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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

1468910

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Don't schools have exemption from the equality act for the same reason?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gozunda wrote: »
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    Section 37 is in the process of being removed because such a scenario is absurd when 90% of schools are Catholic.

    I thought so, I remember hearing this mentioned late last year.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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 ...
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gozunda wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gozunda wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    osarusan wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 159 ✭✭keanosbeard


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    md23040 wrote: »
    Scenario - 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.
    Comparing homosexual rights activism with ISIS and racism ... stay classy


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.
    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.
    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?
    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:
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gozunda wrote: »
    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.


    I still can't figure out what bias you're referring to, unless you mean that I recognise the rights of people who hold religious beliefs as equal to the rights of those people who are LGBT?

    That's hardly a display of bias which would be leaning more heavily towards one side of the argument than the other, as you have done in claiming that one section of society's civil rights should trump another section of society's civil rights.

    Of the two 'special interest groups' which is the most powerful? Hint / it's not the LGBT community.


    Both are equally as influential as each other really, I've already made the point that there's plenty of support among people who are religious for marriage equality. You're also ignoring the fact that there are many people who are LGBT who are also religious.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    I still can't figure out what bias you're referring to, unless you mean that I recognise the rights of people who hold religious beliefs as equal to the rights of those people who are LGBT?

    You are being obtuse again. I have already called it out. This bias ...
    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.
    That's hardly a display of bias which would be leaning more heavily towards one side of the argument than the other, as you have done in claiming that one section of society's civil rights should trump another section of society's civil rights.

    No that's what you have done. See your quote marked * above. Anti discrimination legislation is there for a reason. Don't like it? Start a campaign so that those that discriminate can do so indiscriminately. Best of luck with that
    both are equally as influential as each other really, I've already made the point that there's plenty of support among people who are religious for marriage equality. You're also ignoring the fact that there are many people who are LGBT who are also religious.

    I don't think so. See the insidious influence that religious organisations and groups have in this country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.

    Yes, they should be forced to act in a way that contravenes their personal religious beliefs, if they are a business and allowing them to act according to their religious beliefs would result in discrimination against groups otherwise protected by equality laws.

    'I don't like Catholics (homosexuals/Jews/black people), and if I am forced to treat them equally to others in my business then I am being discriminated against' - is not any kind of logical argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Well, the one thing I'll tell you is that if this does enter law in NI, I will not be bothering them with any of my lovely fresh gay-friendly Euros ever again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Why is it only religious beliefs? Does getting it from a book or man with a silly hat make a belief automatically trump an belief from any other source? Is not teaching children that the world is 6000 years old discrimination towards some people?

    At what point do we decide a person has gone too far? There's a scale between slogan on a cake and genocide. There must be a point where society steps in.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    Demonique wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-31076402


    Over 1,000 people gathered at Belfast's City Hall

    Not many turned up, what does this tell me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    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.



    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.




    ...




    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:



    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

    That's pretty much the same reason I stopped debating with you. You're contributions are conjecture at best.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    keano_afc wrote: »
    ...You're contributions are conjecture at best.

    :rolleyes: This was your own starting contribution to conjecture
    keano_afc wrote: »
    .. Ashers refused the business because they didnt agree with the political campaign supported in the message. The sexuality of the "customer" who traveled 20 miles to be offended was never the issue.

    Its sets a dangerous precedent of we are forcing businesses to toe the line and support something they dont agree with because a noisy minority say so.


    Cheers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I guess pilots and cabin crew will have to start saying "Welcome to Belfast where the local time is 1745 - please set your calendar back 270 years"

    Various embassies will probably issue travel advisory notices too.

    Even debating this is getting NI extremely bad press and putting it into the same category as Russia!

    Can you just imagine the reviews on trip advisor : We got thrown out of a restaurant etc etc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The most infuriating thing about this is that many people don't distinguish between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

    I'm already seeing online posters suggesting things like refusing to use cruise companies that call at Irish ports and boycotting companies with Irish bases despite the fact that this is being pushed by a region of the UK and a party that would go crazy if you called it Irish.

