Restore Britain.

Wisbech Eagle said:
The owners were known to hold particular views so were targeted by political activists in an effort to expose them. Which they did. The fact that a Court ruled in the shop’s favour doesn’t change that. What it does is highlight the need to clarify the law so if it happened again they could not refuse.

The shop owners don’t have to make cakes with political messages. They don’t have to make any special cakes. They can just offer standard ones with a restricted list of messages. If though they offer to put a customer’s message on a cake they cannot impose their politics on the customer. The message isn’t theirs. They are the craftsmen.
Click to expand...

The law WAS clarified…by the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

They clarified that it wasn’t discrimination of any kind and that businesses cannot be compelled to promote messages that they do not want to. It confirmed that business and individuals CAN refuse…then, now and in the future. There is no ambiguity.

The cake makers (Ashers Baking Company Ltd.) were in no way trying to impose their politics on the customer. To suggest this is wrong, unfair and a complete misrepresentation, either deliberately or because you do not know the facts of the case. They chose simply not to supply a cake with a particular message decorated on it, as was their right, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
They did refuse to sell him the cake! They might have been prepared to sell him an alternative but not the one they had contracted to make.

Any baker, whatever their religious beliefs, or none, who offers to make cakes to the customer’s specification, accepts an order but then refuses for any reasons other than technical impossibility or force majeure would face the same problems here. In majority Muslim countries things may well be different.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

They did not refuse to sell Gareth Lee the cake, they refused to make or supply it…as was their right which was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Ashers Baking Company Ltd. undertook no such contract to supply the cake and were NOT contracted to supply this particular cake, requested by Gareth Lee.

Any British baker or bakery would not ‘face the same problems’ because the Supreme Court and ECHR have ruled that there was no discrimination and businesses cannot be compelled to promote a message that conflicts with their beliefs.

You really do talk some absolute nonsense.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Secondly, asking anyone to produce something with the phrase “Support Gay Marriage” isn’t illegal. It’s campaigning. The same applies to printers producing signs or posters. Not just cake bakers. The cake, and its message, wasn’t theirs. Only the ingredients and their time were. If you cannot separate your personal beliefs from your duties to your customers then you ought not be in business. Whether it was Mr Lee’s sexuality or the message that caused the refusal it was still discriminatory.

I know what the SC held. It is very convoluted and spends a lot of time on the earlier judgements and whether the Courts followed correct procedures. Yes, the Asher’s bakery’s rights to hold opinions are considered under the Convention but their judgement turned much more on whether, under NI law, discrimination was proven. With this being very specifically defined this was the weakness that the Asher’s Barrister exploited and what has shown that the current law is inadequate to deal with this kind of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Again, you are completely misrepresenting the Supreme Court ruling.

Their ruling was unanimous and they made it very clear…ther was NO discrimination of any kind. There was no sexual orientation discrimination, there was no political our religious discrimination, with specific reference to Northern Ireland law.

Furthermore, The Supreme Court did not just ‘consider’ Ashers right to hold opinions, it found unanimously in their favour and confirmed their right to Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Expression, Articles 9 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

There has been no trigger for legislative change and there have been no amendments (or any proposed) to the Equality Act 2010, following the Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd. hearing and final ruling. This was confirmed in January 2022 when the European Court on Human Rights endorsed the ruling of the Supreme Court and ended the legal proceedings without requiring or recommending any legislative changes. To suggest the current law is ‘inadequate’ is folly and totally misrepresents the Supreme Court and ECHR’s final rulings.
 
I will 100% be switching from reform to restore, they align more with my beliefs, reform are just a rebranded Conservative party, plus I couldn't trust farage as far as I could throw him.

I couldn't care less if I split the vote on the right, if the left win the next general election then I'll just carry on with my life as I do now.
 
Stirlingsays said:
You married her, so no, that won't be happening.
Click to expand...
I don't in a million years believe that Rupert Lowe is some kind of Steve Laws idiot.

I do however think some of his supporters would want the Steve laws approach.

