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

Which discrimination should trump which discrimination?

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    If they are prepared to sell those others a different cake, how are they discriminating against them?

    That is why it was a poorly chosen thing to take a stand over: there are plenty of opportunities to muddy the waters like you are doing now.
    If you're not allowed to decide for yourself whether you want to work for someone or not, that sounds remarkably like involuntary servitude? Which is itself illegal...

    That is the position that white bar owners took when they had to remove their "No dogs, no blacks, no irish" signs as well.


  • Options
    #63
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Absolam wrote: »
    If they are prepared to sell those others a different cake, how are they discriminating against them?

    By not performing a service they offer to others (a cake with a slogan or image iced on) to a specific group on the basis of discriminatory grounds.
    If you're not allowed to decide for yourself whether you want to work for someone or not, that sounds remarkably like involuntary servitude? Which is itself illegal....

    This statement is so idiotic that it needs no response. But I'll give it a go anyway, first the company were getting paid for performing a service, a payment that was agreed upon by the company in the first instance. Secondly they weren't being forced to provide said service, they were being told that, in accordance with the law, that if they wanted to provide said service as a business, they couldn't discriminate against certain groups of people as laid out under the law.

    Your whole argument is a thing of nonsesne, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and it says volumes about your need to opress others and set yourself and those like you up on a pedestal which is inviolate and which was given to you based not on your actions or principles but on your inability to think rationally and accept what evidence tells you.


  • Options
    #64
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    They refuse to make cakes with messages they don't agree with such as gay messages, porn messages, and swearing
    They have the right to refuse service on these grounds and I should hope that if the reverse scenario were ever to happen, the gay bakers would have the right to refuse to make anti gay cakes


  • Options
    #65
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    bluewolf wrote: »
    They refuse to make cakes with messages they don't agree with such as gay messages, porn messages, and swearing
    They have the right to refuse service on these grounds and I should hope that if the reverse scenario were ever to happen, the gay bakers would have the right to refuse to make anti gay cakes

    I think that refusing to put a "We are proof that gays can change" slogan on a cake could indeed be interpreted as bigotry on religious grounds. If everyone did just that, then people who follow certain religious cults would never be able to get a cake iced in the same way everyone else can. It is to prevent this kind of exclusion from regular public life that discrimination laws exist. In this case the slogan itself is neither illegal nor (strictly) discriminatory.

    That said, I don't think it was a wisely chosen issue to make a stand over. Far too easy for the religious to hysterically claim persecution, SLAVERY!!11!, and all kinds of other nonsense. Better to do that in a different case where people claim that bigotry on religious grounds is somehow not bigotry and (humorously) that not allowing people to express their bigotry is an example of bigotry.


  • Options
    #66
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    I think that refusing to put a "We are proof that gays can change" slogan on a cake could indeed be interpreted as bigotry on religious grounds. If everyone did just that, then people who follow certain religious cults would never be able to get a cake iced in the same way everyone else can. It is to prevent this kind of exclusion from regular public life that discrimination laws exist..

    What? It's not exclusion from regular public life. I doubt you could get one saying "hitler was the best ever", either. you can get an icing bag and do it yourself if you wanted a message like that...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    By not performing a service they offer to others (a cake with a slogan or image iced on) to a specific group on the basis of discriminatory grounds.


    Well going on the above definition then (a nice way to play down the significance of the requested order), there could be no possible objection to ANY request if it's just "a cake with a slogan or image iced on". I won't go into silly hypotheticals but you can imagine what that could lead to.

    This statement is so idiotic that it needs no response. But I'll give it a go anyway, first the company were getting paid for performing a service, a payment that was agreed upon by the company in the first instance. Secondly they weren't being forced to provide said service, they were being told that, in accordance with the law, that if they wanted to provide said service as a business, they couldn't discriminate against certain groups of people as laid out under the law.


    They weren't discriminating against anyone on the basis of their sexuality. They simply refused to fulfill an order, which they are perfectly entitled to do. I have yet to see any laws they've broken, as distasteful as some people may find their reasons for refusal.

    Your whole argument is a thing of nonsesne, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and it says volumes about your need to opress others and set yourself and those like you up on a pedestal which is inviolate and which was given to you based not on your actions or principles but on your inability to think rationally and accept what evidence tells you.


    That's a bit rich given that you're also willing to accept the evidence presented in the media that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and says volumes about your need to oppress others and set yourself and those like you upon a pedestal which is inviolate and which was given to you based not on your actions or principles but on your inability to think rationally and question what evidence tells you.


