Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

keano_afc

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They weren't asking them to support same-sex marriage, they were asking them to bake a cake. Do you think that people who print Man Utd replica shirts all support Man Utd? Do you think people that print Fianna Fail flyers all support Fianna Fail?

The message on the cake said "support gay marriage".

BlaasForRafa

keano_afc wrote: »

The message on the cake said "support gay marriage".

So what. You don't have to agree with something in order to write it.

keano_afc

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

So what. You don't have to agree with something in order to write it.

And therein lies the dilemma. Should a business be forced to supply goods adorned with a campaign message it does not agree with?

BlaasForRafa

keano_afc wrote: »

And therein lies the dilemma. Should a business be forced to supply goods adorned with a campaign message it does not agree with?

Its not a dilemma at all, in fact it's ridiculous. As I said, you don't have to agree with something in order to do it. The bakery offers a service, it refused to perform the service it had already agreed to perform based on discriminatory grounds.

NIMAN

It all just shows how backward a country NI is.
The Stephen Nolan TV show a few weeks back had a round table discussion about CakeGate and it was embarrassing to listen to.

keano_afc

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its not a dilemma at all, in fact it's ridiculous. As I said, you don't have to agree with something in order to do it. The bakery offers a service, it refused to perform the service it had already agreed to perform based on discriminatory grounds.

Is that what the Equality Commission has decided?

gozunda

Interesting statement from Amnesty International on the proposed 'conscience clause' (sic)

"The existing regulations are compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, which balances the right to manifest religious beliefs and the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation.
"Amnesty does not consider there to be any necessity for these regulations to be so amended."

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-31667445

Annasopra

jank wrote: »

I never state it thus. I am saying the individual in their work duties in as a private business owner can have any ethos they so wish. This seems to be a problem for you. This however would give you and anyone in the LGBT community the right to conduct their own private business affairs anyway they wish.



State employees use public money, private business owners are not funded thus should be able to do as they wish. Its quite simple. State employees can in their private live have freedom of conscience but as in their duties as a public employe that cannot let any ethos interfere with their day to day work. This is why the state recognises that religious organisations can not be forced into presently drafted equality legislation .e.g. someone sue the RCC because they don't allow women to be priest or force a religious wedding ceremony on a LGBT couple.

I want to live in a world where people are free to live as they wish, you on the other hand have no problem telling people how they should live and will use the state to punish people that do not conform to your own moral values, much like Ireland was like 50 years ago. Replacing one system of tyranny with another.

Again you are not really addressing why you support a hierarchy of rights. You seem to believe that individuals are entitled to freedom of conscience but once they are state employees they are not. If human rights are universal then why do you support vindicating the rights of one group of people over another? Why do you complain about hierarchies of rights and who can claim them and then support them.

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again you are not really addressing why you support a hierarchy of rights. You seem to believe that individuals are entitled to freedom of conscience but once they are state employees they are not. If human rights are universal then why do you support vindicating the rights of one group of people over another? Why do you complain about hierarchies of rights and who can claim them and then support them.

Apparently Jank says it's a question of taxpayers' money - a view which proves itself very leaky as soon as one thinks a little about it. For instance does a business which gets a government contract then have to change its ethics to become morally neutral or not? Isn't this unfair on employees who may suddenly find themselves in a situation they never expected when they chose to join a religiously-run company?

And how far does that go - what about tax breaks or grants coming from public money? Don't they put any responsibility on the company to use taxpayers' money in the same way as a public service would?

And what about when public opinion goes against what is currently the law - for example it appears that there is a majority in favour of the death penalty in the UK, yet there is no question of this being brought in by parliament : what if someone wants a cake with a slogan either for or against the death penalty? If public money is the criterion, could a company that also supplies to schools and hospitals make either or both of these slogans? Or neither?

Or maybe they should just obey commercial law which says that when you take an order you must fulfill it, and that you can't refuse to provide a service to someone because of their sexuality? Is that really such a revolutionary idea?

osarusan

jank wrote: »

I am saying the individual in their work duties in as a private business owner can have any ethos they so wish.

You might like this to be the scenario, but they can't have any ethos they like - not when it goes against equality law.

jank

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I'm glad to know that you equate supporting gay marriage with promoting slavery or the genocide of gay people.

A nice straw man but the law or should I say the protection of an individuals right to believe what they want and to act in accordance with their own beliefs in a private setting be it religous/non-religious should be neutral. One is not equating anything in equal measure just that one is giving an example that someone can refuse service if they so wish.

jank

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again you are not really addressing why you support a hierarchy of rights. You seem to believe that individuals are entitled to freedom of conscience but once they are state employees they are not. If human rights are universal then why do you support vindicating the rights of one group of people over another? Why do you complain about hierarchies of rights and who can claim them and then support them.

