Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

gozunda

Bob24 wrote: »

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

Refusing to provide either goods or services based on a persons gender, religion, sexual orientation is discrimination and is illegal.

As it stands the Equality Commission have made a statement in the letter to the Bakery that there has been an apparent instance of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation.

The matter looks like it is going to court. Of note Ashers bakery did not have any publically viewable ethical statements as claimed by some others. They refused the order on the basis it was against their "religious beliefs' in the first instance.

Of course it is possible to propose any number of scenarios that may or may not have happened, but as it stands much of that information is not in the public domain and such speculation is worthless imo.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

And I still maintain that assertion, unless you can provide a source which suggests otherwise?

I didn't want to get stuck on the bakery because the bakery is one very specific individual case, whereas this 'conscience clause' will apply to all manner of service providers. It's basically setting in legislation something which is widely practiced already.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I still maintain that assertion, unless you can provide a source which suggests otherwise?

If my moral and ethical standards say that I shouldn't have to allow a traveller stay in my B and B it is illegal.

If I think interracial marriages are wrong and try and stop one from celebrating in my hotel its illegal.

and so on and so forth. Google the 9 grounds.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Refusing to provide either goods or services based on a persons gender, religion, sexual orientation is discrimination and is illegal.

As it stands the Equality Commission have made a statement in the letter to the Bakery that there has been an apparent instance of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation.

The matter looks like it is going to court. Of note Ashers bakery did not have any publically viewable ethical statements as claimed by some others. They refused the order on the basis it was against their "religious beliefs' in the first instance.

Of course it is possible to propose any number of scenarios that may or may not have happened, but as it stands much of that information is not in the public domain and such speculation is worthless imo.

Exactly. It was the customer who perceived their refusal as discrimination based on their sexual orientation. To expect the bakery to fulfill the order in contravention of their religious beliefs is discrimatory and that's why there have been suggestions of a "hierarchy of discrimination", because religion or absence thereof is also one of the nine grounds of discrimination. I also said that there are exceptions to equality legislation and the Genuine Occupational Qualification is an example of this -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

musclefitguide

They be hating on the gays, why not let people be and let them be in peace. Most of the fathers now and days don't let their daughters date anyways lol. No wonder people are turning gay

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

No they wouldn't.

And the question of why the couple would do it is a separate issue : that shop might make the best cakes, or be the best value. Or be the only one able to deliver on the day they want. Lots of reasons.

Bob24

gozunda wrote: »

Refusing to provide either goods or services based on a persons gender, religion, sexual orientation is discrimination and is illegal.

Of course we agree on this, but the discussion here was around refusing because of the nature of the requested service - not the customer.

The post you replied to saying this would be illegal was "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". Clearly nothing to do with a customer's gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

gozunda wrote: »

As it stands the Equality Commission have made a statement in the letter to the Bakery that there has been an apparent instance of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation. The matter looks like it is going to court.

Yes someone is claiming they were discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, and the person being accused of this is denying. Lets see what the court has to say, but until found guilty ...

gozunda wrote: »

Of note Ashers bakery did not have any publically viewable ethical statements as claimed by some others. They refused the order on the basis it was against their "religious beliefs' in the first instance.
Of course it is possible to propose any number of scenarios that may or may not have happened, but as it stands much of that information is not in the public domain and such speculation is worthless imo.

Actually I don't see how a statement saying they refused to provide the service because of their religious beliefs makes them guilty of anything. There is a bit of a stretch from "I won't fulfil your [specific] order due to religious beliefs" to "I won't [ever] serve you because you are gay".
If they were regularly refusing to sell things to gay people that they are happily sending to everyone else of course they would deserve to be punished. But here we are talking one specific order which did involve a political message.

Bob24

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If my moral and ethical standards say that I shouldn't have to allow a traveller stay in my B and B it is illegal.

Yes it is. But it is not illegal to refuse hosting a conference in your B&B that is aimed at promoting new laws related to the status of travellers in Ireland, because you don't think these policies would make sense and do not want your business to be associated to them.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If my moral and ethical standards say that I shouldn't have to allow a traveller stay in my B and B it is illegal.

Not necessarily.

If I think interracial marriages are wrong and try and stop one from celebrating in my hotel its illegal.

