I recognise that there is another opinion on whether businesses have the right to refuse commissions because of personal beliefs. Which goes much wider than just the "gay-cake" case. As a humanist I think we are on a slippery slope if we allow such a principle to become established. Something all those who are concerned about the way religious views, of many kinds, have the potential to impact society and our way of life, ought to take seriously. I hope it is sorted out.

No-one has experienced everything, but some cannot experience some things. Men can never be pregnant, so have no possibility of ever experiencing the distress felt through an unwanted pregnancy, or even beginning to imagine what it must be like. I offer sympathy and compassion for circumstances I cannot truly comprehend. You just condemn.

Anyone being terrified of anything deserves the utmost support. That's the whole point.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (10 Mar 2023 9.38am)

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.

I am grateful for the agreement, thank you.

The police don't decide what is an offence, and what not. They just administer the law. Governments make it. Local authorities interpret it.

I would hope in a civilised western democracy it would always be illegal to build a concentration camp. Refusing to do illegal work is a duty. If our country ever descended to the use of such places, then all my previous views would be reversed. Such appalling things should be resisted at all times.

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.

The lady concerned had previous. She is well known to the Police and had been warned many times. She is a tool of an American religious anti-abortion movement trying to spread their activities over here. She wanted to be arrested for the publicity. Doing what she did, where she did it, was a demonstration. Move a street or two away, it wasn't, so no arrest would follow. Nobody stopped her praying. They stopped her demonstrating.

If your Mr Lineker bid for the work, won the contract, then yes he must meet his obligations.

The cake bakers were not asked to quote. They offer to make cakes for everyone, but refused a customer only because they objected, on personal grounds, to the wording the customer wanted on top.

They had nothing to do with those words and no interest in them, beyond the ingredients. Just as builder Lineker's only interest would be the building materials.

Builder Lineker can decide not to quote. A cake maker can decide not to offer to make cakes for others, and market only their own, icing them in whatever way they choose. Including, "don't support gay marriage" if that's their desire. Those are their cakes. Baked for a client, they aren't.

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.

She had previous for disrupting the ability of those wishing to exercise their rights and refusing to move on when requested to by the police. She is a well known activist whose very presence there could have been enough to intimidate. Praying had nothing to do with it. It was who she was, and where she was, that did. We aren't under threat unless we did anything remotely similar. Maybe standing by a gantry over the M25, carrying ladders and "stop-oil" signs, silently praying?

As I said I recognise there are two opinions and that this needs sorting out. If your "Muslim" bakers fear upsetting their mullah more than abiding by the law then they don't offer to bake cakes for others. Their free choice. In many countries your Jewish bakers would tell the police what their client had requested as holocaust denial is illegal. It isn't, yet, in the UK so telling the newspapers and then subcontracting the work to a none Jewish baker might work. There would be ways to stay lawful, but make your point.

I know they won on a point of law, which is why the law needs revising if justice is under threat.

Lee is an activist making a point. He is though allowed to make his point. He did nothing illegal.

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.

The street was under restrictions which prohibited people doing anything that could intimidate others. You and I might not be intimidated, but we aren't trying to seek advice from an abortion clinic. Some ladies were. It has no implications for anyone else, anywhere, unless they deliberately decide to flout a law.

Yes, it was a point of law. It wasn't justice. The Ashers, no doubt on lawyer's advice, chose to frame their objections in a clever way. Remember they were heavily funded by "The Christian Institute". If you don't know who they are, do find out. They are a fundamentalist Christian group who campaign against homosexuality and gay rights, among other things such as abortion. They have been censored in the past by the Charity Commission.

There was no "point of law" get out available to Brady and Hindley. They murdered.

Tatchell was simply repeating the point of law. I am sure he didn't think it was justice either.

Of course no-one should be compelled to facilitate messages they disagree with, any more than do anything else other than obey the law. They weren't compelled though. They offered to bake a cake. Once it left their premises that was the end of any involvement. The message was just part of the cake. It wasn't published by them, or shared with anyone. It belonged to its owner, who was merely their customer. Cannot accept that? Don't offer to bake cakes for third parties. If the judgement had gone the other way that was their way out if it really was so important, and not just a political stunt.

They can bake as many cakes as they like that have whatever message they like on them, provided they are lawful, and cover their shops in posters. Their freedom of speech is not in any way impacted. What they cannot do is object to other people's lawful messages on other people's possessions.

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.

We don't know that! It was not tested.

What we do know is that the County Court in Belfast found against the Ashers and fined them £500, they appealed and lost. They, or rather their backers, got it referred to the Supreme Court who, to the surprise of many, overturned the Appeal Court judgement on a point of law. The ECHR dismissed Lees's application for them to review it as "inadmissible", due to a process matter. So they never got to consider it. Who knows what would have happened had they done so.

Hopefully the next time a similar case comes before the SC the law will have been updated and justice done. Equality law needs clarification.

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.