    Rather sickeningly, the Catholic Church has now apparently voiced some kind of support for the bill too.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    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.

    Only that isn't the law. IT is the opposite of the law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Both are equally as influential as each other really, I've already made the point that there's plenty of support among people who are religious for marriage equality. You're also ignoring the fact that there are many people who are LGBT who are also religious.

    Okay One Eyed Jack you have finally articulated the logic fail that your position is as many posters on this thread have been trying to highlight to you for pages upon pages now.

    Religious mom goes to a shop needs a cake celebrating the religious ceremony of her daughter's same sex marriage. Goes to the bakery in her local village, asks for a wedding cake with two lady figures on top and the icing writing saying 'congrats to the lovely brides, laura and emma!'.

    Religious cake shop owner says 'Sorry Hon my sincerly held religious belief says I can't make you a cake to celebrate your daughters same sex wedding'

    In this situation which religious belief wins?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    So you'd be grand if they banned Catholics then too then I assume ?
    Or perhaps "No nationalists" ?
    .
    Sure. Again, if they decide to exclude a group, they may lose business.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    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.

    Libertarian nonsense, and about the same level as apartheid.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I don't see any reason why they couldn't. Again it goes back to your own personal moral and ethical standards, and if you're providing a service to the public, you have every right to choose who you will provide your services to, or not, whichever the case may be.

    But you don't have that right. In NI and ROI the law is that everyone should have equal access to goods and services and in ROI it specifically names 9 groups which cannot be discriminated against in the provision of goods and services.

    It's a balancing of rights. You have a right to freedom of conscience. The state in it's laws has decided that this right should not supercede the rights of women and minorities to be free from discrimination when they are accessing goods and services.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Have we not been told repeatedly that only the right form of "freedoms" are those which liberals approve of and which don't imped progress to their progressive utopia.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    karma_ wrote: »
    Libertarian nonsense, and about the same level as apartheid.
    Er, no


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,011 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Manach wrote: »
    Have we not been told repeatedly that only the right form of "freedoms" are those which liberals approve of and which don't imped progress to their progressive utopia.

    Oh boy, it's the Tesco Value John Waters. You must be so frustrated that false imprisonment of unmarried mothers isn't one of those approved freedoms.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Manach wrote: »
    Have we not been told repeatedly that only the right form of "freedoms" are those which liberals approve of and which don't imped progress to their progressive utopia.

    Just to confirm, you're all good with a business saying that they will not serve unmarried mothers or gay people? You have such wonderful hopes for society.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I'd just like to know like what the British Government can do.

    Ignoring this kind of thing in the 1950 and 60s caused massive discrimination against Catholics and set the scene for the troubles.

    The UK can't allow NI to just ride roughshod over human rights on more religiously bigoted grounds.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Er, no

    Plenty of people see through that libertarian horsé**** for what it actually is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Oh boy, it's the Tesco Value John Waters. You must be so frustrated that false imprisonment of unmarried mothers isn't one of those approved freedoms.


    no point replying to a drive-by-Manach. always a one hit wonder in these threads. be thankful it wasn't a "wont someone think of jesus?".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Okay One Eyed Jack you have finally articulated the logic fail that your position is as many posters on this thread have been trying to highlight to you for pages upon pages now.

    Religious mom goes to a shop needs a cake celebrating the religious ceremony of her daughter's same sex marriage. Goes to the bakery in her local village, asks for a wedding cake with two lady figures on top and the icing writing saying 'congrats to the lovely brides, laura and emma!'.

    Religious cake shop owner says 'Sorry Hon my sincerly held religious belief says I can't make you a cake to celebrate your daughters same sex wedding'

    In this situation which religious belief wins?


    Where's the logic fail only that you can't get your head around the fact that I believe that the shop owner making bespoke cakes has a right to say who they will and will not work for, and exactly what work they are prepared to do and not do?

    It's no different to anyone's claim here that the law in NI should be changed to legislate for SSM, I also support the right for people offering their services to the public to determine who they will and won't provide their services to.

