Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
In case you forgot (though I suspect you haven’t), Ashers never refused service, they simply refused to reproduce a specific campaigning slogan that did not align with their company’s values. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Ashers won.
It is now established case law in the UK that nobody can be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagree with. That case law cannot be overturned by any British court, given that it’s the decision of the highest court in the land. Only Parliament could change it, by writing legislation that would amount to compelling speech - a hopelessly illiberal idea that is vastly, vastly unlikely ever to occur.
None of which is in any way relevant to a bank closing someone’s account because they don’t like their politics.
|
What the case did show is that business can choose not to serve a customer outside of reasons of discrimination due to protected categories. This is the case here. I have read the published memo now and it looks like the bank decided that the reputational and potential future regulatory risk was not worth it. It’s public knowledge that Nigel Farage is a Coutts customer and the risk managers didn’t want the bank to be associated with his statements and positions.
The only way out is regulation to force banks to keep and possibly accept new customers. Is more banking regulation really what Nigel Farage and his friends want?