Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

no_car

spiralism wrote: »

The DUP in NI are by a distance the most far right party with any semblance of power in Europe, or anywhere i can think of from the top of my head for that matter. They'd make Nigel Farage cringe. Ideologically at the very least on a par with the likes of the BNP, Front National or PVV if not worse.

the DUP are social conservatives with a capital C but they are not particulary right wing in an economic sense and they are not comparable to the national front in france of the BNP in the mainland uk

they are a christian conservative party

Sheldons Brain

padd b1975 wrote: »

Having someone express the view they don't agree with gay marriage is homophobia??

Jesus Christ!!!
That term is so diluted and misused now, it's almost meaningless.

Not only that, but someone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is no doubt an ISIS supporter.

no_car wrote:

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

Of course this would be a principled stand by the baker, not the same thing at all at all :rolleyes:

no_car

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.

i see what you did there

on a list of pc sacred cows

unmarried white couple come in around 8

unmarried mixed race couple come in around 3

Karl Stein

no_car wrote: »

seem like state coercion

All laws are coercion. People are coerced to send their kids to school, insure their cars, drive carefully, pay taxes, keep the noise down in the evening and so and so on.

Employment law coerces employers. Discrimination laws coerce haters.

RollieFingers

Can we just get rid of Northern Ireland please? Kip of a spot with gob****es like this lot, stuck in the dark ages!

no_car

Karl Stein wrote: »

All laws are coercion. People are coerced to send their kids to school, insure their cars, drive carefully, pay taxes, keep the noise down in the evening and so and so on.

Employment law coerces employers. Discrimination laws coerce haters.

you see ive doubts about the supreme authority of the arbitators of what constitutes " haters "

Kiwi in IE

md23040 wrote: »

come into your bakery and ask for a cake with an ISIS flag on it with the slogan Death to the West.

md23040 wrote: »

Or someone goes into Finglas bakery asks for a Union Jack cake with some derogatory anti-Irish or anti Catholic slogans.

no_car wrote: »

if a customer went into a kosher bakery and requested a swastika emblemed cake

Yes because marriage equality and incitement of racial/ethnic hatred are the same thing of course! But there is no homophobia to be seen here!

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Yet segregation laws DID include private businesses as with the present case of discrimination by sexual orientation by a private business in NI. And with the proposed legislation in NI - what happens when you get a bigoted individual working in a public service? Will they be able to claim a 'conscience' :rolleyes: exemption from serving a gay/coloured/gender specific person based on their 'religious belief'! Seriously?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

What you 'want' is immaterial. Your 'wants' do not trump another persons civil rights not to be discriminated against. Yes discrimination is 'terrible' and should never be condoned whether by religious belief or otherwise

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

So you live in a small town in a rural area, that has for example one chemist / one bakery / one shop - what do you do? Travel in the hope of finding a non bigoted purveyor of goods and services. Businesses such as the Bakery at the centre of this debacle ARE in business for the bottom line (sic). They are there to make money as a business. If they are a business they are obliged to do so lawfully and not discriminate against customers.

gozunda

no_car wrote: »

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

As already explained above - not a comparable scenario. Such a request would fall under Incitment to Hatred, and not even remotely the 'same principal'

gozunda

Bob24 wrote: »

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."

The poster said

keano afc wrote:

Ashers refused the business because they didnt agree with the political campaign supported in the message.

Leaving aside the fact I didn't refer to the article above - the two statements are NOT Synonymous. I would suggest you read the actual letter sent by the Equality Commission for the actual wording regarding the breach of legislation

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/ashers-letter-hq.jpg

B_Wayne

Just to confirm, those who support this are fine with refusal to serve single mothers? Shops that will not serve gay people at all?

Drakares

- Economy in tatters - Check
- Heath Service in need of massive improvements - Check
- Unemployment rate at an all time high - Check
- Homeless people sleeping on the streets - Check


Lets concern ourselves with the most important of all, what two consensual adults are allowed do with their bodies! The windowlicking is strong in this group.

no_car

gozunda wrote: »

As already explained above - not a comparable scenario. Such a request would fall under Incitment to Hatred, and not even remotely the 'same principal'

the example is the same principal , it just has a different charechter

both involve the state forcing its definition of morality on private citizens

no_car

B_Wayne wrote: »

Just to confirm, those who support this are fine with refusal to serve single mothers? Shops that will not serve gay people at all?

the bakers didnt refuse to serve , they refused to play a role in a political campaign , a cake is a food product , a car is a mode of transport but if i drape the car in anti fox hunting slogans and drive around town , it becomes political

Gbear

gozunda wrote: »

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

Hair splitting? Jesus christ.:rolleyes:

They're completely and totally different.

It's the difference between allowing the sale of alcohol, including to alcoholics, and forcing everyone to be an alcoholic.
It's the difference between allowing the existence of private schools that teach climate change and evolution denial and enforcing bull**** like that in all public schools.

That you can dismiss such a fundamental difference as hair splitting is simply unbelievable.

Your 2nd point is absolute bollocks.
The civil rights movement won in spite of the government because it had popular support.

Yes. The government really did a bang up job when it was coerced into giving black people their rights back.

Society get's less ignorant and then drags archaic laws, kicking and screaming, into modernity.
It does not work the other way around.

You're always going to have a few outlier racist dickheads but such is life. A few dopes aren't a good reason to keep the progress of civil society shackled to a plodding monolith like our legal system.

B_Wayne

no_car wrote: »

the bakers didnt refuse to serve , they refused to play a role in a political campaign , a cake is a food product , a car is a mode of transport but if i drape the car in anti fox hunting slogans and drive around town , it becomes political

Under conscience law, it would be fine to have businesses that don't serve gay people at all. Businesses where one's morality can allow them to ignore groups they abhor...

no_car

B_Wayne wrote: »

Under conscience law, it would be fine to have businesses that don't serve gay people at all. Businesses where one's morality can allow them to ignore groups they abhor...

ok , we are now debating the proposed bill , i was refering to the bakers who refused to contribute to a political campaign

i still dont have a problem with private business refusing to serve certain people , i dont believe the state can perfect society and that this kind of ( over reach ) will completely eradicate prejudice

ive no desire to impose my will upon people who have a different outlook , the likes of the christian bakery did not go looking for confrontation , confrontation came looking for them

Will somebody bake them that cake already.

gozunda

no_car wrote: »

the example is the same principal , it just has a different charechter

both involve the state forcing its definition of morality on private citizens

No They Are not the 'same principal'

Incitement to hatred is a criminal offence and an individual engaging in such behaviour can be prosecuted. The state defines laws. Citizens of that state are obliged to obey those laws.

Discrimination is also against the law. Anti discrimination legislation protects individuals against discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

I presume from your last statement that there should be no laws whatsoever as by enacting laws the "state (is) forcing its definition of morality on private citizens".

Yeah ...

Bob24

gozunda wrote: »

The poster said



Leaving aside the fact I didn't refer to the article above - the two statements are NOT Synonymous. I would suggest you read the actual letter sent by the Equality Commission for the actual wording regarding the breach of legislation

Could you post a link to what is your reference of the facts then? I don't believe any of the links in the thread are saying the customer was refused because he is gay (as a matter of fact, what it seems like is that the order was originally accepted but later one declined by the management due to the message to be printed).

Also I don't believe the baker was fund guilty of anything he was accused of?

Stinicker

The real bigots here are those opposed to the DUP's legislation, people have a right to make decisions and hold beliefs, this is really a case of the thought police at work. Not everybody is in favor of homosexuality or gay marriage and they are entitled to hold those beliefs and not be bullied by anyone who thinks otherwise. The liberals here really show their hypocrisy on this issue.

Daith

Stinicker wrote: »

The real bigots here are those opposed to the DUP's legislation, people have a right to make decisions and hold beliefs

Once again the victims of bigotry are the bigots.

Maybe if you operate a business you should just follow the law?

Karl Stein

Gbear wrote: »

Yes. The government really did a bang up job when it was coerced into giving black people their rights back.

What do you mean by 'give back'? Were Black people living in some sort of utopia before the darn gubberment snatched it all away?

Black people were kidnapped and brought to the US and sold as livestock - if they didn't do as they were told they were tortured. That was called the slave trade - it was big business. The government put a stop to the slave trade and the government put a stop to segregation.

Bob24

Stinicker wrote: »

The real bigots here are those opposed to the DUP's legislation, people have a right to make decisions and hold beliefs, this is really a case of the thought police at work. Not everybody is in favor of homosexuality or gay marriage and they are entitled to hold those beliefs and not be bullied by anyone who thinks otherwise. The liberals here really show their hypocrisy on this issue.

One issue though is that the legislation is only quoting religion as a valid source for personal beliefs.

Does it make sense that an atheist baker would not be covered by the same legislation?

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Yet segregation laws DID include private businesses as with the present case of discrimination by sexual orientation case in NI. And with the proposed legislation in NI - what happens when you get a bigoted individual working in a public service? Will they be able to claim a 'conscience' :rolleyes: exemption from serving a gay/coloured/gender specific person based on their 'religious belief'! Seriously?

