The £36.50 cake that cost UK taxpayers £250,000 – and there is still no cake!
The Ashers ‘gay cake’ court decision has stirred a hornet’s nest and has set the stage for a major showdown between supporting freedom of speech and freedom of choice.
For those who are not in the loop – The UK Supreme Court ruled that a Northern Ireland baker’s refusal to make a cake with the slogan “support gay marriage” in 2014 was not discriminatory.
The customer, Gareth Lee sued Ashers for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political beliefs.
Lee felt the refusal to deliver a cake by Ashers made him feel like a second-class citizen.
The baker, on the other hand, said the refusal was based on the slogan and not the customer.
Ashers general manager Daniel McArthur had this to say: “Family businesses like ours are free to focus on giving all their customers the best service they can – without being forced to promote other people’s campaigns.”
The £500,000 legal battle that took four and a half years and was paid for by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ie taxpayer’s money – or in simple terms, our money), while the baker’s bill was picked up by The Christian Institute, a charity and lobby group.
These are some comments made on the ruling:
John Larkin – Northern Ireland AG
“This decision provides an important protection against any misapplication of our equality law that would seek to compel citizens to express views with which they may disagree on grounds of their deeply held political or religious beliefs.”
Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Campaigner
“If the original judgement against Ashers had been upheld, it would have meant that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be forced to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial.”
Traditional Unionist Voice leader Jim Allister
“The effort to impose the LGBT agenda on Christian businesses by compelling promotion of their political demands, irrespective of the conscience or religious belief of the business owner, needed to be reined in.”
John O’Doherty – The Rainbow Project
“We believe this is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification.”
DUP leader Arlene Foster
“This now provides clarity for people of all faiths and none.”
Robert Hill, UKIP Northern Ireland
“This is a great decision in favour of religious freedom and in favour of freedom of speech and expression.”
Some of the comments above are beyond belief.
The decision does not provide clarity. It is not in favour of religious freedom nor is it in favour of freedom of speech and/or expression.
The judges looked at both arguments and decided to give more weight to the freedom of the baker (ie small businesses) against a client (ie you and me). It was not an issue of who was right or wrong. It seems like the judges had to rule on whose rights were more important!
The honourable judges, rightly or wrongly, looked at the reasons why service was refused and decided it was not discriminatory but in fact, had ruled in favour of the exercise of personal belief and right OVER that of a customer’s.
To tell you the truth, both sides of the case have their own merit. But giving credence to the baker, simply gives the message to all that services can be refused if the customer’s request does not comply with the management’s beliefs.
No doubt, it was not an easy case BUT this simply cannot be acceptable – not in this country and not in the world we live in today.
There are so many countries where freedom of speech does not exist, where freedom of thought can attract dire consequences.
At the end of the day, all of us have the right to express ourselves. Have we lost this right?
PS Purely on a commercial, contractual basis, the baker took Lee’s money and only a few days later refused to honour the deal and deliver the cake.
I am a bit perplexed. Did anyone raise the issue that there was a breach of contract? Shouldn’t that be the issue, especially if Lee is supposed to have a cake with the slogan for an event? Did he have time to have another cake made?
Shouldn’t breach of contract be the issue? That would have been a fairer way to go!
TotallyNotPC 