• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Christian bakers 'gay cake' appeal defeat

CheltenhamHacker said:
Do you really need to ask though SILH? You've already established you would be breaking the law if you denied them, and I can't believe any senior person would recommend that...
Click to expand...

Unlikely as it is - such as Stonewall asking to hire our hall might well put us in a difficult position. And I actually don't know 100% what our response would be given the sensitivity of same-sex marriage and the perception hiring out to Stonewall would give to the congregation. I am pretty sure we would hire it out - but I actually don't know. It's our hall and we should be able to hire it out or not to whoever we wish. The two things are separate but linked because we haven't yet made our decision on same-sex marriages being conducted in our church. And therein seems to be the issue.

Halloween is upon us soon. Now should we hire out our hall for a Halloween party?

As it happens in the URC we don't have any one person more senior than any other. And the minister is actually formally subordinate to the congregation.
 
Slab said:
I'm still stuck on the bold bit, if the two aren't linked/dependent in some way why might it not be appropriate to rent them the hall until a vote is taken on holding same sex marriage

The congregation would be consulted on the marriage aspect not who can hire the hall (unless the hiring of the hall is perceived as an endorsement of the marriage by elders , in which case a circular to the congregation explaining that the two are not related should suffice
Click to expand...

This is the issue. I hope that the forumers here can understand that gay marriage in our church is actually a very difficult thing to accept for some of our older church members especially. And as such it is a sensitive issue that we must handle carefully if we are going to get acceptance and approval. Being forced by law to rent our hall or rooms to a gay organisation does not make things any easier. But as previously said - I think we'd just do it and let the congregation know that it is no way connected with - or pre-judges - the marriage decision we have to make.
 
Much as I abhor discrimination - of almost any kind - I don't believe this was actually a case of discrimination! I'm sure they would have rejected the order in exactly the same way if it had been from a 'straight' customer also!

I'd also be interested to know whether, especially if the Bakers hadn't been a Company, the ruling would have been the same. I suspect there would have been an argument, under ECHR article 13, that requiring the bakers to produce the cake breached their Human Rights! The case may actually end up heading in that direction!

Sir Declan Morgan actually stated “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.”
 
Last edited:
Being gay is a protected characteristic, a political view on gay rights is not.
This is the crux of the matter.
If you accept that the order was refused because of the message (a view on gay rights) and not because the person ordering it was gay then the case against the baker has no basis.
 
Can you believe that 4 years on from when it happend and the supreme court issued their ruling today

And Sweep's post (above) nailed it

All Hail Judge Sweep :p
 
Unfortunately this all got swept away by the Christian Institute and the Equalities Commission. This judgement is brilliantly simple imho - A heterosexual man wanting to buy the same cake would also not have had the order fulfilled, therefore it was never about the sexual orientation of the individual and always about the message. Unfortunately the message is a raw topic in Northern Ireland but it is not illegal to either be in favor of it or against it.
 
RandG said:
£200,000 apparently for the defence, and again shows justice is only served properly to those who can afford it, which is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct, however both sides costs were covered by 'others', namely The Christian Institute and Equalities Commission. Had the Christian Institute not funded the defence I doubt very much if the bakers could have mounted a defence. It's a shocking waste of money all round (both public & 'private').
 
rksquire said:
Absolutely correct, however both sides costs were covered by 'others', namely The Christian Institute and Equalities Commission. Had the Christian Institute not funded the defence I doubt very much if the bakers could have mounted a defence. It's a shocking waste of money all round (both public & 'private').
Click to expand...

There is no way a local bakers could afford to take it that far and would've lost the case on the basis they couldn't finance taking it all the way, says everything about the legal system.
 
I get there needs to be a process but it does seem staggering that the district crt got it wrong, the appeal crt to that ruling also got it wrong and it took a supreme crt with 5 judges to arrive at the same common sense (even obvious) ruling that GM forum member ‘Judge Sweep’ (& doubtless a few others among us) arrived at in just a few minutes!

In the above I am taking a liberty in assuming that Sweep didn’t actually sit as one of the 5 supreme crt judges

The law should not be open to interpretation like this to enable the same evidence to be ruled in opposite ways, jeez even the rules of golf aren’t open to interpretation!
 
Religious beliefs/doctrine and intolerance/homophobia interlinked, who'd have guessed it.
It's 2018, even marriage as an institution itself is on the way out so the whole case is increasingly irrelevant anyway.
 
Well, footjoy won't embroider offensive names on their my joys shoes, and it appears now that they are right in not doing so. Shame. Some of my mates have interesting nicknames.
 
For me the ruling was quite simplistic and correct. Dare one say common sense prevailed. However the guy who eventually lost the case is not happy and now feels offended. Happen he had great difficulty in understanding the summing up.
 
Slab said:
I get there needs to be a process but it does seem staggering that the district crt got it wrong, the appeal crt to that ruling also got it wrong and it took a supreme crt with 5 judges to arrive at the same common sense (even obvious) ruling that GM forum member ‘Judge Sweep’ (& doubtless a few others among us) arrived at in just a few minutes!

In the above I am taking a liberty in assuming that Sweep didn’t actually sit as one of the 5 supreme crt judges

The law should not be open to interpretation like this to enable the same evidence to be ruled in opposite ways, jeez even the rules of golf aren’t open to interpretation!
Click to expand...
Well good luck with that one 😁

To remove tbe need for interpretation, the law would need to be absolutely precise on every conceivable scenario. Which the rules of golf don't do, not even for the simple activity of knocking a ball across a field with a stick. Imagine trying to achieve it for the entirety of human existence?
 
backwoodsman said:
Well good luck with that one 😁

To remove tbe need for interpretation, the law would need to be absolutely precise on every conceivable scenario. Which the rules of golf don't do, not even for the simple activity of knocking a ball across a field with a stick. Imagine trying to achieve it for the entirety of human existence?
Click to expand...

Especially when about half the planet are still taught that homosexuality is an abomination.
 
Blue in Munich said:
One expensive non-cake surely, as they refused the order... ;) Apparently it would only have been £36.50 if they had actually made it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But I’d wager the bakers had no idea it would go this far, for this long and cost this much when they refused it initially.

I’d also wager that this was a stunt at the very outset on the part of Gareth Lee. He was looking to pick a fight and he got one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Equality & Diversity in the NHS
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
Robster59
Robster59
Top