Topic: No blacks, no Irish, no dogs

[Kenny's Jacket]

So therefore I would have to design a poster/leaflet in support of a right wing organisation. This case is not about homophobia it's about the right of an artisan to decide what work they want/feel comfortable taking on.

Check out Peter Thatchells view on this case.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/gay-cake-case-ashers-bakery-peter-tatchell/

Unless I am mistaken, though out the entire thread you haven't once condemned the homophobia from these bakers. I find that very curious. 

[Corkboy]

Unless I am mistaken, though out the entire thread you haven't once condemned the homophobia from these bakers. I find that very curious. 

Steady on. Let's not get to a place where we're singling out people for not expressing opinions.

[thejbs]

Absolutely not. No one is stoping them from believing in the shite they do. However when believing their filth makes them bigots, that bigotry shouldn't be legitimized due to them associating with a certain group.

Christianity is a belief, so is fascism.  Homophobia cant be excused by associating with being a christian any more than being a white supremacist cant be excused by claiming to be a fascist.

It really is that simple. I cannot understand how people don't get it.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Judgement is here

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html

Paras 20-36 deal with the issue raised by the thread title. It seems to be a pretty sound argument. It is impossible for somebody to choose be (or indeed not to be) Black, Irish or Gay. In contrast anybody can hold an opinion for or against Gay Marriage. 

The rest of it is obviously more contentious. For what it is worth I agree with the ruling. Once you deal with the direct discrimination you essentially end up with a conflict between two parties' right to a freedom of expression/political belief. In weighing up that conflict one party had their freedom of expression inhibited but not prevented (essentially they could and indeed did go elsewhere to get the cake made) whilst the other potentially would have their freedom of belief/expression entirely nullified by being forced to produce a cake with a message they deeply disagreed with.

Legal issues aside though, in my opinion it is quite clear which side is still living in the dark ages.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Judgement is here

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html

Paras 20-36 deal with the issue raised by the thread title. It seems to be a pretty sound argument. It is impossible for somebody to choose be (or indeed not to be) Black, Irish or Gay. In contrast anybody can hold an opinion for or against Gay Marriage. 

The rest of it is obviously more contentious. For what it is worth I agree with the ruling. Once you deal with the direct discrimination you essentially end up with a conflict between two parties' right to a freedom of expression/political belief. In weighing up that conflict one party had their freedom of expression inhibited but not prevented (essentially they could and indeed did go elsewhere to get the cake made) whilst the other potentially would have their freedom of belief/expression entirely nullified by being forced to produce a cake with a message they deeply disagreed with.

Legal issues aside though, in my opinion it is quite clear which side is still living in the dark ages.

20. The SORs were made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First
Minister under powers given to them by section 82(1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Equality
Act 2006 (an Act of the UK Parliament). Regulation 3(1) defines direct
discrimination thus: “a person (A) discriminates against another person (B) if (a) on
grounds of sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat
other persons; …”


Quite clearly they have been treated differently.  If these scumbags were asked to bake a cake that promoted marriage between and a man and a woman then they would. Their refusal to promote marriage was bases on sexual orientation


Not surprisingly, therefore, Mr Scoffield QC, who appears for the appellants,
argues that it was not open to the judge to find that there was direct discrimination
on grounds of sexual orientation. The reason for treating Mr Lee less favourably
than other would-be customers was not his sexual orientation but the message he
wanted to be iced on the cake. Anyone who wanted that message would have been
treated in the same way.


More bullshit. The two bakers are married. We can conclude therefore that they support marriage.  However they are treating gay people with discrimination  but they wont let them have a pro marriage cake, but hey would give them to hetrosexuals.

[Zeb]

Don't know if this will be useful to others too, but this is one QC's conclusion to a summary of the case:

The law is therefore very unclear. One can see that requiring a Jewish publisher to publisher a Holocaust denial book, for example, or a Muslim publisher to publish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, would be deeply offensive and would carry their name on the spine of the book. But can it be said that baking a cake, whether promoting gay marriage or praising Brexit, is associating with, or promoting, the sentiments on the cake? Is a wedding cake in itself a message for same sex marriage, entitling the baker to refuse to bake it? What if it says ‘Congratulations Bill and Ben?’  Does that make it a message which the baker is entitled to refuse?

The judgment makes shopping a lottery for the customer and gives the supplier a “conscience clause”. When consulting on the 2006 Sexual Orientation Regulations, the Government took note of the objections that non-profit religious organisations should have an exemption on the basis of religious ethos, but did not extend that exemption to ‘Christian businesses’, which it said could be used as a mask for discrimination. Despite that rejection, the Supreme Court has given all businesses the right to opt out of supplying services if it disagrees with the message a customer wants to convey. That will lead to confusion and will also possibly be used as the mark for discrimination the Government was worried about. It seems likely that there will be many more cases before the matter is settled.

Daphne Romney QC

[Trim0582]

Paras 20-36 deal with the issue

Not sure sending in 30 odd paratroopers is the answer,  seems a touch draconian. 

[Iska]

Don't know if this will be useful to others too, but this is one QC's conclusion to a summary of the case:

Daphne Romney QC

That’s right but I wouldn’t say it makes the law ‘very unclear’ at all.  The underlying issue is freedom of conscience versus neutrality in what you do.  There were three basic possible outcomes:

• absolute freedom to refuse on whatever grounds you like
• a duty on everyone to act absolutely neutrally at all times
• some sort of compromise

The court chose the last one - the compromise is that you can’t discriminate against people (on basis of human characteristics like age, sex, race, religion; political opinion isn’t one, except it seems in Northern Ireland), but you can choose not to (do things to help) support their cause.

I don’t think that’s either unreasonable or particularly difficult.  In fact I’d suggest it’s the only way that both freedom of conscience and non-discrimination can exist.  How would eg political freedom have any meaning if (assuming that everyone’s got to make a living) you had no choice but to (help to) support the other side?  How would you have the right not to be discriminated against if the refuser’s beliefs were always a get-out?

It’s only unclear if it’s not clear whether the service is personal or part of a cause.  There must be examples where it’s genuinely hard to say whether it’s one or the other, but I actually find it surprisingly hard to think of them.  The examples that get given so far - printing holocaust denial books, baking a ‘congratulations Adam & Steve’ cake - seem to me at least to be pretty clearly one or the other.

[Zeb]

That’s right but I wouldn’t say it makes the law ‘very unclear’ at all.  The underlying issue is freedom of conscience versus neutrality in what you do.  There were three basic possible outcomes:

• absolute freedom to refuse on whatever grounds you like
• a duty on everyone to act absolutely neutrally at all times
• some sort of compromise

The court chose the last one - the compromise is that you can’t discriminate against people (on basis of human characteristics like age, sex, race, religion; political opinion isn’t one, except it seems in Northern Ireland), but you can choose not to (do things to help) support their cause.

I don’t think that’s either unreasonable or particularly difficult.  In fact I’d suggest it’s the only way that both freedom of conscience and non-discrimination can exist.  How would eg political freedom have any meaning if (assuming that everyone’s got to make a living) you had no choice but to (help to) support the other side?  How would you have the right not to be discriminated against if the refuser’s beliefs were always a get-out?

It’s only unclear if it’s not clear whether the service is personal or part of a cause.  There must be examples where it’s genuinely hard to say whether it’s one or the other, but I actually find it surprisingly hard to think of them.  The examples that get given so far - printing holocaust denial books, baking a ‘congratulations Adam & Steve’ cake - seem to me at least to be pretty clearly one or the other.

Interesting that. Cheers. I think one of the fuzzy things to me is when we're talking about an individual who owns and/or works in a business vs when we're talking about a business with multiple employees. This case seems to have blurred that even more.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Tell me, please, how the Christian opposition to same-sex marriage is not homophobic? By saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry (let's not forget that marriage, and gay marriage, pre-date their Christianity) they are making a differentiation. What if their silly book said that marriage should only be between a white man and a white woman?  Would you say that wasn't racist because they're just following their beliefs?!

Just because someone 'believes' something doesn't mean they aren't being a bigot.

the bit in brackets explains why?

[Barneylfc∗]

Absolutely not. No one is stoping them from believing in the shite they do. However when believing their filth makes them bigots, that bigotry shouldn't be legitimized due to them associating with a certain group.

Christianity is a belief, so is fascism.  Homophobia cant be excused by associating with being a christian any more than being a white supremacist cant be excused by claiming to be a fascist.

So what you're saying is they can believe what they want, as long as they're told what parts of their belief they can and can't believe in? Fascism in itself really isn't it?

[rob1966]

Yes, let’s start criminalising those that don’t believe in what we do.

Maybe we could create a Saudi-esq Morality police, and lock away anyone who doesn’t think like we do.

Why not? We will not tolerate anyone who believes that Jewish people are subhuman because Hitler (a real person we can prove existed) said so, so why should we allow others that believe what was allegedly written in a work of fiction, about a god we have no proof exists, to preach their hate. By all means believe in a god if you want to, but do not teach that homosexuality is evil, is against gods word and is the work of the devil.  I'm all for any religion that preaches love and peace, honesty, caring, living your life in a good way - I will not tolerate any religion that teaches that some of our fellow humans are disgusting, wrong or evil because they were born differently.

[Iska]

Why not? We will not tolerate anyone who believes that Jewish people are subhuman because Hitler (a real person we can prove existed) said so, so why should we allow others that believe what was allegedly written in a work of fiction, about a god we have no proof exists, to preach their hate. By all means believe in a god if you want to, but do not teach that homosexuality is evil, is against gods word and is the work of the devil.  I'm all for any religion that preaches love and peace, honesty, caring, living your life in a good way - I will not tolerate any religion that teaches that some of our fellow humans are disgusting, wrong or evil because they were born differently.

Who's the ‘we’ in that?

[rob1966]

Who's the ‘we’ in that?

Most right thinking people.

Being born in the mid 1960's, I grew up with far too much intolerance, racism and prejudices in the 70's and 80's and I don't want that kind of shite in the world my two sons are growing up in. I want them to see people for who they are, not what colour their skin is or their sexuality.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Interesting that. Cheers. I think one of the fuzzy things to me is when we're talking about an individual who owns and/or works in a business vs when we're talking about a business with multiple employees. This case seems to have blurred that even more.

I think, in the round, the decision was the correct one. But I am left wondering why is it OK for the business owner to refuse work (not to refuse simply because of the group-identity of procuring customer) which is contrary to their beliefs, but the employee does not possess such freedom. I cannot think of a practical solution or compromise to that problem, but it does seem very inequitable.

[thejbs]

the bit in brackets explains why?

No, it doesn't. Merely saying someone 'believes' something to be the case doesn't exonerate them from a charge of bigotry. You could say you 'believe' that black people are inferior, does the fact that it's a personally held belief mean you aren't a racist? Or, how about 'I'm no misogynist but a woman's place is in the home.'

[Iska]

I think, in the round, the decision was the correct one. But I am left wondering why is it OK for the business owner to refuse work (not to refuse simply because of the group-identity of procuring customer) which is contrary to their beliefs, but the employee does not possess such freedom. I cannot think of a practical solution or compromise to that problem, but it does seem very inequitable.

It must be because that’s the agreement you make with your employer, that you will carry out the duties they ask you to do?  It’s maybe the same territory as those cases about wearing headscarves, turbans, crosses, etc at work - I’m not sure exactly how those get resolved, but I think it’s something along the lines that the employer has to have a legitimate reason to prevent you manifesting your beliefs, or the employer is in breach of the equality legislation?  As political beliefs aren’t covered by equality legislation (except in Northern Ireland, which is part of the reason we’ve ended up here), employees can’t claim discrimination for being forced to do something they don’t like on political grounds, and can only claim discrimination if they’re being asked to something that goes against their religion if there’s no legitimate reason to ask them to do so.  Serving the customer in accordance with company policy would be such a reason.

This is all my best guess, but I’d be surprised if it’s not accurate.

[Kenny's Jacket]

So what you're saying is they can believe what they want, as long as they're told what parts of their belief they can and can't believe in? Fascism in itself really isn't it?

No not saying that at all.  Not sure how you have come to that conclusion.

People can believe what they want.  What they cant do, or should not be able to do, is use their belief system to discriminate.  Those two bigoted c*nts can believe what they want. So can Nick Giffin, Tommy Robinson etc.  What shouldn't be allowed is to practice bigotry and discriminate because of those beliefs.

The pair of them both believe in the idea of marriage, they are after all both married. They refused to bake a cake promoting marriage because the marriage was between to men. For me thats the definition of discrimination.

[Kenny's Jacket]

No, it doesn't. Merely saying someone 'believes' something to be the case doesn't exonerate them from a charge of bigotry. You could say you 'believe' that black people are inferior, does the fact that it's a personally held belief mean you aren't a racist? Or, how about 'I'm no misogynist but a woman's place is in the home.'

Exactly

[vagabond]

I appreciate that a business can refuse to provide a service that furthers a particular political agenda (even if I personally agree with that agenda).

But I wonder if a case can be made in this particular situation that being gay is not a political act but a natural one. There are, if I remember correctly, over 300 documented species that engage in acts of, or maintain long term relationships of, a homosexual nature. (Funnily enough there's only one species that is homophobic.)

I suppose one still has to make a step from being gay to marriage but as long as this idea that promoting gay behaviour is purely a political act can be deflated, and we realize that most species have somewhere between 10-15% of their population being gay, then refusing a cake order celebrating gay marriage isn't so much a question of denying political freedoms but denying natural facts. Then again, I suppose it isn't a crime to be an idiot.

[jason67]

At least John Lennon got something right.

5 pages of people going around in circles, mock outrage, shite arguments, and a whole lot of stuff that in the grand schemes of things is not important.

Let's hope some fat American shoots a lion and you can all move on to to the next thing. 

[thejbs]

At least John Lennon got something right.

5 pages of people going around in circles, mock outrage, shite arguments, and a whole lot of stuff that in the grand schemes of things is not important.

Let's hope some fat American shoots a lion and you can all move on to to the next thing.

Mock outrage? Fuck off.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Mock outrage? Fuck off.

Fucking outrageous post.









































 

[Jiminy Cricket]

It must be because that’s the agreement you make with your employer, that you will carry out the duties they ask you to do?  It’s maybe the same territory as those cases about wearing headscarves, turbans, crosses, etc at work - I’m not sure exactly how those get resolved, but I think it’s something along the lines that the employer has to have a legitimate reason to prevent you manifesting your beliefs, or the employer is in breach of the equality legislation?  As political beliefs aren’t covered by equality legislation (except in Northern Ireland, which is part of the reason we’ve ended up here), employees can’t claim discrimination for being forced to do something they don’t like on political grounds, and can only claim discrimination if they’re being asked to something that goes against their religion if there’s no legitimate reason to ask them to do so.  Serving the customer in accordance with company policy would be such a reason.

This is all my best guess, but I’d be surprised if it’s not accurate.

I think that's right. Or, if not, pretty close to it. But that's not really addressing my point. I am concerned about the inequality where an employer can refuse to utilize their skills for acustomer if it goes against their beliefs, but an employee possesses no such rights. Both are selling their labour in way or another.

And, in this case, the company - through their agent (employee) - took the money and agreed to carry out the work. As far as I know, that point was not addressed in this case. Maybe someone here knows about contract law and how it might apply to this case. As I said, though, I am at loss to provide a practical situation to this obvious inequality (employer vs employee rights). But it feels very unfair to me that that an employer is afforded these rights, but not workers. And I am not suggesting that companies be forced to carry out work antithetical to their beliefs (even if those beliefs are irrational and bigoted). The only partial solution is for the company and its owners are roundly pilloried.

I am sorry. I am not really saying anything. Just venting a frustration about something where I cannot come up with any suggestions of how this might be rectified.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

At least John Lennon got something right.

5 pages of people going around in circles, mock outrage, shite arguments, and a whole lot of stuff that in the grand schemes of things is not important.

Let's hope some fat American shoots a lion and you can all move on to to the next thing. 

Outstanding input. Need attention?