Posted on 01/06/2022 1:56:38 AM PST by RandFan
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a discrimination complaint by a gay rights activist after a Christian bakery refused to make him a cake is inadmissible.
The high-profile controversy first flared when Gareth Lee ordered a £36.50 ($50) cake from Ashers bakery in Belfast in May 2014.
The cake, commissioned for a private function marking International Day Against Homophobia, featured Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie and was to be iced with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage'.
His order was accepted and he paid in full, but, two days later, the Christian owners of the company, Daniel and Amy McArthur, called to say it could not proceed due to the message requested.
Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group QueerSpace, then launched the legal case, supported by Northern Ireland's Equality Commission, alleging discrimination on the grounds of his sexuality.
The case was fought in several courts, eventually in 2018 reaching the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that Mr Lee was not discriminated against when Ashers bakery refused to make him a cake with the slogan supporting gay marriage.
Mr Lee then referred the case to the ECHR, claiming that the Supreme Court failed to give appropriate weight to him under the European Convention of Human Rights.
But the ECHR in Strasbourg today ruled that the case was 'inadmissible', finding that Mr Lee had failed to 'exhaust domestic remedies' in the case, and he had not 'invoked his Convention rights at any point in the domestic proceedings'.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Maybe if he harassed a Muslim bakery instead...
Actually, would pay good money to watch the fallout of him trying it.
Besides, they never do.
Persecuting Christians is a better racket in America than in Europe, amazingly.
Amazing europe can get that one right and USofA can’t.
IMO if there was absolutely no alternative to the Christian bakery anywhere in the vacinity then the kwheer may have an argument. Otherwise slap him with a fine and throw out the case with the stipulation that the baker can sue the kwheer.
Perhaps it was due to a technicality.
It was ruled on procedural grounds, giving the next person who wants to do so an opening to both have the ruling go their way and to diminish national sovereignty at the same time.
We have a Constitution and different laws.
Under UK law you may be correct, but just as a patriotic military veteran song writer, or sign maker, or baker should not have to create a special custom expressive work for the expressed purpose of celebrating the fall of Saigon, nor a black or Jewish baker a KKK event, or even a Muslim the anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel, neither should they have to do so for a homosexual event.
Such are not essential services, and refusal by one song writer or other expressive artist to provide a special work opens the door for another to do so. But the problem is when the courts have essentially required every state to salute the flag of Sodom, which is akin to having to salute a Communist flag.
That basically seems to be the case, yet at least it indicates that unlike with Masterpiece bakery (which was a very clear case of wrongful prosecution and of persecution), there is presently a reluctance to punish Christian dissent.
And see post 9. Such cases of non-essential services engaging in the creation of custom expressive works should be treated like as a song writer being forced to create a work contrary to his beliefs. However, if such is a commercial artist offering song writing then they need to state a right of refusal to create custom expressive works contrary to their beliefs, whether it be a patriot writing a song about the glories of Communism or a Communist about the glories of capitalism, etc., etc. This is not the same as a Uber driver refusing services to a synagogue, church or mosque, but that of custom expressive works.
Could be related: Seattleites complain they can’t find woke therapists for segregated health care Ishisaka says finding a therapist (especially one covered by one’s insurance) is a “soul crushing exercise.” To be “culturally competent” in this context, a therapist must share identical or similar identities to the patient. It’s another way for progressive activists to shame “cis-gendered white men and women” as incapable of understanding their experiences.
“Virtually every Facebook group I am part of that is for people of color or queer and trans people has post after post after post from people trying to find a therapist that actually meets them with all their intersecting identities,” Ishisaka says. “Many people, including me, already bitterly gave up on trying to have culturally competent therapy covered by their insurance.” - https://mynorthwest.com/3294980/rantz-seattleites-complain-they-cant-find-woke-therapists-for-segregated-healthcare/
Somehow Facebook, etc. can refuse services to people based upon their expressed ideological views (which FR also can and should be able to do) - including what constituted "hate speech" and |fake news" but a baker cannot refuse to create a custom expressive work for a ideological cause they disagree with.
Cue up that “Bake The Cake” graphic with a pistol pointed at the back of a baker’s head.
“Amazing europe can get that one right and USofA can’t.”
It’s not the USA that can’t get it right, it is due to who we allow to sit on courts versus who they allow. In Europe, they don’t put up with judicial activism, they prefer laws, as ugly as they are, to judges thinking they’re kings.
In the US, we have one party that at least tries to also follow the laws, and another party which simply doesn’t care what the laws are or what the Constitution says. Again, Europe, as leftist as they are, still expects their laws and Constitution to be followed by ALL judges.
“We have a Constitution….”
Sure would be nice if our government paid a bit of attention to it.
L
Sure would be nice if our schools actually taught what was in it.
“Sure would be nice if our schools actually taught what was in it.”
Frank Zappa had something to say about that. He was right.
L
Yep, I’ve posted that quote several times.
And I thank you for doing so.
L
Your position is sensible, but I don’t think it will prevail in many places west of Poland.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
I don't believe there should be federally (US) protected classes. It just furthers the notion that there is something wrong or weak with the people in that demographic. It even further ostracizes them. As in "Gee, there must be some reason why I wouldn't want to serve XYZ, else why would the government be forcing me to?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.