Bert and Ernie gay marriage cake row could force Muslims to print Prophet Mohammed cartoons – lawyer

Human Rights barrister claims gay marriage cake court case would erode right to refuse to act against conscience:

Muslim printers could be forced to produce cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed if the case against a Christian bakery which refused to make a Sesame Street gay marriage cake is upheld, a prominent human rights barrister has claimed. Aidan O’Neill QC said a discrimination case against Ashers Baking Company – which cancelled an order to make a cake featuring the characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan ‘support gay marriage’ – could undermine freedom of conscience. Mr O’Neill was commissioned by the Christian Institute, which is supporting the bakery’s legal defence, to provide a legal opinion on the implications of the case, which is due to come before a court in Belfast later this month. He said the arguments upon which the legal action is based could also justify forcing a T-shirt company with a lesbian owner to print tops denouncing same-sex marriage as an “abomination” or an atheist web designer to build a website claiming the world was made by God in six days.


The row over the Bert and Ernie cake has divided opinion sharply in Northern Ireland, where the bakery is based, and led to attempts to introduce a so-called “conscience clause” into law in the province. The proposal, put forward by members of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), would give businesses an exclusion from discrimination law enabling them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions. Supporters claim it is needed to protect freedom of belief but opponents say it would be nothing more than legalised discrimination against gay people. The row first arose in May of last year when Ashers cancelled a £36.50 order for the novelty cake from Gareth Lee, an LGBT rights activist. Daniel McArthur, general manager of the firm, said it would amount to endorsing the campaign for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland – the only part of the UK where it is not yet legal – and go against his traditionalist Christian beliefs. But the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a Government-backed body, wrote to the firm to say the refusal amounted to discrimination against Mr Lee, who wanted the cake for an event to mark International Day Against Homophobia.

Mr Lee, supported by the Commission, is seeking a small amount of compensation and a declaration that his treatment amounted to discrimination, based on equality regulations and employment law. But Mr O’Neill argued that the Commission’s case ignores human rights protections and said the bakery’s case was based on the same principles as Sir Thomas More’s refusal recognise Henry VIII to be the Supreme Head of the Church in England. “Their refusal to endorse this opinion – to protect their negative freedom of expression – has resulted in the State, in the form of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, funding court action against them which seeks to stigmatise as unlawful and render unactionable the defendants’ religious beliefs and political opinions,” he wrote.

He added: “If the approach of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland … were correctly based in law (which I do not consider it to be) then on the basis that the law does not protect the fundamental right, within the commercial context of supplying services, to hold opinions nor guarantee any negative freedom of expression, there would be no defence to similar actions being taken against individuals or companies supplying services in any of the following scenarios which have been presented to me.” He listed several scenarios including “a Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed”.
Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “The strength and clarity of the advice from Mr O’Neill, who has a national reputation for his human rights expertise, should set off the alarm bells in this Government quango. “It spells out the very real dangers and far-reaching implications for freedom of speech. “But the equality watchdog seems determined to force people to use their creative skills to promote a political cause they fundamentally disagree with. “This family run bakers serve gay customers all the time but they didn’t want to promote gay marriage.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11477809/Bert-and-Ernie-gay-marriage-cake-row-could-force-Muslims-to-print-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoons-lawyer.html


Interesting case, what do others think?

it is an interesting point of law since by the same token it could de-legitimise the "conscientious objector" too

however is this perhaps a case of "right in law but wrong in morals"
and best served by "dont be a dick"

Its a classic of what happens when one set of laws clash with another

well if they run a printing press so they should
that's the law we are secular nations, I don't see the problem
they have the right to not run a printing press.

If someone's chosen business is in conflict with society their business closes. there is no 'right to profit' if your attempt to profit impinges on the rights of others you should be forced to stop.

Agreed veya. Instead if pandering to idiotic beliefs we should be saying no, and then explaining why they are wrong.

however the use of the Muslim example is a mistake ...

more intersting is the case of the concientious objector.....

obviously it is a case of carefully balancing freedoms...but it does make for "messy" law

but why would a conscientious objector deny someone service ?

IF they run a bakery and someone asks for a cake that they normally do and some want "Yay WAR" on it they either make it or cease to operate too..

pretty black and white when you think about it, IF you run a Business the Business must not discriminate, EVEN if you own the business your personal beliefs don't trump your customers right to not be discriminated against. IF you feel so strongly about something you are free to close the business and cease to operate. Really SAME as health and safety standards.... IF YOU CAN MEET THEM CLOSE.

we look at business owners the wrong way they are not special at all and most of the time you have multiple business competing for the same market, If they can't for fill the legal requirements they can be closed and the business that CAN and WILL meet the legal requirements can gain the customers. thus supporting responsible community positive business owners that follow the law.

veya_victaous wrote:but why would a conscientious objector deny someone service ?

IF they run a bakery and someone asks for a cake that they normally do and some want "Yay WAR" on it they either make it or cease to operate too..

pretty black and white when you think about it, IF you run a Business the Business must not discriminate, EVEN if you own the business your personal beliefs don't trump your customers right to not be discriminated against. IF you feel so strongly about something you are free to close the business and cease to operate. Really SAME as health and safety standards.... IF YOU CAN MEET THEM CLOSE.

we look at business owners the wrong way they are not special at all and most of the time you have multiple business competing for the same market, If they can't for fill the legal requirements they can be closed and the business that CAN and WILL meet the legal requirements can gain the customers. thus supporting responsible community positive business owners that follow the law.

thats NOT quite the point ...is it

at east on the surface the proposed law (what they are doing is proposing a change of law by "precedent) would make it illegal to carry out an act baed on your beliefs.....

as I say messy law...

well if written properly it would only apply to Businesses
people are free to quit the service industry if they cannot meet minimum standards, a conscientious objector too.