Courts uphold gay couple that was discriminated against
Ruling to award adoption to single man in gay relationship
Prof Fatimah Lateef, MP for Marine Parade GRC
Mr Seah Kian Peng, MP for Marine Parade GRC
Mr Christopher de Souza, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC
Questions
Q19 - Prof Fatimah Lateef: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development: what is the Ministry's position on the recent High Court verdict to award adoption to a single man in a same-sex relationship, of his biological child born through an overseas surrogacy.
Q20 - Mr Seah Kian Peng: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development: what implications there are with regard to other Government policies including education and housing that need to be reviewed given the recent High Court ruling to award adoption to a single man in a same-sex relationship, of his biological son conceived through a surrogacy done overseas.
Q21 - Mr Christopher de Souza: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development: whether the Ministry will (i) ban commercial surrogacy in Singapore. (ii) prohibit agreements to settle for surrogacy in Singapore or overseas, and (iii) disallow adoptions arising from commercial surrogacy whether such surrogacy occurs
BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Washington State Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case in which a florist refused to offer flowers to a gay couple for their wedding.
A bring down court ruled in 2015 that Arlene’s Flowers violated the state’s anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws by refusing service to the couple.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Washington are representing Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll in their lawsuit against the Richland florist for violating their rights.
Freed and Ingersoll acquire been a couple since 2004. In December 2012, soon after the articulate of Washington began recognizing the liberty to marry for gay couples, Freed proposed marriage to Ingersoll, and the two became engaged. They were planning for a wedding to be held on their anniversary in September 2013. Having purchased goods from Arlene’s Flowers on many occasions, Ingersoll asked the florist to arrange for flowers for the event. However, he was told that the business would not market the couple flowers because of the owner’s religious beliefs.
Fearing further discrimination, they stopped planning for a larger wedding and ultimately decided to have a small wedding at t
The UK Supreme Court issued its verdict in Lee v. Ashers on October 10, a case from Northern Ireland that has attracted widespread attention. In May 2014, Gareth Lee, a queer rights activist, deeply interested with QueerSpace, an organisation for the LGBT community in Northern Ireland, ordered a cake from Ashers bakery in Belfast. He asked for the cake to be decorated with the letter “Support Gay Marriage”, to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. Amy and Daniel McArthur, who ran the bakery, refused – citing their religious opposition as evangelical Christians to gay marriage.
Lee took the bakery to the Northern Ireland County Court. It upheld his complaint, awarding him £500 damages from Ashers, a ruling subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that decision, judgment that Lee was not discriminated against.
Lee v. Ashers is not the only case where the religious liberty of Christians has show up into conflict with the rights and interests of homosexual and lesbian people. In Bull v. Hall (2013), the UK Supreme Court upheld the complaint of a same-sex attracted couple who had been refused a double room by a Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast.
Gay couple wins case against florist after Supreme Court rejects appeal
Over the objections of three conservative justices, the US Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from a Washington State flower shop that violated state anti-discrimination law by refusing to serve a same-sex couple on religious grounds.
The ruling means a California Supreme Court judgment against Arlene's Flowers and owner Barronelle Stutzman will stand. In 2013, Stutzman refused to arrange wedding flowers for a pair of long-time customers -- Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed -- saying that doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
"After Curt and I were turned away from our local flower shop, we cancelled the plans for our dream wedding because we were frightened it would happen again. We had a tiny ceremony at home instead," said Robert Ingersoll in a statement. "We expect this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should have to exposure the hurt that we did."
With help from the ACLU, the couple sued the shop under Washington's anti-discrimination law, which says businesses that are reveal to the general widespread cannot refuse to attend someon
'Gay cake' row: What is the dispute about?
In October 2016, the owners of the bakery lost their appeal against the verdict that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under statute, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs, external.
Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".
The firm then took the case to the Supreme Court and they won.
The UK's utmost court ruled the bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Then president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, ruled the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the order because of the customer's sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," she said.
"Their objection was to the word on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee."
And from there, Mr Lee took his case to Europe,