You're still mixing up public sector and private sector provided services. If a person is employed in the public service providing services to the public, they may raise their objections with their employer, but they themselves are not entitled to discriminate against anyone if there is a policy in place which says they cannot discriminate against a person. The same rules do not apply to service providers in the private sector.

A business' ethos could discriminate against a person for any particular reason, and employees of that business would have to abide by the business' ethos or could face disciplinary action or dismissal.

What you 'want' is immaterial.

Careful now

Seriously though, that sort of pronouncement could easily be turned against you in that I could just as handy say to you that what you want is immaterial... but it's no way to conduct a discussion, is it?

Your 'wants' do not trump another persons civil rights not to be discriminated against. Yes discrimination is 'terrible' and should never be condoned whether by religious belief or otherwise

Actually, my wants are protected under what are called 'personal liberties', and your personal liberties don't trump my personal liberties, nor does your perceived entitlement to what you see as your civil rights trump my constitutionally protected fundamental rights. Discrimination in and of itself isn't terrible either, in fact in some cases it's absolutely necessary, and in other cases, such as 'positive discrimination' public policies, it's absolutely futile.

So you live in a small town in a rural area, that has for example one chemist / one bakery / one shop - what do you do? Travel in the hope of finding a non bigoted purveyor of goods and services.

Yes? Not sure what other answer you were expecting there? In the same way as you would travel to avail of a better quality of service regardless of the fact whether they be a chemist, bakery, shop, etc. That's people's personal choice to travel. It's an inconvenience, and nothing more, and no private services provider is obligated to provide a person with services just because that person feels they are entitled to a service.

Businesses such as the Bakery at the centre of this debacle ARE in business for the bottom line (sic). They are there to make money as a business. If they are a business they are obliged to do so lawfully and not discriminate against customers.

They are there to provide a service to whomever they choose to provide that service to. The money they make from providing that service is obviously a secondary concern if they are prepared to deny their services to certain people. They are operating within the law already, and the law protects their right to choose who they will provide their services to, and also their right to choose what services they will provide to whomever they choose.

If they do not want to provide their services to a person, that person is entitled to choose to take their business elsewhere. If I go into the local convenience store run by Muslims and I'm told they don't stock ham, then there's nothing I can do as there's no law that says convenience stores have to stock ham. There's also no law that says a bakery providing customised cakes has to provide a service to a person who wants a political message on a cake which contravenes their personal and religious beliefs.

All you're doing by trying to force the issue is giving private businesses a reason to refuse business that's going to be an issue for them. It's no different to publicans that close their businesses when there's a traveller wedding in town rather than have to deal with the potential fallout that could lose them a lot more business.

eviltwin

The bakers didn't refuse to deal with the customers, they just refused to make the cake they wanted. Its totally different.

wendell borton

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.

I have to disagree. The border enabled the existence of a sectarian state and a catholic theocracy to exist by demagogy.

Daith

eviltwin wrote: »

The bakers didn't refuse to deal with the customers, they just refused to make the cake they wanted. Its totally different.

Exactly

However the law they want is the ability not to deal with customers at all.

Both side are blowing things up.

B_Wayne

no_car wrote: »

ok , we are now debating the proposed bill , i was refering to the bakers who refused to contribute to a political campaign

i still dont have a problem with private business refusing to serve certain people , i dont believe the state can perfect society and that this kind of ( over reach ) will completely eradicate prejudice

ive no desire to impose my will upon people who have a different outlook , the likes of the christian bakery did not go looking for confrontation , confrontation came looking for them

And it in my honest opinion, this would be a significantly regressive leap back in terms of Western Europe. It's a return to the days where one could refuse clientele because of the colour of their skin. This is much bigger than Ashers, it's much more regressive than what Ashers did. It's carte blanche to refuse to serve whoever they want with feck all limits as long as you use conscience as your objection. Northern Ireland has much intolerance as it is, bringing in laws that allows more intolerance to fester is the work of bigots. The DUP are bigoted creationists with nuttier views than most religions even hold.

Stinicker wrote: »

The real bigots here are those opposed to the DUP's legislation, people have a right to make decisions and hold beliefs, this is really a case of the thought police at work. Not everybody is in favor of homosexuality or gay marriage and they are entitled to hold those beliefs and not be bullied by anyone who thinks otherwise. The liberals here really show their hypocrisy on this issue.

Just to clarify? You're fine with a business that won't serve gay people, single mothers, Asians, black people? Freedom of conscience can bring with it many horrible views.

Bob24

Daith wrote: »

Exactly

However the law they want is the ability not to deal with customers at all.

Both side are blowing things up.

Is there a draft of this law people can look at to make their own opinion?