Gay activist goes out of his way to be offended.

[Main Street]

Would you support their action if they had refused a cake celebrating Rosa Parks action, because in this case, their 'radically different social and religous views' meant they viewed blacks as a sub-race?

Going by what you're saying, you would, and if there was a row about it in the papers, you'd then avoid doing anything for anti-racism groups (if asked), or support any anti racist activism.

Fair enough.

That's not an argument, just a bundle of assumptions and fallacies, out of which you have constructed a strawman's argument, agreeable to yourself.

Its solidly based on exactly what you said, just racism (being much more accepted as being wrong), has been subsituted for homophobia. Feel free to point out the 'fallacies' you refer to.

Strawman's argument is precisely that, made of straw. Your reply defines strawman's argument to a tee. Look it up.

It's a pisspoor tactic.

[thewobbler]

If a man who owns a clothing printing service on the Falls Road was to refuse to print 'ulster says no' tshirts for a loyalist, would he fall foul of these discrimation laws?

What if he refused the same loyalist tshirts with an anti-papal message?

What if he refused a 'kill all taigs' tshirt message?

Vendors have to have some rights. Equality shouldn't be confused with  egalitarianism.

[gallsman]

They supply a service to the public, as a private enterprise. Not a public service. While I disagree with the stance of the bakery, I believe they should not be obliged to fulfill an order they do not feel comfortable with. By all means they should receive a heap of bad press for being so old fashioned and should perhaps be boycotted, but legal action? Too far.

I went to the Bengal Brasserie on Sunday and discovered they wouldn't cook me any beef dishes. I presume this is at odds with their (presumably) Hindu beliefs. Should I contact the Equality Commission? Have I been discriminated against?

Do you think you've been discriminated against?

Not in the slightest!

Well then, you shouldn't contact the Equality commission.

So discrimination, and its repercussions, should be down to whether or not someone perceives themselves to have been discriminated against?!

Bit of a rocky foundation to build a legal framework on.

[deiseach]

So discrimination, and its repercussions, should be down to whether or not someone perceives themselves to have been discriminated against?!

Bit of a rocky foundation to build a legal framework on.

Ah, the endless potential to act the maggot. "The Linfield club shop won't put 'Éire 32' on the back of my shirt. Discrimination!"

[Jeepers Creepers]

So discrimination, and its repercussions, should be down to whether or not someone perceives themselves to have been discriminated against?!

Bit of a rocky foundation to build a legal framework on.

Ah, the endless potential to act the maggot. "The Linfield club shop won't put 'Éire 32' on the back of my shirt. Discrimination!"

Just tell them that 'Éire 32' was the new striker signed that hadn't been announced yet!

[haranguerer]

Would you support their action if they had refused a cake celebrating Rosa Parks action, because in this case, their 'radically different social and religous views' meant they viewed blacks as a sub-race?

Going by what you're saying, you would, and if there was a row about it in the papers, you'd then avoid doing anything for anti-racism groups (if asked), or support any anti racist activism.

Fair enough.

That's not an argument, just a bundle of assumptions and fallacies, out of which you have constructed a strawman's argument, agreeable to yourself.

Its solidly based on exactly what you said, just racism (being much more accepted as being wrong), has been subsituted for homophobia. Feel free to point out the 'fallacies' you refer to.

Strawman's argument is precisely that, made of straw. Your reply defines strawman's argument to a tee. Look it up.

It's a pisspoor tactic.

You're a f**king idiot - you come out with some random shite of an post and then when its questioned you cant back it up, nor even stand by it. Not a great tactic either

[haranguerer]

They supply a service to the public, as a private enterprise. Not a public service. While I disagree with the stance of the bakery, I believe they should not be obliged to fulfill an order they do not feel comfortable with. By all means they should receive a heap of bad press for being so old fashioned and should perhaps be boycotted, but legal action? Too far.

I went to the Bengal Brasserie on Sunday and discovered they wouldn't cook me any beef dishes. I presume this is at odds with their (presumably) Hindu beliefs. Should I contact the Equality Commission? Have I been discriminated against?

Do you think you've been discriminated against?

Not in the slightest!

Well then, you shouldn't contact the Equality commission.

So discrimination, and its repercussions, should be down to whether or not someone perceives themselves to have been discriminated against?!

Bit of a rocky foundation to build a legal framework on.

Thats exactly what the offence is based on. Your mate in work who you enjoy the craic with, calls you a fenian b then odd time, you call him an orange b, its all good craic. Someone you only vaguely know in work calls you it one day - its an issue.

Thats not to say everyone who thinks they've been discriminated against, is. Of course they aren't, and the reason theres a commission, is to consider all those complaints, and decide which may have some validity. Same as reporting someone for assault or whatever, someone else will decide if theres a case to answer and to give the defendant a chance to answer the case, or recompense, or potentially go to court. Or adversely, if you're talking shite, over reacting, whatever.

[Orior]

I believe that Gregory Campbell raised this issue in the british prime ministers question time in parliament today.

It was a loaded question suggesting the right of the shop keeper not to serve certain people.

The PM hadnt a clue what Camel was on about, and said so, but added that britsh culture does not discriminate against race, religion nor disability.

Imagine if the shop had chosen not to serve someone in a wheelchair.

[haranguerer]

If a man who owns a clothing printing service on the Falls Road was to refuse to print 'ulster says no' tshirts for a loyalist, would he fall foul of these discrimation laws?