Not necessarily.

and so on and so forth. Google the 9 grounds.

Quite familiar with them already thanks, and I'm also quite familiar with legislation that allows for discrimination on certain grounds which wouldn't necessarily contravene equality legislation. For example a person who is LGBT can be discriminated against in applying for a position in a Catholic ethos school in Ireland.

gozunda

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?

Fast forwarding here. For your information SSM is not 'illegal' in NI. SSM is valid in the rest of the UK. A married gay couple arriving from Birgingham into Belfast a City Airport will not be arrested on landing for being 'illegally married". What the current situation is that there is no legislation enabling gay marriage. That is a huge difference to being illegal. To be honest OEJ I don't see much evidence in your replies here that you "support marriage equality".

What Ashers bakery is doing is showing an actively biased stance against the NI LGBT community who are seeking equal rights with the rest of the UK. Their public campaign against the LGBT seems just a little OTT imo.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

The Bakery have already been notified that they are in contravention of NI anti discrimination laws. No amount of back peddling of 'moral and ethical standards' religous beliefs or otherwise is likley to get them a get out of jail free card imo.
No where did they notify customers that they were a 'Christian' bakery with moral or ethical standards. So that which they didnt communicate to customers can hardly be used by them in their defence. Even if they can show that they stamped 'Christian' on the bottom of each and every cake - it wasn't very Christ like behaviour on their part imo to turn away an order for cake with a simple message seeking fairness and equality.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

No they wouldn't.

Why would you ask the question if you already knew the answer?

(I'm not going to bother with an "I'm right, you're wrong", etc, because you'd have to be able to prove they were discriminated against because they are a mixed race couple and the fact that the business owners are white supremacists would be irrelevant. It's not illegal to be a white supremacist).

And the question of why the couple would do it is a separate issue : that shop might make the best cakes, or be the best value. Or be the only one able to deliver on the day they want. Lots of reasons.

Lots of reasons for sure, but then if those reasons over-ride your own moral and ethical principles, you really don't leave yourself with a leg to stand on in terms of pointing out the hypocrisy of other people who refuse to fulfill your order.

karma_

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(I'm not going to bother with an "I'm right, you're wrong"

That's because you're wrong. You're 11 out of 10 wrong. You literally couldn't be any more wrong. If your argument was some snow sitting on a rope, they snow would have fallen and melted 18 months ago.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

Ummmm no businesses cannot discriminate against people due to what they might be thinking! How would the business know that a paedophile who has committed no crime is a paedophile? I don't think people would generally advertise the fact they have such thoughts. And more's the point what on earth does this have to do with any prior discussion on the thread?

bodice ripper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quite familiar with them already thanks, and I'm also quite familiar with legislation that allows for discrimination on certain grounds which wouldn't necessarily contravene equality legislation. For example a person who is LGBT can be discriminated against in applying for a position in a Catholic ethos school in Ireland.

Thankfully that seems to be on the way out.

gozunda

Bob24 wrote: »

Of course we agree on this, but the discussion here was around refusing because of the nature of the requested service - not the customer.

Yes. (Highlighted section) No not so - that is only some posters view on the issue. Anti discrimination legislation does not view the provision of goods and services as separate from the customer. Hence the charge of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation. If businesses could get away with that malarkey there would never be convictions under existing legislation.

Bob24 wrote: »

The post you replied to saying this would be illegal was "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". Clearly nothing to do with a customer's gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

That's why I asked why the poster would include such a reference?

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes someone is claiming they were discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, and the person being accused of this is denying. Lets see what the court has to say, but until found guilty ...

This I have said many times already and yet the matter has been practically declared closed by many. I think not.

Bob24 wrote: »

Actually I don't see how a statement saying they refused to provide the service because of their religious beliefs makes them guilty of anything. There is a bit of a stretch from "I won't fulfil your [specific] order due to religious beliefs" to "I won't [ever] serve you because you are gay".
If they were regularly refusing to sell things to gay people that they are happily sending to everyone else of course they would deserve to be punished. But here we are talking one specific order which did involve a political message.

