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

1456810

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Ridiculous? People are arguing over a ****ing cake. The point we reached ridiculous is long gone. The people could have went elsewhere and the woman didnt have to write a meaningless message on a cake as a tear fell with each letter added, rosary beads in her hand as she begs Jesus' forgiveness and a crucifix on the wall with a disappointed Jesus staring down at her. Jesus didnt die for this!

    Bolded - agreed.


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


    reprise wrote: »
    What if it was a gay man looking for the cake and his friends muslim mother (who is black) actually does take it up the ass with a strapon wielding lesbian? :)
    reprise wrote: »
    I am not going to address your points as they are directed at Jack, but this is a ridiculous response and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue whatsoever, whether you agree or not.

    :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭Frank O. Pinion


    Has anybody else had enough gay cake? I've had my fill. It must be all they sell up in NI. Gay cake this, gay cake that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    :P

    Were there smilies in shruikan2553's post?

    Musta missed that :(:rolleyes::o:mad::)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭AlanS181824


    God I dislike Northern Ireland...


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


    reprise wrote: »
    When you injected your new meaning. I got that.

    No that's HOW it read. I wasn't the only poster tbh. Stick you head in the sand if you wish.
    reprise wrote: »
    I try limit my discussions to the posters on the thread. You can put me on ignore if that helps.

    Stay within context and you should be ok.
    reprise wrote: »
    You seem to want to tell me umpteen times why you shouldn't answer the question I didn't ask. It's no wonder you are confused.

    Unless you clarify what your 'question was' that's never going to be possible
    reprise wrote: »
    I must have missed the crowds. So are you going to answer the question now or write another meandering essay explaining why you won't.

    See above.

    Tbh your endless deliberate misdirection and attempts at puerile argument really are ridiculous.


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


    It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

    reprise wrote: »
    This, gozunda ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the point.


    reprise wrote: »
    What if it was a gay man looking for the cake and his friends muslim mother (who is black) actually does take it up the ass with a strapon wielding lesbian? :)

    Reprise - I didn't think it was possible however your level of contribution has just hit a new all time low. From what I've seen you havn't added a single coherent argument to the entire thread and you now appear to be spending your time making trashy adolescent comments. Tbh they suit you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    Reprise - I didn't think it was possible however your level of contribution has just hit a new all time low. From what I've seen you havn't added a single coherent argument to the entire thread and you now appear to be spending your time making trashy adolescent comments. Tbh they suit you.

    I tried to engage my dear, but you were too busy being wildly offended by phantom discrimination and imaginary slights. Shame you are humourless and dour as well as highly strung. You're not actually from NI by chance, are you?


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


    gozunda wrote: »
    Reprise - I didn't think it was possible however your level of contribution has just hit a new all time low. From what I've seen you havn't added a single coherent argument to the entire thread and you now appear to be spending your time making trashy adolescent comments. Tbh they suit you.

    reprise wrote: »
    I tried to engage my dear, but you were too busy being wildly offended by phantom discrimination and imaginary slights. Shame you are humourless and dour as well as highly strung. You're not actually from NI by chance, are you?

    A simple discussion of the topic might be more productive. Resorting to insults again I see. :rolleyes: QED.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    A simple discussion of the topic might be more productive. Resorting to insults again I see. :rolleyes: QED.

    You could always answer my question.....


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


    reprise wrote: »
    You could always answer my question.....

    And the question was? But wait don't bother - you said you didn't want it to be answered anyway. So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
    Best of luck ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    And the question was? But wait don't bother - you said you didn't want it to be answered anyway. So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
    Best of luck ...

    I didn't want your version of it answered where you linked homosexuality with paedophilia. Sorry bout that.


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


    Fixed that for you.
    reprise wrote: »
    I didn't want your version of it answered where I linked homosexuality with paedophilia. Sorry bout that.

    That's not what you said in your last post.
    reprise wrote:
    You could always answer my question.....

    And previous
    reprise wrote:
    I've told you several times now you are not compelled to answer

    A bit mixed up?

    no worries - hope all is better soon

    Anyway you forgot the second bit ...

    So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
    Best of luck ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    That's not what you said in your last post.



    And previous



    Ah I get it - no worries I see you still have "homosexuality with paedophilia" on the brain. I hope it is treatable.

    Anyway you deliberatly forgot the second bit ...

    So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
    Best of luck ...