What if he refused the same loyalist tshirts with an anti-papal message?

What if he refused a 'kill all taigs' tshirt message?

Vendors have to have some rights. Equality shouldn't be confused with  egalitarianism.

The first one, perhaps.

The other two, no, I'd say they would be refused on decency and incitement grounds.

[thewobbler]

I believe that Gregory Campbell raised this issue in the british prime ministers question time in parliament today.

It was a loaded question suggesting the right of the shop keeper not to serve certain people.

The PM hadnt a clue what Camel was on about, and said so, but added that britsh culture does not discriminate against race, religion nor disability.

Imagine if the shop had chosen not to serve someone in a wheelchair.

The point is that they didn't refuse to serve a gay person. They refused a particular request from someone who happens to pack fudge in the evenings. Not the same thing.

[gallsman]

They supply a service to the public, as a private enterprise. Not a public service. While I disagree with the stance of the bakery, I believe they should not be obliged to fulfill an order they do not feel comfortable with. By all means they should receive a heap of bad press for being so old fashioned and should perhaps be boycotted, but legal action? Too far.

I went to the Bengal Brasserie on Sunday and discovered they wouldn't cook me any beef dishes. I presume this is at odds with their (presumably) Hindu beliefs. Should I contact the Equality Commission? Have I been discriminated against?

Do you think you've been discriminated against?

Not in the slightest!

Well then, you shouldn't contact the Equality commission.

So discrimination, and its repercussions, should be down to whether or not someone perceives themselves to have been discriminated against?!

Bit of a rocky foundation to build a legal framework on.

Thats exactly what the offence is based on. Your mate in work who you enjoy the craic with, calls you a fenian b then odd time, you call him an orange b, its all good craic. Someone you only vaguely know in work calls you it one day - its an issue.

Thats not to say everyone who thinks they've been discriminated against, is. Of course they aren't, and the reason theres a commission, is to consider all those complaints, and decide which may have some validity. Same as reporting someone for assault or whatever, someone else will decide if theres a case to answer and to give the defendant a chance to answer the case, or recompense, or potentially go to court. Or adversely, if you're talking shite, over reacting, whatever.

So if I ask them to make me a cake, they say no, explain why and I accept it and go buy my cake somewhere else, thinking nothing more of it, no offence has been committed? But if they repeat the exact same course of action with someone who does think something of it, then makes a complaint, they have committed some discriminatory offence?

Bizarre.

[Corner Forward]

I believe that Gregory Campbell raised this issue in the british prime ministers question time in parliament today.

It was a loaded question suggesting the right of the shop keeper not to serve certain people.

The PM hadnt a clue what Camel was on about, and said so, but added that britsh culture does not discriminate against race, religion nor disability.

Imagine if the shop had chosen not to serve someone in a wheelchair.

But they didn't refuse to serve this customer, they refused to provide him with a cake that would contain a message they feel offended by or don't believe in. The customer was free to place another order or buy a different cake. There's a difference between refusing to serve a customer and refusing a customers request. A business owner has the right to refuse entry or trade with anyone provided the grounds for their refusal are applied to everyone. I.e a bar owner can refuse you entry for being too drunk this is not discrimination provided this policy is applied to everyone.

[thewobbler]

If a man who owns a clothing printing service on the Falls Road was to refuse to print 'ulster says no' tshirts for a loyalist, would he fall foul of these discrimation laws?

What if he refused the same loyalist tshirts with an anti-papal message?

What if he refused a 'kill all taigs' tshirt message?

Vendors have to have some rights. Equality shouldn't be confused with  egalitarianism.

The first one, perhaps.

The other two, no, I'd say they would be refused on decency and incitement grounds.

And here you've highlighted the absolute gist of the problem with anyone making this a discrimination case. Who decides when the moral compass has gone too far south? Unless we're going to call on judges and lawyers every time a sale is requested for a personalised item, then we realistically have to allow traders the ability to make up their own minds.

[haranguerer]

So if I ask them to make me a cake, they say no, explain why and I accept it and go buy my cake somewhere else, thinking nothing more of it, no offence has been committed? But if they repeat the exact same course of action with someone who does think something of it, then makes a complaint, they have committed some discriminatory offence?

Bizarre.

Pretty much.

[haranguerer]

If a man who owns a clothing printing service on the Falls Road was to refuse to print 'ulster says no' tshirts for a loyalist, would he fall foul of these discrimation laws?

What if he refused the same loyalist tshirts with an anti-papal message?

What if he refused a 'kill all taigs' tshirt message?

Vendors have to have some rights. Equality shouldn't be confused with  egalitarianism.

The first one, perhaps.

The other two, no, I'd say they would be refused on decency and incitement grounds.

And here you've highlighted the absolute gist of the problem with anyone making this a discrimination case. Who decides when the moral compass has gone too far south? Unless we're going to call on judges and lawyers every time a sale is requested for a personalised item, then we realistically have to allow traders the ability to make up their own minds.

The Equality commission.

Remember too, its Ashers who brought the publicity. They received a letter telling them it was considered they have been discriminatory, and asking them what they were going to do about it. This is them being given the chance to do something about it. They decided to fight it, put up a youtube vid, and the media got involved. Most traders would have apologised, whatever, you'd never have heard about it.