And that their religous beliefs were specific to the LGBT people. There is no agreement that the message was 'political' btw.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Fast forwarding here. For your information SSM is not 'illegal' in NI. SSM is valid in the rest of the UK. A married gay couple arriving from Birgingham into Belfast a City Airport will not be arrested on landing for being 'illegally married". What the current situation is that there is no legislation enabling gay marriage. That is a huge difference to being illegal. To be honest OEJ I don't see much evidence in your replies here that you "support marriage equality".

SSM IS illegal in NI, and a married gay couple arriving in Belfast would not have their marriage recognised by the State. Of course I support marriage equality, but what I do not support, and will never support, is people going out of their way to shove their agenda down other people's throats in order to thumb their noses at them. It's a rather juvenile practice and it doesn't do anything to further tolerance and understanding among people that no amount of legislation will ever be able to account for.

What Ashers bakery is doing is showing an actively biased stance against the NI LGBT community who are seeking equal rights with the rest of the UK. Their public campaign against the LGBT seems just a little OTT imo.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that a particular group of people claiming to represent people who are LGBT in NI, chose to target this specific business in order to make a point and gain some publicity for their cause, disregarding any possible repercussions of their behaviour on those people who they claim to represent. The bakery never asked for the publicity, but now they're thrown into the eye of the storm, why would it surprise you that they would accept help from wherever they can get it? That's no different to the organisation that targeted them in the first place when there were any number of bakeries that would have fulfilled their request.

The Bakery have already been notified that they are in contravention of NI anti discrimination laws. No amount of back peddling of 'moral and ethical standards' religous beliefs or otherwise is likley to get them a get out of jail free card imo.

The Equality Comission has to win their case before we can talk about any get out of jail cards. This is a Comission that has about as much legal muscle as a three-legged toothless bulldog, so I wouldn't expect too much if I were you tbh.

No where did they notify customers that they were a 'Christian' bakery with moral or ethical standards. So that which they didnt communicate to customers can hardly be used by them in their defence. Even if they can show that they stamped 'Christian' on the bottom of each and every cake - it wasn't very Christ like behaviour on their part imo to turn away an order for cake with a simple message seeking fairness and equality.

It's already been mentioned in the thread that the name of the bakery came from a biblical reference, which is a pretty good indicator of their ethos. It wasn't very respectful of the particular LGBT organisation to expect the bakery to fulfill an order that they knew would be in direct conflict with the owner of the bakery's religious beliefs.

Tbh and to be quite frank about it, I don't believe for a minute that this particular organisation cared very much about the cake itself, and to me it seems they were more interested in the publicity they knew they could generate from the incident. If that's how they conduct themselves, then I would want nothing to do with such an organisation that places themselves and their rights above recognising and respecting the rights of other people.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Ummmm no businesses cannot discriminate against people due to what they might be thinking! How would the business know that a paedophile who has committed no crime is a paedophile? I don't think people would generally advertise the fact they have such thoughts.

The same way they'd know a person was gay of course!

Oh wait, they wouldn't know that either, unless the person advertised the fact that they had such thoughts, right?

And more's the point what on earth does this have to do with any prior discussion on the thread?

I was only responding to the point you made in your own post -

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!

Bob24

gozunda wrote: »

Yes. No not so - that is only some posters view on the issue. Anti discrimination legislation does not view the provision of goods and services as separate from the customer. Hence the charge of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation. If businesses could get away with that malarkey there would never be convictions under existing legislation.
[]
That's why I asked why the poster would include such a reference?

From this I assume you agree there is nothing illegal with refusing to make the vagina shaped cake? Or if not what is illegal about it based on what you mentioned above?

gozunda wrote: »

And that the religous beliefs were specific to the LGBT people. There is no agreement that the message was 'political' btw

Their religious beliefs are making them disagree with the statement "Support gay marriage", which is quite different.

I don't know if it is political, but it is a statement they are allowed to disagree with.

Pumpkinseeds

I'm pro gay rights, pro gay marriage and I believe that same sex couples should be able to adopt. I don't believe that people should be forced to go against deeply held religious beliefs. Asking people who don't believe that homosexuality is acceptable to make a cake with a pro gay message is just wrong.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

SSM IS illegal in NI, and a married gay couple arriving in Belfast would not have their marriage recognised by the State. Of course I support marriage equality, but what I do not support, and will never support, is people going out of their way to shove their agenda down other people's throats in order to thumb their noses at them. It's a rather juvenile practice and it doesn't do anything to further tolerance and understanding among people that no amount of legislation will ever be able to account for.

