Author Topic: Ashers cake controversy.  (Read 47631 times)

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2014, 10:05:10 PM »
Bringing this through the courts is going too far.
Why didn't they just go to a gay friendly bakery ?

Because they shouldn't have to
If I wanted a GAA cake I wouldn't go a bakery run by cricket fans.
If I meet soccer fans I don't start talking about Tyrone and Mickey Harte.
 Surely a bit of common sense is in order.

Not everyone is delighted with gay marriage.
And NI is hardly the most progressive 6 counties in the world.

Would a cricket loving baker refuse to decorate a "gaa cake" whatever that might be?

Surely 2 gay men wanting a cake celebrating their mutual love and their desire to get married could reasonably be able to get this service in a bakers that decorates cakes? Not a subset of cake decorators but all cake decorators?
No one was refused a wedding cake.
I was answering the ridiculous point that gay men should go to a gay bakers for their baked goods needs.

Nobody is claiming they were refused a cake because they were gay. They were however refused a cake proclaiming their gay marriage. Ashers by their own admission accept that they are happy with messages (verbal or otherwise) in favour of marriage. It was only when the gay dimension was introduced that the offer of service was removed. Sounds a bit like discrimination to me.

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2014, 10:15:21 PM »
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.

What would be the point of discussing anything with you?

If you read my posts with any integrity you would have read this 'Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?'

Not this crap: 'So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.'

I answered your questions and you rubbished everything I wrote. You seem to think that there is your viewpoint and nothing else. Best of luck with that.

MWWSI 2017

StGallsGAA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1782
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2014, 10:21:02 PM »
Strangely the discriminated against  party in this whole affair  has managed to avoid the spotlight thusfar. By any chance might Ashers have been deliberately targeted to produce a pro gay marriage cake in the knowledge they'd refuse?  Would the gay community find it acceptable if  Christian groups infiltrated the Kremlin and wrecked their buzz?? Doubt it. 

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2014, 10:22:04 PM »
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.

What would be the point of discussing anything with you?

If you read my posts with any integrity you would have read this 'Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?'

Not this crap: 'So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.'

I answered your questions and you rubbished everything I wrote. You seem to think that there is your viewpoint and nothing else. Best of luck with that.

It was you who said that there were "strong arguments" for and against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I simply ask that you post the "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination. If you list them I will respond to them. If you don't believe there are "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination then just say so. But if you are holding to your original view then there isn't any reason for not posting the detail.

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2014, 10:23:13 PM »
I don't give much of a damn about gay marriage if it is passes or not but I don't think it should be a criminal offence to not support it either as a profession or on a personal level.

It is an interesting case though.

Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom? There are strong arguments both ways.

My instincts are that my religious freedom or sexual orientation shouldn't impact on someone else's religious freedom or sexual orientation, but it will be interesting to see what the courts think.
Religious freedom is the freedom to believe. I would say the freedom to think but religion itself doesn't encourage people to think.

Religious freedom is not the freedom to act anyway you like and then to justify on the basis of religious belief. I could claim that my religious beliefs are that females should not be educated. A failure to send my daughters to school would still fall foul of the law. A refusal to teach girls/women at my school or university would land me in difficulties with my employers and indeed the law. I would still have the religious freedom to believe though.

If there are any "strong arguments" as to why people should be descriminated based upon their orientation for consensual, private sexual behaviou then my all means detail them here. If there are no such "strong arguments" then it would be wrong to pretend that there are.

Their behaviour in private is not what being impacted upon in this case. It is the complete opposite in fact and very much a public declaration.

I am no fan of organised religion, however to simply dismiss it as an absence of thinking and to declare that there are no such strong arguments, as you have done, is hardly a reasonable position. Many people genuinely believe it is evil. I don't agree with them at all, but education is the answer, not forcing them to your way of thinking.
My comments in respect of private acts were in response to the bit in bold. My point still stands.

If there are any strong reasons for discrimination please detail them here and I will respond to them individually.

We live in free countries. That implies the right to choose to do as we wish, which de facto implies the right to choose not to do something.

If the baker doesn't want to bake a cake then he has a right to choose not to. If he chooses not to do this on religious grounds that is his business. Personally I would like to stop paying tax on religious grounds but I probably won't get anywhere. Why is that? Mainly because religion has existed for a long time and many of the teachings are accepted by the majority of people and indeed often backed up by the law. For example, homosexuality was illegal up to very recently.

Like it or not, the view of the majority decides these things, often in ignorance, not some greater right or wrong.
So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.

In a free country you do not have the freedom to do as you wish - you have the freedom to act within the law. This is case is to help define that law. What could be wrong with that (irrespective of what the result is)?

The baker does not have perfect freedom. He is alos bound by the law. His religious freedoms do not exempt from the law and I gave examples earlier/above as to the difference between religious belief/freedom and the law. When at odds the law triumphs.

What would be the point of discussing anything with you?

If you read my posts with any integrity you would have read this 'Is denying your services based on sexual orientation, discrimination or religious freedom?'

Not this crap: 'So wahat are these "strong reasons" for discrimination? You seem reluctant to post them.'

I answered your questions and you rubbished everything I wrote. You seem to think that there is your viewpoint and nothing else. Best of luck with that.

It was you who said that there were "strong arguments" for and against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I simply ask that you post the "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination. If you list them I will respond to them. If you don't believe there are "strong reasons" in favour of discrimination then just say so. But if you are holding to your original view then there isn't any reason for not posting the detail.

No I didn't, read it again.
MWWSI 2017

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2014, 10:29:33 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

T Fearon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #66 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

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #67 on: November 08, 2014, 10:38:16 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

Nobody is saying they were refused a cake but they were refused the service they requested. If a message had of been requested in favour of marriage the service would have been provided.

Lets test the law on this one.

Is anyone really arguing that religious belief should override the law?

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #68 on: November 08, 2014, 10:38:38 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.
MWWSI 2017

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #69 on: November 08, 2014, 10:39:43 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

Nobody is saying they were refused a cake but they were refused the service they requested. If a message had of been requested in favour of marriage the service would have been provided.

Lets test the law on this one.

Is anyone really arguing that religious belief should override the law?

Most senior members of the Catholic Church believe Canon Law trumps civil law.
MWWSI 2017

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #70 on: November 08, 2014, 10:40:37 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?

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #71 on: November 08, 2014, 10:42:07 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

Nobody is saying they were refused a cake but they were refused the service they requested. If a message had of been requested in favour of marriage the service would have been provided.

Lets test the law on this one.

Is anyone really arguing that religious belief should override the law?

Most senior members of the Catholic Church believe Canon Law trumps civil law.
Indeed they do. But we are not advocating that form of delusion

muppet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25089
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #72 on: November 08, 2014, 10:49:12 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”).
MWWSI 2017

LeoMc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3189
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2014, 10:50:06 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.

LCohen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1177
    • View Profile
Re: Ashers cake controversy.
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2014, 10:53:47 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.