Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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.
|
I said "their choice of bakers", so who did you think I was referring to as "their"? How could "their" refer to the bakers?
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?