Ok I believe you are now just been obtuse. But whatever. Illegal means

contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law

There is no law forbidding SSM in NI. It may not be recognised but that does make a gay couple who are married guilty of an illegal or criminal act. Btw Nobody is shoving any 'agenda' down anyone's throats except the extreme religous bigots. The LGBT community are simply seeking equal rights. No I really don't see that you do support marriage equality at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that a particular group of people claiming to represent people who are LGBT in NI, chose to target this specific business in order to make a point and gain some publicity for their cause, disregarding any possible repercussions of their behaviour on those people who they claim to represent. The bakery never asked for the publicity, but now they're thrown into the eye of the storm, why would it surprise you that they would accept help from wherever they can get it? That's no different to the organisation that targeted them in the first place when there were any number of bakeries that would have fulfilled their request.

The Bakery are the ones throwing up the storm and making noises. They publicised the video and the letter, gave interviews and have been having a happy running commentary with family photos. The whole thing is just too slick imo for any pretence at their stance of 'poor us' being discriminated against. They knew exactly what they were doing ad they knew the law. That their friends Christian.org were there and ready is not really that surprising.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Equality Comission has to win their case before we can talk about any get out of jail cards. This is a Comission that has about as much legal muscle as a three-legged toothless bulldog, so I wouldn't expect too much if I were you tbh.

...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's already been mentioned in the thread that the name of the bakery came from a biblical reference, which is a pretty good indicator of their ethos. It wasn't very respectful of the particular LGBT organisation to expect the bakery to fulfill an order that they knew would be in direct conflict with the owner of the bakery's religious beliefs.

Well I can tell you that that piece of obscure religous trivia passed me straight by as it would do for thousands of others. For all most people knew the bakery was owned by Billy Asher himself :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tbh and to be quite frank about it, I don't believe for a minute that this particular organisation cared very much about the cake itself, and to me it seems they were more interested in the publicity they knew they could generate from the incident. If that's how they conduct themselves, then I would want nothing to do with such an organisation that places themselves and their rights above recognising and respecting the rights of other people.

Pot Kettle Black ...

I think I'm done tbh. I don't wish to get into any further perambulations with you as it is getting quite silly tbh. Thanks

Bob24

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm pro gay rights, pro gay marriage and I believe that same sex couples should be able to adopt. I don't believe that people should be forced to go against deeply held religious beliefs. Asking people who don't believe that homosexuality is acceptable to make a cake with a pro gay message is just wrong.

Just to add to this, it seems like their concern was about printing a massage specifically supporting gay marriage; and don't believe anyone provided evidence of them saying they think homosexuality is not acceptable.

I am not religious either, and I would probably disagree with a number of their religious believes. But so would they disagree with some of my morale values, and I wouldn't like them to be able to force me participate in the promotion of something I don't believe in. Most people who are blaming them would never provide products promoting traditional religious marriage - and are hypocrites about the issue.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same way they'd know a person was gay of course!

Oh wait, they wouldn't know that either, unless the person advertised the fact that they had such thoughts, right?





I was only responding to the point you made in your own post -

You are making a very silly argument. The bakery assumed that the person was gay because they were having the cake made for an event to do with promoting equal marriage I believe. I don't really get where you are trying to go with this? You were responding a point I made in response to someone else who went on a total rant about the evils of all aspects of social progress in the past 100 years and within that seemed to suggest (with the utmost irony) that liberals want to 'accommodate paedophiles'. I was merely pointing out that irony.

Also how would a gay person 'advertise that they have such thoughts' exactly? By holding hands in public with their partner? Conducting their lives as a couple in public like any of us who are straight do every day without being accused of 'advertising' the fact we are straight?

gozunda

Bob24 wrote: »

From this I assume you agree there is nothing illegal with refusing to make the vagina shaped cake? Or if not what is illegal about it based on what you mentioned above?

Is this relevant in any regard? Do Please enlighten us if you have any relevant information on vagina shaped cakes (ffs)

Bob24 wrote: »

Their religious beliefs are making them disagree with the statement "Support gay marriage", which is quite different.

I don't think so. As such marriage is a civil issue then why would they have 'religous views' on it? Organised Christian belief systems generally don't have a good reputation on their views on gay people.

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't know if it is political, but it is a statement they are allowed to disagree with.

Disagree perhaps, discriminate definitely not.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Ok I believe you are now just been obtuse. But whatever. Illegal means

There is no law forbidding SSM in NI. It may not be recognised but that does make a gay couple who are married guilty of an illegal or criminal act. Btw Nobody is shoving any 'agenda' down anyone's throats except the extreme religous bigots. The LGBT community are simply seeking equal rights. No I really don't see that you do support marriage equality at all.

And you would accuse me of being obtuse? Seriously? It IS illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Northern Ireland. The bloody cake was purportedly for an occasion where the organization wanted to promote the fact that same-sex marriage should be legislated for. This particular organization wanted a bakery which I have no doubt they knew had a religious ethos to fulfill an order which they knew was at odds with the bakery's ethos. That sounds like an agenda of religious bigotry to me, but I understand why you might disagree. I wouldn't associate the entire population of NI who identify as LGBT with one particular organisation who have an agenda, as I have no doubt that there are people who are LGBT who disagree with the methods used by this particular organization to promote their agenda. Whether that to you means I do or don't support marriage equality because I don't support the methods used by this organization is really neither here nor there. I can support marriage equality without supporting the methods used by a particular organization.

The Bakery are the ones throwing up the storm and making noises. They publicised the video and the letter, gave interviews and have been having a happy running commentary with family photos. The whole thing is just too slick imo for any pretence at their stance of 'poor us' being discriminated against. They knew exactly what they were doing ad they knew the law. That their friends Christian.org were there and ready is not really that surprising.

The bakery didn't start this. An organisation claiming to represent people in NI who are LGBT started this, and the petition in the OP originated in the US, so why shouldn't the bakery fight fire with fire when it's their livelihoods are at stake?

Well I can tell you that that piece of obscure religous trivia passed me straight by as it would do for thousands of others. For all most people knew the bakery was owned by Billy Asher himself :rolleyes:

Ignorance is hardly a legitimate defence surely? As I said earlier, I don't believe for a minute this organization were ignorant of the fact that this particular bakery had a religious ethos, and of all the bakeries in NI, they just coincidentally happened upon this one particular bakery that refused to fulfill their order.

Pot Kettle Black ...

I think I'm done tbh. I don't wish to get into any further perambulations with you as it is getting quite silly tbh. Thanks

Not sure what that's about, but if you're campaigning for equality for everyone in a society, then that means equality, and not disrespecting other people while expecting that those same people should show you the respect you feel you're entitled to.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And you would accuse me of being obtuse? Seriously? It IS illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Northern Ireland. The bloody cake was purportedly for an occasion where the organization wanted to promote the fact that same-sex marriage should be legislated for. This particular organization wanted a bakery which I have no doubt they knew had a religious ethos to fulfill an order which they knew was at odds with the bakery's ethos. That sounds like an agenda of religious bigotry to me, but I understand why you might disagree. I wouldn't associate the entire population of NI who identify as LGBT with one particular organisation who have an agenda, as I have no doubt that there are people who are LGBT who disagree with the methods used by this particular organization to promote their agenda. Whether that to you means I do or don't support marriage equality because I don't support the methods used by this organization is really neither here nor there. I can support marriage equality without supporting the methods used by a particular organization.

The bakery didn't start this. An organisation claiming to represent people in NI who are LGBT started this, and the petition in the OP originated in the US, so why shouldn't the bakery fight fire with fire when it's their livelihoods are at stake?

Ignorance is hardly a legitimate defence surely? As I said earlier, I don't believe for a minute this organization were ignorant of the fact that this particular bakery had a religious ethos, and of all the bakeries in NI, they just coincidentally happened upon this one particular bakery that refused to fulfill their order.

Not sure what that's about, but if you're campaigning for equality for everyone in a society, then that means equality, and not disrespecting other people while expecting that those same people should show you the respect you feel you're entitled to.

:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

You are making a very silly argument. The bakery assumed that the person was gay because they were having the cake made for an event to do with promoting equal marriage I believe. I don't really get where you are trying to go with this?

Nope, the bakery didn't regard at all the sexuality of the person placing the order. They objected to the order itself. Where I'm going with this, is in regard to the wider question of whether a service provider should be legally obliged to provide their services to anyone in spite of them having a moral objection to providing services to that person.