    You are repeating yourself now and pulling my quotes out of sequence. Maybe you should take a break, you seem very upset.


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


    reprise wrote: »
    You are repeating yourself now and pulling my quotes out of sequence. Maybe you should take a break, you seem very upset.

    Ah go on try just a little bit of proper discussion - you might actually like it ...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    Ah go on try just a little bit of proper discussion - you might actually like it ...

    I think you are over tired.


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


    gozunda wrote:
    Ah go on try just a little bit of proper discussion - you might actually like it ...
    reprise wrote: »
    I think you are over tired.

    You won't know until you actually tried ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Anytime I hear of equality legislation I am always reminded of this story.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers

    Instead of caring about innate human rights, modern progressive are more interested in dividing society up into little easy to pigeon hole pockets and confer more rights on some groups than others. The whole thing about this bakery is absurd beyond belief and frankly embarrassing that some are so hot and bothered about it.


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


    jank wrote: »
    Anytime I hear of equality legislation I am always reminded of this story.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers

    Instead of caring about innate human rights, modern progressive are more interested in dividing society up into little easy to pigeon hole pockets and confer more rights on some groups than others. The whole thing about this bakery is absurd beyond belief and frankly embarrassing that some are so hot and bothered about it.

    Jank that 'story' is nothing only a sexist, racist, homophobic rant! Poor oppressed, heterosexual, able bodied, white, Christian people (males in particular)! The writer even has a pop a disabled people who use wheelchairs! Damn those wheelchair users and all the privileges and advantages society affords them! The whole 'article' is the height of ignorance.


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


    jank wrote: »
    Anytime I hear of equality legislation I am always reminded of this story.

    http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers

    Instead of caring about innate human rights, modern progressive are more interested in dividing society up into little easy to pigeon hole pockets and confer more rights on some groups than others. The whole thing about this bakery is absurd beyond belief and frankly embarrassing that some are so hot and bothered about it.

    Which side are you talking about? If it wasn't you I would have assumed you were talking about the people who support people deciding which laws they follow.

    In an incident involving a lesbian and a Muslim who is the victim? The Christians of course! It says a lot about a group when treating other people as equals is akin to themselves being persecuted.


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


    reprise wrote: »
    You're losing me. Are you saying your pretend wedding is the same as a legal wedding or not?

    Answer my question.


  • Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mod

    Reprise, your contributions to this thread have consisted of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia, and of baiting other posters. You have been warned and banned for this kind of trolling before. If your posting style does not improve after your time off, you will be permabanned.


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


    On the Equal rights and same sex marriage

    Dustin Lance Black speaking at the UCD Law society



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


    I assume that all in this thread defending the right of religious shop owners to use their interpretations of whatever religion they follow to refuse to serve certain groups of customers, would also defend the Muslim employees in the subject of this thread?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057109349

    This would also be covered by the absolute right to freedom of religion I assume, and part of that right includes being free to act according to their conscience?

    If this law is passed I guess that these M&S staff will be free to refuse to serve pork and alcohol in NI?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank



    In an incident involving a lesbian and a Muslim who is the victim? The Christians of course! It says a lot about a group when treating other people as equals is akin to themselves being persecuted.


    Proves my point. Thank you. The incident in Toronto was resolved outside the court and the Muslim Barber was able to keep his premise, woman free.... meanwhile on this side of the world a stupid cake is now the latest example of the homophobic Christian society we live in....


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Jank that 'story' is nothing only a sexist, racist, homophobic rant! Poor oppressed, heterosexual, able bodied, white, Christian people (males in particular)! The writer even has a pop a disabled people who use wheelchairs! Damn those wheelchair users and all the privileges and advantages society affords them! The whole 'article' is the height of ignorance.

    The author is not christian and the subject matter was about a Muslim man refusing to service a woman....but anyway...

    He is very much correct to say that some minorities have been bestowed more rights than others. There is a pecking order and that case in same way is proof of it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    If this law is passed I guess that these M&S staff will be free to refuse to serve pork and alcohol in NI?

    If the owners of M&S are OK with it then I have no problem with it. You are mistaking the owner of a business with an employee in this case. You do know that I would have no problem with a LGBT cake shop owner refusing to make a cake for a christian bible basher. Instead we have to engage in stupid low brow ambulance chasing.