    See? Two can play at that craic, just from different perspectives.


  • Options
    #68
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    I don't believe that any discrimination took place. The statement released by Ashers made it clear that the order was in contrast with their religious beliefs; the order being a cake with a 'Support SSM' message on it. They made no mention of the customer's sexuality.

    The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 which the EC references in their letter states
    5. (1) It is unlawful for any person concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against a person who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services —
    (a)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with any of them; or
    (b)by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide him with goods, facilities or services of the same quality, in the same manner and on the same terms as are normal in his case in relation to other members of the public or (where the person seeking belongs to a section of the public) to other members of that section.

    Section B states that it is discrimination to refuse a service to a person when said service would normally be provided to other members of the public. I don't believe Ashers would have baked that cake for any member of the public regardless of sexuality, therefore I see no discrimination.


  • Options
    #69
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    bluewolf wrote: »
    What? It's not exclusion from regular public life. I doubt you could get one saying "hitler was the best ever", either. you can get an icing bag and do it yourself if you wanted a message like that...

    Ah, dear godwin :) but then again this kind of topic has to attract the old H-bomb.

    You could also grow your own food and teach your own kids if shops refused to sell it to you and schools would not let you enroll your kids.

    Does this mean this is also not an exclusion from normal services and regular public life?

    If it IS one, then we cannot say something is not an exclusion from regular public life just because you can also do it yourself.

    You CAN argue that they would refuse to print that message if it came from an atheist as well (hence the fact this is a poor example) but that does not change the fact that if you are a follower of religion X, you cannot get your cake iced the way you want it, and that such people would effectively be excluded from services other people take for granted because of their religion, and the same case could be made against it that is being made in this case.

    It is a really poorly chosen stand.


  • Options
    #70
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Ah, dear godwin :) but then again this kind of topic has to attract the old H-bomb.
    Sorry! I only brought it up because I have a feeling something similar happened. It may have been connected to that guy who called his child hitler?? I just don't want to google and check at work :p


  • Options
    #71
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    I don't believe that any discrimination took place. The statement released by Ashers made it clear that the order was in contrast with their religious beliefs; the order being a cake with a 'Support SSM' message on it. They made no mention of the customer's sexuality.

    I'm sorry but what's the difference between refusing to serve a person because their order supports gay rights, and refusing to serve a person because they are gay.

    And as I said that justification is in all probability a post hoc rationalisation for refusing to serve someone simply because they were gay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I'm sorry but what's the difference between refusing to serve a person because their order supports gay rights, and refusing to serve a person because they are gay.

    And as I said that justification is in all probability a post hoc rationalisation for refusing to serve someone simply because they were gay.

    Did we ever find out the requester was actually gay? I thought they were just a gay marriage activist. How would the bakery have known they were gay?


  • Options
    #73
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I'm sorry but what's the difference between refusing to serve a person because their order supports gay rights, and refusing to serve a person because they are gay.

    And as I said that justification is in all probability a post hoc rationalisation for refusing to serve someone simply because they were gay.

    The bakery was discriminating against a message it didn't want to put it's name to, it wouldn't matter what sexuality, creed, or race the person who ordered it was. The legislation in question is unique to discriminating against a person, which the bakery did not do. You can argue that there are certainly homophobic tendencies behind their refusal to bake that particular cake but they did not to refuse to bake any cake for a homosexual, they refused to bake that particular cake and would do so regardless of the customer's sexuality.


  • Options
    #74
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    The difference anyway is
    "can I have a cake that says 'my lovely horse' on it"
    "no, you're gay and I don't like you. go away"


    "can I have a cake that says 'gay marriage is the best' please"
    "no, I don't want to make a cake with that message. anything else?"


  • Options
    #75
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    I don't believe that any discrimination took place. The statement released by Ashers made it clear that the order was in contrast with their religious beliefs; the order being a cake with a 'Support SSM' message on it. They made no mention of the customer's sexuality.

    The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 which the EC references in their letter states



    Section B states that it is discrimination to refuse a service to a person when said service would normally be provided to other members of the public. I don't believe Ashers would have baked that cake for any member of the public regardless of sexuality, therefore I see no discrimination.

    ..And this is why this is perhaps not a good example to take a stand over.

    That said, if I decided that I would not print anything that mentions Allah, then I can indeed be said to discriminate against Muslims: it would mean that they cannot get their religious literature printed in the same way everyone else takes for granted.


  • Options
    #76
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    bluewolf wrote: »
    The difference anyway is
    "can I have a cake that says 'my lovely horse' on it"
    "no, you're gay and I don't like you. go away"


    "can I have a cake that says 'gay marriage is the best' please"
    "no, I don't want to make a cake with that message. anything else?"

    Ok - so what if every printer in Ireland refused to print the word "Allah"?


  • Options
    #77
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Ok - so what if every printer in Ireland refused to print the word "Allah"?

    Someone would come up with a new business and make a fortune


  • Options
    #78
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    I think North Korea will be happy to hear their banning any printing of the Bible does not constitute discrimination against Christians, because

    a: Christians can print their own bibles somewhere else if they want them so bad
    b: They are not allowing Christians and non-Christians to print Bibles equally

    ...well, if we disregard the legal aspect, that is, and consider it purely a method of stopping bibles from being printed.


  • Options
    #79
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Someone would come up with a new business and make a fortune

    Not a very good argument: there would still be significant exclusion, and you would be forced to make use of a different business than anyone else.


  • Options
    #80
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    ..And this is why this is perhaps not a good example to take a stand over.

    That said, if I decided that I would not print anything that mentions Allah, then I can indeed be said to discriminate against Muslims: it would mean that they cannot get their religious literature printed in the same way everyone else takes for granted.

    Does the word Allah contradict with your religious beliefs? You're declining to print a particular word which is within your right provided you apply the same standards to all customers regardless of creed, meaning that anyone (not just Muslims) would be unable to get any 'Allah' related material printed at your shop.
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Ok - so what if every printer in Ireland refused to print the word "Allah"?

    Why are you comparing one bakery with every printer in Ireland?


  • Options
    #81
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Not a very good argument

    Neither is "if one person does it they'll all be at it next"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    By not performing a service they offer to others (a cake with a slogan or image iced on) to a specific group on the basis of discriminatory grounds.
    But they are performing a service they offer to others; a cake with a slogan or image iced on. They're not offering that slogan or image to anyone else either? So it's entirely equitable.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    This statement is so idiotic that it needs no response. But I'll give it a go anyway, first the company were getting paid for performing a service, a payment that was agreed upon by the company in the first instance.
    But the report says they declined the order, so they were asked to provide a service, and having reviewed what that service entailed, declined. What exactly is idiotic about that?
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Secondly they weren't being forced to provide said service, they were being told that, in accordance with the law, that if they wanted to provide said service as a business, they couldn't discriminate against certain groups of people as laid out under the law.
    Ah, you mistook my answer, that's why you think it's idiotic. You see, you said that "the only times you should be allowed to refuse custom* are a) where such custom would either have you breaking the law or facilitating the customers in breaking the law (e.g. making a banner calling for people to "hunt down and beat up gays"), and b) where such custom would involve activities or facilitating of activities which are beyond the bounds of common decency (e.g. making bunting for a Nazi pride parade)", my reply was that if you do not allow people to refuse to work, that sounds remarkably like involuntary servitude.
    However to your point, again, they weren't discriminating against certain people. The law doesn't require that they provide whatever service people want, only that they must provide the service they choose to provide in accordance with the law. They didn't say they wouldn't sell gay people cakes, they said they wouldn't make cakes they didn't want to make. Forcing them to make cakes they don't want to make is pretty much involuntary servitude.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Your whole argument is a thing of nonsesne, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny,
    Yes, I think we've established that's because you didn't understand it. I hope I've cleared it up for you now!
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    and it says volumes about your need to opress others and set yourself and those like you up on a pedestal which is inviolate and which was given to you based not on your actions or principles but on your inability to think rationally and accept what evidence tells you.
    Whoops, a whole lot of bile there! I don't think that level of (rather unjustified) invective adds much to a reasoned debate though, do you?


  • Options
    #83
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Does the word Allah contradict with your religious beliefs? You're declining to print a particular word which is within your right provided you apply the same standards to all customers regardless of creed, meaning that anyone (not just Muslims) would be unable to get any 'Allah' related material printed at your shop.

    No-one is allowed to print bibles in some countries. Does this limit Christians in their ability to live the same kind of lives as the majority, or is there no discrimination happening because Atheists and Christians both cannot print bibles?
    Why are you comparing one bakery with every printer in Ireland?

    Because of the speciousness of the "why don't they just buy it somewhere else" argument. If that held water then I should be able to bar black people from my bar: why don't they just go and drink somewhere else? Or maybe I can refuse to enroll anyone from the travelling community in my school: why don't they just found their own?


  • Options
    #84
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Neither is "if one person does it they'll all be at it next"

    That is not my argument, however. Mine was that it constitutes significant exclusion, even if they can vote with their feet and/or wallets.


