Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

Bob24

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

Would you have the same belief if it was towards mixed race couples? A white woman/black man?
Because at the end of the day it's treating people as lesser because of something (their relationship) that's really no one else's business.

If a baker doesn't want to print a slogan promoting mixed race couples, I don't see why they should be forced to do so (I am part of a mixed couple myself).

Of course if they were refusing to sell a cake to my partner and I because she is not white, I would have a big issue with this ... but that is a very different question.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The law in NI as it currently stands means that I would be forced to provide my services to someone I had a moral or ethical objection to provide my services for. It's effectively telling me that I cannot choose who I shall work for, and if a legal challenge were to arise from me refusing to provide my services to anyone for any reason, I'd shut up shop in the morning because I would no longer have that essential element of control over my own business.

I don't have a problem with that. If you can't operate within the law of the land then you shouldn't operate a business.

Daith

Bob24 wrote: »

If a baker doesn't want to print a slogan promoting mixed race couples, I don't see why they should be forced to do so (I am part of a mixed couple myself).

Of course if they were refusing to sell a cake to my partner and I because she is not white, I would have a big issue with this ... but that is a very different question.

Except the bill in question came from the first example but would allow the second example to happen.

That's my issue. It should be about the first issue.

Lapin

Very inaccurate and misleading thread title.

Kiwi in IE

I think religion in the public sphere is a serious problem and I think religious people are completely delusional. If I was to open a bakery and tell everyone who came in for a Christening/Confirmation cake that I disagree with religion and refuse to make the cake on those grounds, I would be behaving like a dick! I imagine there would also be grounds for a legal challenge on the basis of religious discrimination.

Bob24

Daith wrote: »

On both parts I think.

As I said, I don't think the bakery should have been in trouble for not printing the slogan.

However I don't think the answer is a religious freedom of choice bill.

The issue is with the slogan not gay people or religious people. It could have been any slogan or message.

Absolutely agreed. The gay activist tried to pose as a victim to get publicity for his cause, and as there was a religious aspect involved religious lobbies pushed for a law that is based on religious beliefs, as if non-religious people were not allowed to have a conscience and use it not to promote something they don't believe in.

Both time wasters as far as I am concerned.

Cuban Pete

arayess wrote: »

my neighbour is an old woman who has bedsits and refuses to let to unmarried couples.
It has never caused a row people just move on.

Taking her to court would be a travesty fo justice , she wants a certain (misguided imo ) level of decorum in her establishment (paid for by her earnings) I really don't see why people are going bananas over stuff like this.

People getting upset over others not approving of this lifestyle is sensitive in the extreme .
Yes you shouldn't abused over it or discriminated by state services.
But if a shop doesn't want to make gay slogans so be it, go to the next one.

I think this is where the trouble lies. See, it's not a "lifestyle", it's an integral part of one's being. It's no more a "lifestyle" than the colour of one's skin is, or what have you.

Why this forcing of acceptance on people and not just leave them to it which is want I always understood gay people wanted anyway - to be left carry on living their lives. Why the deserve to enforce that on people who would rather not get involved and want to be left alone.

What if you wanted to get some groceries but the shop in your town won't serve you? What if none of them within a twenty mile radius will? Extreme example, I know but I'm doing so to illustrate a point - living in a society means our actions very often affect other people. Especially if you're operating a business.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

I don't have a problem with that. If you can't operate within the law of the land then you shouldn't operate a business.

There's the law of the land, which has nothing to do with equality legislation, and then there's company law which a business operates under, which also has nothing to do with equality legislation, and then there's employment law, which has everything to do with equality legislation.

There's no rule under company law that says any business has to provide it's services to a member of the public in a way which contravenes it's ethos. If a business doesn't want to provide their services to you for any reason, they're not breaking any law. They can do as the Equality Commission has decided to do, bring a civil case against you, claiming discrimination, but they're unlikely to get anywhere, and all the introduction of this clause is doing is recognising that fact.

Daith

Bob24 wrote: »

Both time wasters as far as I am concerned.

Very much agreed so. I've very much against militant types whether it's gay people or religious people or whoever.

As if NI didn't have enough history of two sides with different views anyway.

Utter nonsense and overreacting.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not what the law is about at all. The 'conscience clause' being proposed is that nobody should be made to conduct their business in a manner in which they have an objection to, based on their religious beliefs. That's a good thing for some people, and a bad thing for other people. It just depends upon which side of the fence you're on.

Personally I don't see any compelling reason to force a business owner to act in a manner which contravenes their religious beliefs, it's got nothing to do with equality, and more to do with how businesses which provide a service to the public are regulated.

If a business refuses to offer their services to a person for any reason, that's an inconvenience to the person, granted, but there are many other service providers willing to provide their services to that person. The equality laws should only apply to employers and employees IMO, and who they choose to provide their services to should be their own business.

So you would therefore agree in principal with the segregation laws which discriminated against anyone who was not 'white' of the southern United States that were eventually repealed?

