Altho arguably, the baker here is more analogous to that of a publisher and thus this would fall under freedom of the press.