Do I need to explain it to you again for the 4th time? You never even responded to my statements, examples or questions but still pursue the 'I don't understand' malarkey.

State services are funded through the tax payer and the tax payer can have a wide wide spectrum of beliefs. Therefore the state cannot endorse or espouse a certain moral or religious ethos and should only adhere to the constitution. The state should be secular in policy. We already had the RCC involved in policy in this country and I don't think we should go back to it. Are you suggesting that we should?

A private business that receives no state funds should be able to do as they wish in accordance to their own ethos. A private catholic hospital should not be forced by the state into providing abortions or giving birth control to un-married adults because it goes against their ethos. This is the current status in many many western countries around the world which adheres to the secular split between church and state. Ireland is of course different as it has a historical and cultural attachment to the church which is no unraveling albeit slowly. However, it seems people today have no problem in replacing Church values for their own and forcing them on everyone. Not exactly conductive to a free society is it?

People have a freedom of religious conscious first and foremost and they can practice that in a private setting funded by their own funds, organisation or business. However, when public money is involved they cannot let their religious beliefs interfere with their day to day activities as contracted to as a public employee. Their rights are not being impinged as they choose (not forced) to work for the government and can at any time choose not to work for the government and practice their religion as they see fit. If the government adheres to the position that religion dictates some policy then you have to then accept that state funded doctors and nurses can refuse to give contraception to adults due to their religious ethos. This is not something I would agree with and I am sure you would not agree with it either.

So in essence it is either one or the other. The state takes no involvement (which I advocate) in religion in policy or takes an active view where people with public money can dictate policy due to their religious beliefs.

In short there is no hierarchy of rights here that you claim there is. There is only the right of the private individual or at least these are the only rights that should exist.

What I was talking about earlier in relation to the issue in Toronto is that when there seems to be a conflict in terms of rights, there is a pecking order which the equality authority will rule on. It is clear from that case that a Muslim Man's rights to refuse to cut a woman's hair > the right of a woman to get her hair cut. That is a fact in this case. I have no problem with this ruling by the way. I am not sure if he owns the barber shop in question but if he is the owner or the owner approves of this stance then I have no problem with it at all. It does not involve public money. Again, I will come down just as hard on that side if there was a state owned barber shop. He would had had to serve everyone and if he refused to serve a woman or a LGBT person the state has the right to fire him. You won't catch me out here on that.

jank

gozunda wrote: »

They certainly had plenty of time to alert the likes of the Christian Institute

Do you have any proof that they did or again purely speculating?

jank

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What about an LGBT person growing up in a small rural village with only one shop that doesn't want to serve LGBT people? What about black person living in a town where the principal employer has a religious objection to allowing black and white people work together? What about a woman who thinks her possession of a vagina shouldn't mean she is entitled to less of a wage for equal work.

What about the one legged left handed albino who's name is Rickey?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Firstly it is a none-sense to suggest that businesses do not depend on government expenditure. Secondly even if they were entirely privately funded and in no way benefited from state expenditure they still exist in the same legal world as the rest of us and therefor ought to be held to the same legal standards.

How do you come to that silly conclusion? That legal standard you mention recognises the right of freedom of religion and conscious. If a private business is totally independent of state funds, what actual business is it to you that how it runs their affairs.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No that is not the case at all.

Em, yes it is. Sue a church so and see how far you get.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That really just amounts to laughable hysteria.

Take a second read of your post. You have no problem forcing through the use of the state a specific moral view of the world on everyone. You are the authoritarian here, not the enlightened progressive you think you are.

jank

volchitsa wrote: »

Apparently .....really such a revolutionary idea?

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

You might like this to be the scenario, but they can't have any ethos they like - not when it goes against equality law.

A law which IMO should be changed if it appears to place what I believe are the rights of one person over another.

Same way surely that some people don't like the scenario that they feel the State is discriminating against them for not legislating for marriage equality, and they want that law changed, other people are entitled to campaign for a change in the law which they don't like.

I shouldn't have to include this as it should be obvious, but there may even be some overlap between people who support people's right to marriage equality, and people who support people's right to their freedom of conscience.

BlaasForRafa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Same way surely that some people don't like the scenario that they feel the State is discriminating against them for not legislating for marriage equality, and they want that law changed, other people are entitled to campaign for a change in the law which they don't like.

