Gay here. The court made the correct ruling. Thankfully. The cake was custom - you cant FORCE someone to make something custom for you. Artists, sculptors, painters, craft persons - and yes, cake makers - all have the right to turn down custom work if they dont want to take it. And they dont have to say why. Being denied the right to turn down work is called SLAVERY. It would have been a different story completely if the cake had ALREADY been made and was sitting under a glass case in view of the public, and they didnt want to sell it to him. Not the same thing. ps: bravo to Peter Tatchell for speaking reason in this interview
yes.. i can't think of a more insidious insult to gay people - than to imply that they are so inadequate that they cannot live without bullying demented christians and forcing their will on them - in much the same way that christians have unfortunately bullied gay people in the past..
"good win for the Christians.." yes.. i am a deeply conservative pagan - who firmly believes that christians are there to laugh at and make fools of themselves - not for us to martyr..
We may not like this decision but ultimately it was the right one. We can’t have scenarios where a racist is asking a black T-shirtmaker to print a hateful message. We have to take the emotion out of this decision and see how it could of been exploited.
yes.. and i think iit also boils down to not viewing gay people as inadequate cripples incapable of baking their own cake or who will shrivel up and die if every demented christian does not love them ..
How about a Palestinian restaurant owner refusing to serve a Jew? Or a White restaurant owner refusing to serve a black? Or an Irish Protestant refusing service to a Catholic? Or a black owner refusing service to a white? Or a Welshman (free Wales) refusing service to a Brit???
Bernard Scheidle for me there is a difference in not serving someone because of their identity which I’m against and imposing your will on somebody else which I’m also against. Let’s be clear, it wasn’t a case of I’m not serving you because your gay, that’s clearly a crime. if it was your job to print posters and someone asked you to print a poster saying “ I like touching little boys”, The rights of a consumer shouldn’t over seed the businesses right of service. after all you have to have this poster in your business whether it’s observed by potential customers or not. Yes, it’s in poor taste not to bake the cake but it would of been outrageous to tell businesses owners you have to make anything your customers want or be sued.
Frank Clarke my question is why are people so keen to give their hard earned money to ignorant people? I wouldn’t want to make someone thrive who lives to see me fail.
As a gay man, I support freedom of speech every time. If the religious chap doesn't want to make their cake, they can take their business elsewhere. I'm much more concerned with the militant LGBT brigade, who are making people homophobic by the day with their ridiculous demands. How long will it be before people get arrested for claiming there are only two genders? I'm also against religious gay marriage and gay adoption myself. I also don't want to be categorised with these LGBT fanatics as I am an individual with my own views of the world. My flag is the St George's flag and the Union Jack. Don't even get me started on Gay Pride events.
LGBT brigade? LGBT fanatics? and you even come for gay pride? If you are indeed gay then you seem to have unresolved issues with your own sexuality in order to display such an attitude towards "LGBT brigade" with complete disregard... Here's something that might make you think. Lets count how many times you talk about yourself in that comment... Come to think of it, how many gay things do you actually support besides yourself? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what life has been for gay men, or where life can end up if dumbasses like you jump on the bandwagon of attacking anything related to being gay (for whatever reason).
From a heterosexual man I salute you you truly are a breath of fresh air I believe everyone should be happy no matter what sexual preference they have, dont force on people, to be honest I couldn't really give a damn if someone's gay or straight or both it really isn't my business it really is an anyone's businesses
An extremely good answer and view point. I find it ironic that it appears to be gay persons accepting the court decision. The objections seem to be coming from people who want to be offended on someone else's behalf. Please don't get me started on gay pride events either.
The whole thing was an absolute disgrace. Glad respect for Liberty has been reinstated. One gay man to another, John, get over it. You’re not helping anyone but yourself.
It is a peculiar problem. I could be wrong, but it seems like he did it on purpose. He just happened to need a cake with a political message, just happened to order it from christian bakers... It sounds like those rightwing lawyers who pay people to mount dubious cases and file appeals all the way to the SCOTUS to make political points. But assuming it is genuine, there is a problem. If I edit books, I don't want to endorse everything I print. So, is it really ok to protect this as free speech? Maybe a piece of art, even commissioned with details, is still speech. But it is true it is weird to think about forcing muslims to print pictures of their prophet. It is exactly like asking christians to violate whatever idea they deem important. And it need not be done out of spite -- maybe you are an organizing an event for atheist and in that circle it is somewhat of joke for someone reason. Something does feel wrong, sometimes dishonest, about Christians complaining in these circumstances. But maybe trying twist harm left and right is a bad idea.
Stéphane Surprenant it was on purpose, he deliberately went to that bakers, everyone in NI knows this. I wouldn’t expect a Muslim baker to be forced to make a cake with the prophet Mohammad on it. If a printer didn’t want to print a far right, far left or any other kind of book, that’s their choice.
I really respect Peter, he is a person of principle and he understands how forcing through laws that may seem good, they damage us all in the long term.
Maximilien Robespierre not sure he does when he supports amendments to the GRA against the wishes of many women who would be forced to share spaces with males.
If you can hold 2 opposing ideals in your head at one time you may see that this ruling makes sense. Taken to its illogical conclusion this could have forced a Jewish baker to make a happy birthday Hitler cake. Freedom cuts lots of ways.
I'm not sure what my position on the issue is, but I think you make a logical leap there. At the very least, you could argue Hitler condones hate speech and racism such that a happy birthday Hitler cake condones hate speech and racism, whereas this gay cake had nothing to do with hate speech or racism.
I'm gay. I support this couple. They should be allowed to deny service to people trying to push political messages. They don't support the message so won't create this cake, nothing wrong with that. I don't support legalisation of marjuana, if I owned a business and someone told me to make something that promotes legalisation of marjuana I would decline. I shouldn't HAVE to provide services for messages like that.
@@Iggsy81 against freedom? I'm against self-induced mental illness. Also, I'm against druggies thinking it's okay to smoke around those that don't choose to smoke it themselves.
Refusing to acknowledge truth is part of the human condition. I agree with Shehran though, no private business should be compelled in law to advocate views and perspectives at odds with the principles of the owner. It's different for publically owned service providers.
You can't force a homophobic person to participate in LGBT celebrations .. its a no brainer ... gay couples should turn it around and imagine if a gay banner maker is asked to make a banner that says "homosexuality is evil" ..
@Honour 2018 very few people believe that the universe came from nothing. Most non idiots admit they don't know where it came from. However many people do believe in an eternal wizard
The guy was an LGBT activist. Probably targeted the bakery knowing they were Christian. But I wonder.. what the outcome would be if they were Islamic bakers Do you think he would have done the same then? Would the story get as much press coverage?
They attack Christian western values. The minority groups support other minority groups, in numbers they can win the culture war, the only cohesion diversity brings is when minority groups combine forces to destroy the heterosexual, christian, white and male people, supposedly they are the oppressors lol. minority are the so-called oppressed, when in-fact they are the oppressors when they have gain social power, just like the progressives are the regressive. Good is evil and evil is good in the realm of left.
Any vendor should be allowed to refuse service which violates their ethics, morals, or religion. For example, a Jewish Deli should never be forced to serve Ham and Swiss Cheese sandwiches.
If it had of gone the other way every single gay business person would have been sniffed out like a blood hound and been asked to make pro Christian /religious items. And then had their asses sued if they refused. The precedent needed to be set to protect everyone’s rights. Could you imagine the amount of trolling that would have gone on.
You keep making this about race when it's about the message the customer wanted, not a customer being gay. And Shezza is quite right; if this bakery couldn't refuse to do this message, another bakery couldn't refuse an anti-gay message. It's the same thing.
ScootMagoot46 until the man-hating feminists enter your shop demanding that you make something saying "teach men not to be rapists"... then you'll understand the ruling.
The bakers are entitled to be against gay marriage. it is illegal in their country. This is not a 'wedding cake', it is a cake in support of the principle of a gay wedding. When the law changes (as it should) then the bakers could (but should not be) compelled to bake the cake, but as it stands they are being asked to support breaking the law, this is not their protest, and they should not be forced to become a pawn in political posturing by a guy who could surely have found somebody gay with the flair to ice a cake with a picture of a couple of childlike puppets.
gay marriage is illegal, not the support for it. Also "could" or "should not", you have to choose. Also I don't think 'gay' marriage should even be a political issue in this country. The rest of us have already moved on. I don't even understand why NI is part of the UK anymore anyway when they seem to disagree with everything we do.
NO. Denying a service to someone based on soley that person being,gay, black,white or religious is descrimination. Refusing to bake a cake with a message saying" I can`t stand gay, black, white or religious people" is not discrimination.
People have the right to believe what they want, but they don`t have the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, religious, gender or colour.
Well in the US, Steven Crowder visited a number of muslim owned bakeries with such a request, was refused service for a similar order and there was not much fuss from gay rights advocates or progressive news activists. So I think its possible to come up with a reasonable prediction as to how much news coverage this scenario would get in Britain where the news media and "social conscience" activists seem to have a similar partisan character. ua-cam.com/video/RgWIhYAtan4/v-deo.html
Im a brown guy and i'd rather (for example) have a shop with a sign saying 'no brown people' if they had a problem with me, rather than hide it. Id never want to give my money to someone thats got an issue with me -- sustaining their life style, paying for their holidays etc etc. Id rather go somewhere else and let them lose out. No ones ever going to change their mind if youre just legally forcing them (loss of income usually motivates a 'change of heart'), and besides... You really want them making your food now? I wouldnt trust my food with someone who doesnt want to make it but forced to...
YOU personally might prefer that, but others might not. Other might prefer that it's not ok to treat someone else as a 2nd class citizen merely on the basis of who they happen to be. How about if they refuse to serve the disabled? On the other hand I still think this is the right decision. The baker made it clear that he would have been prepared to make a cake for a gay person and perhaps already does, but WITHOUT a political message on it. The issue here was not gayness, it was political messaging.
If a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake with a cartoon of a gay couple the news media would not even think it was news worthy. British journalism now serves its own agenda, real true honest journalism no longer exist they disgust me.
If they had them on their menu or list of products and refused to sell them to you because you were a christian or whatever then that would be wrong but I doubt that would happen because it is completely stupid.
@@marvintpandroid2213 A Muslim baker would never offer or stock a pork pie. It's like asking them for a bacon butty. Pork is haram just like homosexuality. Which religion do you support?
I’m not Christian but I still think the baker shouldn’t have to create a cake he doesn’t want to. He’s allowed to say no. I’m all for being gay if you want but you shouldn’t force your beliefs on someone else. Peter is correct.
If the tables were turned and the gay couple had a bakery and a customer requested them to make a beautiful cake that said "marriage should only be between a man and women", i am pretty sure they wouldnt make that cake either
Fervently support LGBTQ rights, but the McArthurs CAN NOT be compelled to create a custom product with a message that they profound disagree with! They did not refuse to serve Mr. Lee because he was gay. And who says that Mr. Lee can appropriate Bert and Ernie, two copyrighted figures so integral to Sesame Street, anyway? WTH? Bert and Ernie aren't a gay couple, but the creation of Jim Henson. No, Mr. Lee's legal argument is really off base.
This is about respecting everyone's values and not being compelled to do something you don't want to do. I Imagine that you respect everyone's values and rights to be themselves as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
It’s not even about Christian values at the end of the day, it’s about that the court ruled in favour of free speech. I’m not Christian but I side with the baker, as it’s his choice to say no.
Should have been thrown out of court at the first instance with no case to answer on the part of the bakery, it isn't discrimination to refuse business.
I can't understand how this got as far as the Supreme Court. There is an old phrase "play the ball not the man". The owners of the bakery clearly played the ball not the man. I would not defend a British Pakistani who refused sell Tommy Robinson a cake.But if Robinson ordered a cake that said "Throw Muslims out of Britain" I would support the same baker in refusing to do so.
Great job with balanced and fair representation on both sides. Thanks Channel 4. This case is pretty clear. It was a campaign, were the baker did not wont to contribute to it. The UK court was right and the freedom of speech, as many claim, does not apply here. You have the freedom to say what is on your mind, but you can not demand from anyone to say or believe what you like. In the USA there was a similar case, were the baker rejected to make a cake for a gay wedding. It was a case of clear discrimination. Shame on the US court.
I'm a gay man myself and i am 100% in agreement with everything Tatchell says here. He understands, as i do, the basic principle of liberty... which is defending somebody's right to say something that you do not agree with. I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to advocate what is a political statement or opinion, even though it is something i passionately believe in. Much the same way i wouldn't want to be forced to decorate a cake with a slogan that suits the beliefs of, say, a neo-nazi. I came out as gay in the mid 80s when i was in my final year of school. I know the difficulties and the discrimination only too well... and yet, it was also the best of times for me personally because i had the right attitude and still do. I loathe this type of militancy and dragging people through the court system. It's regressive and sets the cause backwards. Imposing a new morality is every bit oppressive as the old.
Even as a gay man from Northern Ireland I agree with this ruling. The legal precedent it sets it too dangerous. I feel this case has been pushed as the gay community in NI does feel under attack by the fundamentalist Christian element in the providence.
It's worrying how much we're having to fight for freedom of speech currently, the fact anyone could think the courts decision was wrong is baffling. Free speech isn't always pretty but it's fundamental.
In the U.S., before “civil rights,” you could refuse service to anyone for any damned reason, good, bad, or even “racist.” The reason was it was your property, your business establishment, and we respected the right of association, which implies a right to dissociate from people you don’t like. It was called “freedom,” something increasingly rare in Britain, and, sad to say, in the U.S. as well.
ScootMagoot46 - That’s right. You are missing the point. Most people consider denying a Black person a hotel room or barring him from a restaurant is wrong. But it is also possible that if Congress had not intervened, society would have eventually sorted the situation out. That is, enough people would have changed their thinking over time and avoided segregationist hotels and restaurants, and these in turn would have changed. As things are, the government can now force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a Gay couple and if he doesn’t it can put him out of business or, if he wants to stay in business, force him to pay a huge fine and attend sensitivity classes, as happened in the Oregon case. The latest Supreme Court case in the U.S. changed nothing. The point is the civil society is shrinking as more and more people (maybe you) allow government to expand and replace it.
It doesn't work like that here, as Ashers is a limited company, so owned by the state. Being so, it has to represent the public, not the directors (as they're expendable).
This should never have gone to court? You cannot force a merchant in a private business to comply with something that they don't believe in. This just made gays look like snowflakes.
There are a number of legal definitions which encompass hate speech not least s17 Public Order Act 1986. Interpretation of these legal definitions are by their nature objective and are applied accordingly by the Courts in England, Wales (and Scotland in relation to POA 1986).
tubehows4life laws themselves aren’t objective. As I said, some laws are interpreted objectively (either directed by statute of by precedent). Anyway the point is hate speech has been defined by law and it is applied in an objective manner.
I agree with this. If they were refusing gay people based on being gay then I wouldn't support it. But, this is a custom cake with a political view that someone doesn't agree with on moral ground.
I've always had a huge amount of respect for Peter Tatchell over the years. He is a genuine human rights activist. I remember his confrontation with Mugabe in London over his torturing of journalists in Zimbabwe.
both sides have a perfectly good case . a gay person has his rights , but also the baker has his christian belief rights . we live in a world where equality is paramount in society . you cannot have an argument that is one sided .
It's not about gays or religion, or that guy's supposed hurt feelings. It's a private business and service should be able to be refused to anyone for any reason.
Reading the comments, especially those from gay folk, gives me some hope. It's easy to become defensive when you get singled out for who you are or for what you believe in. It's much harder to leave the defensive position and empathise with whom you are not and what you do not believe in. It's a fine line between refusing a customer and refusing an order. In this particular case I feel that the line is very visible and I agree with the ruling, in other cases the line might be blurry. As long as we are ready to talk about where lines should be, we're not completely lost.
Nah gay people want a piece of christian butt. I think they secretly have some f*g fettish for Christian. On the serious not through they hate Christian and western values. Minority groups and their obsession to be a majority group. It's what happens when minority groups become isolated, they become vengeful.
@@tennis5126 Why would gay ppl dislike Western values? That wouldn't make alot of sense since Western values ended mainstream persecution of gay people. But I guess each to their own.
The world needs more strong Christians like this couple. They stand firm in the faith and will not be shaken. I'm sure this was a test of faith, luckily we have a good God. God bless you.
And I think the earthquake in Turkey and Syria was a test of faith. The people there stand firm in the faith and will not be shaken (pardon the pun). At least the survivors...
