Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

PopePalpatine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Will you please stop presuming you know what people think, and instead listen to what they're saying. It may prevent you from jumping to all manner of ridiculous conclusions and wedging in completely irrelevant nonsense that make it that much harder to take your opinion seriously.

There's enough strawmen in what you've written, that it's not even worth addressing, let alone refuting what was never put forward by anyone else but yourself.

When someone rants about most of the advances society has made in the last century, it's kind of hard to jump to ridiculous conclusions about their dream society.

Eugene Norman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

When someone rants about most of the advances society has made in the last century, it's kind of hard to jump to ridiculous conclusions about their dream society.

Still a strawman.

One eyed Jack

PopePalpatine wrote: »

When someone rants about most of the advances society has made in the last century, it's kind of hard to jump to ridiculous conclusions about their dream society.

But then address what they actually said, rather than adding to the nonsense. That's only making a complete mess of the thread when people are strawmanning all over the place and introducing stuff they think a poster should be saying, rather than addressing anything they've actually said.

Bob24

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Or any other example of any other individual claiming a sincere religious belief as a justification to discriminate against another person on any basis. Several examples of which I provided that you have yet to respond to.

As I said before, I do agree the bill proposal doesn't make sense because it is only catering for the moral values of religious people, and in any case defining what is or isn't a genuine religious belief is a bag of hurt. No need to convince me there.

What I have been saying is that a number of people here have been listing as facts things that are just their own fantasy (for example saying the proposal suggests to legally allow to refuse selling a product to a customer because of their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin, or that the infamous baker clearly stated he refused to serve the customer because they are gay).

Putting words in someone else's mouth to discredit them is disgraceful.

Kiwi in IE

Stinicker wrote: »

Should we accommodate pedophiles?

I will address the rest of this umm...... astounding post later as I am pushed for time at the moment but I just couldn't wait to reply to the above sentence!

Are you for real? Considering the ideology that you are defending? You tell me if we should accommodate paedophiles? Keeping their crimes a secret within the organisation where they work and moving them along to work in another area where they can prey on a fresh batch children sounds like a good way to accommodate them alright!

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Will you please stop presuming you know what people think, and instead listen to what they're saying. It may prevent you from jumping to all manner of ridiculous conclusions and wedging in completely irrelevant nonsense that make it that much harder to take your opinion seriously.

Ehh no! In my opinion that was an equivalent summation of that rant on the decline of western civilisation. That is exactly the society we have left behind. And there are very good reasons we have left it behind. I enumerated just some of these. So no it's nothing whatsoever to do with "presuming you know what people think,". It was a response to what was clearly written! Don't like that? tough. That's your prerogerative, Is it really worth getting upset just because some calls a spade a spade? I don't think so

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's enough strawmen in what you've written, that it's not even worth addressing, let alone refuting what was never put forward by anyone else but yourself.

Ah not the friggin 'strawman' offence thingy again? IF you think any single point made is as 'strawman' then at least point it out there and then and say why you think that. Otherwise that is just a lazy,stupid and useless argument.

Thanks

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I will address the rest of this umm...... astounding post later as I am pushed for time at the moment but I just couldn't wait to reply to the above sentence!

Are you for real? Considering the ideology that you are defending? You tell me if we should accommodate paedophiles? Keeping their crimes a secret within the organisation where they work and moving them along to work in another area where they can prey on a fresh batch children sounds like a good way to accommodate them alright!

I wouldn't bother addressing the rest of that rant if I were you tbh, most of it is completely irrelevant to the duscussion, but the question you quoted and answered does raise an interesting point. If a person is a pedophile, but has committed no crime, then does a business have a right to refuse them service on the basis that they are a pedophile?

I would say yes, but people who object to this legislation are only interested in putting forward the idea that people who have a religious objection to providing a service to someone could automatically fall foul of equality legislation on the grounds of discrimination against a person.

If equality legislation is to be any way meaningful, then nobody's civil rights should over-ride anyone else's fundamental rights in order to force them to do something which they have a moral or ethical objection to doing. That's not conducive to achieving equality and tolerance in society IMO, and if anything, it will only achieve the complete opposite.

bb1234567

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

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

'becoming'

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

From Daniel McArthur, manager of Ashers:

‘As we don’t believe in gay marriage, and did not want to be associated with a politicised campaign, mum phoned the customer to explain politely that we could not accept the order, and would be returning his deposit.

Taken from the below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698005/Half-baked-bigotry-These-family-bakers-persecuted-refusing-make-cake-celebrating-gay-marriage-Here-insist-s-bullies-intolerant-not-us.html

Well well! Very convenient indeed. The incidence at the bakery occurred on the 9th of May. Ashers published their slick video with the Christian.org group on the 7th Of July. In that video they clearly state they refused the 'order because it was against their religous beliefs'. Realising they had just put themselves in a pickle they then later come out with a statement as espoused in the Newspaper article of the 19th of July....:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Ehh no! In my opinion that was an equivalent summation of that rant on the decline of western civilisation. That is exactly the society we have left behind. And there are very good reasons we have left it behind. I enumerated just some of these. So no it's nothing whatsoever to do with "presuming you know what people think,". It was a response to what was clearly written!