Many of those laws were claimed to be derived from the ruling elites 'religious' beliefs

Nice world you want to live in ...:rolleyes:

Lapin

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its the unionists again, always the bloody unionists. :rolleyes:

Yes those bloody unionists again.

Those bloody people democratically elected by the majority to represent their interests actually doing their job.

Bloody hell indeed. How dare they?

Bob24

Daith wrote: »

Except the bill in question came from the first example but would allow the second example to happen.

That's my issue. It should be about the first issue.

To be honest I am not very familiar with the details of the bill, but trying to Google it seems to me the press is not doing a great job at explaining it. I only find unbalanced articles (one way or the other) or some which try to be balanced but don't give any details of the bill itself and focus on the cake incident and subsequent polemics.

FairytaleGirl

Bob24 wrote: »

If a baker doesn't want to print a slogan promoting mixed race couples, I don't see why they should be forced to do so (I am part of a mixed couple myself).

Of course if they were refusing to sell a cake to my partner and I because she is not white, I would have a big issue with this ... but that is a very different question.

But that's the point - if this bill passes they WILL be able to do so.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no rule under company law that says any business has to provide it's services to a member of the public in a way which contravenes it's ethos. If a

The only place where a religious ethos should be found is a church! Not a school, bakery, hospital, corner store, hair salon or supermarket. What if a chemist refused to sell condoms to two blokes because they knew or suspected that they are gay? Still OK? Go to another chemist? What if it's a small town and there is no other chemist? Don't have sex until you can get yourself to a non bigoted chemist? What if a wedding party were booked into a hair salon on the morning of the wedding and the hairdresser finds out that it's two women getting married and then refuses to do their hair? Too late to find another hairdresser. That OK too? Public acts of bigotry have no place in modern society. Because it was 'accepted' in the past does not make it OK now. Public hangings were accepted in the past too. Should we have remained 'traditional' on that one as well? If you cannot keep your bigotry based on religion or whatever other excuse you have to yourself, stay away from professions where you have to deal with the public!

gozunda

md23040 wrote: »

Scenario - You are related to Alan Hennings, the British aid worker recently beheaded and you own a bakery. A bunch of Muslims come into your bakery and ask for a cake with an ISIS flag on it with the slogan Death to the West. Are you obliged to make that cake or should the full force of the law be used to pursue you?

Or someone goes into Finglas bakery asks for a Union Jack cake with some derogatory anti-Irish or anti Catholic slogans. Neither of these things might be illegal under the terms of the law.

Lets get this into context - someone went out of their way to be offended and knew the consequences. The Bakery didn't refuse to make them a cake on the grounds of their sexual orientation and where happy to bake the cake but not supply the slogan. They should be fully within their rights to refuse to not include any slogan - same as the above examples, or forcing a Muslim cafe to make you a bacon buttie even if you provide the bacon.

The law will not be enacted because it is impossible to police something so subjective that can not be measured, but equally it is ridiculous the equality commission and PC brigade taking action. As said the laws as ass and other bakeries could consider the business.

What you have typified are requests for slogans that would fall under incitement to hatred laws AND therefore absolutely nothing to do with the cake shop in question being charged under NIs anti discrimination legislation.

As for the daft "bacon buttie' x "Muslim cafe' - there is no case. The restaurant wouldn't have bacon on its menu. End of story.

Now rather than get into some longwinded diatribe on this and other fictitious scenarios, I would suggest you read the last thread where such ridiculous arguments were firmly debunked. I can only presume you haven't read it. I suggest you do ...

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057245070/1/#post91178444

Gbear

gozunda wrote: »

So you would therefore agree in principal with the segregation laws many of the southern United States that were eventually repealed?

Many of those laws were claimed to be derived from the ruling elites 'religious' beliefs

Nice world you want to live in ...

The racist laws in the US weren't laws that permitted a business to function as they wished but rather they enforced businesses to practice racial separation.

You don't need to be a racist to oppose the state interfering in businesses right to choose their own clientèle. You just need to recognise that it ought not to be the state's business and having them sticking their oar in doesn't necessarily lead to a more equal or less racist society.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

So you would therefore agree in principal with the segregation laws many of the southern United States that were eventually repealed?

The segregation laws had a much greater impact on society than simply businesses discriminating who they would provide their services to. The segregation laws also applied to public services as well as private businesses. Discrimination in public services is an entirely different matter to discrimination by a private company.

Many of those laws were claimed to be derived from the ruling elites 'religious' beliefs

Nice world you want to live in ...

I want to live in a world where people are not forced to do something which contravenes or compromises their religious, moral or ethical standards. Terrible, isn't it?

It's not as if there are a shortage of service providers who don't give a damn as long as you have money because all they care about is their bottom line. You're right, that's not the kind of world I want to live in, and thankfully, we don't.

Bob24

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

But that's the point - if this bill passes they WILL be able to do so.

Would you have a link to a balanced analysis of the proposed bill and its consequences?

bucketybuck

Lapin wrote: »

Yes those bloody unionists again.

Those bloody people democratically elected by the majority to represent their interests actually doing their job.

Bloody hell indeed. How dare they?

Doing their job! :pac:

Thats it unionists, go get them gays!

bodice ripper

It's conflating religion with conscience in law that I object to the most.

Karl Stein

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

NI is fast becoming this island's equivalent of America's deep south.

hfallada wrote: »

How is that England is liberal and yet NI is so backwards.

Not NI. There's a significant element within Unionism that was always 'Deep South'. You'll note the absence of the UUP and DUP below.

Demonique wrote: »

The crowd was addressed by politicians from Alliance, Sinn Féin and SDLP, as well as community leaders.

hfallada wrote: »

Imagine trying to have functioning Dail if there was a unification of the 32 counties. Instead of discussing important economic matters. I have a feeling, there would be a lot of debating over **** like this.

Unionists who'd be opposed to living in the 21st Century would be very much a minority so I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion.

keano_afc

Your thread title is completely misleading and should be changed.

I dont see any problem in theory with this bill. As has been said, Ashers refused the business because they didnt agree with the political campaign supported in the message. The sexuality of the "customer" who traveled 20 miles to be offended was never the issue.

Its sets a dangerous precedent of we are forcing businesses to toe the line and support something they dont agree with because a noisy minority say so.

gozunda

Gbear wrote: »

The racist laws in the US weren't laws that permitted a business to function as they wished but rather they enforced businesses to practice racial separation.

You don't need to be a racist to oppose the state interfering in businesses right to choose their own clientèle.You just need to recognise that it ought not to be the state's business and having them sticking their oar in doesn't necessarily lead to a more equal or less racist society.

You don't need to be a racist to oppose the state interfering in businesses right to choose their own clientèle. But it sure as hell helps :rolleyes:

Segregation laws not only enforced but also permitted discrimination. Hair splitting does not further your argument. Without the US government 'sticking their oar' into segregation and outlawing it, there would still be states with 'black people at the back of the bus"

Here is some information on personal beliefs translated into active discrimination for you

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott

Daith

keano_afc wrote: »

I dont see any problem in theory with this bill. As has been said, Ashers refused the business because they didnt agree with the political campaign supported in the message. The sexuality of the "customer" who traveled 20 miles to be offended was never the issue.

I think you're getting mixed up.

The bill would allow you not to serve a customer because of your religious beliefs. So you could refuse a customer because they were gay or black or a single mother.

It actually has nothing to do with the slogan or message printing.

I think the thread topic is fine but the original post should be less about Ashers and more about the actual bill.

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

Your thread title is completely misleading and should be changed.

I dont see any problem in theory with this bill. As has been said, A Ashers refused the business because they didnt agree with the political campaign supported in the message.B The sexuality of the "customer" who traveled 20 miles to be offended was never the issue.

C. Its sets a dangerous precedent of we are forcing businesses to toe the line and support something they dont agree with because a noisy minoritysay so.

A That is YOUR interpretation and is unsupported by the evidence to date

B Again that is your supposition on the issue and interestingly is at odds to what the NI anti discrimination authority has found and which looks likely to go before the courts

C So as detailed previously would you hold that the civil rights movement in the US should have shut up and put up with discrimination?

Nasty 'noisy' minorities actually speaking up and seeking the same rights as everyone else? Shame on them you say?' -shame on you!

Daith

gozunda wrote: »

Nasty minorities actually speaking up and seeking the same rights as everyone else? Shame on them' -shame on you!

In fairness he said "noisy" minorities. Minorities should never speak up of course.

gozunda

Daith wrote: »

In fairness he said "noisy" minorities. Minorities should never speak up of course.

Thank you - have fixed that.

no_car

hfallada wrote: »

Imagine trying to have functioning Dail if there was a unification of the 32 counties. Instead of discussing important economic matters. I have a feeling, there would be a lot of debating over **** like this. Like the only reason why this law is being proposed as its clearly the views of a sizeable minority of NI.

How is that England is liberal and yet NI is so backwards. They both have Church of Ireland/Catholics. But their social views are literally polar opposites.

england is mainly anglican

northern ireland ( if you exclude the catholic minority ) is predominantly presbyterian ( as is scotland )

anglicanism is more liberal than catholicism but catholicism is more liberal than presbyterianism

no_car

Daith wrote: »

I never said that's what the owners said. No need to put words in my mouth or jump to conclusions.




Hold on. The law they are talking about is a new law so you would be permitted to not to do business based on the sexuality of the customer. Not just slogans. That doesn't seem bad?

no , i dont see why a private business should be obliged to carry out every customers request

seem like state coercion

as someone said earlier , if a customer went into a kosher bakery and requested a swastika emblemed cake , would the owner of the bakery be wrong to refuse ?, different shark but same principal id have thought

Bob24

gozunda wrote: »

A That is YOUR interpretation and is unsupported by the evidence to date

Well, that is also what the article linked in the original post says, and what the basis for the civil case was:

"The Equality Commission has brought a civil case against Ashers Baking Company after it refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan."