Return of the 'gay cake'

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I do think what I wrote is relevant to the discussion. It's fine if you don't.

If you want to keep replying to any of my posts to say that you think my post is irrelevant... if it helps you pass the time go ahead.

why is it relevant?

[jeremyp]

No.

I am saying that there can be no contract under English Law without consent.

This is blatantly false. You cannot, for example, refuse service, if your reason for doing so is that the other party is gay or black.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This is blatantly false. You cannot, for example, refuse service, if your reason for doing so is that the other party is gay or black.

Jeremy, anybody who has ever taken a Legal Executive course knows that for a contract to be valid, there must be consent. Otherwise you could claim monies from me for failing to wash your windows regardless of the fact that I had never agreed to wash them!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Yes,of course you can think what you like. Doesn't stop that your position on contracts allows someone to refuse to treat with someone because they are black.

OK I was being deliberately provocative.

But you seem to be arguing that the statute in question means that I would have to do business with somebody because they are black. That would be in legal terms "an absurdity", and the judiciary would most probably apply "the golden rule".

[jeremyp]

Jeremy, anybody who has ever taken a Legal Executive course knows that for a contract to be valid, there must be consent. Otherwise you could claim monies from me for failing to wash your windows regardless of the fact that I had never agreed to wash them!

In your example there never was a contract. However, if you refuse to accept a contract to wash somebody’s windows purely on the grounds that they were gay, or black, you would be breaking British law.

The whole argument: we can’t have a law to do X because in British law X is illegal is a nonsense. British law is what the government and courts say it is. As such, it can always be changed.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

In your example there never was a contract. However, if you refuse to accept a contract to wash somebody’s windows purely on the grounds that they were gay, or black, you would be breaking British law.

The whole argument: we can’t have a law to do X because in British law X is illegal is a nonsense. British law is what the government and courts say it is. As such, it can always be changed.

There is no such thing as "British law". Don't ask the Daily Wail, ask Gordon, or Anchorman.

If I don't want to enter into a contract with Mr X just because he is black, that is different from me not wanting to enter into a contract with Mr X because he wants me to bake a cake with the slogan "Black Power".

[jeremyp]

There is no such thing as "British law".

Are you really going to try to defend yourself on such a triviality? My point stands whether I say English law, Scottish law, Welsh law or any other laws that apply in any of the jurisdictions that make up Great Britain.

If I don't want to enter into a contract with Mr X just because he is black, that is different from me not wanting to enter into a contract with Mr X because he wants me to bake a cake with the slogan "Black Power".

I agree that those two cases are different. The former is illegal under English law. The latter is not illegal according to the ruling about which we are talking and rightly so, in my opinion.
[/quote]

[ippy]

I picked this up on the NSS site, whether it's liked or not I think it's a good point to file at the back of the mind for future reference, when something similar might crop up.
=====
"However, it has created a potentially confusing grey area for shoppers whereby businesses can 'opt out' of supplying services where the owners disagree with the message a customer wants to convey. We hope this doesn't embolden bigots by allowing them to use 'disagreement with the message' as a cloak for refusing services to people on the basis of who they are."

ippy

[jeremyp]

I picked this up on the NSS site, whether it's liked or not I think it's a good point to file at the back of the mind for future reference, when something similar might crop up.
=====
"However, it has created a potentially confusing grey area for shoppers whereby businesses can 'opt out' of supplying services where the owners disagree with the message a customer wants to convey. We hope this doesn't embolden bigots by allowing them to use 'disagreement with the message' as a cloak for refusing services to people on the basis of who they are."

ippy

Interesting point actually. If you order a wedding cake with two male figures on the top, is that a message?

[Anchorman]

There is no such thing as "British law". Don't ask the Daily Wail, ask Gordon, or Anchorman.

If I don't want to enter into a contract with Mr X just because he is black, that is different from me not wanting to enter into a contract with Mr X because he wants me to bake a cake with the slogan "Black Power".

However, as far as legislation concerning this particular issue goes, you could not put a parliamentary order paper between English and Scots Law.
Northern Ireland - sadly - is a different kettle of cheese......

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

why is it relevant?

I think it's relevant because one of the points of discussion seems to be about courts interpreting legislation and facts. In the case of the cake it is an interpretation of what does and does not constitute a request for a political message, as that is not a protected characteristic. Interpretations are influenced by assumptions that are made by the person or people deciding the case. As was seen in the Ashers case, different judges reach opposing conclusions based on their differing interpretation of legislation.

I was broadening out the discussion to suggest that assumptions made in interpretation of legislation and facts in court cases can result in conflict in society, in employment or in provision of goods and services. This can lead to an erosion of trust in the judicial system. I don't know if there is evidence to justify that perception of the judicial system, hence I was hoping that by bringing it up it was possible that other posters can link to stats or evidence on the judicial system discriminating in deciding cases that hinge on the perception of credibility of the respective parties. 

For example in civil cases assumptions may have been made by a claimant that the respondent is prejudiced and discriminated against them based on a protected characteristic.

Or assumptions may be made in tribunals and courts that the claimant is dishonest or that the respondent could not possibly be a bigot, because finding for the person claiming discrimination would potentially destroy the reputation of the respondent. In criminal cases assumptions might be made based on sex, e.g. results in the court finding that an alleged criminal act was wholly out of character for the defendant.

It would be useful to see a study on outcomes of different types of discrimination cases and any investigation into why they might have been decided the way they were. You might consider that as irrelevant and uninteresting and I might consider your opinion on the matter irrelevant and uninteresting. Oh well.