It was obvious that the bakery owners did not discriminate against Lee because he was a homosexual. The bakery owners objected to the message that he/she/they/other wanted on the cake. Whatever the sexual tastes of Lee had been they would have refused to put the message on the cake. Certainly the case should not have got to the Supreme Court. The original judge, Isobel Brownlie, had a record of bringing in dubious verdicts in favour of left-wing interests and no doubt the importance and reverence given to gay matters influenced her and the Appeal Court.

If standing silently in a street that you are perfectly entitled to stand in, while possible silently praying, is unlawful, then we have serious problems with freedom in this country.

You know full well about the scuffed Koran case – it is just yet another example you being disingenuous.

Edited by georgenorman (09 Mar 2023 6.40am)

I have none at all. I haven't just not read it, I haven't noticed it anywhere. I don't look for such stories or read the tabloids either.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

What the motivations of the bakery owners were are actually an irrelevance, even though they are frequently referenced.

The actual point is, and was when the case was brought, that if you offer a service for reward then you don't own the product of any work you do, and nor do you have any responsibility for it.

Your job is to do the work. A builder is responsible for safely doing construction. He neither owns the building, nor the design produced by the architect. He can refuse the work, because he cannot agree the reward, is too busy to meet the expected timelines or doesn't have the right equipment. Refusing because he doesn't like what the building will be called would be an offence to common sense.

The cake baker wasn't promoting, or even condoning, anything. They had no need to put their work on display. Their job was to make it, including some iced letters, and be blind to what they might say. If they offer a service then they cannot discriminate.

They have a choice. If they cannot accept such terms then they must withdraw the service. Not just to some, but to all.

If protecting people from being intimidated into not being able to exercise their lawful rights is going to be threatened by religious zealots, then we will indeed be threatening freedom. Especially when their own rights are being fully protected as well.

I have told you I had no knowledge of the case. I still don't. So you don't know "full well". Not for the first time you are talking bs.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Maybe most of the “mainstream” media chose not to report in much detail. I mean, an autistic boy who has received death threats, to afraid to go to school and has had to move home is not newsworthy

I followed the "gay cake" case and read the SC judgement which, as I said was on a point of law. It was found in the Asher's favour because they claimed their objections were not to the client being gay, but to the message itself.

My argument is that this is an irrelevance and that whatever message was requested doesn't matter. It's not their cake, nor their message. The bakers are merely subcontractors whose only interest is in the ingredients. They don't own it and are neither selling nor promoting it.

Therefore, whilst the reasoning of the Court might have been right on the point of law being reviewed it wasn't in the wider context of what is justice in these circumstances. I trust a government will address this. If I was an MP I would be bringing in a Private Members bill to do so.

As you have never been pregnant, in a crisis, confused and looking for support and advice on what to do, I don't see how you can possibly judge someone who is. If they don't want to be faced by somebody with a known reputation and attitude then that's intimidation. If the authorities have decided such behaviour cannot take place in a specific location, that's the law and the Police must see it is respected. When there are a million other locations where she could silently pray why choose that one? Unless it is to attract attention or intimidate. Your excuses are bs.

I saw your link. I not only haven't seen the story I am not interested in it. So have ignored it. I ignore many such stories. Just check the threads here I ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Clearly the Ashers did not refuse to make the cake because Lee was a homosexual and political activist. They had served him before and would have refused the order whoever made it. On the wider point, my view is that any business or individual should have the right to refuse their services to anyone for whatever reason they choose. (If I was an MP I would be bringing in a Private Members bill to do so.)

So one’s views or judgements are only valid if you have personally experienced the thing being judged? I’ve never burgled a house or been burgled, but I disapprove of burglary. You seem to have strong views on practically everything under the sun – have you experienced everything under the sun?

I’m not surprised that you ignore the story. What are your views on an autistic 14-year-old being terrified, receiving death threats and being forced to leave his home, while the police nod along to some mullah tacitly approving of this. (Or perhaps you don’t have a view, as you have not personally experienced such things?)

Edited by georgenorman (10 Mar 2023 8.16am)