It was a response to what was written alright, but none of it actually addressed what was written. It was nothing more than you making up an equivalent amount of nonsense that offered nothing to the discussion whatsoever, and that's why the other "cake thread" turned into a massive headmelt, because rather than address what was written in front of them, posters simply started posting stuff they thought would earn them a few thanks rather than giving an honest opinion that contributed something to the discussion.

Don't like that? tough. That's your prerogerative, Is it really worth getting upset just because some calls a spade a spade? I don't think so

If you don't like the fact that someone refuses to provide you with a service for any reason, tough! That's their prerogative, and yours is to take your business elsewhere rather than getting upset about it because someone calls a spade a spade. I don't think a refusal by the local bakery to bake me a cake in the shape of a giant vagina should be something to get upset about either. They make bespoke cakes, but they reserve the right to design their cakes whatever way they want, and if I don't like that, then yes, that IS my tough, and hardly something to go running to the Equality Commission about.

Ah not the friggin 'strawman' offence thingy again? IF you think any single point made is as 'strawman' then at least point it out there and then and say why you think that. Otherwise that is just a lazy,stupid and useless argument.

Thanks

Addressing strawmen only serves to draw a thread further off topic, it's a bit pointless. I was never offended by it though, I simply think it's irrelevant. Meeting hyperbole and nonsense with more hyperbole and nonsense is the epitome of lazy, stupid and useless argument.

keano_afc

gozunda wrote: »

Well well! Very convenient indeed. The incidence at the bakery occurred on the 9th of May. Ashers published their slick video with the Christian.org group on the 7th Of July. In that video they clearly state they refused the 'order because it was against their religous beliefs'. Realising they had just put themselves in a pickle they then later come out with a statement as espoused in the Newspaper article of the 19th of July....:rolleyes:

Whatever mate. You asked for evidence and you got it. You have clearly made up your mind on this issue and despite having this evidence to the contrary you choose to ignore it. I'm done debating with you on this.

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

I dont agree, they are not guilty of making a big issue out of this. You may have a polar opposite view of their beliefs, but do you think a business should be forced under threat to support a political campaign it disagrees with?

But Ashers bakery are making a huge show of not supporting the rights of LGBT individuals to get married. A right that exists in the rest of the UK. Not only that but Ashers very publicly have got into bed with Christian.org - a presure group that have attempted to block the enactment of other LGBT rights through legislation. Ashers produced and publicised the video and letter from the Equality Commisdion. Who is running this 'political' campaign, I wonder? And more importantly why?

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

Whatever mate. You asked for evidence and you got it. You have clearly made up your mind on this issue and despite having this evidence to the contrary you choose to ignore it. I'm done debating with you on this.

Clearly not your mate btw I was aware of this second and very belated statement. But anyways. As it is said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ashers first statement was very clear. They stated "they refused the order because it was against their religous beliefs". Whatever shovel they are using now to attempt to dig themselves out of trouble will most likley fail. Even de lovely family portrait with cake thrown in for good measure will not avail imo :rolleyes:

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But then address what they actually said, rather than adding to the nonsense. That's only making a complete mess of the thread when people are strawmanning all over the place and introducing stuff they think a poster should be saying, rather than addressing anything they've actually said.

Do you wish to address the thread rather than having pops at various posters because you disagree with them?
How about getting back on to the thread instead of ranting ridiculously about strawman (I would suggest you reread the thread and see what generated that response). For your information a strawman argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. As the original piece was quoted then it was clearly NOT a strawmam argument. Ok
Back to the thread with ya ...

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

But Ashers bakery are making a huge show of not supporting the rights of LGBT individuals to get married. A right that exists in the rest of the UK. Not only that but Ashers very publicly have got into bed with Christian.org - a presure group that have attempted to block the enactment of other LGBT rights through legislation. Ashers produced and publicised the video and letter from the Equality Commisdion. Who is running this 'political' campaign, I wonder? And more importantly why?

Ashers didn't make a huge show of anything until some numpty with an agenda wanted to make an example of them, and then said numpty went on to claim discrimination where there was none. Before you point out again that the Equality Comission are taking a civil case against the bakery, they still have yet to prove any discrimination actually took place in order to win their case.

One behemoth pressure group started this nonsense against a small business, why shouldn't said business accept any support from wherever they can get it in order to bolster themselves against a group that wants to either force them to do something that doesn't fit with their company ethos, or force them out of business?

It's an insidious PR effort orchestrated by misguided misfits claiming to represent people who are LGBT and I for one hope it backfires massively on them and bankrupts them into oblivion. I'm all for supporting marriage equality, but not at the expense of trampling all over other people in order to get my own way.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was a response to what was written alright, but none of it actually addressed what was written. It was nothing more than you making up an equivalent amount of nonsense that offered nothing to the discussion whatsoever, and that's why the other "cake thread" turned into a massive headmelt, because rather than address what was written in front of them, posters simply started posting stuff they thought would earn them a few thanks rather than giving an honest opinion that contributed something to the discussion.

It WAS a response to what was written. If you don't understand that, then I can't help you.

"One wrote:

if you don't like the fact that someone refuses to provide you with a service for any reason, tough! That's their prerogative, and yours is to take your business elsewhere rather than getting upset about it because someone calls a spade a spade. I don't think a refusal by the local bakery to bake me a cake in the shape of a giant vagina should be something to get upset about either. They make bespoke cakes, but they reserve the right to design their cakes whatever way they want, and if I don't like that, then yes, that IS my tough, and hardly something to go running to the Equality Commission about.

No that is ILLEGAL. Get it?
Btw why would you want a cake in the shape of a giant Virginia? :curious:

"One wrote:

Addressing strawmen only serves to draw a thread further off topic, it's a bit pointless. I was never offended by it though, I simply think it's irrelevant. Meeting hyperbole and nonsense with more hyperbole and nonsense is the epitome of lazy, stupid and useless argument.

Do you think that the actual post that I replied to was hyperbole and nonsense? Why are you presuming 'to think'' that?

Bob24

gozunda wrote: »

No that is ILLEGAL. Get it?

I don't see how it is illegal ...

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

As I said before, I do agree the bill proposal doesn't make sense because it is only catering for the moral values of religious people, and in any case defining what is or isn't a genuine religious belief is a bag of hurt. No need to convince me there.

What I have been saying is that a number of people here have been listing as facts things that are just their own fantasy (for example saying the proposal suggests to legally allow to refuse selling a product to a customer because of their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin, or that the infamous baker clearly stated he refused to serve the customer because they are gay).

Putting words in someone else's mouth to discredit them is disgraceful.

But it does and the reason it does has already been covered in your first paragraph. The only way that it couldn't is if they scrawl up some arbitrary list of pre approved religions/beliefs and then discriminate against anyone else claiming a religious belief that does not make the list.

This proposed exemption from the law for religious belief is firstly grossly unfair and secondly would be so impractical in effect to be ludicrous.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

No that is ILLEGAL. Get it?

It's not illegal to refuse to provide a service on the basis that what the person is asking for is in contravention of the moral and ethical standards of the company. There are all sorts of exceptions to equality legislation that are covered by other legislation and you have to be able to prove you were discriminated against on the grounds you're claiming you were discriminated against, and even then that's no guarantee you'll win your case.

Btw why would you want a cake in the shape of a giant Virginia? :curious:

Because I enjoy licking the cream off! :pac:

If I simply wanted a run of the mill cake, I wouldn't go to a bakery which offers a bespoke cake making service. I could tip down to my local Tesco if that's all I wanted. If the bakery doesn't want to fulfill my order, I wouldn't claim discrimination, I'd simply take my business elsewhere, where I could have a giant vagina cake make for me!

no_car

Karl Stein wrote: »

Hopefully The Alliance Party can grow their voter base among moderate Unionists.

the alliance are a party for nice middle class liberals

a bit like the green party down here or the lib dems in the uk

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not illegal to refuse to provide a service on the basis that what the person is asking for is in contravention of the moral and ethical standards of the company. There are all sorts of exceptions to equality legislation that are covered by other legislation and you have to be able to prove you were discriminated against on the grounds you're claiming you were discriminated against, and even then that's no guarantee you'll win your case.

It absolutely is if your morals or ethical standards of the company contravene the law. This really, really isn't that difficult to understand.

Bob24

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It absolutely is if your morals or ethical standards of the company contravene the law. This really, really isn't that difficult to understand.

But how does it contravene the law to refuse to write something on a cake? (whatever it is you are asked to write)

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

But how does it contravene the law to refuse to write something on a cake?

I was referring to One Eyed Jack's generalized point.

Gbear

gozunda wrote: »

How is that even remotely related to "forcing everyone to be an alcoholic" as you detailed below for some strange reason?

Laws that protect the rights of citizens force nothing. Such laws prevent illegal behaviour and activities such as discrimination

If you wish to bring in paradoxical examples then that's you choice. It makes it no less hair splitting imo.

Those two analogies were in response to your flippancy in equating two very different concepts here:

Segregation laws not only enforced but also permitted discrimination. Hair splitting does not further your argument.