    In the same way as I would expect people who are LGBT should be respected, I expect that people who are religious are entitled to the same respect. That's what the law says at the moment, and that nobody's rights should over-ride another. That's not what's happening in practice though when an individual can claim they were discriminated against because a bespoke bakery with a christian ethos refused to decorate a cake with a message supporting SSM.

    You may not agree that the customer was behaving like a dick, knowing full well what they were at, but the way I see it that's exactly what they were doing.

    I'm sure there have been many people who are LGBT who availed of the services of the bakery over the years, but forcing the bakery to fulfill an order which the person knew was in direct conflict with the bakery owners religious beliefs, was simply behaving like a dick.

    That's what happens when an organization gets a wee sniff of power and tries to rub it into a person who doesn't think the same way they do. I personally don't like that way of going on, as it doesn't serve any purpose in furthering understanding and tolerance among a community of people who don't all think the same way as each other. It only causes people to dig their heels in and fosters resentment and rebellion and a lack of respect for ordinary people who just want to go about their business without having to deal with utter nonsense like a fcuking cake when there are far more urgent issues in the community that need addressing IMO.

    If people can't play nice together, then separation from each other is the only feasible solution to avoid constant conflict where neither community has any respect for the other, yet both are part of a larger community called society.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Where's the logic fail only that you can't get your head around the fact that I believe that the shop owner making bespoke cakes has a right to say who they will and will not work for, and exactly what work they are prepared to do and not do?

    It's no different to anyone's claim here that the law in NI should be changed to legislate for SSM, I also support the right for people offering their services to the public to determine who they will and won't provide their services to.

    In the same way as I would expect people who are LGBT should be respected, I expect that people who are religious are entitled to the same respect. That's what the law says at the moment, and that nobody's rights should over-ride another. That's not what's happening in practice though when an individual can claim they were discriminated against because a bespoke bakery with a christian ethos refused to decorate a cake with a message supporting SSM.

    You may not agree that the customer was behaving like a dick, knowing full well what they were at, but the way I see it that's exactly what they were doing.

    I'm sure there have been many people who are LGBT who availed of the services of the bakery over the years, but forcing the bakery to fulfill an order which the person knew was in direct conflict with the bakery owners religious beliefs, was simply behaving like a dick.

    That's what happens when an organization gets a wee sniff of power and tries to rub it into a person who doesn't think the same way they do. I personally don't like that way of going on, as it doesn't serve any purpose in furthering understanding and tolerance among a community of people who don't all think the same way as each other. It only causes people to dig their heels in and fosters resentment and rebellion and a lack of respect for ordinary people who just want to go about their business without having to deal with utter nonsense like a fcuking cake when there are far more urgent issues in the community that need addressing IMO.

    If people can't play nice together, then separation from each other is the only feasible solution to avoid constant conflict where neither community has any respect for the other, yet both are part of a larger community called society.

    This is where your argument fails utterly. The two scenarios are not comparable.

    The shop owner does not have the "right to say who they will and will not work for, and exactly what work they are prepared to do and not do". That is already proscribed by law.

    The law clearly states that it is illegal for a business to discriminate against a customer with regard to the provision of goods and services.

    No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the law as it stands. The current 'conscience' (sic) proposal preposterously seeks to legislate for the validation of a tyranny of minorities.

    In contrast the current movement to legislate for SSM, seeks only to enact an equal right of marriage for gay people that is mandated in the rest of the UK and which is available to hetrosexuals everywhere. Very simply it seeks the rights of people to be treated equally.

    Your suggestion for apartheid where "separation from each other is the only feasible solution to avoid constant conflict" is ridiculous. Northern Ireland has enough existing sectarian issues without adding active discrimination to the mix.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gozunda wrote: »
    This is where your argument fails utterly. The two scenarios are not comparable.

    The shop owner does not have the "right to say who they will and will not work for, and exactly what work they are prepared to do and not do". That is already proscribed by law.

    The law clearly states that it is illegal for a business to discriminate against a customer with regard to the provision of goods and services.

    No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the law as it stands. The current 'conscience' (sic) proposal preposterously seeks to legislate for the validation of a tyranny of minorities.

    In contrast the current movement to legislate for SSM, seeks only to enact an equal right of marriage for gay people that is mandated in the rest of the UK and which is available to hetrosexuals everywhere. Very simply it seeks the rights of people to be treated equally.

    Your suggestion for apartheid where "separation from each other is the only feasible solution to avoid constant conflict" is ridiculous. Northern Ireland has enough existing sectarian issues without adding active discrimination to the mix.


    That same "no amount of wishful thinking" sentiment could also apply to any hope of legislating for SSM when the NI Executive have already stated that they will not be legislating for it.

    I know of course they're not comparable, but they are related, and like I said, when you have an Equality Commission that decides a bakery owner must allow themselves to be discriminated against when their religion means that they do not support SSM, that to me is the very same tyranny of the minority you're talking about.

    I agree with you however that NI has enough sectarian issues without adding forcing people who are religious to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs. What you call apartheid, I call the freedom of conscience, and anything which forces someone to act against their conscience is discrimination against that person.

    The equivalent would be telling people who are LGBT that if they want to be married, the only legal option available to them is to marry someone of the opposite sex. I don't think they'd be ok with that, so why should a person who is religious be ok with being forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs if religion is supposed to be one of the nine grounds on which a person cannot be discriminated against?

    "Embrace and accept diversity, but only on our terms and when it suits us", doesn't make for a very snappy slogan I guess.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I have a solution!

    Let the law pass, but along side it introduce more legislation. A business owner has the right to discriminate based on their interpretations of whatever religion they follow but only if they publicly advertise as a Christian/Muslim/whatever ethos bakery/shoe shop/pharmacy/hair salon! And this must be displayed visibly on all forms of advertising. Therefore the bigots can discriminate to their hearts content, and others can make an informed choice about whether they want to support a business that wants to be allowed to discriminate against certain groups of people. I would actually rather know which business owners are likely to behave like this and take my money elsewhere. Also it would save the targets of their bigotry the humiliation of being declined service due to a particular characteristic. Of course businesses could choose whether they want to advertise a religious ethos or not, but if they choose not to they are subject to anti discrimination laws and can be prosecuted for discriminating. :P

    Edit: I'm only half serious, but if bigoted business owners want a 'right' to discriminate against certain groups of people, shouldn't the rest of us be entitled to know that they plan to exercise this 'right' prior to choosing whether or not to patronise their business?

    I will now sit back with my popcorn and watch all the defenders of discrimination against LGBT people squawk in horror at the suggestion of potential discrimination against religiously bigoted business owners.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    "Embrace and accept diversity, but only on our terms and when it suits us", doesn't make for a very snappy slogan I guess.

    No. It's also a poor representation of the situation, because for some reason you seem unable - or just unwilling - to grasp that the law distinguishes very clearly between what a person may do in his private life, and what commercial enterprise is allowed to do or not. It's not reserved to personal beliefs such as homophobia or SSM either - it's actually why there is a whole separate set of legislation known as commercial law. It's puzzling that you seem unaware of that.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I wonder, this being Northern Island, if this law will also cover business owners that want to refuse to serve Catholics/Protestants? How helpful that would be!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    That same "no amount of wishful thinking" sentiment could also apply to any hope of legislating for SSM when the NI Executive have already stated that they will not be legislating for it.

    Not so

    The matter is likley to face judicial review in the near future and / or EU ruling. SSM is already fully legislated in the rest of the UK. The last Stormont vote passed only by a small majority. Currently a legal challenge to Northern Ireland’s ban on same-sex marriage has been filed in Belfast’s High Court.

    I know of course they're not comparable, but they are related, and like I said, when you have an Equality Commission that decides a bakery owner must allow themselves to be discriminated against when their religion means that they do not support SSM that to me is the very same tyranny of the minority you're talking about.