You were responding a point I made in response to someone else who went on a total rant about the evils of all aspects of social progress in the past 100 years and within that seemed to suggest (with the utmost irony) that liberals want to 'accommodate paedophiles'. I was merely pointing out that irony.

I got the irony alright, but I was just wondering how far does that whole entitlement to the provision of services go with regard to having a moral objection to being forced to provide services to certain people?

Also how would a gay person 'advertise that they have such thoughts' exactly? By holding hands in public with their partner? Conducting their lives as a couple in public like any of us who are straight do every day without being accused of 'advertising' the fact we are straight?

I was thinking something more obvious myself, like telling the service provider that they are gay?

At least that way they would have legitimate grounds to claim discrimination if they informed the bakery owner that they were gay, and the bakery owner informed them that they did not provide their services to people who are gay.

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes it is. But it is not illegal to refuse hosting a conference in your B&B that is aimed at promoting new laws related to the status of travellers in Ireland, because you don't think these policies would make sense and do not want your business to be associated to them.

I think it is more than likely that a claim against a hotel that refused to host a traveller/rights conference would be held to have violated the law in our courts.

I think if the precedence to be followed was the decision of the equality authority of northern ireland I don't think for one second there would be any doubt.

Bob24

gozunda wrote: »

Is this relevant in any regard? Do Please enlighten us if you have any relevant information on vagina shaped cakes (ffs)

Well this is what started this whole discussion. You said this particular thing would be illegal, to which I replied I didn't see how it would be, and then you stated it would be illegal because of anti-discrimination laws. I assume we now agree it wouldn't be illegal because not affected by these laws?

gozunda wrote: »

I don't think so. As such marriage is a civil issue then why would they have 'religous views' on it? Organised Christian belief systems generally don't have a good reputation on their views on gay people.

Their religious system of values can influence their views on how civil life should be organised. I don't see how it is different from my non religious system of values influencing how I think civil life should be organised. At the end of the day whether it is based on religious values or something else, it is just a personal opinion. Of course it doesn't mean they are always right and should be able to impose their beliefs on other people. BUT this goes both ways and they shouldn't be forced to provide a service supporting something going against these beliefs. Should a baker who is a pro gay marriage activist be forced to produce a cake saying "no to gay marriage"?

gozunda wrote: »

Disagree perhaps, discriminate definitely not.

You can discriminate against people, but not against statements. This is the whole question. I believe they were refusing to provide a product supporting a statement they didn't agree with, and you seem to believe they were discriminating against an individual due to their sexual orientation.

gozunda

Bob24 wrote: »

Well this is what started this whole discussion. You said this particular thing would be illegal, to which I replied I didn't see how it would be, and then you stated it would be illegal because of anti-discrimination laws. I assume we now agree it wouldn't be illegal because not affected by these laws?

Vargina shaped cakes started this whole discussion? Really. Nope sorry I don't think so. I think you are reading somewhat out of sequence or something tbh. But hey don't let me stop you. Keep going ... :rolleyes:

Bob24 wrote: »

Their religion system of values can influence their views on how civil life should be organised. I don't see how it is different from my non religious system of values influencing how I think civil life should be organised. At the end of the day whether it is based on religious values or something else, it is just a personal opinion. Of course it doesn't mean they are always right and should be able to impose their beliefs on other people. BUT this goes both ways and they shouldn't be forced to provide a service supporting something going against these beliefs.

It relates to civil law not some disparate belief system. The religious beliefs you speak of are derived from the script of some 2000 year old scrolls, that may or may not be the complete record. Many of the OT stuff is based on ancient customs and practises and irrelevant to modern 'civil life'. If a company is not prepared to run their business legally then they shouldn't be in business.

Bob24 wrote: »

You can discriminate against people, but not against statements. This is the whole question. I believe they were refusing to provide a product supporting a statement they didn't agree with, and you seem to believe they were discriminating against an individual due to their sexual orientation.

No I refer to the law on antidiscrimation legislation that does not differentiate the customer from the goods and services on offer.

Clandestine

I support the law. A business should be allowed to discriminate if they want, its their business after all. And of course, if people decide to not do business with them because of their views... that's a consequence.