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


    jank wrote: »
    Proves my point. Thank you. The incident in Toronto was resolved outside the court and the Muslim Barber was able to keep his premise, woman free.... meanwhile on this side of the world a stupid cake is now the latest example of the homophobic Christian society we live in....

    What point?

    You can support discrimination all you want but thankfully the law and the likes of the UN view us all as equal so you won't get your world where you can lord over the lesser people.


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


    jank wrote: »
    If the owners of M&S are OK with it then I have no problem with it. You are mistaking the owner of a business with an employee in this case.

    Ah, but it is being argued that the refusal to make the cake, and conscientious objection on religious grounds in general, are part of the human right to freedom of religion. If this is the case then it must apply to both employers and their employees, including civil servants no? If it is covered by a human right it cannot apply only to private business owners.


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


    What point?

    You can support discrimination all you want but thankfully the law and the likes of the UN view us all as equal so you won't get your world where you can lord over the lesser people.

    ^^ This and the very real concern that belief systems, religous and otherwise have no place in wider society. In places of worship and homes people are free to hold as many diverse / spiritual beliefs they like and can do so in freedom as long as any such religous practises themselves are not illegal ie goat sacrifice in the bathroom, child marriage et etc and do not impact on individual rights.

    We have spent decades in this country attempting to stuff the ogre of religous tyranny on civil life back in to its bottle and welding the cork firmly back on. Just as it appeared we were making some progress, militant religionists are now increasingly demanding their 'rights' to force belief systems on others. Imo if we have any lesson from our own history it is that Religious dogma has no place in a civil society.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    jank wrote: »
    Proves my point. Thank you. The incident in Toronto was resolved outside the court and the Muslim Barber was able to keep his premise, woman free.... meanwhile on this side of the world a stupid cake is now the latest example of the homophobic Christian society we live in....

    So...people should be free to exercise their bigotry, is that your message from this?


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


    They werent expected to go against their religious beliefs, just to make a cake as they would for any other customer.


    They absolutely were expected to fulfill an order which conflicted with their religious beliefs, and secondly, given the fact that they would not produce that design for ANY customer, means that they were not discriminating against the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This was the original claim put forward by the Equality Commission, who are a publicly funded body, supposed to be independent in these matters, yet who are promoting same-sex marriage themselves. After taking legal advice from one of the top barristers in the UK, the Equality Commission changed their claim from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to discrimination on the grounds of political opinion!

    To answer the question of whether the customer knew or not the ethos of the bakery was religious, well, a quick skim of their website -
    Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr & Mrs Asher. Our name comes from the Bible. Asher was a tribe of Israel who had many skilled bakers and created bread fit for a king.

    But what abut their human rights? We can hardly expect them to treat everyone the same if their religious beliefs say otherwise. We cant limit such things.

    Like I previously mentioned in the thread, I'm sure they had fulfilled orders previously for customers who are LGBT, but those customers were unlikely to be asking for a bespoke cake which was promoting a political message which conflicted with the owners religious beliefs. The owners of the bakery are entitled to their religious beliefs and to force them to comply with an order which conflicts with their religious beliefs is not just a breach of their human rights, but also could easily qualify as harassment. Their religious beliefs mean they would treat every person the same, but their religious beliefs would not say they should have to support same-sex marriage which would be contradictory to their religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    You and I may not agree with their opinion which is based on their religious beliefs, but that doesn't give us the right to harass the owners of the bakery into complying with an order that would mean they would be forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs. That's exactly the purpose of the Equality Commission, to protect people from harassment and discrimination based on any of the nine grounds, and yet here they are taking a case against a bakery which explained to the customer why they could not fulfill the order.

    Does that mean legalised discrimination freedom of conscience no longer applies when the person isnt a part of your religion?


    I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but in just the same way as other people are entitled to their freedom of conscience, I am entitled to mine. Freedom of conscience is a two-way street, just like equality is a two-way street, and if we are interested in treating all people equally based on the nine grounds on which they can be discriminated against, then sexual orientation has no more priority over religion - a person who is LGBT cannot be forced to comply with an order which would violate their freedom of conscience, and a person with a religious belief cannot be forced to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience, nor can a person force their political views upon another person in violation of their freedom of conscience.

    We are dealing with people who view being treated as equals as themselves being persecuted. I doubt negotiation is a word they are familiar with.


    I'm not sure whether you're talking about people here who are LGBT, or people who have a religious belief. It looks to me like both parties in this case are claiming they are being persecuted. Clearly 'negotiation' is a word neither party are familiar with.

