web analytics

VICTORY FOR ASHERS

By Pete Moore On October 10th, 2018

Homosexuals are not special. Get over it.

The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have won their appeal in the so-called “gay cake” discrimination case.

The UK’s highest court ruled that Ashers bakery’s refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory […]

The customer, gay rights activist Gareth Lee, sued the company for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political beliefs.

But the bakery has always insisted its objection was to the message on the cake, not the customer.

Four years this charade has gone on. Four years and a fortune in legal costs. They could have asked me four years ago and arrived at the same outcome.

Ashers always would have done business with the gayer. It was nothing against him, it was the message. So the Supreme Court has seen sense. It has ruled that no-one should be forced by law to take part in a campaign which they oppose. It’s in the tradition of British (classical) liberalism, which is why the knee-jerk authoritarian left reaction was against Ashers. They didn’t see the principle involved, only who the parties were, and so chose against Christians. The heart of this case had nothing to do with anyone’s sexuality. It was about freedom of conscience and the right not to be press-ganged into someone else’s politics.

16 Responses to “VICTORY FOR ASHERS”

  1. Proper order.

    Rather than make a judicial song and dance of it the case should have been publicised and those who wanted to could have taken their baking custom elsewhere.

  2. Under British law, would not those who brought this most frivolous of lawsuits now have to pay the costs of the winning side?

  3. It’s my understanding the case was supported by the Equality Commission.

    If that’s the case it’s likely it’ll be the tax payer.

  4. It was the government that harassed these small business people?

    Wow.

  5. Would this Gareth Lee have received money if his bogus lawsuit had prevailed?

    I would hope that under the sometimes good British system he will now suffer a significant financial penalty.

  6. No, the case taken through the courts was, AFAIU, supported by the Equality Commission.

    No matter how much I disagree with the case going through the judicial system that can’t be called harrassment.

    There have been calls for reviews of the Equality Commission’s funding:

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ashers-call-for-review-of-equality-commission-funding-foster-praises-mcarthurs-for-grace-and-perseverance-37404850.html

  7. If this was not a malicious prosecution, there is no such thing.

  8. They didn’t see the principle involved, only who the parties were, and so chose against Christians.

    Yes Pete, I think that’s a good summary. There are echoes of the Kavanaugh case last week. Sides were taken on purely partisan lines by both Democrats and Republicans, but especially by you know who.

  9. Comment awaiting moderation

    It’s doing it again

  10. Strange how Pete would no doubt describe you and I as ‘ the knee-jerk authoritarian left’ Peter yet we’ve both came out in favour of the outcome.

  11. I think the Equality Commission has a lot to answer for in supporting this case.

    Another NI quango, the Renewable Energy Commission, came out very badly at the RHI inquiry last week. Its boss admitted that it was aware of how the taxpayer could be ripped off but chose not to share that with the hapless minister (Arlene Foster) and facilitated (on a commercial basis) many applications for the subsidy. In my opinion this quango should be disbanded immediately and the police should be looking into possible criminal charges.

    https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/rhi-inquiry-charity-boss-knew-of-scheme-s-flaws-but-didn-t-try-to-get-them-fixed-1-8656632

  12. My personal opinion was that they should have just made the cake, but I always defended their right not to. they shouldn’t be forced to do it. They’re a private business after all.
    In the same way that I personally think Google should allow all comments on their media services, but it’s their right to not allow then if they choose. They’re a private business after all.
    But then, I’m not a massive f****** hypocrite, so you’ll see this consistency from me.

  13. Paul McMahon,

    Strange how Pete would no doubt describe you and I as ‘the knee-jerk authoritarian left’ Peter yet we’ve both came out in favour of the outcome.

    And me too Paul.

  14. And me too Paul.

    Good man. I know Dave, another decent spud.

  15. “Under British law, would not those who brought this most frivolous of lawsuits now have to pay the costs of the winning side?”

    Except it wasn’t frivolous. I agree with the judgement that has been rendered by the Supreme Court, and felt that the rulings of the lower courts on the subject where wrong. But in terms of its frivolity two lower courts found against Ashers and in favour of Gareth Lee.

    “Would this Gareth Lee have received money if his bogus lawsuit had prevailed?”

    Both sides had agreed a nominal award (I think a few hundred pounds) if the courts found against Ashers (which they originally did. Ashers appealed and lost. Appealled the appeal and won).

  16. I believe even Peter Tatchell (well known very radical U.K. gay rights activist ) was not in support of this discrimination case. A fair decision by the court.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.