The UK Supreme Court Backs Christian Baker over Gay Cake

Jun 2012
40,723
14,822
Barsoom
#1
From the ruling:

The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown, and it had not been in this case [56, 62].​

The ruling: link
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#3
Something important from the ruling:
The district judge found that the appellants did not refuse to fulfil Mr Lee’s order because of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. The objection was to the message on the cake, not any personal characteristics of the messenger [22], or anyone with whom he was associated [33-34]. The message was not indissociable from the sexual orientation of the customer, as support for gay marriage was not a proxy for any particular sexual orientation [25]. The benefit of the message accrues not only to gay or bisexual people, but to their families and friends and to the wider community who recognise the social benefits which such commitment can bring [33]. Thus, there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in this case.​

Also, from Jimmyb's quote:
The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55].​

As such, the law requiring people to provide a wedding cake to both gay couples and straight couples without discrimination based on sexual orientation still stands.
This ruling was about a message on the cake which the baker would not do for either gay or straight couples.
Most wedding cakes don't even have a message on them.
This ruling doesn't truly affect the law which still stands. By law, bakers are still required in that area to sell goods (including wedding cakes) without discrimination based on sexual orientation. Their religious beliefs are not a justification for breaking this law.

If the gay couple involved were to ask the same baker to bake them a gay wedding cake without those words, the law would require the baker to comply.
 
Jun 2012
40,723
14,822
Barsoom
#4
The two paragraphs have the same meaning and align with the Colorado baker's argument, plus editing out the first part of the quote is fascinating.
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#5
The two paragraphs have the same meaning and align with the Colorado baker's argument...
Nobody claimed the two paragraphs had different meaning.
Claiming this aligns with the Colorado baker's argument is an amusing but inaccurate way to phrase that. The Colorado baker also tried to argue that the law should not apply to him because of religious beliefs: "To Phillips, creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be equivalent to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most deeply held beliefs. "
Both the UK ruling discussed in post #1 and the U.S. ruling for the Colorado baker case reject this thinking.

Also, a superficial review of the UK bakery group indicates that their rejection centered around the message of the cake and not because of the requesters: “We’re particularly pleased the Supreme Court emphatically accepted what we’ve said all along – we did not turn down this order because of the person who made it, but because of the message itself.


... plus editing out the first part of the quote is fascinating.
I find your comment of being fascinating to be quite boring. :zzz:
Your fascination says more about you than it does about why I actually edited it...
 
Last edited:
Likes: RNG
Jun 2012
40,723
14,822
Barsoom
#7
The two arguments are the same. The Colorado argument has several more questions before the Supreme Court, which makes the additional questions irrelevant to my post.
 
Nov 2005
7,093
1,749
California
#9
The two arguments are the same.
But they weren't.
The Colorado case had nothing to do with the text on the cake. The UK case was decided based on the text on the cake.
The Colorado SCOTUS ruling was actually based on the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not apply objective neutrality to deciding the case. They demonstrated explicit prejudice against the baker's religion. If the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had applied objective neutrality and equanimity, the baker would actually have lost.

A bit like a cop pulling over a black driver and then swearing the n-word at him. The court would throw out the ticket.


The Colorado argument has several more questions before the Supreme Court, which makes the additional questions irrelevant to my post.
You're trying to compare apples and oranges with no real overlap.
What text was the Colorado baker asked to put on the cake?

The actual Colorado argument was that he would not sell any gay wedding cake.
The actual UK argument was that they WOULD sell a gay wedding cake, but they would not sell ANYBODY a cake with those words on it.
These are not the same arguments.


Neil said:
Yeah, if you live in the UK.
According to the actual ruling, not even there...
 
Jun 2012
40,723
14,822
Barsoom
#10
The Colorado issue regarded not making a cake for a gay wedding, as they were offered any cake without a message regarding gay marriage because it violated their Christian beliefs. The gay couple wanted a cake made with a message. The baker refused. That was one of the questions before the Supreme Court. Same scenario as the U.K.

Neither me or the baker mentioned text. The gay coupled mentioned an artistic message, which is equal to text under the Constitution.

The argument was not that the baker would not sell a gay wedding cake and that is no where in the ruling.
 
Last edited: