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
-
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.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »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.One eyed Jack wrote: »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 thatOne eyed Jack wrote: »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.0 -
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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
...You're contributions are conjecture at best.
:rolleyes: This was your own starting contribution to conjecture.. 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.
Cheers0 -
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 etc0 -
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.0 -
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.
Only that isn't the law. IT is the opposite of the law.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »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?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.
Libertarian nonsense, and about the same level as apartheid.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »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
0 -
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.0
-
-
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.0 -
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.....0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Clandestine wrote: »Er, no
Plenty of people see through that libertarian horsé**** for what it actually is.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »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?".0 -
jobbridge4life wrote: »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.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »"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.0 -
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!0
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »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.One eyed Jack wrote: »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.One eyed Jack wrote: »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. NiceOne eyed Jack wrote: »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.One eyed Jack wrote: »"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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement