Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland
Options
Comments
-
If Muslims owned the bakery we'd have to respect their beliefs (even though they actually kill people for participating in homosexual acts/relationships) but because it is Christians it is different.
Freedom of Association should apply here, guaranteed to all citizens.0 -
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'
Actually religion is very relevant in modern society and it is one of the grounds on which a person cannot be discriminated against. Freedom of religion is also a constitutionally protected fundamental right which trumps any perceived right of anyone to force a person to associate themselves with the promotion of any illegal activity which compromises their fundamental rights.No I refer to the law on antidiscrimation legislation that does not differentiate the customer from the goods and services on offer.
Exactly what legislation are you referring to there? Because there are numerous articles of equality legislation and exemptions provided for, which allow for discrimination and legislates for provisions under which a person may be denied goods and services on offer.
The issue of same-sex marriage itself is a perfect example of discrimination against a person or persons on the grounds of their sex or sexual orientation as they are not entitled to the same rights and access to services as a heterosexual person or persons.0 -
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:
Before I stop on this, be my guest - all in sequence of respective quotes:One eyed Jack 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: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.
Etc ...0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Actually religion is very relevant in modern society and it is one of the grounds on which a person cannot be discriminated against. Freedom of religion is also a constitutionally protected fundamental right which trumps any perceived right of anyone to force a person to associate themselves with the promotion of any illegal activity which compromises their fundamental rights.
Exactly what legislation are you referring to there? Because there are numerous articles of equality legislation and exemptions provided for, which allow for discrimination and legislates for provisions under which a person may be denied goods and services on offer.
The issue of same-sex marriage itself is a perfect example of discrimination against a person or persons on the grounds of their sex or sexual orientation as they are not entitled to the same rights and access to services as a heterosexual person or persons.
And you claim to support marriage equality. Seriously? I've heard plenty. Thanks.0 -
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.
Who said they are not prepared to run their business legally? I said they should not be forced to to provide a product supporting a statement they don't agree with. And that I don't feel I should be allowed to impose my non religious values on them more than they should be allow to impose their religious values on me.
Your answer is to say their system of of values is rubbish and outdated and they are illegal :-sNo I refer to the law on antidiscrimation legislation that does not differentiate the customer from the goods and services on offer.
So will this law force a baker who is a gay marriage activist to make a cake saying "no to gay marriage"? I doubt so, not more that it will force an anti gay marriage baker to make a cake supporting gay marriage in my opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who said they are not prepared to run their business legally? I said they should not be forced to to provide a product supporting a statement they don't agree with. And that I don't feel I should be allowed to impose my non religious values on them more than they should be allow to impose their religious values on me.
Your answer is to say their system of of values is rubbish and outdated and they are illegal :-s
So will this law force a baker who is a gay marriage activist to make a cake saying "no to gay marriage"? I doubt so, not more that will force an anti gay marriage baker to make a cake supporting gay marriage in my opinion.
Makey uppy much? No. 'They' are 'not illegal. Discrimination against customers is :rolleyes: Discrimination is illegal. Anti discrimination legislation states that it is illegal for a company to discriminate on the provision of goods and services based on sexual orientation. Attempting to use one of the other grounds for discrimination as an excuse for such behaviour doesn't wash ...0 -
Right, I think time will be better spent anywhere but in this thread. See ya!0
-
Clandestine wrote: »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.
So you'd be grand if they banned Catholics then too then I assume ?
Catholicism offends some of them too.
Or perhaps "No nationalists" ?
That offends them too.
It's a road to Alabama in 1955...0 -
And you claim to support marriage equality. Seriously? I've heard plenty. Thanks.
Yes, I do, and I also support and respect the right of any individual to exercise their right to their own religious beliefs.
You said yourself that marriage equality is a civil right that has nothing to do with religion, and it doesn't, so why would this particular LGBT lobby group target a business owner who they knew to be religious, if it wasn't simply a publicity stunt to further their own agenda?
If they had wanted to encourage support for marriage equality, then they went the wrong way about it IMO because I know plenty of people who identify as LGBT, and who are also religious. I can respect and support those people a lot sooner than I would support anyone who thought it a good idea to promote equality in society by trampling all over other people's rights.
If you don't have any time for religion, grand, that's your own business, but don't expect I should agree with you, because I support and promote equal rights and respect, understanding and tolerance for all people in society, not just a particular group in society that see themselves as a minority based on a particular trait they all have in common.0 -
Bob - you're evidently a bit of a comedian
You have taken the Virgina reference and added 'it' in after you asked the following questionBob24 wrote:I don't see how it is illegal ...
Next time try specifying what it you are referring to. In retrospect you seem to have a thing for Virgina cakes :rolleyes:
My reply was quite clear as to what the discrimination issue in relation to the 'gay cake' controversy isgozunda 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.
Off with yeah0 -
Advertisement
-
Clandestine wrote: »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.
Agreed. The North are showing the way forward for once.0 -
So you'd be grand if they banned Catholics then too then I assume ?
Catholicism offends some of them too.
Or perhaps "No nationalists" ?
That offends them too.
It's a road to Alabama in 1955...
If they choose not to provide their services to Catholics, what of it, seriously? It's not as though there are hundreds of other bakeries in NI that would accommodate Catholics?
It's not anything like a road to Alabama, it's simply recognising that private enterprises are entitled to choose who they provide their services to! Set up an LGBT friendly bakery if it troubles them that much ffs.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people want the State to interfere in other people's business, but they object to the State interfering in their business! They want everything their own way, whilst failing to recognise that other people have rights too!0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Yes, I do, and I also support and respect the right of any individual to exercise their right to their own religious beliefs.
You said yourself that marriage equality is a civil right that has nothing to do with religion, and it doesn't, so why would this particular LGBT lobby group target a business owner who they knew to be religious, if it wasn't simply a publicity stunt to further their own agenda?
If they had wanted to encourage support for marriage equality, then they went the wrong way about it IMO because I know plenty of people who identify as LGBT, and who are also religious. I can respect and support those people a lot sooner than I would support anyone who thought it a good idea to promote equality in society by trampling all over other people's rights.
If you don't have any time for religion, grand, that's your own business, but don't expect I should agree with you, because I support and promote equal rights and respect, understanding and tolerance for all people in society, not just a particular group in society that see themselves as a minority based on a particular trait they all have in common.
That's where YOUR argument fails There is no evidence whatsoever that the customer knew or was made aware of the religous ideology of the bakery. That is YOUR presumption. I don't have time for any belief systems (religion included) that walk all over others civil rights. The "some of my best friends' type addition is good but no I still don't believe youre claim of supporting marriage equality. Good double act.0 -
Don't schools have exemption from the equality act for the same reason?0
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Don't schools have exemption from the equality act for the same reason?
Section 37 is in the process of being removed because such a scenario is absurd when 90% of schools are Catholic.0 -
That's where YOUR argument fails There is no evidence whatsoever that the customer knew or was made aware of the religous ideology of the bakery. That is YOUR presumption.
No different then to the assumption that the bakery owner refused to provide their services to the person on the basis that they were homosexual.I don't have time for any belief systems (religion included) that walk all over others civil rights. The "some of my best friends' type addition is good but no I still don't believe your claim of supporting marriage equality. Good double act.
Go back over my post history with regard to marriage equality and tell me again that I don't support marriage equality. There's no double act at all. I simply don't agree with you that you or anyone else has the right to trample all over other people's constitutionally protected fundamental rights in order to further your own cause. That's not equality to me, that's simply placing your rights above the rights of other people.0 -
-
Section 37 is in the process of being removed because such a scenario is absurd when 90% of schools are Catholic.
Which highlights the problem with the whole "I have a religion so I can do whatever the **** I want or your persecuting me!"
Its the extreme version but we dont tell women to just get another job if a place discriminates against them. That tends to lead to court cases and payouts with the business having to change its policies. Anti discrimination laws exist for a reason.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »No different then to the assumption that the bakery owner refused to provide their services to the person on the basis that they were homosexual.
One is your presumption. The other is the experience of the customer who was there and was at the receiving end of the discrimination outlined by the Equality Commision letter.
I will go with the customer rather than your presumption if you don't mind ...One eyed Jack wrote: »Go back over my post history with regard to marriage equality and tell me again that I don't support marriage equality. There's no double act at all. I simply don't agree with you that you or anyone else has the right to trample all over other people's constitutionally protected fundamental rights in order to further your own cause. That's not equality to me, that's simply placing your rights above the rights of other people.
"I" dont have "a cause" :rolleyes: As for your lauded "constitutionally protected fundamental rights" they only exist as far as they don't impinge on anyone else's "constitutionally protected fundamental rights" such as the right not to be discriminated against.0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »Which highlights the problem with the whole "I have a religion so I can do whatever the **** I want or your persecuting me!"
Its the extreme version but we dont tell women to just get another job if a place discriminates against them. That tends to lead to court cases and payouts with the business having to change its policies. Anti discrimination laws exist for a reason.
What I'm picking up from this topic is that people who have never faced serious discrimination are fine with others experiencing it.0 -
Advertisement
-
One is your presumption. The other is the experience of the customer who was there and was at the receiving end of the discrimination outlined by the Equality Commision letter.
I will go with the customer rather than your presumption if you don't mind ...