    They're to prevent ALL discrimination.


    Including discrimination and harassment against people who have religious beliefs, right? Just because you don't particularly regard religious beliefs as worthy of any respect, doesn't mean that those people serving the public interest have the luxury of discriminating in the same fashion as you do.

    Perspective? One group wants to treat a group as lesser to themselves. The other wants to be able to go about their business without being treated like second class citizens.


    Same again, not sure who you're talking about here - an LGBT lobby group wants to treat people with religious belief as second class citizens and force them to comply with a request that conflicts with their religious beliefs, and now the Equality Commission, a publicly funded body set up to prevent exactly this type of discrimination and harassment, is supporting the LGBT lobby group in taking a case against the owners of the bakery for breaching anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds that the bakery discriminated against the customer on the grounds of their political opinion. Something tells me the Equality Commission has been spending public money to get advice from Lionel Hutz!

    Can you really not see problems arising from the vast majority of a population being able to ignore any laws as long as they wave an old book around?


    Of course I can, and some of them are fairly well articulated here -

    http://eile.ie/2014/12/23/opinion-the-dup-conscience-clause-and-its-implications/


    But we're not talking about the vast majority of the population being able to ignore any laws they want, we're talking here about people being allowed to refuse to be coerced into supporting a political opinion in violation of their freedom of conscience. Can you see the problem with forcing people to comply with laws which violate their freedom of conscience? Isn't that what LGBT lobby groups are campaigning against when they are campaigning for marriage equality? There are laws which allow them to express their political opinion, but LGBT groups and the Equality Commission are now using those same laws in a way in which they were never intended to be used. That's unfortunately now why a 'conscience clause' needs to be introduced, to prevent this sort of subversive coercion and clarify the circumstances under which a person can refuse to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience.

    People can be as racist or homophobic as they want but as a society we recognise the right to equality. In your version of legal discrimination you are only as free as the people you deal with allow.


    It's not my version of legal discrimination at all, it's recognition of a person's basic human right to freedom of conscience. LGBT lobby groups are still free to campaign for marriage equality, but they are not free to coerce people who disagree with their political opinion into supporting them, in violation of their religious beliefs, their freedom of conscience.

    The only people who benefit from this kind of crap are racists, homophobes, sexists, bigots etc. Are these really the people you want to support as the expense of people trying to just live their lives as an equal person?


    Of course they're not, and I wouldn't support them, but I also would not support people trying to force their political opinions on other people either, and I wouldn't support people who try to interfere with the lives of people who are religious in order to rob them of their livelihoods. That, to me at least, is not within the spirit of equality and treating all people with respect and dignity regardless of how their opinion differs from our own. I don't support any form of bigotry, and that includes bigotry against a person based on their religious beliefs. Most people who are religious, also want to go about their business and live their lives as an equal person where no section of society has any special privileges over another and all people are free from being harassed by people who do not share their views or think the same way they do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa



    Of course they're not, and I wouldn't support them

    With your stance you are supporting them.
    I don't support any form of bigotry, and that includes bigotry against a person based on their religious beliefs.

    Requiring somebody to not exercise bigotry is not a form of bigotry.
    Most people who are religious, also want to go about their business and live their lives as an equal person where no section of society has any special privileges over another and all people are free from being harassed by people who do not share their views or think the same way they do.

    Throughout history it has been the religious people who have exercised oppression and bigotry against minorities, now that they aren't allowed to do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed, it'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous.


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


    gozunda wrote: »
    ^^ This and the very real concern that belief systems, religous and otherwise have no place in wider society. In places of worship and homes people are free to hold as many diverse / spiritual beliefs they like and can do so in freedom as long as any such religous practises themselves are not illegal ie goat sacrifice in the bathroom, child marriage et etc and do not impact on individual rights.

    We have spent decades in this country attempting to stuff the ogre of religous tyranny on civil life back in to its bottle and welding the cork firmly back on. Just as it appeared we were making some progress, militant religionists are now increasingly demanding their 'rights' to force belief systems on others. Imo if we have any lesson from our own history it is that Religious dogma has no place in a civil society.