  • Options
    #85
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    No-one is allowed to print bibles in some countries. Does this limit Christians in their ability to live the same kind of lives as the majority, or is there no discrimination happening because Atheists and Christians both cannot print bibles?

    Which countries?

    Not only are you now comparing one bakery with a entire country, you're comparing a cake with "Support SSM" on it with the bible :eek:

    Can you really not see the difference between an entire nation banning the printing of the Bible and one bakery declining to print a cake with a Support SSM message?
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Because of the speciousness of the "why don't they just buy it somewhere else" argument. If that held water then I should be able to bar black people from my bar: why don't they just go and drink somewhere else? Or maybe I can refuse to enroll anyone from the travelling community in my school: why don't they just found their own?

    The bakery has not barred gay customers!! Show me where it says they have, get me a picture of the sign that says "we don't serve gays".


  • Options
    #86
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    No-one is allowed to print bibles in some countries. Does this limit Christians in their ability to live the same kind of lives as the majority, or is there no discrimination happening because Atheists and Christians both cannot print bibles?

    You're arguing for Christians now?
    Because of the speciousness of the "why don't they just buy it somewhere else" argument. If that held water then I should be able to bar black people from my bar: why don't they just go and drink somewhere else? Or maybe I can refuse to enroll anyone from the travelling community in my school: why don't they just found their own?


    If you're providing bespoke cakes, you have much more leeway in your designs, the same way you couldn't expect a bespoke kitchen cabinet maker to agree to use MDF because you believe it's cheaper. He is perfectly entitled to discriminate against you and not provide you with services he provides to everyone else.


  • Options
    #87
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    Which countries?
    Not only are you now comparing one bakery with a entire country, you're comparing a cake with "Support SSM" on it with the bible :eek:

    I am using it as an example, rather. What is your issue with that?
    Can you really not see the difference between an entire nation banning the printing of the Bible and one bakery declining to print a cake with a Support SSM message?

    I am asking you if that law is not a discriminating law because it prohibits atheist, muslims and christians from printing of the bible equally.
    The bakery has not barred gay customers!! Show me where it says they have, get me a picture of the sign that says "we don't serve gays".

    That is not the point. The point is that the "they can just buy it elsewhere" argument is not a very good one.


  • Options
    #88
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    You're arguing for Christians now?

    You may say silly things on a regular basis Czarry, but I will fight to the death for your right to say them! :)
    If you're providing bespoke cakes, you have much more leeway in your designs, the same way you couldn't expect a bespoke kitchen cabinet maker to agree to use MDF because you believe it's cheaper. He is perfectly entitled to discriminate against you and not provide you with services he provides to everyone else.

    An excellent example of you exercising your right to make no sense whatever. You are mixing the definition of discrimination that pertains to discerning differences to the one that pertains to the unfair treatment of people because of prejudice.


  • Options
    #89
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    You may say silly things on a regular basis Czarry, but I will fight to the death for your right to say them! :)


    I appreciate the sentiment Vivisectus, but that whole freedom of speech thing isn't something I'm an advocate of. Some people just take the piss altogether and need to be told that their opinions ARE offensive to other people, and they need to be aware of that and show other people due consideration and respect even if we don't share their views.

    An excellent example of you exercising your right to make no sense whatever. You are mixing the definition of discrimination that pertains to discerning differences to the one that pertains to the unfair treatment of people because of prejudice.


    It's no different to discriminating on the basis of cake design and the individual taking that difference personally.


  • Options
    #90
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    I appreciate the sentiment Vivisectus, but that whole freedom of speech thing isn't something I'm an advocate of. Some people just take the piss altogether and need to be told that their opinions ARE offensive to other people, and they need to be aware of that and show other people due consideration and respect even if we don't share their views.

    Gotcha. Freedom of speech should be limited to people with inoffensive opinions.
    It's no different to discriminating on the basis of cake design and the individual taking that difference personally.

    Righty-oh. There is no difference between me forbidding people to print Bibles and forbidding the use of non-eco friendly paper, it is just that people are taking it personally.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    The bakery was discriminating against a message it didn't want to put it's name to,

    Right then, don't be putting your name or company logo on the icing on the cake, don't be using it in advertising or brochures, and if the client is going to use the cake in advertising or brochures, respectfully ask them not to mention your company.

    Problem solved. Anyway as I said before, in all likelihood the people would not have been served no matter what cake they wanted once they identified as gay, its just that company thought the logo gave them an out once the shít hit the midden.


Advertisement