Ashers cake controversy.

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

Previous topic - Next topic

five points

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.

It's only ever a particular minority that will ever request a "SUPPORT THE LVF!" cake.

trileacman

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: Owenmoresider on October 10, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.
Well said.

But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1010/1002126-belfast_gay_cake/

Think you need to read the ruling. I find it hard to challenge that argument.
Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

David McKeown

Quote from: five points on October 10, 2018, 02:26:41 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.

It's only ever a particular minority that will ever request a "SUPPORT THE LVF!" cake.

Again that's a different scenario. Firstly the protected class in that circumstance is likely either religion or political belief. Then it will be a small minority within that class who would make such a request. This is not such a case. Support for gay marriage from within the LGBT community is considerably higher than support for the LVF within the aforementioned protected classes. With any discrimination law there will always be extreme examples that can be used. The first instant judgement does very well at explaining why the law has to distinguish those extreme examples from the more common examples the law is designed to prevent.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

five points

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:32:35 PM
Again that's a different scenario. Firstly the protected class in that circumstance is likely either religion or political belief. Then it will be a small minority within that class who would make such a request. This is not such a case. Support for gay marriage from within the LGBT community is considerably higher than support for the LVF within the aforementioned protected classes. With any discrimination law there will always be extreme examples that can be used. The first instant judgement does very well at explaining why the law has to distinguish those extreme examples from the more common examples the law is designed to prevent.

I don't get you. Support for gay marriage is not exclusive to nor synonymous with being gay or a member of the LGBT community.  Gay marriage is clearly a political cause, as Irish unity is. If the logic applied to a particular case does not apply generally, it is likely to be flawed.

trailer

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: Owenmoresider on October 10, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.
Well said.

But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.

Ok - someone wants you to do some plumbing work for them, let's say a black gay woman who is protestant. But you know they're a slow payer and you're a bit busy. You say no. Is that then discrimination?
Just because you're Gay, or Black, or a Woman or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever and someone says no to you, you don't automatically have an equality case. Sometimes people just don't want to do it and you have to be fine with that and move on to the next plumber or baker or whatever.
The equality commission probably took this case in the first instance because they feared that if they didn't they'd be sued by the... er... the equality commission. It's really time someone called stop on all this madness.
Where a case exists, in clear instances yes it should rightly be prosecuted but if someone refuses TO DO WORK FOR YOU, then I think people need to wise up. 


David McKeown

Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: Owenmoresider on October 10, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.
Well said.

But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.

Ok - someone wants you to do some plumbing work for them, let's say a black gay woman who is protestant. But you know they're a slow payer and you're a bit busy. You say no. Is that then discrimination?
Just because you're Gay, or Black, or a Woman or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever and someone says no to you, you don't automatically have an equality case. Sometimes people just don't want to do it and you have to be fine with that and move on to the next plumber or baker or whatever.
The equality commission probably took this case in the first instance because they feared that if they didn't they'd be sued by the... er... the equality commission. It's really time someone called stop on all this madness.
Where a case exists, in clear instances yes it should rightly be prosecuted but if someone refuses TO DO WORK FOR YOU, then I think people need to wise up.

No that wouldn't be discrimination as the reason they are asking for plumbing work is nothing to do with their race, colour sexual orientation etc. Today's ruling in no way effects that. You could have refused that work yesterday and you can refuse today.

The reason the Ashers case is different is because the support gay marriage logo is almost exclusively only to be requested either by those of the LGBT community or those who's political beliefs equate to support of gay marriage. Therefore the refusal to provide it couple with having to objection to providing a contrary slogan amounts to discrimination. In my view indirect discrimination in the original view direct discrimination
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

trailer

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:59:25 PM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 02:22:52 PM
Quote from: Owenmoresider on October 10, 2018, 02:06:22 PM
Quote from: trailer on October 10, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 10, 2018, 10:31:28 AM
Supreme court rules in favour of Asher's.

I think that's the correct outcome. You should be allowed to accept or decline any work you see fit.
Well said.

But if we take that to it's conclusion then you have a situation whereby for example everyone refuses to do work that's requested only by a particularly minority which is discrimination.

Ok - someone wants you to do some plumbing work for them, let's say a black gay woman who is protestant. But you know they're a slow payer and you're a bit busy. You say no. Is that then discrimination?
Just because you're Gay, or Black, or a Woman or a Catholic or a Muslim or whatever and someone says no to you, you don't automatically have an equality case. Sometimes people just don't want to do it and you have to be fine with that and move on to the next plumber or baker or whatever.
The equality commission probably took this case in the first instance because they feared that if they didn't they'd be sued by the... er... the equality commission. It's really time someone called stop on all this madness.
Where a case exists, in clear instances yes it should rightly be prosecuted but if someone refuses TO DO WORK FOR YOU, then I think people need to wise up.

No that wouldn't be discrimination as the reason they are asking for plumbing work is nothing to do with their race, colour sexual orientation etc. Today's ruling in no way effects that. You could have refused that work yesterday and you can refuse today.

The reason the Ashers case is different is because the support gay marriage logo is almost exclusively only to be requested either by those of the LGBT community or those who's political beliefs equate to support of gay marriage. Therefore the refusal to provide it couple with having to objection to providing a contrary slogan amounts to discrimination. In my view indirect discrimination in the original view direct discrimination

The key bit is that they didn't want to do the work. They were prepared to serve him, but they didn't want to that particular piece of work. That's not discrimination, that's just not wanting to do that piece of work.

BennyCake

By the way, have Sesame Street declared that bert and ernie are in fact gay? If not, then they should sue yer man for character assassination

Jim Bob

Anyone else bored of this story and let out a groan when it appeared in the headlines today knowing that we are going to have to put up with more of it in the next few days?

Armamike

Why did the Supreme Court come to a different conclusion on this one?  Was there any new detail submitted that wasn't available earlier or is it just a different interpretation?
That's just, like your opinion man.

David McKeown

#535
I've read Lady Hale's judgement now and a couple of things occur to me.

1.  I've confused dissociable discrimination and indirect discrimination above.
2. The remit of dissociable discrimination adopted at first instance and by the Court of Appeal was too wide particularly in regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (although maybe not on the basis of political belief).
3. The original findings may have breached the Ashers Art 9 and 10 rights because they placed them under financial penalty if they didn't print the cake.

I have long found Lady Hale a compelling jurist and as a result have changed my mind once again about whether or not the facts of this case amounted to dissociable discrimination. That said I think it's implicit in her judgement that dissociable discrimination is still discrimination and will continue to fall foul of the law.

Moreover I don't necessarily agree that there would have been breaches of Art 9 and 10 of the ECHR but I'm no expert on convention rights.

I'll read Lord Mance's judgement later this evening.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Dire Ear

Quote from: BennyCake on October 10, 2018, 03:24:41 PM
By the way, have Sesame Street declared that bert and ernie are in fact gay? If not, then they should sue yer man for character assassination
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/bert-ernie-are-gay-couple-sesame-street-writer-claims-n910701

Jim Bob

Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
I've read Lady Hale's judgement now and a couple of things occur to me.

1.  I've confused dissociable discrimination and indirect discrimination above.
2. The remit of dissociable discrimination adopted at first instance and by the Court of Appeal was too wide particularly in regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (although maybe not on the basis of political belief).
3. The original findings may have breached the Ashers Art 9 and 10 rights because they placed them under financial penalty if they didn't print the cake.

I have long found Lady Hale a compelling jurist and as a result have changed my mind once again about whether or not the facts of this case amounted to dissociable discrimination. That said I think it's implicit in her judgement that dissociable discrimination is still discrimination and will continue to fall foul of the law.

Moreover I don't necessarily agree that there would have been breaches of Art 9 and 10 of the ECHR but I'm no expert on convention rights.

I'll read Lord Mance's judgement later this evening.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

David McKeown

Quote from: Jim Bob on October 10, 2018, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on October 10, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
I've read Lady Hale's judgement now and a couple of things occur to me.

1.  I've confused dissociable discrimination and indirect discrimination above.
2. The remit of dissociable discrimination adopted at first instance and by the Court of Appeal was too wide particularly in regards to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (although maybe not on the basis of political belief).
3. The original findings may have breached the Ashers Art 9 and 10 rights because they placed them under financial penalty if they didn't print the cake.

I have long found Lady Hale a compelling jurist and as a result have changed my mind once again about whether or not the facts of this case amounted to dissociable discrimination. That said I think it's implicit in her judgement that dissociable discrimination is still discrimination and will continue to fall foul of the law.

Moreover I don't necessarily agree that there would have been breaches of Art 9 and 10 of the ECHR but I'm no expert on convention rights.

I'll read Lord Mance's judgement later this evening.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Think how I felt writing it
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Jim_Murphy_74

I always thought this was pretty clear cut.

Refusing to serve someone for being gay is illegal.

Refusing to produce a cake supporting changing a particular law, not illegal.

Am I missing something?

/Jim.