    To make it even stranger the likes of jank were giving out about the police not going after Muslims who broke the law in England and how they shouldnt be above the law and then comes here and goes the opposite way. One minute worried about the religious thinking they can do whatever they want and then complaining that they cant. Highlights my theory on how recently there has been an increase of right wing posters who only care about complaining about whatever is seen as liberal.
    They absolutely were expected to fulfill an order which conflicted with their religious beliefs, and secondly, given the fact that they would not produce that design for ANY customer, means that they were not discriminating against the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This was the original claim put forward by the Equality Commission, who are a publicly funded body, supposed to be independent in these matters, yet who are promoting same-sex marriage themselves. After taking legal advice from one of the top barristers in the UK, the Equality Commission changed their claim from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to discrimination on the grounds of political opinion!

    To answer the question of whether the customer knew or not the ethos of the bakery was religious, well, a quick skim of their website -






    Like I previously mentioned in the thread, I'm sure they had fulfilled orders previously for customers who are LGBT, but those customers were unlikely to be asking for a bespoke cake which was promoting a political message which conflicted with the owners religious beliefs. The owners of the bakery are entitled to their religious beliefs and to force them to comply with an order which conflicts with their religious beliefs is not just a breach of their human rights, but also could easily qualify as harassment. Their religious beliefs mean they would treat every person the same, but their religious beliefs would not say they should have to support same-sex marriage which would be contradictory to their religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    You and I may not agree with their opinion which is based on their religious beliefs, but that doesn't give us the right to harass the owners of the bakery into complying with an order that would mean they would be forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs. That's exactly the purpose of the Equality Commission, to protect people from harassment and discrimination based on any of the nine grounds, and yet here they are taking a case against a bakery which explained to the customer why they could not fulfill the order.





    I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but in just the same way as other people are entitled to their freedom of conscience, I am entitled to mine. Freedom of conscience is a two-way street, just like equality is a two-way street, and if we are interested in treating all people equally based on the nine grounds on which they can be discriminated against, then sexual orientation has no more priority over religion - a person who is LGBT cannot be forced to comply with an order which would violate their freedom of conscience, and a person with a religious belief cannot be forced to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience, nor can a person force their political views upon another person in violation of their freedom of conscience.





    I'm not sure whether you're talking about people here who are LGBT, or people who have a religious belief. It looks to me like both parties in this case are claiming they are being persecuted. Clearly 'negotiation' is a word neither party are familiar with.





    Including discrimination and harassment against people who have religious beliefs, right? Just because you don't particularly regard religious beliefs as worthy of any respect, doesn't mean that those people serving the public interest have the luxury of discriminating in the same fashion as you do.





    Same again, not sure who you're talking about here - an LGBT lobby group wants to treat people with religious belief as second class citizens and force them to comply with a request that conflicts with their religious beliefs, and now the Equality Commission, a publicly funded body set up to prevent exactly this type of discrimination and harassment, is supporting the LGBT lobby group in taking a case against the owners of the bakery for breaching anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds that the bakery discriminated against the customer on the grounds of their political opinion. Something tells me the Equality Commission has been spending public money to get advice from Lionel Hutz!





    Of course I can, and some of them are fairly well articulated here -

    http://eile.ie/2014/12/23/opinion-the-dup-conscience-clause-and-its-implications/


    But we're not talking about the vast majority of the population being able to ignore any laws they want, we're talking here about people being allowed to refuse to be coerced into supporting a political opinion in violation of their freedom of conscience. Can you see the problem with forcing people to comply with laws which violate their freedom of conscience? Isn't that what LGBT lobby groups are campaigning against when they are campaigning for marriage equality? There are laws which allow them to express their political opinion, but LGBT groups and the Equality Commission are now using those same laws in a way in which they were never intended to be used. That's unfortunately now why a 'conscience clause' needs to be introduced, to prevent this sort of subversive coercion and clarify the circumstances under which a person can refuse to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience.





    It's not my version of legal discrimination at all, it's recognition of a person's basic human right to freedom of conscience. LGBT lobby groups are still free to campaign for marriage equality, but they are not free to coerce people who disagree with their political opinion into supporting them, in violation of their religious beliefs, their freedom of conscience.





    Of course they're not, and I wouldn't support them, but I also would not support people trying to force their political opinions on other people either, and I wouldn't support people who try to interfere with the lives of people who are religious in order to rob them of their livelihoods. That, to me at least, is not within the spirit of equality and treating all people with respect and dignity regardless of how their opinion differs from our own. I don't support any form of bigotry, and that includes bigotry against a person based on their religious beliefs. Most people who are religious, also want to go about their business and live their lives as an equal person where no section of society has any special privileges over another and all people are free from being harassed by people who do not share their views or think the same way they do.

    I dont really care about the bakery, I dont know how anyone was meant to know the owners were prejudiced based on its name just as people dont assume a guy called Matthew will start throwing stones at them.

    What this comes down to is allowing the prejudiced minority to discriminate against other groups who committed the crime of existing. Something which the laws already tries to limit. To make it even more a joke its called "freedom", its as much freedom as religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, pretty good if you are a Muslim, **** if you arent.

    Its like making pickpocketing legal to suit thieves but keeping armed mugging illegal. We know stealing is wrong but its ok if you just do it a little to people you dont like.


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


    With your stance you are supporting them.


    No, I am not, I am refusing to support an organisation which, from the way I see it, engaged in a campaign to harass a business owner and used a twisted interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws when the bakery owner explained to the customer that his request was in conflict with the ethos of the business. Tolerance, respect and understanding goes both ways, and if you're not prepared to practice it yourself, you shouldn't expect it from others. It wasn't because the customer may have been LGBT that the order could not be fulfilled, it was because the political message the customer wanted to promote was in conflict with the bakery's religious ethos.

    Requiring somebody to not exercise bigotry is not a form of bigotry.


    You might have a point if there weren't such a thing as different forms of bigotry -

    Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

    Throughout history it has been the religious people who have exercised oppression and bigotry against minorities, now that they aren't allowed to do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed, it'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous.


    People have used politics a lot longer than religion to exercise oppression and bigotry against anyone who disagreed with them, and now they aren't allowed do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous, but at least "2,000 years of persecution" is new, as opposed to the usual bleating about "800 years...".

    Either you want to work towards a progressive society where all people are treated equally with dignity and respect, or you just want a society where some people are more equal than others, and the second class citizens will be made to make reparations for historical events in which they played no part. Which is it?

    I would urge you not to let that little bit of power you now feel you have over other people go to your head, or else you're no different to the people you despise. You have the choice to use it for good, or you can continue the cycle of promoting bitterness and discrimination against other people who don't think the same way you do.


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


    Either you want to work towards a progressive society where all people are treated equally with dignity and respect, or you just want a society where some people are more equal than others, and the second class citizens will be made to make reparations for historical events in which they played no part. Which is it?

    The second is wwhat you are arguing for. One side is saying not being able to discriminate is not discrimination while the other is saying they have to be allowed to discriminate or its discrimination.

    If we say that someone has to be discriminated with it becomes a choice between:
    People who exist
    People who are prejudiced

    The prejudiced can change, the other people cant change that they exist.


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


    The second is wwhat you are arguing for. One side is saying not being able to discriminate is not discrimination while the other is saying they have to be allowed to discriminate or its discrimination.


    You are discriminating against people who are religious if you're arguing that they should not be allowed to live according to their religious beliefs. How far you should be allowed to push that though should be what's open to negotiation, as everyone faces discrimination in one way or another, and that's where this whole hierarchy of discrimination comes from.

    A bakery promoting their religious beliefs is no different to Queerspace promoting their political opinion. The Equality Commission could have justified their existence by acting as mediator between the two parties involved, but they chose to advocate for one party over the other. You'd know it wasn't their own money they were using to pay their legal fees for this farce.


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


    You are discriminating against people who are religious if you're arguing that they should not be allowed to live according to their religious beliefs. How far you should be allowed to push that though should be what's open to negotiation, as everyone faces discrimination in one way or another, and that's where this whole hierarchy of discrimination comes from.

    A bakery promoting their religious beliefs is no different to Queerspace promoting their political opinion. The Equality Commission could have justified their existence by acting as mediator between the two parties involved, but they chose to advocate for one party over the other. You'd know it wasn't their own money they were using to pay their legal fees for this farce.

    Plenty of religious people live fine without feeling the urge to treat others as lesser. Its "discriminating" against prejudiced religious people and its not the religious part thats the problem.


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


    Plenty of religious people live fine without feeling the urge to treat others as lesser. Its "discriminating" against prejudiced religious people and its not the religious part thats the problem.


    Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If we're both agreed that religion isn't the problem, but how it's used by people who are prejudiced towards other people, then we could apply that same principle to any ideology. It isn't the ideology that's the problem, it's people.

