by waton 48 Replies latest social current
Story in The Guardian:
"--Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.--"
Hard to argue with the general sentiment but it lacks some context to know how individual cases would be decided. Does making a cake or other artistic endeavour represent 'expressing an opinion' for instance? In the US, it's been decided that it would but then they don't use this standard when evaluating cakes for gay weddings but do for other things.
Maybe some reference links would provide a better source for discussion - is this it?
"But it (the family run baking company ) points out that the company's issue was with the slogan and not Mr Lee, claiming it would have refused the same order from a heterosexual client."
I think it's shameful that government funded agencies feel they should try to ruin someone's business for a non-crime like this.
Somehow, it feels like some sense is returning to the world. Like we've turned a corner away from the idiocy of extreme liberalism back to basic common sense.
I fail to see that the cake would be expressing the baker's opinion, anymore that one saying " Happy Birthday Simon" is the baker wising some bloke called Simon a great Birthday.
I can see that a baker should object if a slogan was anything close to hate speech, but this cake was for the spreading of the purchasers opinion. Whether the baker agrees with the sentiment or not is not relevant.
If the baker could prove that he had made a habit of refusing to do slogans on other subjects he did not agree with, he might have a slight argument.
If the baker could prove that he had made a habit of refusing to do slogans on other subjects he did not agree with, he might have a slight argument. Phizzy:
Why should a discerning artist have to prove that she has used that choice of clients before?
The court ruled that refusal in itself is a right of expression.
Hope that people read that Guardian story.
The Supreme Court — the highest court in the UK — has considered all the details of the case at great length and reached a decision.
The only puzzle if that the lower courts could have thought otherwise.
The baker was asked to use his skills to produce a cake with a slogan promoting gay marriage: it was NOT simply the case that he was asked to bake a cake that would be used at a gay wedding.
He did not wish to do so. The court ruled that he has that right. Victory for common sense.
Activist courts and government agencies - they need to be purged of the radicals that have infected them.
“This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe."
Excellent.
In what way was the baker "being forced to have or express a political opinion" ?
As I said above, his producing the slogan on the cake is NOT expressing his opinion, anymore than the Stonemason, who may well be an Atheist with no belief in the Afterlife, is expressing HIS opinion when he carves "Rest in Peace".
It is the Client's opinion/belief that is being expressed, what right does the baker have to force the client not to express his/her opinion ?