Unfortunately this happens.

Many people were too stupid and emotional to understand Tommy Robinson in his earlier days and projected their own ignorance onto him.

They will do the same with Lowe.

I've seen some conservative podcasters like the lotus eaters and jolly heretic being very sympathetic to Steve Laws. That was unfortunate.

We have to a least try and get on. Deporting millions will not only not work, but will be impossible to implement.
 
Mattconrov said:
I don't in a million years believe that Rupert Lowe is some kind of Steve Laws idiot.

I do however think some of his supporters would want the Steve laws approach.

Unfortunately this happens.

Many people were too stupid and emotional to understand Tommy Robinson in his earlier days and projected their own ignorance onto him.

They will do the same with Lowe.

I've seen some conservative podcasters like the lotus eaters and jolly heretic being very sympathetic to Steve Laws. That was unfortunate.

We have to a least try and get on. Deporting millions will not only not work, but will be impossible to implement.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree with Steve Laws but I can't say I agree with your apparent attitude either.

It's all a numbers game.

And I've been listening to 'we should all try to get on' for fifty years and it's led to what we have......So, I know that isn't going to happen. People who are winning and gaining advantage don't just start to play fair.

I only have to look at other countries to see what the future is unless Lowe gets his way.

But by all means, stay away from Restore, I don't think it's the right fit for you.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Olympic level logic chopping.
The Supreme Court and the ECHR disagreed. Case closed.
Click to expand...
This case was closed but the argument that lies behind it is alive and kicking. It might not be the most pressing of issues but it will be corrected in time.

Actually the ECHR said nothing about the merits of the case. They ruled it inadmissible because their procedures weren’t followed.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
This case was closed but the argument that lies behind it is alive and kicking. It might not be the most pressing of issues but it will be corrected in time.

Actually the ECHR said nothing about the merits of the case. They ruled it inadmissible because their procedures weren’t followed.
Click to expand...
Because there were no merits to the case. Would you expect a gay baker to produce a cake endorsing anti-gay sentiment?
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Because there were no merits to the case. Would you expect a gay baker to produce a cake endorsing anti-gay sentiment?
Click to expand...
The ECHR said nothing on the case. The just ruled they couldn’t hear it.

Yes, I expect everyone, whatever their personal views, who offers a service not to discriminate between customers or messaging. They are not connected in any way to the finished product or any message on it. They are accepting work for reward.

I would no more expect a gay baker to produce their own cake endorsing anti-gay sentiment than I would the fundamentalist Christian bakers to produce their own cake promoting gay marriage. I do though expect both to honour offers made that are not specifically limited. Any cakes made by them in such circumstances are not theirs and if they are incapable of separating personal beliefs from commercial obligations they ought not be in the business.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The ECHR said nothing on the case. The just ruled they couldn’t hear it.

Yes, I expect everyone, whatever their personal views, who offers a service not to discriminate between customers or messaging. They are not connected in any way to the finished product or any message on it. They are accepting work for reward.

I would no more expect a gay baker to produce their own cake endorsing anti-gay sentiment than I would the fundamentalist Christian bakers to produce their own cake promoting gay marriage. I do though expect both to honour offers made that are not specifically limited. Any cakes made by them in such circumstances are not theirs and if they are incapable of separating personal beliefs from commercial obligations they ought not be in the business.
Click to expand...
Accepting work for reward is optional is it not ?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The ECHR said nothing on the case. The just ruled they couldn’t hear it.

Yes, I expect everyone, whatever their personal views, who offers a service not to discriminate between customers or messaging. They are not connected in any way to the finished product or any message on it. They are accepting work for reward.

I would no more expect a gay baker to produce their own cake endorsing anti-gay sentiment than I would the fundamentalist Christian bakers to produce their own cake promoting gay marriage. I do though expect both to honour offers made that are not specifically limited. Any cakes made by them in such circumstances are not theirs and if they are incapable of separating personal beliefs from commercial obligations they ought not be in the business.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court said, “nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top