    People who will use any ideology to humiliate or exploit other people who do not think the same way they do, should be prevented from doing so. Those same methods of prevention should also apply to non-religious people who would seek to impose their ideology on religious people.

    Nobody will ever have everything their own way if everyone in society is supposed to be treated equally, we all have to learn to compromise, and that includes religious people, and non-religious people, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or even their politics (can't remember the rest of the grounds, but you get the idea).


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


    Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If we're both agreed that religion isn't the problem, but how it's used by people who are prejudiced towards other people, then we could apply that same principle to any ideology. It isn't the ideology that's the problem, it's people.

    People who will use any ideology to humiliate or exploit other people who do not think the same way they do, should be prevented from doing so. Those same methods of prevention should also apply to non-religious people who would seek to impose their ideology on religious people.

    Nobody will ever have everything their own way if everyone in society is supposed to be treated equally, we all have to learn to compromise, and that includes religious people, and non-religious people, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or even their politics (can't remember the rest of the grounds, but you get the idea).

    And that compromise is people are allowed to practice their religion as long as it is not affecting others negatively. That means no stoning, sacrificing your neighbors dog etc.

    Equality legislation is for everyone, a non religious person cant discriminate against a religious person and a religious person cant discriminate against a non religious person. Of course given that religion was given a higher place in the past it was allowed to get away with things and anything that attempts to bring everyone to the same level is responded to with cries of discrimination. Legalizing homosexuality and contraception were seen as attacks against religion.


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


    So when LGBT people can finally marry the person of their choice, is it going to be acceptable for the prejudice owners of hotels, florists, wedding outfitters, jewellers, car hire outlets, hairdressers etc, etc to refuse to cater for gay/transgender weddings because it goes against their religious beliefs?

    I'm sure that on realising the prejudice the wedding party will not want to continue to seek their services, however do you think they are right to make a complaint to the equality commission and go public about it to save other couples the humiliation?

    Should such people be in positions of providing services to the unsuspecting public if they cannot be professional enough to keep their opinions to themselves? I'd be sick if I had ever brought so much as a cream bun in that bakery to be honest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    No, I am not, I am refusing to support an organisation which, from the way I see it, engaged in a campaign to harass a business owner and used a twisted interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws when the bakery owner explained to the customer that his request was in conflict with the ethos of the business. Tolerance, respect and understanding goes both ways, and if you're not prepared to practice it yourself, you shouldn't expect it from others. It wasn't because the customer may have been LGBT that the order could not be fulfilled, it was because the political message the customer wanted to promote was in conflict with the bakery's religious ethos.

    Yes, you are supporting them by your stance, your lack of realisation of this denotes a degree of cognitive dissonance in your attitude.

    When a business opens to the public and they offer a service like putting names or slogans on a cake then they can't refuse to put on certain slogans because they don't like or don't agree with them, unless the slogan is against the law like an incitement to hatred.
    People have used politics a lot longer than religion to exercise oppression and bigotry against anyone who disagreed with them, and now they aren't allowed do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous, but at least "2,000 years of persecution" is new, as opposed to the usual bleating about "800 years...".

    That's like the chewbacca defence, it just doesn't make sense. To have politics you need a political system and gods and religion have been around a lot longer than politics. Also, politicians, kings, emperors, czars and leaders of every type have used religion many times to enforce their will or stir up hatred against some minority or other.
    Either you want to work towards a progressive society where all people are treated equally with dignity and respect, or you just want a society where some people are more equal than others, and the second class citizens will be made to make reparations for historical events in which they played no part. Which is it?

    How does not baking a cake for someone because of a legal slogan promote equality? If a Satanist went in there and ordered a cake with a satanic slogan on it and was refused, they'd be against his/hers religious affiliation then no?
    I would urge you not to let that little bit of power you now feel you have over other people go to your head, or else you're no different to the people you despise.

    What power do you feel that I have? And why do you feel I have it? What source does this power derive from?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    What point?

    You can support discrimination all you want but thankfully the law and the likes of the UN view us all as equal so you won't get your world where you can lord over the lesser people.

    That's a nice story but my point was that some people have no problem with minorities being able to discriminate but if its a white christian male then all bets are off. The UN also recognise the freedom to practice ones religion without external interference. For me freedom and liberty trumps equality.
    Equality legislation is all very well meaning but what it mostly does is highlight differences whereby people are more divided with it than without it.

    The whole "you want to enslave people' narrative is amusing but wrong and in some ways shows that lack of a rational argument over the emotive argument.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    So...people should be free to exercise their bigotry, is that your message from this?

    The point of this story is what happens when a minority challenges another minority over some issue of 'rights'?

    It shows that there is a de-facto hierarchy of rights that are bestowed on some people. In this case a Muslims mans rights to not serve women in his barber shop > A lesbian who wants to get her hair cut.

    Its all very stupid I know. Why would a Lesbian deliberately go into such an establishment anyway knowing full well the response. However, this is where we are, where people can deliberately cause a fuss over the most stupid of things because of some equality authority ruling and the press gives it the legs.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Ah, but it is being argued that the refusal to make the cake, and conscientious objection on religious grounds in general, are part of the human right to freedom of religion. If this is the case then it must apply to both employers and their employees, including civil servants no? If it is covered by a human right it cannot apply only to private business owners.

    Are you now advocating that the state now has to take on a religious role or a stance on what is their official religion? The state should be secular, if you work for the state then that is the position one has to adopt. The state cannot make decisions based on religious values however, a private business in another thing altogether.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4 ProKitzel


    Our politicians are far too backward in relation to things like that. A step like this would be far too radical and will likely take years before it happens.


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


    jank wrote: »
    Are you now advocating that the state now has to take on a religious role or a stance on what is their official religion? The state should be secular, if you work for the state then that is the position one has to adopt. The state cannot make decisions based on religious values however, a private business in another thing altogether.

    I'm quite unsure how you interpreted that from my post? Freedom of religion is a human right (including the right of freedom from religion), therefore if conscientious objection on religious grounds is covered by this right, it applies to every person. Not just private business owners. It has nothing to do with an 'official' religion. Muslim supermarket workers can refuse to serve pork and alcohol, Jehovah's Witness medical professionals can refuse to be involved in care/procedures that include blood transfusions, atheist hotel workers can refuse to serve communion/confirmation functions and Christian bakers, whether owners or employees, can refuse to bake cakes for LGBT weddings/events on religious grounds. This is what you are arguing for is it not? There can't be human rights that only apply for business owners and Christians and not anyone else! Either it is covered by the right to freedom of religion and applies to everyone who would object to anything on religious grounds, or it is not.


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


    jank wrote: »

    Its all very stupid I know. Why would a Lesbian deliberately go into such an establishment anyway knowing full well the response.

    How did she 'know full well the response'? If I were to go into a barber shop tomorrow and ask for a number 2 all over I would not expect to be refused! If I were to go into a bakery and order a cake to celebrate my gay friends 10th anniversary as a couple, I would not expect to be refused.

    How is one supposed to identify these religious fundies prior to entering their establishment and engaging with them? If you have any tips please share because I would prefer not to encounter them and would certainly prefer not to give them my business.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    md23040 wrote: »
    Not that I agree with this nonsense but why don't you go onto a Muslim cafe and demand a bacon buttie or else go into a kosher bakery and ask for a National Front style cake with a big swastika on it and see how far you get in Liberal UK or anywhere else for that matter.


    I often eat rather sandwiches in Muslim owned cafés; most workingman's cafés in the UK are owned by Muslim Turks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    jank wrote: »
    The point of this story is what happens when a minority challenges another minority over some issue of 'rights'?

    It shows that there is a de-facto hierarchy of rights that are bestowed on some people. In this case a Muslims mans rights to not serve women in his barber shop > A lesbian who wants to get her hair cut.

    Just because something silly happens in canada doesn't mean it should also happen in Northern Ireland.

    Also a presumably white male christian talking about a hierarchy of rights is kind of laughable since historically he would be the one sitting at the top of that hierarchy.
    jank wrote: »
    Its all very stupid I know. Why would a Lesbian deliberately go into such an establishment anyway knowing full well the response. However, this is where we are, where people can deliberately cause a fuss over the most stupid of things because of some equality authority ruling and the press gives it the legs.

    How is she meant to know that he is a sharia-adherer and not a non-adherer? Why should she even know what sharia is?, Canada is a western country and not one where sharia has sway. 99% of all barbers would cut her hair, why should she be refused just because she's a woman? Why should one mans interpretation of a 1400 year old book dictated by an invisible man in the sky decide where she gets her hair cut?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement