Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36108338)

On the contrary - the bakers’ defence throughout has been that they were nothing of the sort. They have said so under oath. It is no mere assumption to hold that position with regard to this case.

This has always been an argument that an individual cannot be compelled to speak contrary to their conscience. The bakers have stated repeatedly that they were happy to sell the plaintiff any cake in their shop but that they would not create a product containing a slogan contrary to their own sincerely held religious belief.

Compelled speech is, and must always be, prevented in law.

---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------



I would be surprised if they are allowed to bring a fresh case on new grounds. It would ultimately be the same complaint, just with different legal arguments to be presented. Were they to try, it’s likely Ashers’ lawyers would move to have them declared vexatious litigants, which is not something you want against your name.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36108340)

I said "their choice of bakers", so who did you think I was referring to as "their"? How could "their" refer to the bakers?:confused:

You're assuming that the complainants raison d'etre isn't to be "vexatious litigants". It started over 7 years ago, so what isn't "vexatious" about that?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36108341)

Apologies … I read your words back to front and thought you were discussing the bakers’ motivation when you were actually referring to the complainant.

As to the other issue, it’s not vexatious to pursue appeals through the process set down in law, all the way to the Supreme Court if the legal arguments justify it (which clearly they did here).

However, for them to now go back to the county court (or whatever its equivalent in NI) would in my view be vexatious. The complainant felt injured and had a range of options when it came to persuading the court to side with him. If his legal team made bad arguments then that’s his loss.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36108343)

Over £250,000 being spent just by the NI Equality Commission, along with the costs of other people/organisations, over a cake costing £36.50, isn't vexatious?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36108344)

No - vexatious has a particular meaning in law, and it wouldn’t apply to the process so far.

It most definitely is ridiculous though, and it leaves me wondering whether the complainant might have taken offence rather more easily than it was offered.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36108326)

As is all too often, people not seeing past the headline.
Once he does that in the UK, it starts all over again. The grounds used to bring the case to the ECHR, hadn't been brought before the UK courts.

Ultimately they didn't discriminate against him as a customer, they just weren't prepared to produce that specific item. Just as halal-only Subways are (illegally) allowed to operate.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36108350)

We can all move on. He can choose to take his business elsewhere and they can choose to bake something that doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36108351)

Is the cake shop still in business?

---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

EDIT: Appears so: https://www.ashersbakingco.com/

Bigger than I thought, I had assumed it was a small shop and therefore this publicity/legal trouble might have been too much. Seems they're doing fine though.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36108382)

I agree with the ruling in the end that you can't compel someone to create a message and it's not the same as refusing service.

That said given the size of the business, multiple stores and a supplier for supermarkets, I do wonder why someone else in the business couldn't make the cake? I originally thought it was a single, independent, baker run by this couple and they personally had to bake it against their religious beliefs.

If you're religious and you run a business is it the case that those values should flow down the entire company? That the business itself cannot produce the cake irrespective of the personal beliefs of the person actually writing that message?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36108382)

I agree with the ruling in the end that you can't compel someone to create a message and it's not the same as refusing service.

That said given the size of the business, multiple stores and a supplier for supermarkets, I do wonder why someone else in the business couldn't make the cake? I originally thought it was a single, independent, baker run by this couple and they personally had to bake it against their religious beliefs.

If you're religious and you run a business is it the case that those values should flow down the entire company? That the business itself cannot produce the cake irrespective of the personal beliefs of the person actually writing that message?