Which discrimination should trump which discrimination?

antiskeptic

Northern Ireland cake maker refuses to make a cake with slogan of gay pressure group. Cake maker receives letter from Equality Commission. Story in The Guardian today.

"We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality commission. The commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation."

..the Equality Commission was indeed correct (although you might consider inserting the word 'filter' for 'discriminate' since that's just what the cake maker was doing in his eyes).

But wouldn't the Equality commission be discriminating against the cake maker on the grounds of his religious beliefs?

How is the one made trump the other?


ABE

Says their legal advice: "No-one should be forced to use their creative skills to promote a cause which goes against their consciences.“

Which seems reasonable enough to me as a blanket statement applicable to all situations.

gctest50

antiskeptic wrote: »

How is the one made trump the other?

easy :

REAL

antiskeptic wrote: »

The commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation."

MAKEY-UP personal beliefs

antiskeptic wrote: »

But wouldn't the Equality commission be discriminating against the cake maker on the grounds of his religious beliefs?

antiskeptic wrote: »

(although you might consider inserting the word 'filter' for 'discriminate' since that's just what the cake maker was doing in his eyes).

You can't go around re-interpreting the law to suit yourself - otherwise every looper would be at it

- some would be like " i didn't kill those people - i'm purifying the population"


its as bad as a doctor not prescibing the Pill or MAP because it clashes with their religion and no other reason

SpoonJar JarSpoon

Godwin already?

antiskeptic

gctest50 wrote: »

You can't go around re-interpreting the law to suit yourself - otherwise every looper would be at it

I'm not reinterpreting the law. The law forbids discrimination on religious grounds too.

Trouble with Da Law arise when you consider the motives of the law maker. Are you saying you'd slavishly follow the law no matter what? Supposing the lawmaker Hitler (given Godwin's already appeared)?

gctest50

SpoonJar JarSpoon wrote: »

Godwin already?

mmmm i was on about something else ?
say someone during Apartheid in S.A. getting a bit carried away
or some lad in NI going all out

.

antiskeptic wrote: »

.....Trouble with Da Law arise when you consider the motives of the law maker......

Could claim "Da Law" has any motive in that sort of case though ?

What next ? the two guys won't be let buy shoes in someones shop because of someones belief ?


.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

How is the one made trump the other?

Cause one side wants freedom to love and marry who they want.
The other side wants freedom to deny rights to those people because of an irrational, arbitrary rule from their fictional deity.

I can see why one needs more protection than the other.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

How is the one made trump the other?

One is discrimination based on something people can't change (sexual orientation), one is discrimination based on something people can change (obnoxious religious beliefs).

Would you be asking this question if instead of gay people it was black people, whose pro-racial equality cake was rejected by a baker because of his/her religious belief that black people were not equal to white people?

ShooterSF

Not that I'm siding with the cake maker (plus I'd like to see more details on the case) but hypothetically speaking couldn't a situation where a baker is asked to make a cake with the slogan "Anyone who has gay sex should be killed" and refuses risk the same treatment?

I don't think refusing to make a certain type of cake is discrimination as long as you are happy to sell the cakes you do make to anyone.

Absolam

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not that I'm siding with the cake maker (plus I'd like to see more details on the case) but hypothetically speaking couldn't a situation where a baker is asked to make a cake with the slogan "Anyone who has gay sex should be killed" and refuses risk the same treatment?

I don't think refusing to make a certain type of cake is discrimination as long as you are happy to sell the cakes you do make to anyone.

I agree (mostly). It doesn't say he refused to make them a cake because they were gay; possibly had they chosen to purchase a cake with the slogan "God is Awesome" on it, he would have sold it to them. He refused to make them a specific cake that they wanted which is a different argument; they made an invitation to treat which he did not accept, nor is he obliged to.
On the flip side, the Equality commission is not discriminating against the cake maker on the grounds of his religious beliefs, it is (legally) discriminating against him on the grounds of his alleged discrimination, regardless of his motivation. Were he a 'New Athiest' with an overtly secular cake agenda and an irrational but fundamental hatred of pink icing, it would have made no difference to the action against him.
So neither act was (illegally) discriminatory in my opinion, and neither one trumps the other.

ShooterSF

Yep as far as I can draw the line; customer wants pro-ssm cake produced by bakery uncomfortable with ssm = tough. Customer wants a wedding cake from a shop for their ssm and is refused = discrimination. Imo.

magicbastarder

how would the law apply to a bookseller catering to catholic books (e.g. veritas) fare if they refused to stock dirty prod books?
as i would assume this constitutes discrimination based on religious grounds.

magicbastarder

also, how would the law treat a cake maker who refused to decorate a cake with a legal but morally offensive message? is it purely the religious angle which applies in the first case?

Pherekydes

Trying to prevent discrimination is not itself discrimination.

But it's typical of the intellectual gymnastics of the religious that they feel they are being discriminated against when they are not allowed discriminate against others.

"We are being oppressed."

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

But wouldn't the Equality commission be discriminating against the cake maker on the grounds of his religious beliefs?

A similar question came up on the Christian forum. I'm some what confused as to what people think discrimination means in this context.

To answer your question, no it wouldn't be discrimination.

The Equality commission isn't treating these Christian bakers any differently to anyone else. No one can refuse to serve a gay couple with a legitimate request. Not the baker, the butcher or the candle stick maker.

Is that obvious? What discrimination do you think is taking place, or to put it another way, who do you think the Equality commission would have let act this way?

Absolam

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would the law apply to a bookseller catering to catholic books (e.g. veritas) fare if they refused to stock dirty prod books? as i would assume this constitutes discrimination based on religious grounds.

Discrimination (as in choosing what books you sell and don't) based on religious grounds isn't illegal though; only discrimination based on religious grounds in certain circumstances. I'm quite entitled not to marry someone based on the fact they're catholic for instance.

magicbastarder wrote: »

also, how would the law treat a cake maker who refused to decorate a cake with a legal but morally offensive message? is it purely the religious angle which applies in the first case?

I don't think the law has anything to say (from a discrimination point of view) on whether the cake maker can be obliged to decorate a cake in a fashion he does not wish to; only on whether he can choose to decorate a cake or not in the first place based on someones religion/sexual orientation/marital status etc etc..

Vivisectus

If only religious people were not allowed to discriminate then indeed they would be discriminated against! But non-religious homophobes are ALSO not allowed to do so in circumstances like these, so I do not see any discrimination here. That said, they do get considerable scope to be as homophobic as they want, often beyond what would be accepted from other organizations: catholic schools are still allowed to sack teachers solely because of their sexual preference just to name a very obvious and rather awful example.

It seem that the privileged majority is interpreting any limitation on that privilege as persecution.

magicbastarder

Vivisectus wrote: »

catholic schools are still allowed to sack teachers solely because of their sexual preference just to name a very obvious and rather awful example.

bad timing on this example!
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/law-change-will-protect-position-of-gay-teachers-1.1848231

Vivisectus

magicbastarder wrote: »

bad timing on this example!
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/law-change-will-protect-position-of-gay-teachers-1.1848231

Hey that is cheering news! Thanks for sharing that MB, I had no idea this was in the works

Czarcasm

I think most people will see the motivation behind this case for what it is - a publicity stunt, and it's one which could backfire spectacularly as we've already seen with the St. Patricks Day Parade in New York earlier this year.

All these "campaigns" do, is stir up resentment against LGBT people (because people DO tar all people with the same brush based on particular characteristics or traits), and while there are a minority will think "Good enough for 'em", it's no different to the thinking of the people they claim they are being persecuted by, and does nothing to further understanding, appreciation and respect for people who are the very same as us in more ways than they differ.

Vivisectus

Right. So they should just keep quiet and try not to upset the people they "think they are persecuted by"?

And not doing so is "the same thinking" - ergo it is discrimination?

gctest50

That slimy git is all for the discrimination due to sky-fairy carry on

The directors, who are Christians, operate six shops in Northern Ireland and employ 62 people.

The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581

recedite

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not that I'm siding with the cake maker (plus I'd like to see more details on the case) but hypothetically speaking couldn't a situation where a baker is asked to make a cake with the slogan "Anyone who has gay sex should be killed" and refuses risk the same treatment?

I don't think refusing to make a certain type of cake is discrimination as long as you are happy to sell the cakes you do make to anyone.

I agree with this, although the problem still arises if a large part of the business is bespoke or custom-made work. In that situation a refusal of service is less clear cut.

Here's a link to the original Guardian report.

In this particular case in Antrim, suppose a straight person had walked into the bakery and asked for the same cake with the same slogan. I think the bakery would also have refused service, therefore the bakery has not discriminated against the customer on grounds of their sexual orientation. They have only refused to participate in supporting a cause they don't agree with.

IMO the gay lobby in NI has made a mistake in baiting this particular bakery just to establish a legal precedent, and it may well backfire on them.
They seem to have been on a roll due to increasing public support for gay marriage and having an openly gay mayor. They have obviously seen that bakeries in the USA have been reprimanded for refusing to make gay wedding cakes
The difference is that those cases involved refusing to sell ordinary wedding cakes to gay people. In the Antrim case, it's a political slogan cake that was refused, not a wedding cake. The cause was refused, not the individual customer.

I can see this going further, because the equality commision will not back down, and neither will the evangelical network of N.I. who are now backing the bakery.

There are plenty of examples of "wrong" decisions made by the equality commission personnel, both in Ireland and UK. Sometimes due to exemptions and loopholes in the law that force them to allow the discrimination. Other times they seem to make a deliberately controversial (or possibly inept) decision knowing it will eventually go to a court and be decided there.

Alliance North Down councillor Andrew Muir, supporting the Equality Commission’s action, said the cake was to be produced for an International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia that he hosted when mayor of North Down.

from the Irish Times

Czarcasm

Vivisectus wrote: »

Right. So they should just keep quiet and try not to upset the people they "think they are persecuted by"?

Nope, I didn't say that (I expected my words to be twisted though or words put in my mouth). It would make more sense for LGBT lobby groups to support the businesses that WANT to support them, y'know, the hundreds of other bakeries that would be only too glad of their custom, instead of giving free advertising to this one particular bakery, which will now receive plenty more support from those opposed to marriage equality.

"A pie in the face", if you will, for LGBT lobby groups, which will no doubt foster resentment and discrimination against ordinary LGBT people for nothing more than the fact they are LGBT.

And not doing so is "the same thinking" - ergo it is discrimination?

Call it what you like, it still won't change the facts of what's more likely to happen in these circumstances. This is what happens when lobby groups forget the ordinary people they're supposed to be advocating for and supporting and why IMO they've done more harm for LGBT people than good.

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

bad timing on this example!
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/law-change-will-protect-position-of-gay-teachers-1.1848231

That would be great, but at this moment in time it is still pie in the sky.

seanaway

What about the Jewish baker who could be asked to make a cake for a facist leaning political group celebrating Hitler's birthday? There's nothing illegal in the act or their beliefs - obnoxious as I would find them. However, could the baker refuse and not be prosecuted?

There have to be limits on ALL sides of discrimination.

No one group can have it all their own way. (And yes, I was tempted to use cake and eat it here )

robindch

Haven't looked into the thing in great detail, but so far as I understand it, I'm with ShooterSF:

Refusing to serve somebody because of their orientation certainly is discrimination. Simply refusing to print a certain message, while leaving open the possibility to print something else, is not.

Vivisectus

Czarcasm wrote:

Nope, I didn't say that (I expected my words to be twisted though or words put in my mouth). It would make more sense for LGBT lobby groups to support the businesses that WANT to support them, y'know, the hundreds of other bakeries that would be only too glad of their custom, instead of giving free advertising to this one particular bakery, which will now receive plenty more support from those opposed to marriage equality.

If you don't want to be pulled up on it, don't say it, is my advice. What was that "same thinking" about then? And why do they only think they are persecuted?

How do you suggest that organisations support non-homophobic businesses and how would that stop discrimination, exactly? Do you suggest they give out awards for failing to be racist or homophobic?

Because I have completely failed to be anti-semitic all day and I could use a nice little trophy to cheer me up!

"A pie in the face", if you will, for LGBT lobby groups, which will no doubt foster resentment and discrimination against ordinary LGBT people for nothing more than the fact they are LGBT.

The only objection I have is that it is not a clear-cut enough case, which may cause it to backfire on one quibble or another. They seem to have picked their battle unwisely. But there is nothing wrong with challenging homophobic practices in this way if they are found.

Call it what you like, it still won't change the facts of what's more likely to happen in these circumstances. This is what happens when lobby groups forget the ordinary people they're supposed to be advocating for and supporting and why IMO they've done more harm for LGBT people than good.

Good thing you don't feel they should just keep quiet!

Akrasia

One side of me thinks that if this cake maker has the right to not serve a gay couple because they disagree with their lifestyle and/or political views, then their potential customers also have the right to not buy any cakes from them because they also disagree with the cake shop owners lifestyle and political views.

However, this is dangerous because there are conservative pockets where the majority of people would be racist or homophobic and local business owners would actually be rewarded for their racism or homophobia, or even worse, any businesses that openly served Gay people could be boycotted in these areas.

This is why I am of the view that the state has a duty to protect minorities and those vulnerable to discrimination from being targetted by bigots. A right to not be discriminated against should trump any 'right to discriminate'

This is why it's illegal to ban an entire race/ethnicity from a pub but it's not illegal to ban individual customers if there is a legitimate reason for doing so.

Regarding political slogans, It would need to be assessed on a case by case basis. I would think it is unacceptable if a cake shop refused to make any wedding cakes where the names on the cake were of the same gender because that's just discrimination, however, I would not expect a cake shop to be forced to make a 'congratulations on your abortion' cake if requested because that crosses an ill defined line between acceptable conscientious objection, and bigoted exclusionary practices.

seanaway

Akrasia wrote: »

I would not expect a cake shop to be forced to make a 'congratulations on your abortion' cake if requested because that crosses an ill defined line between acceptable conscientious objection, and bigoted exclusionary practices.

It's the ill defined line is the issue here.

Common sense must prevail where legislation cannot be written to the exclusion of one legitimate point of view.

seamus

Yeah, I'm with ShooterSF on this one too. A company should have the right to discriminate on the kinds of business that they do, just not the people they do business with.

If a web design company was approached by someone wanting to set up a porn site, they would be well within their rights to refuse the work. What if it's a gay porn site and the potential client is a gay man? Of course they should be permitted to refuse to do the work, provided that the refusal is based on the nature of the work and not the sexuality of the client.

On a more relevant note, imagine a local bakery in a smallish town, pretty much the only bakery in the town, and someone comes in wanting a "Jesus is a cvnt" design on his cake. Even an atheist bakery owner would know better than to make this cake because of the potential reputational ramifications this could have on his business.

So yeah, assuming that the bakery refused this request on the basis of the nature of the request and not on the sexuality of the requestor, then I'm behind them 100%.

Czarcasm

Vivisectus wrote: »

If you don't want to be pulled up on it, don't say it, is my advice. What was that "same thinking" about then? And why do they only think they are persecuted?

I'm not sure if you mean me personally being pulled up on what I say (which I have no problem with, as long as you're not trying to pull me up on something I didn't say, because that would be silly), or if you mean people in general should be pulled up on what they say. I'm also a fan of that too, depending on whether I give a shìt about what they say, how they say it, and in what context they mean it. For example I don't like to hear people using the word "retarded", but depending on numerous factors (including whether I think they'll give a shìt or not), I'll voice my objection to their use of the word, or not, depending on whether I think they're likely to reconsider their use of the word.

Anyway, on to your second point - I never even implied the bakery were solely being persecuted, I said the lobby group were doing no different to what they were claiming has been done to them for decades, so you'd imagine they would be all too aware of people persecuting other people who do not share their experiences or world view. You can disagree with that point of view all you like, but like I said, won't change the facts, or peoples perception of the facts.

How do you suggest that organisations support non-homophobic businesses and how would that stop discrimination, exactly? Do you suggest they give out awards for failing to be racist or homophobic?

By giving the businesses that support them their custom instead? (would've thought it was common sense that one surely, that's why I buy Bosch instead of Hotpoint appliances - Bosch offer great service, reliable appliances and fantastic warranty. Hotpoint are pure dirt and charge a call-out fee when their appliances go tits up). That is the beauty of consumer choice - I can take my custom somewhere else, and if enough people take their custom somewhere else - the business has a choice, give more people what they want, or stand by their shoddy principles and eventually go out of business.

I hate it when people equate racism and homophobia as if they are the same thing. They're not, and keeping them separate allows us to say that discrimination is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances, otherwise you run the gauntlet of saying we cannot discriminate against anyone under any circumstances. I don't suffer fools gladly, so I'm perfectly entitled to discriminate against people whom I think are talking utter shìte. We can legislate against human nature, but human nature being what it is means that legislation is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Homosexuality was illegal in this country up to 1993 and it still didn't stop people getting their groove on. They just ignored laws that didn't suit them.

As for giving out awards for failing to be homophobic, no, but giving out awards for promoting LGBT rights might be a runner - such and such a business were incredibly helpful and provide a top notch service, promote them among your family and friends, same as you would award any other business.

Because I have completely failed to be anti-semitic all day and I could use a nice little trophy to cheer me up!

I have a chocolate teapot here on my mantelpiece, Jew like it? You'd better take it before it melts, because when it's gone, it's gone.

The only objection I have is that it is not a clear-cut enough case, which may cause it to backfire on one quibble or another. They seem to have picked their battle unwisely. But there is nothing wrong with challenging homophobic practices in this way if they are found.

Shame, we were almost in agreement there, except for the bit in bold, and I've already outlined why we may never see eye to eye.

Good thing you don't feel they should just keep quiet!

Any hope you might stop putting words in my mouth? I think that LGBT lobby groups engaging in these sort of tactics are doing a disservice to the people they claim to represent, and are doing nothing more than the equivalent of outing people who don't want to be outed, but would rather carry on about their business and be seen as no different from anyone else.

legspin

seamus wrote: »

...and someone comes in wanting a "Jesus is a cvnt" design on his cake...

I had to go looking but this was all I could find...

http://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/993981_10151639190369077_983078671_n.jpg

robindch

On foot of the SCOTUS Hobby-Lobby ruling last week, religious groups in the US now demand to be exempted from federal requirements that companies who do work for the government can't discriminate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/faith-groups-seek-exclusion-from-bias-rule.html

New York Times wrote:

WASHINGTON — After a setback in the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case, President Obama is facing mounting pressure from religious groups demanding to be excluded from his long-promised executive order that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians by companies that do government work.

The president has yet to sign the executive order, but last week a group of major faith organizations, including some of Mr. Obama’s allies, said he should consider adding an exemption for groups whose religious beliefs oppose homosexuality. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the court ruled that family-run corporations with religious objections could be exempted from providing employees with insurance coverage for contraception.

The demands of the faith organizations pose a dilemma for Mr. Obama, who has struggled to preserve freedom of expression among religious groups while supporting the rights of gay men and lesbians. Mr. Obama could unleash a conservative uproar if he is seen as intruding on religious beliefs, but many of his strongest supporters would be bitterly disappointed if he appeared to grant any leeway to anti-gay discrimination. The White House has given no reason for the executive order’s delay.

In a July 1 letter to Mr. Obama sent the day after the Hobby Lobby case was decided, leaders of religious groups wrote that “we are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need.”

The effort behind the letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the White House faith-based initiative during Mr. Obama’s first term and directed the president’s faith outreach in the 2012 campaign. The letter, which called for a “robust religious exemption” in the planned executive order, was also signed by the Rev. Larry Snyder, the chief executive of Catholic Charities U.S.A.; Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church, who delivered the invocation at Mr. Obama’s first inauguration; and Stephan Bauman, president of World Relief, an aid group affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals.

Mr. Wear, who calls himself an “ardent supporter” of the president and a backer of gay rights, said in an interview on Tuesday that the rationale of the organizations was to maintain the rights they have. “We’re not trying to support crazy claims of religious privilege,” he said. He described the letter as a request from “friends of the administration” to ensure that the executive order provides “robust” protection of religious service organizations that uphold religious-based moral standards for their staff members, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim.

To give an example, faith leaders said a Catholic charity group that believes sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin should not be denied government funding because it refused to employ a leader who was openly gay. Gay-rights groups countered that it would be unacceptable to allow religious organizations receiving taxpayer money to refuse to hire employees simply because they were gay, and said they did not expect the White House to provide such an exclusion. On Tuesday they stepped up their calls for Mr. Obama to quickly complete and sign the order.

“Activists have every expectation that this executive order will be issued without any further religious exemption,” Fred Sainz, vice president for communications and marketing at the Human Rights Campaign, said in an interview. The July 1 letter followed one on June 25 that was signed by more than 150 conservative religious groups and leaders, including many major evangelical associations. That letter warned the president that “any executive order that does not fully protect religious freedom will face widespread opposition and will further fragment our nation.”

[...]

Vivisectus

Anyway, on to your second point - I never even implied the bakery were solely being persecuted,

Nor did I imply exclusivity was either here nor there. You seem confused.

I said the lobby group were doing no different to what they were claiming has been done to them for decades,

Yeah I thought that was what you were trying to say. Amazing how the majority with the special privileges keeps ending up being persecuted by getting their privileged status (slightly) reduced!

so you'd imagine they would be all too aware of people persecuting other people who do not share their experiences or world view. You can disagree with that point of view all you like, but like I said, won't change the facts, or peoples perception of the facts.

So then you would feel the same about a whites-only school, businesses that do not allow females to have positions of authority, the no-gingers-allowed playground organization, and doctors that refuse to treat travellers. You just feel that any organization has the right to discriminate, and that not allowing them to do so constitutes persecution?

Let me guess... I am once again putting words in your mouth? Only all that follows pretty much directly from what you just said...

By giving the businesses that support them their custom instead? (would've thought it was common sense that one surely, that's why I buy Bosch instead of Hotpoint appliances - Bosch offer great service, reliable appliances and fantastic warranty. Hotpoint are pure dirt and charge a call-out fee when their appliances go tits up). That is the beauty of consumer choice - I can take my custom somewhere else, and if enough people take their custom somewhere else - the business has a choice, give more people what they want, or stand by their shoddy principles and eventually go out of business.

The "voting with your feet / wallet" argument is flawed. If you wonder why, just ask gay teachers how easy it is for them to punish Catholic schools by withdrawing their labor. We are fixing this, fortunately, but the point is still valid.

I hate it when people equate racism and homophobia as if they are the same thing. They're not, and keeping them separate allows us to say that discrimination is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances, otherwise you run the gauntlet of saying we cannot discriminate against anyone under any circumstances.

They are essentially the same thing: they are forms of discrimination that seek to exclude or punish people because of their race, sexual orientation, religion or gender.

If your argument held any water, then I should be entitled to have a whites only hiring policy at my company.

But basically what you are saying is that it is OK to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, but not on the basis of skin color, because else all discrimination would be valid? How on earth does that follow?

I don't suffer fools gladly, so I'm perfectly entitled to discriminate against people whom I think are talking utter shìte.

And yet you foolishly conflate challenging someone on their opinion with discrimination, which is objectionable on very different grounds. A few sentences after complaining how people conflate racism and homophobia, I might add.

We can legislate against human nature, but human nature being what it is means that legislation is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Homosexuality was illegal in this country up to 1993 and it still didn't stop people getting their groove on. They just ignored laws that didn't suit them.

No point in having laws at all then, now is there? Unless we legislate along with whatever you choose to call "human nature".

As for giving out awards for failing to be homophobic, no, but giving out awards for promoting LGBT rights might be a runner - such and such a business were incredibly helpful and provide a top notch service, promote them among your family and friends, same as you would award any other business.

That mean no LGBT rights advocacy at all then? Because we are just doing what we would do for every other business. Or do you mean little reviews about how businesses were totally helpful by not being homophobic? I don't think you thought this one through.

Any hope you might stop putting words in my mouth? I think that LGBT lobby groups engaging in these sort of tactics are doing a disservice to the people they claim to represent, and are doing nothing more than the equivalent of outing people who don't want to be outed, but would rather carry on about their business and be seen as no different from anyone else.

I respond to what you say, that is all. I would consider putting words in your mouth, but your foot seems to be in it most of the time so I doubt there will be room.

And how the hell does gay rights advocacy equate forced outing of people? How is that germane to this discussion?

Penny 4 Thoughts

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'm with ShooterSF on this one too. A company should have the right to discriminate on the kinds of business that they do, just not the people they do business with.

I would disagree. I think that misses the woods for the trees. Anti-discrimination laws are on the books so that minorities who society have decided are not doing anything wrong, are not excluded by public businesses. Public businesses must operated on the standards of society, not on their own standards. That is why anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place.

recedite

Vivisectus wrote: »

... I have completely failed to be anti-semitic all day and I could use a nice little trophy to cheer me up!

I'll give you a jaffa cake, if it makes you feel more impotant.

Czarcasm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I would disagree. I think that misses the woods for the trees. Anti-discrimination laws are on the books so that minorities who society have decided are not doing anything wrong, are not excluded by public businesses. Public businesses must operated on the standards of society, not on their own standards. That is why anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place.

"Public businesses"? Is the bakery not a private enterprise that can serve who it likes, when it likes, and how it likes? They have every right to operate on their own standards, which is why I'm genuinely not sure what the Equality Authority are at stepping in here in the affairs of a business that is not being funded by tax payers government funding.

In robindch's post above, it's much clearer what's going on, and it's why Obama finds himself in such a quandary - no matter which way he goes to cover his political arse, either way it's bound to get kicked.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Czarcasm wrote: »

"Public businesses"? Is the bakery not a private enterprise that can serve who it likes, when it likes, and how it likes?

Running a business is a contract between yourself and the government, you agree to abide by societies standards. A bakery that sells to the public is not a private members club.

It has a contract with society, the government regulates the business on behalf of the public good, from discrimination law down to copyright (no unofficial Disney cakes for example) to food and health safety.

Vivisectus

Is the bakery not a private enterprise that can serve who it likes, when it likes, and how it likes?

They are - in the same way that they can hire who they want

and pay them whatever the hell they like

Vivisectus

But I forget - women who do not like getting paid less should just go and work somewhere else, legislating against paying women less is useless as you cannot legislate against human nature, demanding that people give women equal pay when they did not feel like doing so and that any laws to this effect were enforced was persecution, we should just have given the companies that DID give women equal pay our business (as we would with any other business) and advocacy for equal pay for women has just made people turn against working women and allowed the companies that did not want to give them equal pay to tap into massive reserves of anti-feminist sentiment.

And isn't it crappy when people pretend that sexism is a form of discrimination just like racism? Because then we may have to deal with the fact that it is a pretty awful thing just like racism.

Czarcasm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Running a business is a contract between yourself and the government, you agree to abide by societies standards. A bakery that sells to the public is not a private members club.

I think you're stretching definitions to suit your argument there. I run a business. I am not contracted to work for the Government, and I abide by my own standards on how to run my business, within the confines of Irish legislation. The public are my customers, but I don't owe the general public anything. I'm not a Government funded charity organization.

It has a contract with society, the government regulates the business on behalf of the public good, from discrimination law down to copyright (no unofficial Disney cakes for example) to food and health safety.

State legislation is not the same thing as Government regulation, so the Government cannot force me to provide customers with Apple products as well as Microsoft products or else I fall foul of discrimination legislation.

Czarcasm

Vivisectus wrote: »

They are - in the same way that they can hire who they want

and pay them whatever the hell they like

Vivisectus wrote: »

But I forget - women who do not like getting paid less should just go and work somewhere else, legislating against paying women less is useless as you cannot legislate against human nature, demanding that people give women equal pay when they did not feel like doing so and that any laws to this effect were enforced was persecution, we should just have given the companies that DID give women equal pay our business (as we would with any other business) and advocacy for equal pay for women has just made people turn against working women and allowed the companies that did not want to give them equal pay to tap into massive reserves of anti-feminist sentiment.

And isn't it crappy when people pretend that sexism is a form of discrimination just like racism? Because then we may have to deal with the fact that it is a pretty awful thing just like racism.

Now you're getting the idea. I'll also address the issues raised in your previous post momentarily. I was in the middle of addressing them when I went to check my facts on the ACLU website in a separate tab and the browser crashed out on me, damn Windows phone, perhaps I might have another look at the Apple iPolished turd after all.

Discrimination is a good thing, even Panti Bliss acknowledges we're all a little bit racist, as she understands too that you can't change human nature with legislation.

Vivisectus

Discrimination is a good thing, even Panti Bliss acknowledges we're all a little bit racist, as she understands too that you can't change human nature with legislation.

Action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice is a good thing?

because that is what we are discussing here.

As for a gay rights activist being opposed to legislating against homophobia...

Czarcasm

Vivisectus wrote: »

Action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice is a good thing?

because that is what we are discussing here.

The phrase "Let them eat cake" comes to mind, when an LGBT lobby group chooses to make a big deal out of the fact their request for a cake was refused, and that's somehow more important than marriage equality?

That's the disconnect from ordinary LGBT peoples concerns I'm referring to. Their right to eat cake is more important than their right to marriage equality, apparently...

As for a gay rights activist being opposed to legislating against homophobia...

Quite the fondantness for putting words in other peoples mouths, haven't you?

Have you tried this irony cake? It's delicious.

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

How is the one made trump the other?

Simple, by recognising that treating people differently because of their nature is discrimination; and that stopping people from discriminating against others because their beliefs say that they should is not.

A belief is simply put a thought or idea which is taken to be true when either there is no evidence for or against that idea (e.g. that there is a god), or where the evidence shows that idea is wrong (e.g. that yhwh is real).

Therefore you cannot allow any action harmful (and yes, not making a cake for a person or group because they are gay is a harm) another person based on a belief if you want to have a social system which works. You have to strive at all times to make your rules according to what has been shown by evidence to be best practise available, or as close as possible within the constraints of your environment (to take an extreme example, if it were shown that firing criminals into the sun cut 99% of all crime, it would not be feasible on cost grounds and therefore should not be considered). Thus tellling a person that they have to serve customers regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other grounds is not discrimination no matter how loudly and idiotically their "holy" books or people scream that said discrimination is the "word of god".

Penny 4 Thoughts

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think you're stretching definitions to suit your argument there. I run a business. I am not contracted to work for the Government, and I abide by my own standards on how to run my business, within the confines of Irish legislation.

I'm not saying you are contracted to work for the government, I'm saying there is a contract between you and the government that allows you to operated a business, which as you say, must be operated in the confines of Irish law. You are not free to do what ever you like with regards to your business, you agree to run your business as the government says you should. If you didn't they would refuse to recognize your business as a legitimate legal business. I'm guessing you filled out a signed a ton of forms in order to set up your business.

Czarcasm wrote: »

State legislation is not the same thing as Government regulation, so the Government cannot force me to provide customers with Apple products as well as Microsoft products or else I fall foul of discrimination legislation.

The government can force you to do what ever the law says you have to do. For example if you produced encryption software that software would have to fall within security software export law. If you imported beef from Brazil that beef would have to be inspected.

You agree to all of this when you apply to the government to set up and recognize your business. The idea that you just start running a business and then do what ever the hell you like is nonsense. You are regulated by the government, and the moral justification for the existence of that regulation is that you have a contract between your business and society, represented by the government.

Or to put it another way, the government has a right to meddle in your business precisely because you are operating to the public, and the interests of the public are protected by the government. That applies for everyone, including the person who wants a gay cake

Brian Shanahan

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One is discrimination based on something people can't change (sexual orientation), one is discrimination based on something people can change (obnoxious religious beliefs).

I'm sorry to be stepping on your toes, but stopping person A from discriminating against person B is not in itself discrimination, it is simply allowing for an equal playing field. If we allowed anyone to act in a harmful manner against anyone else because of their beliefs, then logically we would have to scrap all laws, and the human race would quickly, painfully and brutally go extinct.

Vivisectus

The phrase "Let them eat cake" comes to mind, when an LGBT lobby group chooses to make a big deal out of the fact their request for a cake was refused, and that's somehow more important than marriage equality?

That's the disconnect from ordinary LGBT peoples concerns I'm referring to. Their right to eat cake is more important than their right to marriage equality, apparently...

I wholeheartedly agree they picked the wrong battle. But if the case was nice and clear cut - for instance if they refused to sell ALL cake to gay people - then it would have been a better one. And that still falls squarely into the range of things you consider "persecution", according to your posts, and apparently also unimportant. Better not to mention it lest they anger people!

Quite the fondantness for putting words in other peoples mouths, haven't you?

You complain about that almost every time I point out you have said something foolish. And yet somehow you fail to point out why what you said was not foolish.

Have you tried this irony cake? It's delicious.

We will add "irony" to the list of expressions and phrases you seem to use in idiosyncratic ways, next to "running the gauntlet".

Philo Beddoe

antiskeptic wrote: »

But wouldn't the Equality commission be discriminating against the cake maker on the grounds of his religious beliefs?

No, they would only be doing that if they came to their conclusion based on his religious beliefs. For example, let's assume this baker is, oh, I don't know, a Presbyterian. He refuses to make the cake to the customer's specifications. The following day the Catholic baker down the road also refuses to make the cake. The customer complains about both bakers but the Equality Commission only sends a letter to the first baker, because they believe Catholics should be allowed refuse service to whomever they wish. That would be discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Cause one side wants freedom to love and marry who they want.
The other side wants freedom to deny rights to those people because of an irrational, arbitrary rule from their fictional deity.

I can see why one needs more protection than the other.

Speaking of arbitrary: your answer dangles out of nothing in particular.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One is discrimination based on something people can't change (sexual orientation), one is discrimination based on something people can change (obnoxious religious beliefs).

Not relevant to the law. The law is discriminating against this persons religious beliefs

Would you be asking this question if instead of gay people it was black people, whose pro-racial equality cake was rejected by a baker because of his/her religious belief that black people were not equal to white people?

Asking a question isn't an answer. It's a dodge.