‘Gay cake’ ruling sets dangerous precedent

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/21/gay-cake-ruling-sets-dangerous-precedent

Version 0 of 1.

In the light of the Belfast ruling (Christian bakers lose ‘gay cake’ court case, 20 May), ask which of the following you would also be in favour of: 1) A gay bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice Old Testament or Qur’an verses against homosexuality on to a cake intended for a conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim event; 2) A Jewish bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice antisemitic imprecations on to a cake for a neonazi/radical traditionalist Catholic/Islamist event; 3) A Palestinian bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice a celebration of the anniversary of the state of Israel on to a cake for a Zionist organisation.

Chomsky noted that “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” – but this applies no less to freedoms of belief and conscience. The gay couple in question were always free to express their beliefs: they could have sought out a baker sympathetic to their views to ice their cake, or iced it themselves. Instead, they used the law to force a person to express views he finds abhorrent. This issue has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with freedom of belief, conscience and expression – it being an implacable attack on these latter. It sets a dreadful precedent.Dr Robert LockieHove, East Sussex

• Simon Jenkins’ entire piece about the Belfast cake affair (Opinion, 21 May) is based on spurious hypothetical comparisons. The requested message was in support of gay marriage and in no way analogous to discriminatory statements demanding that “Muslims go home”, or containing an “anti-Catholic tirade”. A far more revealing way of looking at the argument is to imagine howls of (justifiable) outrage from religious groups if a baker had refused to ice a cake with a slogan supporting Christianity on the grounds of the shopowner’s deeply held atheist beliefs. Simon Jenkins is confusing freedom of expression with fostering hatred – a tactic much used by those who wish to be free to discriminate against others while being protected from being discriminated against.Barry RamshawBristol

• The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives. Otto InglisEdinburgh