    Cart before the horse again. The Equality Commission are the body charged with overseeing anti discrimination legislation and it's implementation in businesses and services. Christians of all varities are not a minority in NI - they are a majority grouping. So yes it is defacto tyranny of a minority.
    I agree with you however that NI has enough sectarian issues without adding forcing people who are religious to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs. What you call apartheid, I call the freedom of conscience, and anything which forces someone to act against their conscience is discrimination against that person.

    It is that type of sectarian mindset that has led to the EC having to take action. You can redefine 'apartheid' any way you wish - it does not change what it is. I presume from your stance you would support the old apartheid regime in South Africa for the same reasons. Nice
    The equivalent would be telling people who are LGBT that if they want to be married, the only legal option available to them is to marry someone of the opposite sex. I don't think they'd be ok with that, so why should a person who is religious be ok with being forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs if religion is supposed to be one of the nine grounds on which a person cannot be discriminated against?

    To the first point LGBT individuals in NI don't have the option of SSM - so yes the only legal option at present is to marry 'someone of the opposite sex'!

    Second point - Because a business does not 'have' a religous belief. A business provides specific goods and services. Under law they are obliged to do so without discrimination to any individual regardless of creed, race or sexuality. Your attempt to turn anti discrimination grounds against themselves is ridiculous, puerile and has no basis in how the law is applied.
    "Embrace and accept diversity, but only on our terms and when it suits us", doesn't make for a very snappy slogan I guess.

    I believe Christians as part of their religion are extolled to "do into others as you would do unto yourself". Business are also obliged not to discriminate against any individual by law. I don't see the self declared Christians in this instance either observing the tenants of the faith or the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I have a solution!

    Let the law pass, but along side it introduce more legislation. A business owner has the right to discriminate based on their interpretations of whatever religion they follow but only if they publicly advertise as a Christian/Muslim/whatever ethos bakery/shoe shop/pharmacy/hair salon! And this must be displayed visibly on all forms of advertising. Therefore the bigots can discriminate to their hearts content, and others can make an informed choice about whether they want to support a business that wants to be allowed to discriminate against certain groups of people. I would actually rather know which business owners are likely to behave like this and take my money elsewhere. Also it would save the targets of their bigotry the humiliation of being declined service due to a particular characteristic. Of course businesses could choose whether they want to advertise a religious ethos or not, but if they choose not to they are subject to anti discrimination laws and can be prosecuted for discriminating. :P

    Edit: I'm only half serious, but if bigoted business owners want a 'right' to discriminate against certain groups of people, shouldn't the rest of us be entitled to know that they plan to exercise this 'right' prior to choosing whether or not to patronise their business?


    I thought it wasn't a bad idea myself, as it would also spare business owners the humiliation of having to comply with a request which violates their religious beliefs.

    I have no doubt this particular organisation knew that the business had a religious ethos, in the same way as the Jewish bakery in Dublin supplies only certain types of bread made a certain way, and nobody has ever complained. They just made their order elsewhere and got what they asked for without any fuss being made claiming discrimination against a person because the bakery had a problem with the order.

    If LGBT groups want to encourage diversity, tolerance and understanding in their community, then they should be prepared to practice what they preach, rather than attempt to force their will on people who disagree with them. That's the reason why so many people abandoned religion and have an aversion to it now, because it was forced upon them in violation of their freedom of conscience. If LGBT organizations adopt the same tactics that didn't work for other organizations in the past, then they really shouldn't be surprised when people start to rebel against them, except it won't be the organization they take out their frustration on, it'll be the ordinary person on the street who just wants to go about their business will suffer, as has been seen in recent times with the number of LGBT people who have been assaulted.

    In their efforts to promote SSM, these lobby groups seem to be forgetting about the ordinary people who they're supposed to be supporting, in favour of forcing people who don't think the same way they do to comply with their way of thinking.

    That, to me at least, is the complete opposite of their messages about encouraging tolerance, understanding and appreciating diversity, makes them no different from religious groups that preach the same message, but don't practice it themselves.


Advertisement