Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

osarusan · 03-03-2015 3:54pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The key point though that is the subject of this particular thread is that it hasn't been decided by a court yet that Asher's are in breach of any anti-discrimination laws. Just because the Equality Commission claims they are, doesn't make it so.

Surely the subject of this thread is the proposed law itself.

Regarding Asher's bakery, the Equality Comission looked at the submissions available to them (which may not represent all the facts/arguments) and felt there was a case to argue for discrimination - quite removed from the 'supporting gay marriage' angle you argued earlier.

As it happens, if you read my posts in the 'gay cake' thread, you'll see that I am not convinced there is a case to be made there - in fact, I believe that the case recently shifted from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation to discrimination on the grounds of political belief (I am just going from memory here and am open to correction).

It is possible to not feel strongly about that particular case and still feel that this proposed exemption is beyone stupid and backward.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2015 5:09pm

osarusan wrote: »

Surely the subject of this thread is the proposed law itself.

Regarding Asher's bakery, the Equality Comission looked at the submissions available to them (which may not represent all the facts/arguments) and felt there was a case to argue for discrimination - quite removed from the 'supporting gay marriage' angle you argued earlier.

My point in mentioning that the Equality Commission on their website is that they themselves are making a political statement in calling for a change in legislation, when they're supposed to be an independent Commission funded by the tax paying public, which includes people of a religious belief.

So they are an independent body, funded by the State, advocating for marriage equality, but also charged with advocating for people of religious belief, and people who hold political opinions for which they may be discriminated against.

Asher's bakery are a business with a religious ethos, a legal entity in it's own right, and the question is did they breach equality legislation by refusing to fulfil an order which they claim would have been in conflict with the ethos of their business. Because they are a bakery that designs bespoke cakes, I would think they are well within their rights to refuse to fulfil an order which is in conflict with the ethos of their business.

That's why I believe the Equality Commission changed their discrimination claim from sexual orientation to political opinion after they sought legal advice. IMO they're desperate to make something stick. I'm just curious to understand why they are going to such lengths to prosecute a business with a religious ethos when they would normally deal with discrimination in the public sector, not in the private sector, and even at that, they are also supposed to advocate for people who are also being discriminated against on the grounds of their religion. It simply makes no sense to me how the Equality Commission even thought it was a good idea to take this particular case on behalf of the individual who feels they were discriminated against on the grounds of their political opinion.

The ramifications of the bakery being found to have breached equality legislation could be just as dire as a 'conscience clause'. Because to refuse to fulfil an order would be in breach of some nutbar's political opinion. That's just for starters. They're a bakery ffs, they shouldn't have to be involved in politics.

As it happens, if you read my posts in the 'gay cake' thread, you'll see that I am not convinced there is a case to be made there - in fact, I believe that the case recently shifted from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation to discrimination on the grounds of political belief (I am just going from memory here and am open to correction).

I didn't read it (well, read the first few pages, knew where it was going and bailed out early - expecting to be able to defend people's right to their religious beliefs in AH? Better chance of Jesus making a comeback before that'd happen :pac:) for exactly the same reason as yourself below -

It is possible to not feel strongly about that particular case and still feel that this proposed exemption is beyone stupid and backward.

The proposed exemption really IS a backwards legal step, and I agree it IS stupid, but when an individual can hold a business to ransom for not supporting his political opinion or be forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs, I'm not sure which outcome makes less sense.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2015 5:27pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What? Of course I am aware of the law regarding legal recognition of same-sex marriages in the North. You are confusing a failure to recognize under the law with prohibition as Reprise embarrassingly and unintentionally demonstrated early in this thread there is a significant difference.

What? I posted the exact piece of legislation in reply to your post where it states that one of the legal impediments to two people who want to marry is that they are of the same sex!

That's not just "failure to recognise", it's legally prohibited for two people of the same sex to be married, and two people of the same sex who are married in another jurisdiction, their marriage is recognised only within the context of a civil partnership.

Not even remotely. Your dizzying dance between different issues and standards is as transparent as it is bizarre.

Again, what? I have to dance between different issues that other posters bring in such as race and so on because bi-racial marriage between two people who are not of the same sex is a completely different dynamic to discussing marriage between two people of the same sex. It's bloody complicated enough already.

I mean, have you ever seen anyone in these threads bring up the fact that people in this country who are intellectually disabled are also not entitled to marriage without having to jump through numerous hoops?

Nah, best we stick to silly comparisons about Alabama and Russia and setting our watches back 200 years and so on.

jobbridge4life · 03-03-2015 5:47pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What? I posted the exact piece of legislation in reply to your post where it states that one of the legal impediments to two people who want to marry is that they are of the same sex!

That's not just "failure to recognise", it's legally prohibited for two people of the same sex to be married, and two people of the same sex who are married in another jurisdiction, their marriage is recognised only within the context of a civil partnership.

It absolutely failure to recognize. Once again there is nothing to stop me holding a marriage ceremony in the North, or holding a marriage abroad and returning home and living exactly as a married couple the only difference is that the state will not recognize my marriage. You have suggest repeatedly that gay marriage is an 'illegal act' the clear implication is that it is one that is actively prohibited and punished by the state as any other act that one, in common parlance, would refer to as an 'illegal act', the sale and supply of drugs, murder, or as Reprise proffered throwing his wife down the stairs. If you can't see or refuse to acknowledge the tangible difference here then debating the issue with you is off limited worth.

The second part of your response is honestly just a rant that has nothing to do with me.

BlaasForRafa · 03-03-2015 5:56pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, but when groups like Queerspace go out of their way to orchestrate publicity stunts and then claim discrimination because they couldn't force a bakery with a religious ethos to support same-sex marriage

They weren't asking them to support same-sex marriage, they were asking them to bake a cake. Do you think that people who print Man Utd replica shirts all support Man Utd? Do you think people that print Fianna Fail flyers all support Fianna Fail?

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2015 6:11pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It absolutely failure to recognize. Once again there is nothing to stop me holding a marriage ceremony in the North, or holding a marriage abroad and returning home and living exactly as a married couple the only difference is that the state will not recognize my marriage. You have suggest repeatedly that gay marriage is an 'illegal act' the clear implication is that it is one that is actively prohibited and punished by the state as any other act that one, in common parlance, would refer to as an 'illegal act', the sale and supply of drugs, murder, or as Reprise proffered throwing his wife down the stairs. If you can't see or refuse to acknowledge the tangible difference here then debating the issue with you is off limited worth.

Once again, just because I like you (I'm not normally in the habit of repeating myself) -

(6) For the purposes of this Article and Article 7 there is a legal impediment to a marriage if—

(a)

that marriage would be void by virtue of Article 18 of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (NI 14) (prohibited degrees of relationship);
.

(b)

one of the parties is, or both are, already married[F1 or a civil partner];
.

(c)

one or both of the parties will be under the age of 16 on the date of solemnisation of the intended marriage;
.

(d)

one or both of the parties is or are incapable of understanding the nature of a marriage ceremony or of consenting to marriage; or
.

(e)

both parties are of the same sex.

You can play "pretend marriage" all you want, but your marriage would be unlawful, and therefore illegal, unrecognised by the State, and denied the protection and privileges State offers to legally married couples.

It's you who is engaging in all sorts of word play to get around the fact that you're not legally entitled to marry a person of the same sex. Your ideas about 'common parlance' and the acts you listed thereafter are the difference between civil and criminal law.

The second part of your response is honestly just a rant that has nothing to do with me.

That was in response to your accusations of a 'dizzying dance', something which you are fairly adept at yourself. How are you fixed for a two-step? I'm more of a tango man myself, maybe we'll do the mambo at your pretend wedding?*

*Yes, I'm being facetious, as at this point I'm unable to take your posts seriously any more and I genuinely do think you're on a bit of a wind-up.

gozunda · 03-03-2015 6:48pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's all fine as long as you ignore the fact that people who hold certain religious beliefs are entitled to the same right to express their opinion as anyone else in society who disagrees with them, because they're just as much a part of society as anyone else, so they are entitled to advocate for what they believe as much as anyone else.

OEJ - my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I may wish to thump you but the law of the land says I cannot. In the same way anti SSM groups and individuals do not have a defacto right to discriminate against those who hold the belief that SSM would be a good thing.

Anti SSM individuals / groups can certainly hold their own views on the matter, they can even advocate those views however misguided they may or may not be, but they cannot express such views in a way that has a detrimental effect on a person with an opposing view. That is the crux of the present discrimination case.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It IS their business, and they are entitled to protection against discrimination by the same Commission that is taking a case against them, a Commission which is supposed to be independent and is not supposed to support one political position over another.

The bakery is not being 'discrimated' against. That is twisted logic. The bakery as a business is expected to obey the law of the land and provide offered goods and services to all its customers equally.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, but when groups like Queerspace go out of their way to orchestrate publicity stunts and then claim discrimination because they couldn't force a bakery with a religious ethos to support same-sex marriage, that's not doing their campaign any favours IMO. They want tolerance and understanding, but aren't prepared to give anything themselves. They're basically cutting off their noses to spite their faces IMO when support for marriage equality is even less than down here in the Republic where 82% of the population identify as Roman Catholic, and there is 78% support among the same population for marriage equality.

Now This is getting tiresome. It has already been said many times that there is NO evidence whatsoever that the Queerspace group "orchestrated publicity stunts". The customer went to a high street bakery with multiple branches, that offered bespoke cakes. And ordered a bespoke cake. No where did Ashers proclaim their religous ethos. Their was absolutely no religous statement on their (original) website. There was no bible tracts on the walls. And I can be fairly certain that many of the bakeries in NI (and there's a lot of them because NI people like their wee buns!) are run, managed and staffed with people with religous views. Interestingly only Ashers started screeming about the matter, publishing the letter and producing a slick video in conjunction with the right wing Christian Institute in their own very obvious "orchestrated publicity stunt". The bakery is doing a huge disservice to society as a whole and are stirring up hatred and animosity by their actions. Shame on them.

jobbridge4life · 03-03-2015 8:42pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can play "pretend marriage" all you want, but your marriage would be unlawful, and therefore illegal, unrecognised by the State, and denied the protection and privileges State offers to legally married couples.

I wouldn't be 'playing pretend marriage' though would I, I would have been legally engaged in a marriage in another state and or married according to the traditions of my faith. I'd be living a married life in every way except as you pointed out the legal recognition. In any case I am merely trying to highlight to you that your consistent need to refer to gay marriage as an illegal act or to posit that the cake was promoting an illegal act as though it was advocating rape or drug dealing is deeply disingenuous. That you can't acknowledge the difference that I have illustrated is perplexing to say the least.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was in response to your accusations of a 'dizzying dance', something which you are fairly adept at yourself. How are you fixed for a two-step? I'm more of a tango man myself, maybe we'll do the mambo at your pretend wedding?*

*Yes, I'm being facetious, as at this point I'm unable to take your posts seriously any more and I genuinely do think you're on a bit of a wind-up.

You're being considerably more than facetious.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2015 8:55pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I wouldn't be 'playing pretend marriage' though would I, I would have been legally engaged in a marriage in another state and or married according to the traditions of my faith. I'd be living a married life in every way except as you pointed out the legal recognition. In any case I am merely trying to highlight to you that your consistent need to refer to gay marriage as an illegal act or to posit that the cake was promoting an illegal act as though it was advocating rape or drug dealing is deeply disingenuous. That you can't acknowledge the difference that I have illustrated is perplexing to say the least.

Would it be fair to say then that by being requested to decorate a cake to the desired specifications of the customer, that the reputation of the business could have been damaged by being seen to be supporting an unlawful act?

Hell, I know it's a stretch, you know it's a stretch, but I reckon the bakery could claim tortious interference. How are you on contract law?

You're being considerably more than facetious.

Now I'm genuinely not sure if you're flirting with me or not, but I'll take the compliment anyway, cheers

jobbridge4life · 03-03-2015 9:15pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would it be fair to say then that by being requested to decorate a cake to the desired specifications of the customer, that the reputation of the business could have been damaged by being seen to be supporting an unlawful act?

No because again, a same-sex marriage is not itself an unlawful act. Find me a prosecution for being partner to a same-sex marriage, or for conducting a same-sex ceremony?

No because I don't accept that advocating for the reform of the law quite equates to supporting an unlawful act.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hell, I know it's a stretch, you know it's a stretch, but I reckon the bakery could claim tortious interference. How are you on contract law?

They could try if they liked. They'd fail.

One eyed Jack · 03-03-2015 10:47pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No because again, a same-sex marriage is not itself an unlawful act. Find me a prosecution for being partner to a same-sex marriage, or for conducting a same-sex ceremony?

No because I don't accept that advocating for the reform of the law quite equates to supporting an unlawful act.

This relationship is never going to work if you expect me to do all the hard work. You find me an example of a same-sex marriage that's legally recognised in Northern Ireland, we can let the marriage equality lobbyists know then that they can call off the campaign.

They could try if they liked. They'd fail.

Well that's a very defeatist attitude! You couldn't say that with any certainty though, I think it could make an interesting test case. Maybe I should get onto the Equality Commission about that, they seem quite fond of spending tax payers money on cases they can't win, like the previous cases against the christian owner of a printing business who refused a request to print a pornographic gay magazine, or the christian owner of a B&B who refused a gay couple.

I'd love to have the luxury of a bottomless purse, imagine the fun we could have jobsbridge? We could set up our own gay bakery!

No touching the buns though, they're strictly for the customers

jank · 04-03-2015 2:02am

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

Again, you are deliberately confusing what is an employee and employer. I have already explained this.

If a muslim or a christian refuses to bake a cake or handle pork or whatever due to their religious ground, if they are an employee then the employer has the right to fire them..

However, if the business owner refuses to bake a cake with a political slogan on it because of their religion then fine, they lose a customer and their competition gain a customer. There is a business cost to having such views.

If you work for the public sector or for the government then you are an employee of the state who cannot hold official stance on religion. Therefore you cannot refuse to serve people on religious grounds etc..

jank · 04-03-2015 2:08am

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

This barber shop has been around for almost 90 years. You think its an accident that this happened? Out of all the barber shops in Toronto a city of more than 4 million she happens to walk in there on the whim...

Similar with Ashers bakery. The person deliberately drove 20 miles to go to this specific bakery and asked for a political slogan to be made up on a cake. Ambulance chasing at its finest tbh.

jank · 04-03-2015 2:29am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Firstly its contradictory because they are saying their is a human right to freedom of conscience/religion but that a private business or organisation is entitled to that human right. So in effect it is claiming human rights for non humans.

How is a business owner a non-human? Is the owner of the Toronto barber shop a piece of cardboard and the owner of Ashers bakery is a bottle of beer?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Secondly they have both suggested that allowing anti discrimination/equality laws on the statute books creates some sort of hierarchy of rights and that it places more importance on certain minorities. BUT this stance is again completely contradictory because on the one hand they argue private businesses or employees of private businesses can claim freedom of conscience rights but that state organisations and employees of state organisations cannot do so. So you have a hierarchy of rights for a person depending on who their employer is. The very thing they argue against.

Actually allowing a business owner to conduct their business through whatever religious ethos they want free from state interference is more conductive to a free society then one that forces everyone to live where one size fits all. No one is forcing one to work for the state or for the public service, however if you do then you are aware of the secular nature of the states ethos, separating of church and state.

If you are a teacher in a public school for example and want to have sharia law in your classroom where women wear the veil and are separated from the boys in the class then that is obviously wrong as the state should not being getting involved in religion what so ever.

However, if you want to setup your own Muslim/Jewish/Atheist school and teach a certain ethos and have a school that lives by a certain ethos then knock yourself out and let the parents pay for the privilege.

You should be free to setup your own private business and conduct your business your way. If you are a bigot and racist then you won't have many customers so the cost of being a bigot and racist is bourne by the business owner.

The alternative of course is a state where all must do what they are told. A muslim man has to handle pork even if he owns the business, a Jewish woman has to work on the Sabbath, a Christian has to bake a cake or else the state will punish you as it does not care about your religious conscious even though you own your own business.

I don't like bigots or racists but I trust the state even less with such authoritarian measures that are passed on the premise of the 'greater good'.

Annasopra · 04-03-2015 8:46am

jank wrote: »

How is a business owner a non-human? Is the owner of the Toronto barber shop a piece of cardboard and the owner of Ashers bakery is a bottle of beer?

Actually allowing a business owner to conduct their business through whatever religious ethos they want free from state interference is more conductive to a free society then one that forces everyone to live where one size fits all. No one is forcing one to work for the state or for the public service, however if you do then you are aware of the secular nature of the states ethos, separating of church and state.

If you are a teacher in a public school for example and want to have sharia law in your classroom where women wear the veil and are separated from the boys in the class then that is obviously wrong as the state should not being getting involved in religion what so ever.

However, if you want to setup your own Muslim/Jewish/Atheist school and teach a certain ethos and have a school that lives by a certain ethos then knock yourself out and let the parents pay for the privilege.

You should be free to setup your own private business and conduct your business your way. If you are a bigot and racist then you won't have many customers so the cost of being a bigot and racist is bourne by the business owner.

The alternative of course is a state where all must do what they are told. A muslim man has to handle pork even if he owns the business, a Jewish woman has to work on the Sabbath, a Christian has to bake a cake or else the state will punish you as it does not care about your religious conscious even though you own your own business.

I don't like bigots or racists but I trust the state even less with such authoritarian measures that are passed on the premise of the 'greater good'.

I'm saying a business as an entity or organisation cannot claim human rights.

Again you are completely skipping over the point that you support freedom of conscience for business owners but not for state employees. That is a completely contradictory stance. You complained earlier about an alleged hierarchy of rights but you are supporting a hierarchy of rights on freedom of conscience. You are saying state employees can't have freedom of consciense but private business owners can.

One eyed Jack · 04-03-2015 11:07am

gozunda wrote: »

OEJ - my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I may wish to thump you but the law of the land says I cannot. In the same way anti SSM groups and individuals do not have a defacto right to discriminate against those who hold the belief that SSM would be a good thing.

That's entirely debatable and dependent on the circumstances involved.

Anti SSM individuals / groups can certainly hold their own views on the matter, they can even advocate those views however misguided they may or may not be, but they cannot express such views in a way that has a detrimental effect on a person with an opposing view. That is the crux of the present discrimination case.

Well like you said earlier, your rights end where my rights begin, and vice versa. Freedom of expression laws say that you can say that religion has no place in your idea of a modern society, but you cannot violate my right to my freedom of religion as that would have a detrimental effect upon me. You also cannot coerce me into supporting your political views. I would not be discriminating against you by refusing to support your particular views. That's really the crux of the present discrimination case.

The bakery is not being 'discrimated' against. That is twisted logic. The bakery as a business is expected to obey the law of the land and provide offered goods and services to all its customers equally.

They did not deny the customer the same standard and quality of goods and services that they offer to any other customer. They are a bakery offering bespoke cakes and so the final call on the design of the cake is their call. Refusing to print what a person wants on a cake is not in my view grounds to suggest discrimination against that person.

Now This is getting tiresome. It has already been said many times that there is NO evidence whatsoever that the Queerspace group "orchestrated publicity stunts". The customer went to a high street bakery with multiple branches, that offered bespoke cakes. And ordered a bespoke cake. No where did Ashers proclaim their religous ethos. Their was absolutely no religous statement on their (original) website. There was no bible tracts on the walls. And I can be fairly certain that many of the bakeries in NI (and there's a lot of them because NI people like their wee buns!) are run, managed and staffed with people with religous views.

I presume then that you have evidence to back up these statements? Because if you're saying that I cannot make reasonable assumptions, then by that same standard, you must produce evidence of your own claims. I've asked you previously for the letter sent by the Equality Commission to the owners of the bakery and you have yet to produce it. It would help me understand the case better if I knew exactly why the Equality Commission think they have a case!

Interestingly only Ashers started screeming about the matter, publishing the letter and producing a slick video in conjunction with the right wing Christian Institute in their own very obvious "orchestrated publicity stunt". The bakery is doing a huge disservice to society as a whole and are stirring up hatred and animosity by their actions. Shame on them.

Say what? What do you mean only Ashers started screaming about the matter? It was the individual who made a complaint to the Equality Commission that brought in the big guns! Then the Equality Commission with their bottomless purse wrote a 17 page letter to the owners of the bakery. The owners of the bakery brought in some charity organisation that apparently has diddly squat by means of any financial or legal muscle, and you're blaming the bakery for stirring up hatred and animosity by their actions? It'd be rude of me to say "GTFO!!", so I won't, but seriously, as twisted logic and spin goes, your point of view is almost admirable if I didn't disagree with it so much!

gozunda · 04-03-2015 12:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's entirely debatable and dependent on the circumstances involved.

And as I outlined according to the law of the land. Did you read that section?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well like you said earlier, your rights end where my rights begin, and vice versa. Freedom of expression laws say that you can say that religion has no place in your idea of a modern society, but you cannot violate my right to my freedom of religion as that would have a detrimental effect upon me. You also cannot coerce me into supporting your political views. I would not be discriminating against you by refusing to support your particular views. That's really the crux of the present discrimination case.

No one is 'violating your' freedoms of religion. You are absolutely free to worship whomever and whatever in your place of worship or home. What you cannot do is use those beliefs to discriminate against others. Your envisioning of a society where gay/black/single people will be required to pick their way through life as an obstacle course of other’s people’s views is a recipe for anarchy.

No one is 'coercing' you into supporting any political views. A celebratory Man United cake could meet the same fate in your envisioned world as a cake for a LGBT celebratory event.

Again you are being duplicitous. The issue regarding the gay cake saga is not about discriminating against someone because you refuse to support their particular views. It is nothing to do with marriage equality or your views on it. It is about a business discrimating against a customer by refusing to provide goods and services.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They did not deny the customer the same standard and quality of goods and services that they offer to any other customer. They are a bakery offering bespoke cakes and so the final call on the design of the cake is their call. Refusing to print what a person wants on a cake is not in my view grounds to suggest discrimination against that person.

Let's see what the courts decides before attempting to take the high moral ground on this issue ok.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I presume then that you have evidence to back up these statements? Because if you're saying that I cannot make reasonable assumptions, then by that same standard, you must produce evidence of your own claims. I've asked you previously for the letter sent by the Equality Commission to the owners of the bakery and you have yet to produce it. It would help me understand the case better if I knew exactly why the Equality Commission think they have a case!

I have to produce absolutly nothing for you. You made those claims and I have challenged you. I see no backup of those claims whatsoever. The letter has also been summarised in many reports. If YOU can't find the letter then go read the summaries. You should find what was 'actually' said. You do not need anyone to hold your hand for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Say what? What do you mean only Ashers started screaming about the matter? It was the individual who made a complaint to the Equality Commission that brought in the big guns! Then the Equality Commission with their bottomless purse wrote a 17 page letter to the owners of the bakery. The owners of the bakery brought in some charity organisation that apparently has diddly squat by means of any financial or legal muscle, and you're blaming the bakery for stirring up hatred and animosity by their actions? It'd be rude of me to say "GTFO!!", so I won't, but seriously, as twisted logic and spin goes, your point of view is almost admirable if I didn't disagree with it so much!

I was just going to post a thread on that. Do bear with me

One eyed Jack · 04-03-2015 12:34pm

gozunda wrote: »

It is about a business discrimating against a customer by refusing to provide goods and services.

....

Let's see what the courts decides before attempting to take the high moral ground on this issue ok.

Do feel free to contradict yourself. I'm not picky...

I was just going to post a thread on that. Do bear with me

I was thinking too how a thread on this case would fare in the Legal Discussion forum, but I figured it could be more trouble than it's worth to start one...

gozunda · 04-03-2015 12:56pm

jank wrote: »

This barber shop has been around for almost 90 years. You think its an accident that this happened? Out of all the barber shops in Toronto a city of more than 4 million she happens to walk in there on the whim...

Similar with Ashers bakery. The person deliberately drove 20 miles to go to this specific bakery and asked for a political slogan to be made up on a cake. Ambulance chasing at its finest tbh.

It is this level of misinformation and apparent homophobia that has contaminated this whole debate (btw Jank this not only relates to this thread)

The headquarters of Queerspace is located in Belfast City centre. So is the branch of Asher's Bakery where the cake was ordered. It would take the average person 5 minutes by bus or bicycle to go from one location to the other.