They weren't asked to legislate for marriage equality, they were asked to bake a cake. But instead of baking the cake which no-one would have given a crap about they decided to make a song and dance about it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I shouldn't have to include this as it should be obvious, but there may even be some overlap between people who support people's right to marriage equality, and people who support people's right to their freedom of conscience.

The owners of the bakery can have all the freedom of conscience they want in their private lives but when they open their business to the public and offer a service they have to do so without discriminating against one section of society.

If it was black people they were discriminating against I'd bet this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

One eyed Jack

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They weren't asked to legislate for marriage equality, they were asked to bake a cake. But instead of baking the cake which no-one would have given a crap about they decided to make a song and dance about it.

Yeah, if only they would shut up and bake the damn cake, right? Same principle easily applies to people who advocate for marriage equality, but you wouldn't expect them to shut up and just accept the law as it stands. You also wouldn't accuse them of making a song and dance about anything, instead you'd call it standing up for their rights. I see no difference here.

The owners of the bakery can have all the freedom of conscience they want in their private lives but when they open their business to the public and offer a service they have to do so without discriminating against one section of society.

They didn't deny the person a cake, they simply had an objection to the message the person wanted on the cake. Your suggestion earlier that nobody gave a crap about it, simply ignores the fact that someone did in fact give a crap. But somehow one person's right to their political opinion can over-ride a person's right to their religious beliefs. I personally don't feel that is right, be they a private citizen, a business, a charity, etc.

This equality legislation suits your perspective, so you're able to point fingers and say "they shouldn't do this, that and the other", but when marriage laws in NI don't suit you, well, it's not called discrimination to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you should not be entitled to an opinion.

I don't think that's how it works. If you want support for your rights, you have a responsibility to respect the rights of other people, regardless of the fact whether you disagree with them or not. I'm not suggesting you have to support their ideas, but if you want support for your ideas, it's best you try not to piss people off. They're as entitled to their opinions as you are. Give people the information, and let them decide for themselves. Telling people what to do, is no different than doing exactly the same thing as you being told what to do. You don't like it, so why would you think it's ok to do it to someone else? Just because someone else does it to you?

There's a word for that sort of behaviour.

If it was black people they were discriminating against I'd bet this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

What has being black got to do with anything? Are there no such people as people who are black and LGBT now or something? Stop using black people to make arguments for another group of people. You're not black, so your arguments are empty. You would be among the first to suggest that people who aren't LGBT will never understand what it's like for a person who is LGBT, so how the hell can you argue for anyone else in society if you're not part of that group?

(and trust me, people who are black can be just as quick as people who are LGBT to remind you to know your place so to speak if you're not black!)


What would you be saying I wonder if it were people of religious belief who were being discriminated against?

I've seen how those "discussions" have gone too. The general sentiment is "religion has no place in modern society"... except that kind of sentiment ignores the reality that people of religious belief are just as much a part of society as anyone else who is non-religious.

volchitsa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If it was black people they were discriminating against I'd bet this discussion wouldn't even be happening.

Who would admit to even thinking such a thing nowadays? Yet it was the majority opinion for decades in the USA. I'm confident that in a couple of decades this will seem just as inexplicable to most people. Or as it would if they refused to serve people in the order in which they arrived because one set of people were felt to be more important socially.

These prejudices are clung firm to by bigots right up until the moment they collapse and are seen for the hypocrisy they really are. Then suddenly no-one is willing to admit to having been part of all that - it's always someone else.

gozunda

Gozunda wrote:

They certainly had plenty of time to alert the likes of the Christian Institute

jank wrote: »

Do you have any proof that they did or again purely speculating?

The opportunity is clearly evidenced in the timeline between the order being accepted and four days later when the bakery 'decided' to change their minds and refuse the customers order

As I already clearly explained this scenario was a refute to your unsupported statement that the Bakery could not have have taken this opportunity for soap boxing. The opportinity was certainly available between when when the bakery accepted the order then discussed it and then decided to refuse it, for them to get 'advice' on the issue. That they went ahead with such action even though they knew that they potentially faced legal action but were apparently unconcerned as to fininacial ramifications is indeed strange. What is clear that a fundamentalist presure group is very heavily involved in this issue. As to when they really arrived to 'help' the bakery is an interesting point. I would hope disclosure during the court case will help determine this. Going by the CIs previous record they have a reputation for lobbying against SSM in the rest of the UK. It is also reported that they are also footing all legal expenses for Ashers - nice for them.

Your omission to supply any rationalisation whatsover for your allegations of the barber shop being targeted is blatantly evident. I would suggest you address this before attacking other issues.

jank

gozunda wrote: »

The opportunity is clearly evidenced in the timeline between the order being accepted and four days later when the bakery 'decided' to change their minds and refuse the customers order

So that is a no, there is no evidence that they consulted legal advice before refusing the order, so you are purely speculating....

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, if only they would shut up and bake the damn cake, right? Same principle easily applies to people who advocate for marriage equality, but you wouldn't expect them to shut up and just accept the law as it stands. You also wouldn't accuse them of making a song and dance about anything, instead you'd call it standing up for their rights. I see no difference here.

Equalisation of marriage rights will have no detrimental effect on anyone else. It will not impact on how others live their lives or conduct their affairs. However activly discriminating against others because you believe your religion permits it very clearly impacts on others constitutional rights. A religionist is entitled to hold whatever particular views they wish either in their home or place of worship but it remains they cannot discriminate against others based on those views and it is unlawful for them to do so. The Bakery now face legal ramifications of their actions and rightly so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They didn't deny the person a cake, they simply had an objection to the message the person wanted on the cake. Your suggestion earlier that nobody gave a crap about it, simply ignores the fact that someone did in fact give a crap. But somehow one person's right to their political opinion can over-ride a person's right to their religious beliefs. I personally don't feel that is right, be they a private citizen, a business, a charity, etc.

Again that is YOUR unsupported statement. How many times does that need to be pointed out to you? You are using that premis to base your entire argument on again, again and again. It doesn't matter how many times you claim it, it is still pure unsupported and unrationalised sabre rattling

gozunda

jank wrote: »

So that is a no, there is no evidence that they consulted legal advice before refusing the order, so you are purely speculating....

Did you actually read my reply - obviously not

As I already clearly explained this scenario was a refute to your unsupported statement that the Bakery could not have have taken this opportunity for soap boxing. The opportinity was certainly available between when when the bakery accepted the order then discussed it and then decided to refuse it, for them to get 'advice' on the issue. That they went ahead with such action even though they knew that they potentially faced legal action but were apparently unconcerned as to fininacial ramifications is indeed strange. What is clear that a fundamentalist presure group is very heavily involved in this issue. As to when they really arrived to 'help' the bakery is an interesting point.

I would hope disclosure during the court case will help determine this. Going by the CIs previous record they have a reputation for lobbying against SSM in the rest of the UK. It is also reported that they are also footing all legal expenses for Ashers - nice for them.

Your omission to supply any rationalisation whatsover for your allegations of the barber shop being targeted is blatantly evident. I would suggest you address this before attacking other issues.

Do at least address this before attempting to call others into argument again

gozunda

jank wrote: »

I would also stand by the bakery which refused to bake a cake for someone who wanted biblical slogans espousing slavery or killing homosexuals. I would come down just as hard on the other side.

It is somewhat ironic that the bakery's claims that baking a 'cake' for a LGBT group was somehow against their Christian beliefs and that it was what 'God would want them do do'. These views would appear to relate an Old Testament God depicted in the bible.

Interestingly enough that same Old Testament text does support "killing homosexuals and espousing slavery" which you have highlighted.

Should we then support the bakeries rights to do/support such things as well?

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Leviticus 25:44-46

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly

shruikan2553

gozunda wrote: »

It is somewhat ironic that the bakery's claims that baking a 'cake' for a LGBT group was somehow against their Christian beliefs and that it was what 'God would want them do do'. These views would appear to relate an Old Testament God depicted in the bible.

Interestingly enough that same Old Testament text does support "killing homosexuals and espousing slavery" which you have highlighted.

Should we then support the bakeries rights to do such things as well?

I suppose so, they have the right to practice their religious beliefs. Guess those gangs in England can just claim women are lesser in their beliefs and nothing can be done or we would be tyrants forcing our beliefs on them. We don't want tyranny right?

PopePalpatine

IIRC, didn't the Christian Institute push for creationism in UK schools? Maybe I might be confusing them with the equally odious Caleb Institute.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Who would admit to even thinking such a thing nowadays?

No need to admit to it when they can just be more underhanded about it, and that's exactly what happens when people are forced to accept something against their will. They won't accept it, they'll just be more underhanded about how they reject it.

Yet it was the majority opinion for decades in the USA. I'm confident that in a couple of decades this will seem just as inexplicable to most people. Or as it would if they refused to serve people in the order in which they arrived because one set of people were felt to be more important socially.

I would contend that it's still the majority opinion, particularly in the US, they don't exactly have race relations riots over there every few years for nothing. Racially motivated riots are becoming more commonplace in the UK too, as more and more people are rejecting what they feel they should not be forced to accept. In Ireland we've always been pretty laid back about the whole multiculturalism idea, because it never affected traditional Irish society before in the way it is fast affecting Irish society now. I expect in a few decades we'll be just like the US and the UK.