The difference between the government mandating racism and allowing it to exist is not "splitting hairs".

gozunda wrote: »

And how is the civil rights movement for LGBT rights any different? What is different is that the perpetrators of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation are breaking the law. The Equality Commission have taken up this case. What is being fought is the rise of bigots who would assert their 'rights' to discriminate against others whilst claiming 'religious belief' as an excuse.

And all the while, gay marriage is still held hostage by the dinosaurs in Leinster house.

The government is not the driving force behind social progress.
But that's simply a practical reason why expecting the government to legislate it's way out of this problem isn't necessary.
In other words, racism and homophobia are ignorant nonsense so they'll naturally decline over time, as society develops and only then, belatedly, is legislation forced to catch up.

The more fundamental reason why this case is important, IMO, is that it's immoral for the state to interfere in people's lives without cause.
I have never encountered any compelling argument as to why there needs to be infringements upon the rights of people (whether it's their speech or their ability to sell what they want to whoever they want) just because they're assholes.

Bringing up how you'd still have segregated buses, or that we'll have rampant discrimination is nonsense.
1) Who gives a ****? In a society that, unlike the Deep South circa 1950, doesn't mandate racial segregation, you're going to have people who aren't both arseholes and terrible businesspeople (which is the vast majority of people in our case) picking up the slack and providing goods and services free of discrimination.
As a bonus, you get to not give your money to those who are arseholes.

2) What's the downside? Unless you think there's actually some merit in racism (and I'm sure all the well-meaning people who mandate government interference like this don't), why would you even be worried about it spreading in the long term? It's declining all the time and that has had **** all to do with the government eventually buckling to the pressure of society and everything to do with the pressure that caused them to.

My problem with the whole line of thinking that allows something like the Equality Commission to even exist, is that it gives the mandate to the government to set the pace of social progression.
So while you're getting people wringing their hands over someone having their feelings hurt over a cake, a B&B or some other petty ****e, we're left with a situation where it's acceptable that the government are the arbiters of taste, of who you can love, of what you can eat, smoke or whatever, and that, to me, is abhorrent.

Sure, if you didn't have them getting involved you'd have some arseholes giving people a hard time, but you also wouldn't have to wait 50 years to marry your SO because they're the same gender.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not illegal to refuse to provide a service on the basis that what the person is asking for is in contravention of the moral and ethical standards of the company. There are all sorts of exceptions to equality legislation that are covered by othher legislation and you have to be able to prove you were discriminated against on the grounds you're claiming you were discriminated against, and even then that's no guarantee you'll win your case.

Are there limits to the moral and ethical standards of the company though?
What if the company is run by white supremacists? Would they be entitled to refuse to decorate a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple on those grounds?

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It absolutely is if your morals or ethical standards of the company contravene the law. This really, really isn't that difficult to understand.

How difficult is it to understand that what the person making the order wanted was a cake displaying a message which supported something which is illegal in Northern Ireland?

The company's moral and ethical standards were not in contravention of the law here; they were asked to fulfill an order which supported a political position to which they had a moral objection and a religious objection. To force them to fulfill the order would be first of all discrimination against their religious beliefs, and second of all would be asking them to participate in the promotion of an illegal activity.

Bob24

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I was referring to One Eyed Jack's generalized point.

But if we are talking about refusing because of the nature of the requested service (as opposed to refusing a service to someone when you would provide the exact same service to someone else), I find it difficult to find examples where you would indeed be illegal. What examples would you have?

bodice ripper

**** some **** stirring activist who went miles out of his way to prove a point.



And **** some baker who is morally opposed to making a cake.

Tossers all round.


But enshrining the right to discriminate on religious grounds in law is asinine. What kind of tinpot farce of a country would do that? Cough section 37 cough.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How difficult is it to understand that what the person making the order wanted was a cake displaying a message which supported something which is illegal in Northern Ireland?

The company's moral and ethical standards were not in contravention of the law here; they were asked to fulfill an order which supported a political position to which they had a moral objection and a religious objection. To force them to fulfill the order would be first of all discrimination against their religious beliefs, and second of all would be asking them to participate in the promotion of an illegal activity.

And if you had contained your point to the case at hand then I'd be prepaired to engage with it on that basis. You didn't you suggested and not for the first time that private businesses are in effect free to discriminate at will in relation to moral and ethical standards. This is patently false. Continuing down that line of argument is utterly futile.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Are there limits to the moral and ethical standards of the company though?
What if the company is run by white supremacists? Would they be entitled to refuse to decorate a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple on those grounds?

Yes they would.

If the company is run by white supremacists, why would a mixed-race couple want to support their business by asking them to decorate a wedding cake when there are a ton of other bakeries not run by white supremacists who would have no problem with fulfilling their request?

What would they actually expect to achieve by doing this? It seems to me at least to be a rather futile way of making a point when there are other options available that they could choose from.