Gay Cake Gate Thrown Out.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-59882444

[pat2604]

I'm trying to now work out why SK being anti gay marriage has anything to do with this thread and why it was posted - unless to cause trouble

Incidentally, we have two gay marriages in our family and nobody gives a damn or even talks about it. But that's got nothing to do with the thread.

[SparklyKid]

Hi Pat. The only people causing trouble were the cake orderers.

[pat2604]

But they are not on this thread Sparky.

[bednobs]

"but the application of the law is, as it should be, applied equally in all areas of the UK."
bit it really isn't!

[bednobs]

for example, abortions were not legal until very recently

[Redhelen72]

Bednobs and strictly speaking are still not as the law was not passed by Stormont but by Westminster so there are many that claim it is not legal!

[mushroom25]

^^^ gay marriage was enacted by the same westminster legislation so the same argument could well apply to that too.

[Ellipsis]

> The only people causing trouble were the cake orderers.

They placed an order, the order was accepted, then a week later they got a call to say it wasn't accepted after all, and why. So some fault lies with the order takers, i.e. the bakery ...

[dave50]

Would have been interesting if the bakers had been Muslim and refused to bake the cake. The usual suspects would be tying themselves up in knots.

[New Judge]

//…the bakery owners were successfully prosecuted under the law//

//Then what was the basis for the couple successfully taking the bakers to court?//

//As I understand it, the Supreme Court reversed the original ruling - therefore there must have been an original successful court ruling for the SC to overturn - ?//

Then you misunderstand, Andy. In the UK the legal process is not complete until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted by those to whom those avenues are open. This can involve the Crown Court, the High Court or Court of Appeal (as appropriate) and the Supreme Court. Convictions and civil rulings are often overturned in the higher courts, particularly when matters of law, not made clear in the statute, are disputed.

This action was ultimately unsuccessful and any that follow with similar characteristics are likely to be equally unsuccessful as the Supreme Court ruling sets a precedent which can be cited. The idea that the action was “successful in the interim” before being finally dismissed is rather like saying a football team is successful if they are leading at half-time or at the end of a two-legged tie.

//They preferred to pronounce from their very high horse, and paid the price for their arrogant bigotry.//

But they didn’t, though, did they?

//Bednobs and strictly speaking are still not as the law was not passed by Stormont but by Westminster so there are many that claim it is not legal!//

Ah! Devolution rears its ugly head!. You must remember, Helen, that the devolved administrations are precisely that – devolved. They are not independent. They act under devolved powers from Westminster in certain agreed areas only and those powers can be modified or withdrawn. The arrangement is that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter for all civil cases in the UK and the final court of appeal for criminal cases in England, Wales and NI. Scotland has its own distinctive legal system (which existed long before devolution) and, with one or two very limited exceptions, has its own final arbiter known as the High Court of Justiciary.

[andy-hughes]

dave50 - // Would have been interesting if the bakers had been Muslim and refused to bake the cake. The usual suspects would be tying themselves up in knots. //

But as experience shows, Muslims are pragmatic enough not to hurt their businesses, and to understand that their religious practices are no-one else's business - pun intended.

[andy-hughes]

Thanks New Judge for your usual succinct and informative post.

[Spicerack]

andy-hughesdave50 - // Would have been interesting if the bakers had been Muslim and refused to bake the cake. The usual suspects would be tying themselves up in knots. //

'But as experience shows, Muslims are pragmatic enough not to hurt their businesses, and to understand that their religious practices are no-one else's business - pun intended.'
https://gloria.tv/post/o6t83fwqnZyn1M7e1SHFtXG2o

[Spicerack]

[pixie374]

I have read the whole thread, yet. Shame it was dismissed on a technicality. If people don't bother to challenge the "little" every day things, we would never get anywhere.
The bakers can think whatever they like, but can't and shouldn't, force it on other people. They are obviously in the wrong job.

[tomus42]

The bakers didn't force anything on anyone pixie. I think they objected to something being forced on them.

[pixie374]

It wasn't forced on them, tomas, just an order they accepted.

[pixie374]

And when they did change their minds, freely admitted it was from illegal homophobic prejudices. I hope they did lose business... being religious, shouldn't put you above the law.

[naomi24]

//The bakers can think whatever they like, but can't and shouldn't, force it on other people. They are obviously in the wrong job. //

Wonky logic.

01.37. Good post, spicerack. The land of the free....

[barry1010]

If I were a baker there are many things that are legal that I would refuse to promote on a cake especially if the buyer intended to put my business to it.
I hope I'd be savvy enough not to tell the customer why I was refusing the business but of course that can backfire.