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.

She was entitled to be in street. She was merely silently standing there. Her arrested is a disgrace in anywhere that calls itself a free country.

Of course there was eventually justice in the Ashers case. Your take on it is totally irrelevant, as you continue to blithely pretend that they were charged with some contractual matter. They were not and you continually saying they were does not change that.

The documentation of the case states the charge: [that Gareth Lee was] “discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Norther Ireland) 2006 – [2006 Regulations]”

The particular section of the Act that they were charge with was Regulation 3 of the Act Discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation:
Paragraph (1) “For the purposes of these Regulations, a person 'A' discriminates against another person 'B' if –

(1) [a] on grounds of sexual orientation, 'A' treats 'B' less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons.

(2) A comparison of 'B'’s case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the case are the same, or not materially different in the other”

Clearly they were not discriminating against Lee because he was a homosexual.

It is perfectly lawful for Christian organisations to campaign against things they consider sinful, just as it is perfectly lawful for Gay Rights organisations to campaign for the various things they want to get up to.

[By the way, still no sign of you telling us what the problems are with unlimited immigration.]

Edited by georgenorman (13 Mar 2023 7.05am)

It is your usual squid-ink on all of these issues.

She was not prohibited from being in that particular street. She was prohibited from demonstrating. The police interpreted standing silently in the street as being a demonstration. All dictatorship would applaud such an interpretation.

Here you go again on some so called point of law. I spelt out the actual wording of the charge and any reasonable person would quickly see that the Ashers were not guilty of that charge. I think the association of Lady Hale with an ass is very appropriate.

Which things that the Christian Institute do would you outlaw in your quest for your so called ‘progress’. Are the likes of Stonewall a force for good?

"Unlimited immigration"? See my reply at 8.09pm in the BBC thread. It reads “What are the issues with unlimited immigration?” Your list is eagerly awaited.

You are going round in circles. If that was the first time she had stood there then I doubt anything would have happened, other than being observed and a quiet word being offered in advice. It was a deliberate, provocative act disguised as a modest one. The Police's patience ran out. They had shown a great deal.

As I have explained they were found not guilty by the SC after they examined conflicts in the way the law is applied in two jurisdictions. Which is a point of law. It's still the law, but that doesn't mean it ought to be. Lady Hale is a wise woman who's put down of Johnson in 2019 will live long in my memory.

The Christian Institute are fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality and gay rights. I do not approve of religious fundamentalism, of any kind. I wouldn't "outlaw" them, but I would vigorously argue against them. I want our law to be based on reason, and not anything else. Stonewall aren't religious.

I noticed you asked the same question, when the answer had already been given. Read it again. There's nothing to add.

I have to say I have never thought that a person, all alone, standing silently, would be a provocative act. Do you consider 100s of doctors and nurses on picket lines to be provocative or is that the acceptable face of objection. After all the Police will have seen the same people on the same picket lines more than once and I didn’t see people being moved on or arrested?

It would appear that the right to protest is now solely down to the discretion of the authorities regardless of democratic principles and what the law says. Interpretation has been bent past it’s point of elasticity and that single decision was a particularly poor example of it.

You can stand everywhere you like, praying, juggling or bemoaning Palace's lack of points. What you cannot do is act in any way which is perceived as potentially intimidating in streets covered by a restriction. She was. End of.

The Ashers were eventually found not guilty by the SC, on a Ysingle point of law. That's all it needed. Lawful, yes. Just, not in my book.

Lady Hale has 10 times the integrity of Mr Johnson. That judgement was unanimous and also wise. It showed what a tosspot Johnson is for assuming he was above the law.

Nobody in their right mind supports unlimited immigration. It must be managed, even when relaxed and liberal in approach. You don't just dismantle the barriers and admit everyone without verification.