These prejudices are clung firm to by bigots right up until the moment they collapse and are seen for the hypocrisy they really are. Then suddenly no-one is willing to admit to having been part of all that - it's always someone else.

The prejudices clung to by bigots right up until the moment they collapse and are seen for the hypocrisy they really are, are the ideas that some people have about equality and respect for all people, except those people who don't share their ideas about who exactly their ideas apply to, not to mention those people they haven't even thought of! So the same bigotry and prejudice is also present in a person who is intolerant of those people with a religious belief, which presents a bit of a problem for a person who is all about equality for people who are black, but if a black person is religious, then they don't fit the "profile". Have you ever been to a Pentecostal sermon? I go usually on a Sunday afternoon. It took me a while before I was accepted into their community, being the only white guy there and all. I'm not even Pentecostal, I just go for the music!

You're right though, nobody IS willing to admit to their prejudices, and that's why you get people equating racial discrimination to discrimimation against a person because of their sexual orientation. They're kinda missing the whole point of marriage equality IMO. Marriage equality has nothing to do with a person's skin colour or their religion or absence thereof. Marriage equality has more to do with a person's sexual identity and who they are permitted by the State to enter into marriage, based on their sexual identity.

In that respect, people who are LGBT have more in common with people who are intellectually disabled in terms of the rights they are denied by the State. They have little in common with people of colour with regard to who the State permits them to marry. This is why the comparison with black people annoys me, because rather than seeing someone as a whole person, they're practising the very same prejudices and discrimination themselves in terms of who they will and won't support in terms of the opportunity for everyone have the same opportunities and the same protection of the State as everyone else in society.

I have no particular issue with anyone who chooses to abdicate their responsibility towards another person based on their own prejudices, that's their own business, but when those people want me to support them, I too have the choice to be as selfish as I've seen them be, but I choose not to, because that would be spiteful, and I'm all about treating people equally, as people, and not simply based on particular traits I'm prejudiced towards. That's not conducive to a functioning society, where all anyone cares about is themselves and their rights and their entitlements. Those rights carry responsibilities and are balanced by responsibilities, but you don't hear anyone campaigning that they should have to take responsibility for anyone else.

That's what's always been inexplicable to me really.

keano_afc

jank wrote: »

So that is a no, there is no evidence that they consulted legal advice before refusing the order, so you are purely speculating....

Gozunda's entire offering in this thread is based on speculation as far as I can see.

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

Gozunda's entire offering in this thread is based on speculation as far as I can see.

Dear keano

What is your point if any? There is a close line between attacking the post and not the poster. I have already replied to your last allegation and answered you. Do you remember that post?

gozunda wrote:

keano_afc wrote:

Your entire argument is based on assumptions.

gozunda wrote:

No What I have said is based on present facts. I said

"Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions."
This is a fact

"No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery."
This is a fact
.

keano_afc wrote:

[1]The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. [2] You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign... Your entire argument in this and the original thread is an incorrect assumption that discrimination based on sexual preferences took place. [3]It's so frustrating

[1] The EC have no remit to make any final ruling on this matter - the courts have. I have detailed this several times already. What is fact is that the EC have issued Ashers with a notice that they are in breach of anti discrimination legislation. I await the final determination of the courts.

[2] The facts stand that Ashers initial statement clearly stated that they refused the order because of their religous beliefs. That they made a subsequent statement is also fact. However it stands that this second statement appears to be politically expedient on their part.

[3] I'm sorry you are frustrated.

* I have edited parts of that post to repost it.

I note that you are not demanding the same standard of verification from the last poster you addressed who claimed a Canadian Barber was targeted by a Lesbian or an LGBT group travelled 20 miles to pick up a cake just to annoy the bakery.
But please don't let the detail impact on your refusal to concede that not everyone necessarily agrees with your views.

Daith

Nevermind this nonsense

We now have a printer shop in Drogheda refusing to print same sex wedding invitations.

We, at Beulah Print, are Bible-believing Christians who are committed to standing by our conscience and God’s Word. We have been in business for twelve years during which time we have held to our convictions and have at times declined a variety of work which we felt was clearly contrary to our beliefs. We have never hidden our faith from our customers and represent the gospel at every opportunity. We are not against homosexuals however, we do not support same sex marriage, which printing wedding invitations would do. We believe the love of God is extended to all people and that He has called us all to walk in the light of His word, for He is the way, the truth and the life.

http://eile.ie/2015/03/05/drogheda-printers-refuse-gay-wedding-invite-request/