Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
You're assuming their choice of bakers wasn't intentionally vindictive and discriminatory.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
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.
|
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.