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 ?


.

King Mob

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.