Well said Peter Tatchell: Peter Tatchell, who is very outspoken for homosexual 'rights', equally accepts the rights of folk like me to talk down homosexual 'rights'. I believe that sodomy should be criminalised and that, if it were, it would have saved the lives of many who were tempted to engage in this ABOMINATION. I do not believe in the 'rights' of thieves or adulterers either. so I am not singling out any one group. Should anyone? It is right to hate certain things. In the end God damns sin and sinners. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Campaigns against God's values will surely bring the wrath of God against us all. Mohammedanism? Is this the damnation of God against us for our national sins of toleration of sodomy, child murder (abortion) and the ending of the death penalty for genuine murderers? May God grant us repentance from such sins, as a Nation. Well done, Christian Institute, for standing against such a demonic power. I dare say that the sodomites will want to take this case on appeal to Strassburg, but if they take it to the highest moot of all - God - they will find themselves and their values damned. As I say, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Karl W. Sodom was from about 2000BC - so you and your ilk have come from even further back. Moreover, in 1418 the Holy Bible in English was illegal. Thank goodness we now have it in English so that we can learn how bad sodomy is, if we need it to tell us that: though most of us can work it out for ourselves!
Karl W: Many thanks, but I do not think any Christian would wish to harm a sodomite: the point is rather that they are harming themselves. But what a WONDERFUL response from Ashers Bakery: Mr Gareth Lee will always be welcome: it was not the man they objected to, quite rightly, but his message - quite rightly too. Why should such a self-absorbed man harass anyone, but that was their response. And what a wonderful response it was too.
Ffion it is perfectly normal. It’s not like heterosxual kids will become gay because of that
6 років тому
The verdict is 100%right You can't force people and businesses to agree with your lifestyle. The LGBT is becoming extremists,if they keep on behaving like this they have more enemies than friends.
It’s simple, just apply the moral ‘silver rule’ of not doing to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself. If you were a gay baker You wouldn’t want a Christian activist forcing you to bake a cake saying homosexuality is a sin.
Google, Facebook, Twitter ect are also private businesses - when you type a comment into UA-cam are you compelling them to platform your political opinion? Would you be cool with it if you were denied access to the services of all of these corporations because of your political beliefs? Are you ok with facebook censoring videos that don’t align with the political views of mark zuckerburg? Twitter de-platforming people who don’t confirm to the political agenda of whoever runs Twitter. UA-cam curating a list of recommendations based on AI algorithms in order to mould your opinion to align more with the political opinion of Google. Is it still ok when these private companies use their freedom to censor people/ opinions they don’t agree with and not allow them on their platforms. Or is it one rule for one private business and another rule for another private business? Where do you draw the line - do you pick and choose which private businesses you allow to espouse their political views.. because at this point you don’t have freedom of speech abd the same logic can be applied to any businesses. Or should all businesses be apolitical and provide the service they advertise to all customers regardless of political opinion and separate their personal views from the actions of the company?
"Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe. " - Lade Hale, The Supreme Court President. 1:42 What does this mean? If our opinions are such, does it mean.. We can use the correct pronoun when referring to a man who is impersonating a woman. Its not hate speech. We can refuse to describe fat people as beautiful because they are fat. Its not hate speech. We can refuse to chant "diversity is our strength". Its not hate speech. We can refuse to obediently mumble "terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city". Its not hate speech. Now the question is what happens when the ones who control the loudest or greatest number of figurative megaphones use this argument to refuse to let their platforms be used to publish opinions they do not agree with. Very little of what will be published will be contrary to the opinions given favour by authoritarians. See Google's "The Good Censor" leaked document. What effect will that have on honest debate and discourse on the internet's biggest platforms? Is this why the Supreme Court made this decision?
What Lady Hale also said was "We do not yet have a reasonable way of protecting people from discrimination and simultaneously protecting religious freedom". This is a very difficult issue to disentangle and I firmly believe that we need to find a solution that doesn't create conflict between them. You shouldn't politicise Love for a start. If a Christian came to my hypothetical bakery and asked me to put a message expressing God's love for humanity, sure I have the right to refuse it as a non-Christian but why on earth would I? It's not hateful, malicious or abusive. What I'm also getting tired of is likening a promotion of equal marriage to compelling people to write racist or hateful things. That isn't what this is about at all. This is about the ability of a customer to be able to be treated the way any other type of customer is. It's about not having one rule for me because I'm gay and one rule for you because you're straight. It shouldn't be about politics it should be about whether or not a message uses abusive or malicious language that is intended to offend or discriminate.
I agree with Tatchell's stance. Many of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, race, gender, have been refused service at a business for one reason or another. The common sense approach is to go elsewhere. Instead of forcing people to do things that they clearly don't want to do, go and give your money to someone who will do a good job, does not oppose you and help them flourish instead. This reeks of an activist creating problems for the sake of it. This case has not done the LGBTQ community any good whatsoever in my opinion. On the other hand, if this were a public service that was refused to a gay couple, that would be a different kettle of fish as a public service should be available to all who meet the criteria of that service. As it is, this is a private business and does not fall into the same category. ALL businesses 'discriminate' including my own. The first and main criteria for 'discrimination' or more properly 'discernment', is the answer to the question of whether the potential customer/client has the ability to pay for the service/goods on offer. Another would be the choice of clientele. For example, I refuse, or would refuse, any request for film production from the adult industry and requests to film a wedding (any, of any orientation). Fortunately, I haven't received a request from either of these groups of clientele and haven't been in the position where I have had to refuse. What I would do however, is wherever possible, politely recommend them production houses/freelancers who are willing to take on this work.
He either has an admirable commitment to individual freedoms, especially having been on the receiving end of so much hatred, or is the ultimate troll... Bigots: "Well I agree with... Peter Tatchell?!"
Just make the stupid cake... Of all the reasons to refuse service to someone, you do it because of this? People can "express" themselves how they wish 'politically' (sic), regardless of any implications at all? Not sure Lady Hale is right on that one. Also, it's a dumb ruling, this is clearly motivated by discrimination, by definition. Just because your discrimination is not consistent and universal (and such irrationality rarely ever is consistent) does not stop it from being discrimination. For instance, if this had been about 'racial equality' and a similar refusal but not because the customer was black. I know many who think there is some sort of opportunity cost here or long term implications will disagree, but I'd really like to see this case before ECHR, to see what happens. I would have preferred it for a case that was a little clearer. I think the bigger issue is the idea that someone still holds these [out of date] views, and is not actively seeking medical help.
I disagree, age can assist in determining the validity of something. The best scientific theories are some of the oldest. My rhetoric is that such a view is out of date, times have changed, not that it is merely old.
Thanks for replying Dave , that's a very good first point. But I feel we need far more clarity on your second point, the "times" haven't changed, people's opinions have, and even then only some people in some places. It should be principle surely and not the crowd that determine what we believe. When Christianity began it was immediately counter- cultural and outside "the times", it never saw that as a problem. Why should it now?
Its like a Christian asking an atheist bakery to bake a cake with a message “God is good” . They wouldn’t do it. I believe this gay man Gareth Lee had a sinister motives when he asked for a cake with that message. He put a young couple considerable amount of stress all because of his inflated ego.
The only discrimination I see is Mr Lee’s discrimination against the religious baker. He’d bought cakes at that shop before & he could’ve easily gone elsewhere, but he chose to force the religious owners to make the cake, with a message they don’t approve of. Maybe they should apologise to the cake, itself? Am I racist for saying “I don’t like Indian or Mexican food?” I have been accused of exactly that! I wish these activist groups would stop blaming everyone else & slanderous western countries for racism, which is such colossal BS! Any Person, of any race, culture, gender, can get an education & work in ANY field they want! Although, these days, people are being hired based on race & gender over merit. (We must need more transgender heart surgeons, soon) Off topic, I know, I’m an angrier person these days & “safe spaces” have never been a requirement for people over 40, in Australia we use to make a joke of it but we can’t do that anymore or we might offend Younger people? Never thought I’d see that day.
I avoid gay venues as a brown person, I was told "oh my god you're dark " because lights were dimmer, " oh my gawd look at your eyebrows there so big" , had drinks with no alcohol in them" poured in front of me , denied access to places , while my white friends got in, we were going in minutes intervals not together 3 got in and I didn't, i lost my gf because a gay man told what's that you with! You need to get rid of him and carried on trying to separate us for months , only knew when her mother told me that when she didn't like the man she with , I can go on about the list of militant actions, racism, discrimination and false claims , your sexual orientation don't change how you view other people from different backgrounds, I don't expect you to accept me that's fine , I don't go around shoving it down your throat .
