Ashers cake controversy.

Started by T Fearon, November 07, 2014, 06:36:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LeoMc

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:53:47 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 10:33:30 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
It was not the customer being discriminated against, it was the bakery deciding what their product range was. There are plenty of messages which are not illegal but people may find unacceptable and they should have the option of not providing a service they do not want to provide providing they are consistent in not providing that service to everyone equally.

And if Asher's had a policy on not providing message in respect of marriage then they would be in clear.

As it is we have to await the verdict of the court. Its not clear cut but my view is that the case is worth pursuing. If only in the name of clarity.
Surel they only need a policy that states they they have the right to refuse requests to add any message which could be considered offensive.

LCohen

Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 11:00:55 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:53:47 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 10:50:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 10:33:30 PM
They didn't refuse to serve anyone,only refused to ice a message specifically supporting gay marriage on the cake as they consider it to contradict their religious convictions.Not unreasonable
It was not the customer being discriminated against, it was the bakery deciding what their product range was. There are plenty of messages which are not illegal but people may find unacceptable and they should have the option of not providing a service they do not want to provide providing they are consistent in not providing that service to everyone equally.

And if Asher's had a policy on not providing message in respect of marriage then they would be in clear.

As it is we have to await the verdict of the court. Its not clear cut but my view is that the case is worth pursuing. If only in the name of clarity.
Surel they only need a policy that states they they have the right to refuse requests to add any message which could be considered offensive.
Sure if they had a sign up saying that i'm sure it would have come to light by now.

The reasonableness of "offensive" would still need to be tested

muppet

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:57:16 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:49:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:40:37 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 10:38:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 10:29:33 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 04:22:47 PM
Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.
I was trying to decipher this

You weren't. You rubbished what came after based on your misunderstanding of the question I asked.

The baker chose to deny his services, presumably based on his religious beliefs. The question I asked was whether this was discrimination or religious freedom. There are arguments both ways and indeed they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be both.

Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom.

Which specific laws on discrimination and religious freedom are you referring to?

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no laws regarding either or both sexual discrimination and religious freedom?

Such as the Equality Act or the Equal Status Act 2000?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as "the discriminatory grounds") which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b)  (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c)  (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) the person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the "gender ground"),

(b) that they are of different marital status (the "marital status ground"),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the "family status ground"),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the "sexual orientation ground"),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the "religion ground"),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the "age ground"),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the "disability ground"),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the "ground of race"),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the "Traveller community ground"),

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the Director or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the "victimisation ground").


You quote RoI legistion that rules against discrimination. I thought you were going to provide some NI/UK legislation or Common Law decision that permitted discrimination OR gave religious freedom priority over wider laws. That is what this case will de governed by

My understanding is that the NI laws are even tighter on discrimination. For example search for the words 'religious' and 'sexual' in this: http://www.equality.nisra.gov.uk/RaceDisShortGuide2010.pdf.
MWWSI 2017

LCohen

I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

muppet

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:15:33 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.
MWWSI 2017

T Fearon

Law should be amended to allow those in business to refuse business from any source if the nature of the product/ service being requisitioned contradicts the religious beliefs of the business owner asked to supply the goods/services

LCohen

#81
Quote from: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 11:25:40 PM
Law should be amended to allow those in business to refuse business from any source if the nature of the product/ service being requisitioned contradicts the religious beliefs of the business owner asked to supply the goods/services

Why?

Why should religious beliefs be elevated the laws that everyone else has to obey?

Do you seriously want every religious belief to have this elevation?

muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on November 08, 2014, 11:25:40 PM
Law should be amended to allow those in business to refuse business from any source if the nature of the product/ service being requisitioned contradicts the religious beliefs of the business owner asked to supply the goods/services

To be honest I don't think it needs a law.

Ask yourself why you don't ask for sausage and chips in a kosher restaurant in new York.
MWWSI 2017

LCohen

Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:15:33 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.

muppet

Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:34:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:15:33 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.

Hence my opening question:

"Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?"
MWWSI 2017

gallsman

Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

muppet

Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2014, 10:23:41 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

I think is a key point. Everyone who wanted a cake with that message would be refused, thus there is no discrimination.
MWWSI 2017

LCohen

Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:37:36 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:34:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 08, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 08, 2014, 11:15:33 PM
I'm well aware that we have plenty of laws on discrimination in NI. It is my contention that religious belief is not a means to evade these legal provisions.

The reason why I asked which legal provisions you were referring to you seemed to be indicating that there was something in the NI statutiry provisions that allowed for religious belief to trump the anti-discrimination laws.

There you go again.

This is what I said: "but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom."

That's all I said.

And I never said or suggested that religious belief trumped anti-discrimination laws. That would be a long way from my thinking. Religious belief has influenced the evolution of our laws, certainly. More is the pity.

You posted

"Unlike the post earlier regarding the banning of hoodies etc, there are no discrimination laws regarding hoodies, but there are laws regarding both sexual discrimination and religious freedom"

Surely the fact that there are laws on sexual discrimination makes it more likely that this discrimination should be prosecuted.

The laws on religious freedom are to proect the right to believe. Not the right to use belief as a justification for discriminatory acts.

Hence my opening question:

"Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?"

I may have mis-read your earlier post.

Lets be clear I am in no way to blame for this misunderstanding. The fault lies entirely with Messrs J. Sexton & A. Guinness

LCohen

Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2014, 10:23:41 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

Incitement to racial hatred is a criminal offence so anyone would be perfectly legal entitled to not make/decorate that cake

Support gay marriage is not illegal

LCohen

Quote from: muppet on November 09, 2014, 01:23:57 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 09, 2014, 10:23:41 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 08, 2014, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: gallsman on November 08, 2014, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on November 08, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
Quote from: seafoid on November 08, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
You're such a pussy, Sheehy. I thought you had a point about gay marriage you wanted to make.
Do you think this is an issue where the law can help?

tut, tut..as usual, you resort to insults when you are exposed Seafoid  ::) For such a manipulative , political animal you tend to lose the rag a lot when challenged. You are a bit of a poor mans Machiavelli in this respect.

This most certainly is an issue where the law can help. Gay people should be able to buy a cake in any establishment that sells cakes.  Just substitute "Irish people" or "Catholic" for "gay people" to see how ridiculous your idea of "common sense" sounds.

They were more than able to buy a cake. Nobody stopped them buying a cake if they do wish. They were refused a specific cake.
And I think it is fair to say a heterosexual couple would have been refused the same cake so it can be argued they are not discriminating against the couple because they are gay.

Precisely. They were not refused service simply because they were gay - if they were, then they'd clearly have been discriminated against.

Holding white supremacist views is not illegal. Wrong and distasteful in the extreme, but not illegal. I'm sure the Equality Commission would be rushing to prosecute any bakery who refuses to bake a BNP themed "England for the English, blacks out cake"...

And no, I'm not "comparing homosexuality with" white supremacy before anyone starts.

I think is a key point. Everyone who wanted a cake with that message would be refused, thus there is no discrimination.

You might be right. the case will decide.

Nobody is claiming that that was the basis of the disrimination.

The message on the cake proclaimed equality. That message was refused and that is the basis of the alleged discrimination. Asher's are claiming religious freedom and that is what is flagging my attention to the case.

I had thought it was crystal clear that religious freedom could not be used to obviate the law.

I for one would have no difficulty with a court decision that siad that discrimination had not taken place but emphasised the point that religious freedom would not have been a defence had discrimination taken place