And I'll go with the bakery owner that that was expected to fulfill an order promoting an illegal activity which they had a moral objection to on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Now all the Equality Commission has to do is prove that the bakery owner discriminated against the person on the grounds that they were homosexual. Unless the bakery owner was a talented mind reader, there's no possible way he could have known the person's sexual orientation."I" dont have "a cause" :rolleyes: As for your lauded "constitutionally protected fundamental rights" they only exist as far as they don't impinge on anyone else's "constitutionally protected fundamental rights" such as the right not to be discriminated against.
There's no such right as the right not to be discriminated against. There are laws that protect people against discrimination, and there are numerous exemptions to those laws. The right to freedom of religion trumps any perceived entitlement to be provided with a service which would be in direct opposition to that person's religious beliefs.
I'm sure you understood what I meant by your 'cause', which is the promotion of marriage equality. That's all well and good, but like I said, that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to ride roughshod over anyone else and force them to comply with an ideology which is in direct contravention of their religious beliefs.
Just how far are you willing to push that before it comes back to bite you in the ass? It's something worth thinking about, because if you see it as your right to ignore the rights of other people, you shouldn't be surprised that they would want to ignore and even actively campaign against what you feel are rights you're entitled to.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »And I'll go with the bakery owner that that was expected to fulfill an order promoting an illegal activity which they had a moral objection to on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Now all the Equality Commission has to do is prove that the bakery owner discriminated against the person on the grounds that they were homosexual. Unless the bakery owner was a talented mind reader, there's no possible way he could have known the person's sexual orientation.
There's no such right as the right not to be discriminated against. There are laws that protect people against discrimination, and there are numerous exemptions to those laws. The right to freedom of religion trumps any perceived entitlement to be provided with a service which would be in direct opposition to that person's religious beliefs.
I'm sure you understood what I meant by your 'cause', which is the promotion of marriage equality. That's all well and good, but like I said, that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to ride roughshod over anyone else and force them to comply with an ideology which is in direct contravention of their religious beliefs.
Just how far are you willing to push that before it comes back to bite you in the ass? It's something worth thinking about, because if you see it as your right to ignore the rights of other people, you shouldn't be surprised that they would want to ignore and even actively campaign against what you feel are rights you're entitled to.
There you go again. Your bias is showing. Btw where do you get religous belief trumps all other rights? You're not from the Iona institute are you? You are right though I suspect that the Christian.org presure group are using this to promote their own agenda.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »The right to freedom of religion trumps any perceived entitlement to be provided with a service which would be in direct opposition to that person's religious beliefs.
No it doesn't.
That is basically what this 'conscience clause' would mean though. It would allow discrimination as long as that discrimination was dictated by a person's conscience.
If a company wants to be in business they should not be allowed to discriminate against those protected by equality law for any reason whatsoever (related to equality law), including the 'conscience' of those running the business.
It is an utterly stupid and sweeping overreaction to one particular case.0 -
There you go again. Your bias is showing. Btw where do you get religous belief trumps all other rights? You're not from the Iona institute are you? You are right though I suspect that the Christian.org presure group are using this to promote their own agenda.
I never said religious belief trumps all other rights? I said it trumps perceived rights, and it does. I have no bias either way, and just because I disagree with your position regarding religion doesn't mean I am a representative of the Iona Institute. Such an accusation just makes your position all that much more difficult to take seriously, and indeed is fairly indicative of your own bias if you hadn't been so blatant about it already.
Of course various special interest groups are using this one single case to push their agendas, why wouldn't they? The fact that both groups are ignoring the people they claim to represent comes as no surprise either tbh.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I never said religious belief trumps all other rights? I said it trumps perceived rights, and it does. I have no bias either way, and just because I disagree with your position regarding religion doesn't mean I am a representative of the Iona Institute. Such an accusation just makes your position all that much more difficult to take seriously, and indeed is fairly indicative of your own bias if you hadn't been so blatant about it already.
I have read what you said and in context what you refer to as 'perceived' rights. In this instance your take on 'perceived rights' is actual anti discrimination legislation. I have also highlighted your bias above and tbh I and other posters don't need to call it out again. It's this bias that the Iona association derives not from any 'disagreement'. Tbh You are doing that thing again whenever someone calls you out of attempting to throw back the point being made. It doesn't wash.One eyed Jack wrote: »Of course various special interest groups are using this one single case to push their agendas, why wouldn't they? The fact that both groups are ignoring the people they claim to represent comes as no surprise either tbh.
Of the two 'special interest groups' which is the most powerful? Hint / it's not the LGBT community.0 -
No it doesn't.
That is basically what this 'conscience clause' would mean though. It would allow discrimination as long as that discrimination was dictated by a person's conscience.