Hmm I thought the system was against free speech. Interesting... I hope all you people who are usually in the comment section pushing that nonsense are here aknowledging that this may be a sign that you're wrong.
Oh dear, this is a retrograde step if ever I saw one. That smiling young couple are deceptively sinister, and the mention of "god" in 2018 really should make anybody's eyes roll
I think this case has been a huge waste of money, money that could have gone to feed 5000 something more substantial than sugar. Although I have no particular axe to grind regarding gay marriage, I do remember the debate leading up to the decision. If I recall correctly, there were many who were against the idea, all of whom are now written off as bigots. I don't care one way or the other, but it seems OK to me if people in love want to express it. What prompts me to comment is the almost immediate reversal of the position that nobody who was against the ruling by the courts (in particular those with religious views) would be forced to go against their beliefs. Discrimination is wrong, but the law was written to protect both religion (I am an agnostic) and gay rights which may seem to be at odds to some. A very poorly constructed law, which this case further confuses.
No, this legal issue needs resolving. The opportunity cost of legal fees in this issue wouldn't be food, it would most likely be legal fees in another issue. Putting that aside, you could just about manage to feed 5000 once with that much money. Not sure that is sufficient. You need at least £bn to start to make a short term impact. And then you need to do it in a way that wouldn't get on the wrong side of the economy.
Don't sit on fence just admit you despise them and their perverted ways going around making a hobby of suing Christians like majority of normal people do country was much better off when these perverts stayed in closet 💩💩💩
It’s not at odds. The law in this case was in reference to ‘compelled speech’. Which is pretty straight forward really: you can’t make people say things they do not believe- including icing it on a cake! They were happy to make the cake for him to write whatever political slogan he wanted. If they refused to serve him at all, he would of had a discrimination case.
So £250000 of public money has been waisted on an activist who so desperately wants to be a victim he deliberately went to a cake shop and asked for something he knew was against their beliefs in an attempt to oppress their beliefs!! What a sad pathetic little man he is
This is why he should have gone to a corporate baker, unlike mom and pop bakers they don't let their personal beliefs get in the way of serving a customer.
"I disagree that printing a political pamphlet for a political party endorses that party" ... so a company that whole heartily supports a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy yet prints anti-abortion pamphlets for a customer wouldn't face scrutiny for providing their service? On the flip side would anyone be upset if they refused to print pro-life pamphlets? I think not. I'm an atheist that supports gay marriage and even I can see the hypocrisy and double standards being set.
The court should have stopped this initially .the money spent on this is crazy.if I was gay I would have gone to a different baker. There is important things that courts could be busy about.
The ECHR and the Supreme Court judgements raise serious questions about the judgement of the leadership of the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. The Chief Executive should be required to be personally responsible for paying the legal costs in full.
It was the correct judgement legally. Even so, it should have been rejected by the first court because it was obviously a propagandist campaign rather than a personal issue. If the cake was for an event and reordered or if it was a real marriage for two people with a personal message then that would have added a personal reason for the cake. This was intentionally the act of an advocate of one group trying to force that message on another group who has the right to personally disagree. If it was a minority group who held the same convictions against the message then the cake probably would never have been ordered and if it had, the first court would have judged in favour of the defendents. That is what I find so disturbing about this case. The lower courts are so imbued with institutionalised ideology that they are willing to put this ideology in front of the law itself. There have been a number of cases where supreme justices have had to intervene when appealed because thankfully they still care for the law first and foremost. If you disagree with this, then imagine if the ideology were something you disagree with and the courts ruled in favour of their own beliefs rather than based on the law. Would you be happy?
All the bloke had to do was go to another cake shop, its that simple, but instead he got all sensitive and kicked off about it and ended up almost ruining a families business and costing the tax payer £250000 all cos he couldnt be arsed to go to another bakery wtf is his problem ?
They literally said that the bakers don’t have to support a political opinion. This is not a political issue, it’s about a sexuality, which is something that a person can never change! However people can change their political opinions
Yes indeed, do you remember that chapter when he asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son to prove his love for him? Wow, what a cruel, selfish, barbaric thing to ask of someone.... and women don't come out of it very well either. I do love the more poetic parts of it though, pity that guy on the committee didn't write more of it. Greetings from England.
I like how Peter Tatchell doesn’t necessarily agree with them but agrees that they should have the freedom to do so which I respect. If a gay man had to make a cake that supported killing gays than he probably wouldn’t want to make that cake. You should respect the business and their boundaries without forcing it onto them.
Common sense prevails. The problem was always the cake, not the customer. Pretty alarming that the bakers had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that... but they got the right decision, so it's a good day for freedom.
Gay here. The court made the correct ruling. Thankfully.
The cake was custom - you cant FORCE someone to make something custom for you. Artists, sculptors, painters, craft persons - and yes, cake makers - all have the right to turn down custom work if they dont want to take it. And they dont have to say why. Being denied the right to turn down work is called SLAVERY. It would have been a different story completely if the cake had ALREADY been made and was sitting under a glass case in view of the public, and they didnt want to sell it to him. Not the same thing.
ps: bravo to Peter Tatchell for speaking reason in this interview
yes..
i can't think of a more insidious insult to gay people - than to imply that they are so inadequate that they cannot live without bullying demented christians and forcing their will on them - in much the same way that christians have unfortunately bullied gay people in the past..
Spot on, spot on...
👍👍
good win for the Christians...
"good win for the Christians.."
yes.. i am a deeply conservative pagan - who firmly believes that christians are there to laugh at and make fools of themselves - not for us to martyr..
We may not like this decision but ultimately it was the right one. We can’t have scenarios where a racist is asking a black T-shirtmaker to print a hateful message. We have to take the emotion out of this decision and see how it could of been exploited.
yes..
and i think iit also boils down to not viewing gay people as inadequate cripples incapable of baking their own cake or who will shrivel up and die if every demented christian does not love them ..
How about a Palestinian restaurant owner refusing to serve a Jew? Or a White restaurant owner refusing to serve a black? Or an Irish Protestant refusing service to a Catholic? Or a black owner refusing service to a white? Or a Welshman (free Wales) refusing service to a Brit???
Bernard Scheidle for me there is a difference in not serving someone because of their identity which I’m against and imposing your will on somebody else which I’m also against. Let’s be clear, it wasn’t a case of I’m not serving you because your gay, that’s clearly a crime. if it was your job to print posters and someone asked you to print a poster saying “ I like touching little boys”,
The rights of a consumer shouldn’t over seed the businesses right of service. after all you have to have this poster in your business whether it’s observed by potential customers or not. Yes, it’s in poor taste not to bake the cake but it would of been outrageous to tell businesses owners you have to make anything your customers want or be sued.
Frank Clarke my question is why are people so keen to give their hard earned money to ignorant people? I wouldn’t want to make someone thrive who lives to see me fail.
@@TheEroticMovieReview. When does "refusing to serve" become the same as "imposing your will"? When does refusing become imposing?
Peter Tatchell comes out of this with a lot of credit for being objective . He is not supporting the bakers as much as freedom.
As a gay man, I support freedom of speech every time. If the religious chap doesn't want to make their cake, they can take their business elsewhere. I'm much more concerned with the militant LGBT brigade, who are making people homophobic by the day with their ridiculous demands. How long will it be before people get arrested for claiming there are only two genders?
I'm also against religious gay marriage and gay adoption myself. I also don't want to be categorised with these LGBT fanatics as I am an individual with my own views of the world. My flag is the St George's flag and the Union Jack. Don't even get me started on Gay Pride events.
LGBT brigade? LGBT fanatics? and you even come for gay pride? If you are indeed gay then you seem to have unresolved issues with your own sexuality in order to display such an attitude towards "LGBT brigade" with complete disregard...
Here's something that might make you think. Lets count how many times you talk about yourself in that comment... Come to think of it, how many gay things do you actually support besides yourself?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what life has been for gay men, or where life can end up if dumbasses like you jump on the bandwagon of attacking anything related to being gay (for whatever reason).
I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about my opinions. Am I not allowed to do that?