The cake was ordered by an individual from Queerspace in Belfast to take to an event hosted by the Mayor of North Down. Nobody drove '20' miles to this specific bakery - They walked / took a bus etc the to a bakery in the major city of NI! Many NI bakeries are managed and staffed by individuals with religous views, however I'm sure most people would expect a high street bakery with multiple branches to be a little more professional than the average small town mom and pop setup. So much for expectations!

As for 'ambulance chasing' - I have deep misgivings that Ashers (only a later declared fundamentalist christian bakery) decided to make a point by refusing in the first instance to provide a customer with a simple bespoke cake and message because it was 'against their biblical beliefs' and "It is what God would want us to do". The customer did what anyone other person gay/black/disabled would do when faced with a similar refusal - they reported the matter. But no - they did not publicise it.

That this action by Ashers bakery came at a time when SSM is under current review, with the last Stormont debate only being narrowly defeated and with a very real chance of being subject to a judicial review is quite coincidental imo.

Ashers knew exactly what they were doing when they refused to serve the customer. No where did they advertise their fundamentalist views so the customer could not know that this was 'a Christian ' type of bakery.

General manager, Daniel McArthur, was quoted as saying "marriage in Northern Ireland is "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand"."

A 'stand' indeed. I will firmly place the shoe on the other foot and make the call that Ashers not only knew what they were doing in an attempt to polarise the issue of SSM, but that by having a group such as the Christian Institute standing in the wings to produce a slick video and publish the Equality Commission letter all the while pretending a stance of 'gods own warriors standing against the vileness of LGBT people'. The same Christian Institute were directly active in opposing SSM legislation in the rest of the UK but were defeated there.
If there is any ambulance chasing then it is the Ashers and the Christisn Institute and their ilk.

gozunda · 04-03-2015 1:09pm

gozunda wrote:

It is about a business discrimating against a customer by refusing to provide goods and services.
....

Let's see what the courts decides before attempting to take the high moral ground on this issue ok.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do feel free to contradict yourself. I'm not picky...

I was thinking too how a thread on this case would fare in the Legal Discussion forum, but I figured it could be more trouble than it's worth to start one... o

Do you lack clarity as to what the Equality Commission have stated or do you wish just to make it up as you go along??

Yes It remains the stated Iissue is about a business discrimating against a customer by refusing to provide goods and services and that is what the the courts will make a decision on.

If you wish to take some high moral ground then feel free to do but try not to fudge the facts as they stand

jank · 04-03-2015 1:11pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I'm saying a business as an entity or organisation cannot claim human rights.

I never state it thus. I am saying the individual in their work duties in as a private business owner can have any ethos they so wish. This seems to be a problem for you. This however would give you and anyone in the LGBT community the right to conduct their own private business affairs anyway they wish.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again you are completely skipping over the point that you support freedom of conscience for business owners but not for state employees. That is a completely contradictory stance. You complained earlier about an alleged hierarchy of rights but you are supporting a hierarchy of rights on freedom of conscience. You are saying state employees can't have freedom of consciense but private business owners can.

State employees use public money, private business owners are not funded thus should be able to do as they wish. Its quite simple. State employees can in their private live have freedom of conscience but as in their duties as a public employe that cannot let any ethos interfere with their day to day work. This is why the state recognises that religious organisations can not be forced into presently drafted equality legislation .e.g. someone sue the RCC because they don't allow women to be priest or force a religious wedding ceremony on a LGBT couple.

I want to live in a world where people are free to live as they wish, you on the other hand have no problem telling people how they should live and will use the state to punish people that do not conform to your own moral values, much like Ireland was like 50 years ago. Replacing one system of tyranny with another.

One eyed Jack · 04-03-2015 1:20pm

gozunda wrote: »

Do you lack clarity as to what the Equality Commission have stated or do you wish just to make it up as you go along??

I lack the clarity to the exact motivation for the Equality Commission's stance on this issue. As for making it up as I go along, come on now gozunda, I'm being fairly lenient in making allowances for you to express your "deep misgivings" and "making calls" that Ashers knew what they were doing and so on. I don't mind speculation and conjecture if it's based on reasonable assumptions, which you could well be right about, but you lack the evidence to prove anything for definite beyond your gut feeling.

Yes It remains the stated Iissue is about a business discrimating against a customer by refusing to provide goods and services and that is what the the courts will make a decision on.