If a company wants to be in business they should not be allowed to discriminate against those protected by equality law for any reason whatsoever, including the 'conscience' of those running the business.
It is an utterly stupid and sweeping overreaction to one particular case.
This is why the argument centres around which form of discrimination takes priority - should a company be allowed to discriminate against people who they do not wish to provide their services to on the basis of the fact that it would be in direct contravention of their religious beliefs.
If people also cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, then they should not be forced to act in a way that contravenes their personal religious beliefs as that too is discriminatory.
I gave an example earlier of legislation which allows for discrimination against a person on the grounds of a genuine occupational requirement -
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/religion-and-belief/when-does-the-law-allow-religious-discrimination/a-genuine-occupational-requirement
I agree that it's an utterly stupid over-reaction, but it's a necessary one when various lobby groups seek to ride roughshod over other people. Like I said earlier - that doesn't sound much like promoting equality and respect for other people rights. It simply sounds like a juvenile and quite frankly selfish "I want everything my own way" attitude which ignores the fact that the State has to legislate for everyone in society, not just those people who are interested in promoting their own agenda at the cost of everyone else's rights.
It's all fine to talk about rights and so on, but what some people fail to realise is that if they want the protection of society from discrimination, then they too should be held to the same standard of social responsibility for other people.0 -
Let's turn this scenario on it's head for a minute. If employers have the right to discriminate against customers based on their own religious beliefs, I assume employees do too? Some are saying that this scenario is covered by the right to freedom of religion (I certainly don't agree that it is, but let's pretend), so therefore it must apply to every person who serves the public everywhere, not just employers right? If for example the bakery owner was not a bigot and the refusal was initiated by a religious employee working alone in the absence of the owner, does the owner then have the right to dismiss said employee? Surely not if their actions are protected by the right to freedom of religion?
Does this mean that employees have the right to bring their employers business into disrepute by refusing customers due to their own personal religious bigotry, without fear of consequence because they are covered by the right to freedom of religion?
Now this gets messy because if that were the case and I owned a business which dealt with the public, I would want to avoid religious employees like the plague in case they refuse customers based on their religious ideology and destroy the reputation of my business. But I am not allowed to discriminate and refuse to employ someone on the basis of religion, however they are allowed to discriminate against my customers? The religious want privilege and advantage all in their favour every which way!0 -
The funny thing is Jim Henson are now owned by Disney.
It is very well known that if you run a little cake shop, or a fancy dress firm, or a printing business, and you create products with an unauthorised or unnaproved image or likeness of a Disney character, Disney's lawyers will threaten to f**k you proper. You will never bake a Michael Mouse cake again, EVER.
The bakery should simply have declined on the basis they did not have the right to produce such a product and we would never have heard of this.0 -
Comparing homosexual rights activism with ISIS and racism ... stay classyScenario - 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.0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »This is why the argument centres around which form of discrimination takes priority - should a company be allowed to discriminate against people who they do not wish to provide their services to on the basis of the fact that it would be in direct contravention of their religious beliefs.
No discrimination takes 'priority' - that is a puerile argument. The business holds the principle responsibility of treating its customers fairly. The business is the responsible agent not the customer.One eyed Jack wrote: »If people also cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, then they should not be forced to act in a way that contravenes their personal religious beliefs as that too is discriminatory.
You cannot transfer an individuals right to one of the grounds of discrimination to an entity ie a business. To attempt to do so is a circular argument that has no basis in fact.One eyed Jack wrote: »I gave an example earlier of legislation which allows for discrimination against a person on the grounds of a genuine occupational requirement -
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/religion-and-belief/when-does-the-law-allow-religious-discrimination/a-genuine-occupational-requirement
Which is irrelevant here. How many posters have to point out reality about anti discrimination legislation whilst you continuously bang out the same twisted logic again and again?One eyed Jack wrote: »I agree that it's an utterly stupid over-reaction, but it's a necessary one when various lobby groups seek to ride roughshod over other people. Like I said earlier - that doesn't sound much like promoting equality and respect for other people rights. It simply sounds like a juvenile and quite frankly selfish "I want everything my own way" attitude which ignores the fact that the State has to legislate for everyone in society, not just those people who are interested in promoting their own agenda at the cost of everyone else's rights.
anti discrimination legislation is not 'promoting ' anyone's interests :rolleyes:One eyed Jack wrote: »It's all fine to talk about rights and so on, but what some people fail to realise is that if they want the protection of society from discrimination, then they too should be held to the same standard of social responsibility for other people.
They don't 'want' protection from discrimination. That protection is legislated for. They don't have to worry about the perceived feelings of those who choose to deliberately discriminate against them.0
Advertisement