Trampling On Others Human Rights; UK Supreme Court rules against gay rights activist Gareth Lee in 'gay cake' case, yet again a minority tries to use human rights as vehicle to breach other people’s human rights, in this case, there is one ‘victim’, gay rights activist Gareth Lee. ‘victim of his own stupidity’, McArthur family 'delighted and relieved' at court victory

Dear All

Do you know what human rights are?

Lots of people mistake ‘I want’ for ‘I am entitled too’ and what they fail to grasp is that they don’t have a human right if it breaches another person’s human rights.

Article 4 of human rights:

“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.

This means you can’t force someone to work for you if they don’t want to.

Article 9 of human rights:

“Freedom of thought, belief and religion”.

This brings us to the case of the Christian owners of a bakery at the centre of the so-called "gay cake" case. When the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal found against the Christian owners, they got it wrong.

In order to get justice, the McArthurs (bakery owners) challenged those rulings at a Supreme Court hearing.

In today’s society certain minorities groups get special treatment while at the same time screaming for equality. These minorities groups have joined every political party to extend their influence, and parties and members fear being branded as homophobic or racist or any of the other labels that minorities try to pin on people to force them to either shut up or comply with their agenda.

Gay rights activist Gareth Lee has claimed he had been discriminated against when the firm refused to make him a cake iced with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" on it. What Mr. Lee failed to recognise is the human rights of the McArthur family, but the Supreme Court didn’t, they gave a unanimous ruling in London in favour of the bakery.

Gareth Lee wasn’t discriminated against when he was refused because he doesn’t have the human right to comply others to work for him, and he doesn’t have the human right to comply people to act against their religious beliefs. Of course saying this out loud and public is a risky business, anyone who reads this post might be tempted to scream ‘homophobic’.

My reply to any comment of that nature directed at me is, please read Article 10: Freedom of expression, and then if you still don’t grasp it, you are stupid, and no one can help you.

The McArthur family have expressed their "delight and relief" after winning a Supreme Court appeal over a claim that they had discriminated against a customer. But the fact remains, why did the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal get it wrong. After all this is human rights, these people are trained lawyers and judges?

Basically I would say that is down to fear, fear of doing their job properly, fear that their careers could be affected, and fear of the mob.

The bakery's general manager, Daniel McArthur, who attended court with his wife Amy, said:

“We're delighted and relieved at today's ruling. We always knew we hadn't done anything wrong in turning down this order. We're particularly pleased the Supreme Court emphatically accepted what we've said all along - we did not turn down this order because of the person who made it, but because of the message itself. I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone.”

What is amusing about this story is that Mr Lee, a member of the LGBT advocacy group QueerSpace, hadordered a £36.50 cake for a private function marking International Day Against Homophobia.

Homophobia is defined as:

‘dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia gives a more extended version.

In his crusade, it seems that Gareth Lee couldn’t work out that in his quest for equality; he was trampling over other people’s human rights!

What advice would I give Gareth Lee, either get taught human rights proper;y or take up baking, tips online at youtube and other media platforms.

Another issue that is flagged up by this case is the role and support by Northern Ireland's Equality Commission; these people don’t understand human rights or equality.

Lee said:

“To me, this was never about a campaign or a statement. All I wanted was to order a cake in a shop that sold cakes to order. I paid my money, my money was taken and then a few days later it was refused. That made me feel like a second-class citizen. I'm concerned not just for the implications for myself and other gay people, but for every single one of us.”

So, let us look at his point, that the shop sold cakes to order and the refusal as the basis for making him feel a second-class citizen. Cakes to order isn’t a blank cheque, would Gareth Lee field an objection if someone came into the bakery and said they would like a cake to order with the wording ‘kill all homosexuals’?

Clearly the wording on any cake is subject to the discretion of the bakery, unless of course he feels that the McArthur’s Article 4 of human rights shouldn’t apply because he is withdrawing them via him paying cash:

In a brief statement announcing the court's decision, its president, Lady Hale, said the McArthur family hold the religious belief that "the only form of marriage consistent with the Bible and acceptable to God is between a man and a woman".

She said:

"As to Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation. They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee or of anyone else with whom he was associated”.

Article 4 of human rights!

She added:

"The message on the cake would not just be for the benefit of gay people - but also for their families and friends and anyone who recognises the social benefits which the commitment involved in gay marriage can bring. Accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee or anyone else with whom he was associated."

Lady Hale continued:

"The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed."

After announcing that the bakery's appeal was allowed, she added:

"This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination”.

Mr Lee said he is considering his options regarding an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, if that is the case, his arse better get a move on; the UK leaves the EU on 29^th March 2019.

Finally, most people in political parties would automatically support the position of Gareth Lee, of the LGBT advocacy group QueerSpace because they are spineless, and not to mince words, there are plenty of people who are as thick as shit in politics. Also people don’t want the fear of being wrongly labelled homophobic so are forced into silence. As we have seen in the press, politicians have no problem chucking the homophobic tag about the place. Sometimes they end up coming a cropper as Kezia Dugdale found out in her running court room saga.

Gareth Lee, of the LGBT advocacy group QueerSpace needs to understand that he was granted equality regarding the ‘gay’ cake in that bakery, he was told to piss off like anyone else.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University