From a heterosexual man I salute you you truly are a breath of fresh air I believe everyone should be happy no matter what sexual preference they have, dont force on people, to be honest I couldn't really give a damn if someone's gay or straight or both it really isn't my business it really is an anyone's businesses
Do you give or take?
An extremely good answer and view point. I find it ironic that it appears to be gay persons accepting the court decision. The objections seem to be coming from people who want to be offended on someone else's behalf. Please don't get me started on gay pride events either.
Freedom to conduct your own business according to your own moral values.
So your saying it would also be OK to refuse service to people of different races or in a wheelchair?
There's shops in the UK which don't want white customers. The gay chap wanted to make a political statement.
@@startreking What a great example of a Strawman argument. You know full well I'm not saying that. Idiot. And it's "you're".
Well said! Now I can stop blacks from coming into my shop! - Sarcasm
Shrimpy Gaming Dee
The whole thing was an absolute disgrace. Glad respect for Liberty has been reinstated. One gay man to another, John, get over it. You’re not helping anyone but yourself.
compendious succient thank you sir, you are smart unlike these brain dead petty morons
It is a peculiar problem. I could be wrong, but it seems like he did it on purpose. He just happened to need a cake with a political message, just happened to order it from christian bakers... It sounds like those rightwing lawyers who pay people to mount dubious cases and file appeals all the way to the SCOTUS to make political points.
But assuming it is genuine, there is a problem. If I edit books, I don't want to endorse everything I print. So, is it really ok to protect this as free speech? Maybe a piece of art, even commissioned with details, is still speech.
But it is true it is weird to think about forcing muslims to print pictures of their prophet. It is exactly like asking christians to violate whatever idea they deem important. And it need not be done out of spite -- maybe you are an organizing an event for atheist and in that circle it is somewhat of joke for someone reason.
Something does feel wrong, sometimes dishonest, about Christians complaining in these circumstances. But maybe trying twist harm left and right is a bad idea.
Stéphane Surprenant it was on purpose, he deliberately went to that bakers, everyone in NI knows this. I wouldn’t expect a Muslim baker to be forced to make a cake with the prophet Mohammad on it. If a printer didn’t want to print a far right, far left or any other kind of book, that’s their choice.
@@tonyfat2458 What exactly qualifies it as a mental disorder?
I really respect Peter, he is a person of principle and he understands how forcing through laws that may seem good, they damage us all in the long term.
Maximilien Robespierre not sure he does when he supports amendments to the GRA against the wishes of many women who would be forced to share spaces with males.
The law that this case was based on was fine; the supreme court decided in favour of the bakers. Freedom of conscience is essential to human dignity.
If you can hold 2 opposing ideals in your head at one time you may see that this ruling makes sense.
Taken to its illogical conclusion this could have forced a Jewish baker to make a happy birthday Hitler cake.
Freedom cuts lots of ways.
I'm not sure what my position on the issue is, but I think you make a logical leap there. At the very least, you could argue Hitler condones hate speech and racism such that a happy birthday Hitler cake condones hate speech and racism, whereas this gay cake had nothing to do with hate speech or racism.
@@ZachAgape thank you this is what people don't want to understand. There is a difference. Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
I'm gay. I support this couple. They should be allowed to deny service to people trying to push political messages. They don't support the message so won't create this cake, nothing wrong with that. I don't support legalisation of marjuana, if I owned a business and someone told me to make something that promotes legalisation of marjuana I would decline. I shouldn't HAVE to provide services for messages like that.
why don't you support the legalisation of marijuana? You hate freedom?
@@Iggsy81 against freedom? I'm against self-induced mental illness.
Also, I'm against druggies thinking it's okay to smoke around those that don't choose to smoke it themselves.
@jolena auvuya no, you WANT it to be legal. What is the argument FOR legalising it?
Refusing to acknowledge truth is part of the human condition. I agree with Shehran though, no private business should be compelled in law to advocate views and perspectives at odds with the principles of the owner. It's different for publically owned service providers.
@joyela aeuvunya thank you for thinking not being a stupid lefty
Good for them. I like the way the gay man stood outside court and said they took his money without mentioning the refund. Says it all really.
You can't force a homophobic person to participate in LGBT celebrations .. its a no brainer ... gay couples should turn it around and imagine if a gay banner maker is asked to make a banner that says "homosexuality is evil" ..
I’m fully behind Gay Rights and I think God is a delusion, but people should not be forced against their will to carry out work they don’t want too.
Steven McGuinness I 100% agree.
Say what you like, it's a Free Country.
Cheers Steven.
@Honour 2018 You are an adult that believes in magic and yet you condescend to others??
@Honour 2018 very few people believe that the universe came from nothing. Most non idiots admit they don't know where it came from.
However many people do believe in an eternal wizard
The guy was an LGBT activist. Probably targeted the bakery knowing they were Christian.
But I wonder.. what the outcome would be if they were Islamic bakers Do you think he would have done the same then? Would the story get as much press coverage?
@@bobrail733 channel 4 would do their best to bury that story
They attack Christian western values. The minority groups support other minority groups, in numbers they can win the culture war, the only cohesion diversity brings is when minority groups combine forces to destroy the heterosexual, christian, white and male people, supposedly they are the oppressors lol. minority are the so-called oppressed, when in-fact they are the oppressors when they have gain social power, just like the progressives are the regressive. Good is evil and evil is good in the realm of left.
Any vendor should be allowed to refuse service which violates their ethics, morals, or religion. For example, a Jewish Deli should never be forced to serve Ham and Swiss Cheese sandwiches.
If it had of gone the other way every single gay business person would have been sniffed out like a blood hound and been asked to make pro Christian /religious items. And then had their asses sued if they refused. The precedent needed to be set to protect everyone’s rights. Could you imagine the amount of trolling that would have gone on.
Oh STFU. And yeah, stop letting blacks and browns inside your restaurants too. That is Tory values!!!
You keep making this about race when it's about the message the customer wanted, not a customer being gay. And Shezza is quite right; if this bakery couldn't refuse to do this message, another bakery couldn't refuse an anti-gay message. It's the same thing.
ScootMagoot46 until the man-hating feminists enter your shop demanding that you make something saying "teach men not to be rapists"... then you'll understand the ruling.
We don't "see it" from gay bakers because others aren't looking to entrap gay bakers.
The bakers are entitled to be against gay marriage. it is illegal in their country. This is not a 'wedding cake', it is a cake in support of the principle of a gay wedding. When the law changes (as it should) then the bakers could (but should not be) compelled to bake the cake, but as it stands they are being asked to support breaking the law, this is not their protest, and they should not be forced to become a pawn in political posturing by a guy who could surely have found somebody gay with the flair to ice a cake with a picture of a couple of childlike puppets.
gay marriage is illegal, not the support for it.
Also "could" or "should not", you have to choose.
Also I don't think 'gay' marriage should even be a political issue in this country. The rest of us have already moved on. I don't even understand why NI is part of the UK anymore anyway when they seem to disagree with everything we do.
Simplest ruling ever, you are not entitled to service
Yeah, stop letting blacks and browns inside your restaurants too. That is Tory values!!!
NO. Denying a service to someone based on soley that person being,gay, black,white or religious is descrimination. Refusing to bake a cake with a message saying" I can`t stand gay, black, white or religious people" is not discrimination.
People have the right to believe what they want, but they don`t have the right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, religious, gender or colour.
It would have been interesting had the unhappy gay asked a muslim baker to make the same cake !
michael wallace any excuse to bring a Muslim into the equation
Well in the US, Steven Crowder visited a number of muslim owned bakeries with such a request, was refused service for a similar order and there was not much fuss from gay rights advocates or progressive news activists. So I think its possible to come up with a reasonable prediction as to how much news coverage this scenario would get in Britain where the news media and "social conscience" activists seem to have a similar partisan character. ua-cam.com/video/RgWIhYAtan4/v-deo.html
mrsnice1231 That’s a very good point. 👍🏽
No disrespect meant Mr Hussain I was merely making the point that most major religions would have done the same and in my opinion rightly so !
Christianity does not teach the homosexual is to be put to death..
Im a brown guy and i'd rather (for example) have a shop with a sign saying 'no brown people' if they had a problem with me, rather than hide it.
Id never want to give my money to someone thats got an issue with me -- sustaining their life style, paying for their holidays etc etc. Id rather go somewhere else and let them lose out.
No ones ever going to change their mind if youre just legally forcing them (loss of income usually motivates a 'change of heart'), and besides... You really want them making your food now? I wouldnt trust my food with someone who doesnt want to make it but forced to...
I concur
YOU personally might prefer that, but others might not. Other might prefer that it's not ok to treat someone else as a 2nd class citizen merely on the basis of who they happen to be. How about if they refuse to serve the disabled?
On the other hand I still think this is the right decision. The baker made it clear that he would have been prepared to make a cake for a gay person and perhaps already does, but WITHOUT a political message on it. The issue here was not gayness, it was political messaging.
If gays can force someone to do a gay cake, then i can force them to do a cake with whatever horrible things i can come up with on the cake.
Nah because they would say its not inclusive if you ask them to make a cake with a man and women
If a Muslim baker refused to bake a cake with a cartoon of a gay couple the news media would not even think it was news worthy. British journalism now serves its own agenda, real true honest journalism no longer exist they disgust me.
I'd love to see a Muslim baker sell me a pork pie. Not a chance they would.
If they had them on their menu or list of products and refused to sell them to you because you were a christian or whatever then that would be wrong but I doubt that would happen because it is completely stupid.
@@marvintpandroid2213 A Muslim baker would never offer or stock a pork pie. It's like asking them for a bacon butty. Pork is haram just like homosexuality. Which religion do you support?
OP, what about a Jewish one?
@@WillScarlet1991 What about a nazi cake ?
No, of course not, as it's not what they sell. Your idiotic example is akin to going into a curtain shop and asking for fish and chips.
I’m not Christian but I still think the baker shouldn’t have to create a cake he doesn’t want to. He’s allowed to say no. I’m all for being gay if you want but you shouldn’t force your beliefs on someone else. Peter is correct.
What an absolute waste of time. Move on to the next bakery and see if they will bake your cake.
He actually did that and they baked it. He just wanted to push this matter forward anyway.
If the tables were turned and the gay couple had a bakery and a customer requested them to make a beautiful cake that said "marriage should only be between a man and women", i am pretty sure they wouldnt make that cake either
Fervently support LGBTQ rights, but the McArthurs CAN NOT be compelled to create a custom product with a message that they profound disagree with! They did not refuse to serve Mr. Lee because he was gay. And who says that Mr. Lee can appropriate Bert and Ernie, two copyrighted figures so integral to Sesame Street, anyway? WTH? Bert and Ernie aren't a gay couple, but the creation of Jim Henson. No, Mr. Lee's legal argument is really off base.
Respect our Christian values!
...or, at least your right to hold them. ;^)
This is about respecting everyone's values and not being compelled to do something you don't want to do. I Imagine that you respect everyone's values and rights to be themselves as long as you don't hurt anyone else.
@Scitch2781 The fairy tales are prophecy.
But to you they are tales, for a very good reason
It’s not even about Christian values at the end of the day, it’s about that the court ruled in favour of free speech. I’m not Christian but I side with the baker, as it’s his choice to say no.
@@starry99
Yes the side of freedom of speech and freedom of choice that's the point nobody is disputing that.
His business, his choice. This isn’t about equality, it’s about bending the knee to these people.
Right decision.
I never heard of a gay cake. Is that the same as a fruit cake?
😯🤣😂funny
The only good to come out of this case is that it might educate a few "victims" out there.
Should have been thrown out of court at the first instance with no case to answer on the part of the bakery, it isn't discrimination to refuse business.
Ikr, this shouldn't even be a discussion
Sensible ruling - should not have gone this far.
I can't understand how this got as far as the Supreme Court. There is an old phrase "play the ball not the man". The owners of the bakery clearly played the ball not the man. I would not defend a British Pakistani who refused sell Tommy Robinson a cake.But if Robinson ordered a cake that said "Throw Muslims out of Britain" I would support the same baker in refusing to do so.
Freedom of religion and the Right to refuse service.Good to know that extremists can't bully a business like they did.
Damn is there no limit of victim cards in this world?
Great job with balanced and fair representation on both sides. Thanks Channel 4.
This case is pretty clear. It was a campaign, were the baker did not wont to contribute to it. The UK court was right and the freedom of speech, as many claim, does not apply here.
You have the freedom to say what is on your mind, but you can not demand from anyone to say or believe what you like.
In the USA there was a similar case, were the baker rejected to make a cake for a gay wedding. It was a case of clear discrimination. Shame on the US court.
No one is obligated to do anything
he does cakes thats his job
I'm a gay man myself and i am 100% in agreement with everything Tatchell says here. He understands, as i do, the basic principle of liberty... which is defending somebody's right to say something that you do not agree with. I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to advocate what is a political statement or opinion, even though it is something i passionately believe in. Much the same way i wouldn't want to be forced to decorate a cake with a slogan that suits the beliefs of, say, a neo-nazi. I came out as gay in the mid 80s when i was in my final year of school. I know the difficulties and the discrimination only too well... and yet, it was also the best of times for me personally because i had the right attitude and still do. I loathe this type of militancy and dragging people through the court system. It's regressive and sets the cause backwards. Imposing a new morality is every bit oppressive as the old.
Even as a gay man from Northern Ireland I agree with this ruling. The legal precedent it sets it too dangerous. I feel this case has been pushed as the gay community in NI does feel under attack by the fundamentalist Christian element in the providence.
@@tonyfat2458 I hope you're trolling.
It's worrying how much we're having to fight for freedom of speech currently, the fact anyone could think the courts decision was wrong is baffling. Free speech isn't always pretty but it's fundamental.
In the U.S., before “civil rights,” you could refuse service to anyone for any damned reason, good, bad, or even “racist.”
The reason was it was your property, your business establishment, and we respected the right of association, which implies a right to dissociate from people you don’t like.
It was called “freedom,” something increasingly rare in Britain, and, sad to say, in the U.S. as well.
Yeah, stop letting blacks and browns inside your restaurants too. That is Tory and Republican values!!!
ScootMagoot46 - That’s right. You are missing the point. Most people consider denying a Black person a hotel room or barring him from a restaurant is wrong. But it is also possible that if Congress had not intervened, society would have eventually sorted the situation out. That is, enough people would have changed their thinking over time and avoided segregationist hotels and restaurants, and these in turn would have changed.
As things are, the government can now force a baker to bake a wedding cake for a Gay couple and if he doesn’t it can put him out of business or, if he wants to stay in business, force him to pay a huge fine and attend sensitivity classes, as happened in the Oregon case. The latest Supreme Court case in the U.S. changed nothing.
The point is the civil society is shrinking as more and more people (maybe you) allow government to expand and replace it.
It doesn't work like that here, as Ashers is a limited company, so owned by the state. Being so, it has to represent the public, not the directors (as they're expendable).
i miss the good old days :(
Yes and it was completely fucking disgusting to any moral human being.
You can't force anyone to agree with your lifestyle, no matter what it is. You just don't have that kind of moral authority.
This should never have gone to court? You cannot force a merchant in a private business to comply with something that they don't believe in. This just made gays look like snowflakes.
I don’t like the fact that they are against gay marriage, but they have a right to refuse to write a political message they don’t agree with
There is no such thing as 'hate speech' it's entirely subjective with no legal definition. You can't have your cake and eat it.
There are a number of legal definitions which encompass hate speech not least s17 Public Order Act 1986. Interpretation of these legal definitions are by their nature objective and are applied accordingly by the Courts in England, Wales (and Scotland in relation to POA 1986).
tubehows4life laws themselves aren’t objective. As I said, some laws are interpreted objectively (either directed by statute of by precedent). Anyway the point is hate speech has been defined by law and it is applied in an objective manner.
I can't believe how many people are missing that distinction, or pretending to.
imagine an atheist bakery being forced to bake a cake supporting creation.
Now that I wanna see..jk but seriously how would the customers react is my question?
Flour, butter, sugar, salt, vanilla, eggs, bake for 30 minutes. Total cost: £5 and an hour of your time.
This is ridiculous, everyone has there own opinion, therefore gay people can’t force everyone to agree with there opinion
I agree with this. If they were refusing gay people based on being gay then I wouldn't support it. But, this is a custom cake with a political view that someone doesn't agree with on moral ground.
I've always had a huge amount of respect for Peter Tatchell over the years. He is a genuine human rights activist. I remember his confrontation with Mugabe in London over his torturing of journalists in Zimbabwe.
This was a massive waste of public money wtf
Christians have rights! If you want a gay cake get it from another shop.
both sides have a perfectly good case . a gay person has his rights , but also the baker has his christian belief rights . we live in a world where equality is paramount in society . you cannot have an argument that is one sided .
Yea the gay man can’t force the Christian to go against his beliefs
It's not about gays or religion, or that guy's supposed hurt feelings. It's a private business and service should be able to be refused to anyone for any reason.
Even though I don't hate gay people alot of them love to inforce Thier beliefs and views on other people .
Reading the comments, especially those from gay folk, gives me some hope. It's easy to become defensive when you get singled out for who you are or for what you believe in. It's much harder to leave the defensive position and empathise with whom you are not and what you do not believe in. It's a fine line between refusing a customer and refusing an order. In this particular case I feel that the line is very visible and I agree with the ruling, in other cases the line might be blurry. As long as we are ready to talk about where lines should be, we're not completely lost.
Go to anouther baker? Problem solved.
Nah gay people want a piece of christian butt. I think they secretly have some f*g fettish for Christian. On the serious not through they hate Christian and western values. Minority groups and their obsession to be a majority group. It's what happens when minority groups become isolated, they become vengeful.
I think it's more about the principle than the cake itself.
@@tennis5126 Why would gay ppl dislike Western values? That wouldn't make alot of sense since Western values ended mainstream persecution of gay people. But I guess each to their own.
The world needs more strong Christians like this couple. They stand firm in the faith and will not be shaken.
I'm sure this was a test of faith, luckily we have a good God.
God bless you.
And I think the earthquake in Turkey and Syria was a test of faith. The people there stand firm in the faith and will not be shaken (pardon the pun). At least the survivors...
That guy needs to get a life. Not everyone agrees with you get over it
You’d think he would just simply go to another baker. These people have wayy too much time on their hands.
Well said Peter Tatchell: Peter Tatchell, who is very outspoken for homosexual 'rights', equally accepts the rights of folk like me to talk down homosexual 'rights'. I believe that sodomy should be criminalised and that, if it were, it would have saved the lives of many who were tempted to engage in this ABOMINATION. I do not believe in the 'rights' of thieves or adulterers either. so I am not singling out any one group. Should anyone? It is right to hate certain things. In the end God damns sin and sinners. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Campaigns against God's values will surely bring the wrath of God against us all. Mohammedanism? Is this the damnation of God against us for our national sins of toleration of sodomy, child murder (abortion) and the ending of the death penalty for genuine murderers? May God grant us repentance from such sins, as a Nation. Well done, Christian Institute, for standing against such a demonic power. I dare say that the sodomites will want to take this case on appeal to Strassburg, but if they take it to the highest moot of all - God - they will find themselves and their values damned. As I say, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Did you arrive in 2018 with a time machine from the year 1418 just to leave this comment on youtube?
Karl W. Sodom was from about 2000BC - so you and your ilk have come from even further back. Moreover, in 1418 the Holy Bible in English was illegal. Thank goodness we now have it in English so that we can learn how bad sodomy is, if we need it to tell us that: though most of us can work it out for ourselves!
Karl W: Many thanks, but I do not think any Christian would wish to harm a sodomite: the point is rather that they are harming themselves. But what a WONDERFUL response from Ashers Bakery: Mr Gareth Lee will always be welcome: it was not the man they objected to, quite rightly, but his message - quite rightly too. Why should such a self-absorbed man harass anyone, but that was their response. And what a wonderful response it was too.
Ffion it is perfectly normal. It’s not like heterosxual kids will become gay because of that
The verdict is 100%right
You can't force people and businesses to agree with your lifestyle.
The LGBT is becoming extremists,if they keep on behaving like this they have more enemies than friends.
It’s simple, just apply the moral ‘silver rule’ of not doing to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself. If you were a gay baker You wouldn’t want a Christian activist forcing you to bake a cake saying homosexuality is a sin.
It’s called free speech
Businesses can deny services to anyone they choose, Just go to another bake shop, plain and simple
Google, Facebook, Twitter ect are also private businesses - when you type a comment into UA-cam are you compelling them to platform your political opinion? Would you be cool with it if you were denied access to the services of all of these corporations because of your political beliefs? Are you ok with facebook censoring videos that don’t align with the political views of mark zuckerburg? Twitter de-platforming people who don’t confirm to the political agenda of whoever runs Twitter. UA-cam curating a list of recommendations based on AI algorithms in order to mould your opinion to align more with the political opinion of Google. Is it still ok when these private companies use their freedom to censor people/ opinions they don’t agree with and not allow them on their platforms. Or is it one rule for one private business and another rule for another private business? Where do you draw the line - do you pick and choose which private businesses you allow to espouse their political views.. because at this point you don’t have freedom of speech abd the same logic can be applied to any businesses. Or should all businesses be apolitical and provide the service they advertise to all customers regardless of political opinion and separate their personal views from the actions of the company?
"Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe. " - Lade Hale, The Supreme Court President. 1:42
What does this mean? If our opinions are such, does it mean..
We can use the correct pronoun when referring to a man who is impersonating a woman. Its not hate speech.
We can refuse to describe fat people as beautiful because they are fat. Its not hate speech.
We can refuse to chant "diversity is our strength". Its not hate speech.
We can refuse to obediently mumble "terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city". Its not hate speech.
Now the question is what happens when the ones who control the loudest or greatest number of figurative megaphones use this argument to refuse to let their platforms be used to publish opinions they do not agree with. Very little of what will be published will be contrary to the opinions given favour by authoritarians. See Google's "The Good Censor" leaked document. What effect will that have on honest debate and discourse on the internet's biggest platforms? Is this why the Supreme Court made this decision?
What Lady Hale also said was "We do not yet have a reasonable way of protecting people from discrimination and simultaneously protecting religious freedom". This is a very difficult issue to disentangle and I firmly believe that we need to find a solution that doesn't create conflict between them. You shouldn't politicise Love for a start. If a Christian came to my hypothetical bakery and asked me to put a message expressing God's love for humanity, sure I have the right to refuse it as a non-Christian but why on earth would I? It's not hateful, malicious or abusive.
What I'm also getting tired of is likening a promotion of equal marriage to compelling people to write racist or hateful things. That isn't what this is about at all. This is about the ability of a customer to be able to be treated the way any other type of customer is. It's about not having one rule for me because I'm gay and one rule for you because you're straight. It shouldn't be about politics it should be about whether or not a message uses abusive or malicious language that is intended to offend or discriminate.
I agree with Tatchell's stance. Many of us, regardless of our sexual orientation, race, gender, have been refused service at a business for one reason or another. The common sense approach is to go elsewhere. Instead of forcing people to do things that they clearly don't want to do, go and give your money to someone who will do a good job, does not oppose you and help them flourish instead. This reeks of an activist creating problems for the sake of it. This case has not done the LGBTQ community any good whatsoever in my opinion. On the other hand, if this were a public service that was refused to a gay couple, that would be a different kettle of fish as a public service should be available to all who meet the criteria of that service. As it is, this is a private business and does not fall into the same category. ALL businesses 'discriminate' including my own. The first and main criteria for 'discrimination' or more properly 'discernment', is the answer to the question of whether the potential customer/client has the ability to pay for the service/goods on offer. Another would be the choice of clientele. For example, I refuse, or would refuse, any request for film production from the adult industry and requests to film a wedding (any, of any orientation). Fortunately, I haven't received a request from either of these groups of clientele and haven't been in the position where I have had to refuse. What I would do however, is wherever possible, politely recommend them production houses/freelancers who are willing to take on this work.
He either has an admirable commitment to individual freedoms, especially having been on the receiving end of so much hatred, or is the ultimate troll...
Bigots: "Well I agree with... Peter Tatchell?!"
What I want to know is why isn’t Sesame Street upset that people are trying to use their intellectual property unlicensed for some other agenda?
Just make the stupid cake... Of all the reasons to refuse service to someone, you do it because of this?
People can "express" themselves how they wish 'politically' (sic), regardless of any implications at all? Not sure Lady Hale is right on that one.
Also, it's a dumb ruling, this is clearly motivated by discrimination, by definition. Just because your discrimination is not consistent and universal (and such irrationality rarely ever is consistent) does not stop it from being discrimination. For instance, if this had been about 'racial equality' and a similar refusal but not because the customer was black.
I know many who think there is some sort of opportunity cost here or long term implications will disagree, but I'd really like to see this case before ECHR, to see what happens. I would have preferred it for a case that was a little clearer.
I think the bigger issue is the idea that someone still holds these [out of date] views, and is not actively seeking medical help.
Marriage is also a very old idea right? Age is no way to determine validity of anything.
I disagree, age can assist in determining the validity of something. The best scientific theories are some of the oldest. My rhetoric is that such a view is out of date, times have changed, not that it is merely old.
Dave who cares they could have gone somewhere else but no they clearly wanted money.
Thanks for replying Dave , that's a very good first point. But I feel we need far more clarity on your second point, the "times" haven't changed, people's opinions have, and even then only some people in some places. It should be principle surely and not the crowd that determine what we believe. When Christianity began it was immediately counter- cultural and outside "the times", it never saw that as a problem. Why should it now?
Its like a Christian asking an atheist bakery to bake a cake with a message “God is good” . They wouldn’t do it. I believe this gay man Gareth Lee had a sinister motives when he asked for a cake with that message. He put a young couple considerable amount of stress all because of his inflated ego.
Yeah same, I would have done it. Not a big deal
The only discrimination I see is Mr Lee’s discrimination against the religious baker. He’d bought cakes at that shop before & he could’ve easily gone elsewhere, but he chose to force the religious owners to make the cake, with a message they don’t approve of. Maybe they should apologise to the cake, itself?
Am I racist for saying “I don’t like Indian or Mexican food?” I have been accused of exactly that!
I wish these activist groups would stop blaming everyone else & slanderous western countries for racism, which is such colossal BS! Any Person, of any race, culture, gender, can get an education & work in ANY field they want! Although, these days, people are being hired based on race & gender over merit. (We must need more transgender heart surgeons, soon)
Off topic, I know, I’m an angrier person these days & “safe spaces” have never been a requirement for people over 40, in Australia we use to make a joke of it but we can’t do that anymore or we might offend Younger people? Never thought I’d see that day.
I avoid gay venues as a brown person, I was told "oh my god you're dark " because lights were dimmer, " oh my gawd look at your eyebrows there so big" , had drinks with no alcohol in them" poured in front of me , denied access to places , while my white friends got in, we were going in minutes intervals not together 3 got in and I didn't, i lost my gf because a gay man told what's that you with! You need to get rid of him and carried on trying to separate us for months , only knew when her mother told me that when she didn't like the man she with , I can go on about the list of militant actions, racism, discrimination and false claims , your sexual orientation don't change how you view other people from different backgrounds, I don't expect you to accept me that's fine , I don't go around shoving it down your throat .
Hmm I thought the system was against free speech. Interesting... I hope all you people who are usually in the comment section pushing that nonsense are here aknowledging that this may be a sign that you're wrong.
Oh dear, this is a retrograde step if ever I saw one. That smiling young couple are deceptively sinister, and the mention of "god" in 2018 really should make anybody's eyes roll
Why?
Identity politics only works one way.
+Masti got em lol
Good! A business used to be able to withdraw or deny service without any reason.
I don't think Gareth did the gay people any favors with this stunt
I think this case has been a huge waste of money, money that could have gone to feed 5000 something more substantial than sugar. Although I have no particular axe to grind regarding gay marriage, I do remember the debate leading up to the decision. If I recall correctly, there were many who were against the idea, all of whom are now written off as bigots. I don't care one way or the other, but it seems OK to me if people in love want to express it. What prompts me to comment is the almost immediate reversal of the position that nobody who was against the ruling by the courts (in particular those with religious views) would be forced to go against their beliefs. Discrimination is wrong, but the law was written to protect both religion (I am an agnostic) and gay rights which may seem to be at odds to some. A very poorly constructed law, which this case further confuses.
No, this legal issue needs resolving. The opportunity cost of legal fees in this issue wouldn't be food, it would most likely be legal fees in another issue.
Putting that aside, you could just about manage to feed 5000 once with that much money. Not sure that is sufficient. You need at least £bn to start to make a short term impact. And then you need to do it in a way that wouldn't get on the wrong side of the economy.
Don't sit on fence just admit you despise them and their perverted ways going around making a hobby of suing Christians like majority of normal people do country was much better off when these perverts stayed in closet 💩💩💩
It’s not at odds. The law in this case was in reference to ‘compelled speech’. Which is pretty straight forward really: you can’t make people say things they do not believe- including icing it on a cake! They were happy to make the cake for him to write whatever political slogan he wanted. If they refused to serve him at all, he would of had a discrimination case.
You can't force people to agree with your views.
So £250000 of public money has been waisted on an activist who so desperately wants to be a victim he deliberately went to a cake shop and asked for something he knew was against their beliefs in an attempt to oppress their beliefs!! What a sad pathetic little man he is
Just move on if your order is rejected...
You have freedom of religion?
You can force people to do what is sinful
They’d make any other cake
This is why he should have gone to a corporate baker, unlike mom and pop bakers they don't let their personal beliefs get in the way of serving a customer.
"I disagree that printing a political pamphlet for a political party endorses that party" ... so a company that whole heartily supports a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy yet prints anti-abortion pamphlets for a customer wouldn't face scrutiny for providing their service? On the flip side would anyone be upset if they refused to print pro-life pamphlets? I think not. I'm an atheist that supports gay marriage and even I can see the hypocrisy and double standards being set.
The court should have stopped this initially .the money spent on this is crazy.if I was gay I would have gone to a different baker. There is important things that courts could be busy about.
If they are religious they have every right to ignore the request 😊
The ECHR and the Supreme Court judgements raise serious questions about the judgement of the leadership of the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. The Chief Executive should be required to be personally responsible for paying the legal costs in full.
It was the correct judgement legally. Even so, it should have been rejected by the first court because it was obviously a propagandist campaign rather than a personal issue. If the cake was for an event and reordered or if it was a real marriage for two people with a personal message then that would have added a personal reason for the cake. This was intentionally the act of an advocate of one group trying to force that message on another group who has the right to personally disagree. If it was a minority group who held the same convictions against the message then the cake probably would never have been ordered and if it had, the first court would have judged in favour of the defendents.
That is what I find so disturbing about this case. The lower courts are so imbued with institutionalised ideology that they are willing to put this ideology in front of the law itself. There have been a number of cases where supreme justices have had to intervene when appealed because thankfully they still care for the law first and foremost.
If you disagree with this, then imagine if the ideology were something you disagree with and the courts ruled in favour of their own beliefs rather than based on the law. Would you be happy?
The supreme Court showed common sense and the the European Court of Human rights also kicked it out.
If a Muslim bakery turned down a cake like this would a gay couple sue them. I don't think so
All the bloke had to do was go to another cake shop, its that simple, but instead he got all sensitive and kicked off about it and ended up almost ruining a families business and costing the tax payer £250000 all cos he couldnt be arsed to go to another bakery wtf is his problem ?
Majority of people can’t distinguish between people learning to disagree in a civil manner. It’s ridiculous how people can’t seem to agree to disagree
They literally said that the bakers don’t have to support a political opinion. This is not a political issue, it’s about a sexuality, which is something that a person can never change! However people can change their political opinions
Now I'd like to see this guy order his cake from a muslime baker and take them to court
The management reserve the right to refuse any orders that it finds offensive.
Go, and read the Bible. Abondimation in the eyes of a Holy God. Greetings from Northern Ireland.
Yes indeed, do you remember that chapter when he asked Abraham to sacrifice his own son to prove his love for him? Wow, what a cruel, selfish, barbaric thing to ask of someone.... and women don't come out of it very well either. I do love the more poetic parts of it though, pity that guy on the committee didn't write more of it. Greetings from England.
The UK populous is literally owned by tabloid publications. The Brits actually believe this dribble
I like how Peter Tatchell doesn’t necessarily agree with them but agrees that they should have the freedom to do so which I respect. If a gay man had to make a cake that supported killing gays than he probably wouldn’t want to make that cake. You should respect the business and their boundaries without forcing it onto them.
Common sense prevails. The problem was always the cake, not the customer. Pretty alarming that the bakers had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that... but they got the right decision, so it's a good day for freedom.
Try doing this to a muslim bakers. Mind you, that’s fine if it’s done by them. They still have their rights.