If you wish to take some high moral ground then feel free to do but try not to fudge the facts as they stand

I'm not taking any moral high ground here, we just see the issue from different perspectives is all, and we disagree on who is actually more responsible for the case arising in the first place. Nobody can say for sure, but we are all free to speculate, within reason of course.

jank · 04-03-2015 1:33pm

gozunda wrote: »

A 'stand' indeed. I will firmly place the shoe on the other foot and make the call that Ashers not only knew what they were doing in an attempt to polarise the issue of SSM, but that by having a group such as the Christian Institute standing in the wings to produce a slick video and publish the Equality Commission letter all the while pretending a stance of 'gods own warriors standing against the vileness of LGBT people'. The same Christian Institute were directly active in opposing SSM legislation in the rest of the UK but were defeated there.
If there is any ambulance chasing then it is the Ashers and the Christisn Institute and their ilk.

This is a gas narrative. So Ashers was 'waiting' in the wings for someone to walk into their bakery and ask them to make a cake with a political slogan on it that went against their religious beliefs and they pounced on this to make a point even though they may have to close their business? Do you have any proof of this, or is it all a theory? The person who is engaging in ambulance chasing is the person who went off crying to Dad (the state) because someone wouldn't bake them a cake.

I would also stand by the bakery which refused to bake a cake for someone who wanted biblical slogans espousing slavery or killing homosexuals. I would come down just as hard on the other side.

gozunda · 04-03-2015 2:17pm

jank wrote: »

This is a gas narrative. 1) So Ashers was 'waiting' in the wings for someone to walk into their bakery and ask them to make a cake with a political slogan on it that went against their religious beliefs and they pounced on this to make a point even though they may have to close their business? 2) Do you have any proof of this, or is it all a theory? The person who is engaging in ambulance chasing is the person who went off crying to Dad (the state) because someone wouldn't bake them a cake.

I would also stand by the bakery which refused to bake a cake for someone who wanted biblical slogans espousing slavery or killing homosexuals. I would come down just as hard on the other side.

Gas alright. 20 miles was it?

1) Ashers bakery initially accepted the order from the customer and then AFTER discussing it with the directors of the company (and who knows who else) they decided only latterly to refuse the order and then rang customer to tell them so. Ashers knew the law on discrimination but decided in conjunction with the well funded Christian Institute to publicise it and make a big issue of the whole thing. Considering the Christian Institute is covering their legal costs it is highly unlikely they will 'have to close their business'. The red flag here is the Christian Institute which might be described as not gay friendly and has already spent huge sums of money lobbying the UK government in their attempts to prevent the enactment of SSM in the rest of the UK - and where they failed. They appear to be trying new tactics in NI.

2) As per your previous statement

jank wrote:

This barber shop has been around for almost 90 years. You think its an accident that this happened? Out of all the barber shops in Toronto a city of more than 4 million she happens to walk in there on the whim...

Similar with Ashers bakery. The person deliberately drove 20 miles to go to this specific bakery and asked for a political slogan to be made up on a cake. Ambulance chasing at its finest tbh.

So you can claim (without any evidence) that the barber shop was 'targeted' but demand 'proof' when the shoe doesn't fit to your liking. See anything wrong there?

It has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread and elsewhere that the LGBT group 'targeted' the Bakery without any proof whatsoever. However looking at the facts as they stand it would appear that the bakery and the Christian Institute may very well be using this a cause celebre for their own fundamentalist beliefs. The customer was denied service and as any self respecting person made a complaint of discrimination. Your repeating of misrepresented facts such as the 20 miles malarkey does not help your argument as it clearly is blatant misinformation

jank · 04-03-2015 2:29pm

gozunda wrote: »

Gas alright.

1) Ashers bakery initially accepted the order from the customer and then AFTER discussing it with the directors of the company (and who knows who else) they decided only latterly to refuse the order and then rang customer to tell them so. Ashers knew the law on discrimination but decided in conjunction with the well funded Christian Institute to publicise it and make a big issue of the whole thing.

That is a dishonest portrayal of events. Once the cake was refused to be baked, the bakery thought that was the end of the matter. After all they refused to bake cakes before for various reasons such as swear words and pornographic images being requested. It was only after the fact they were issued with a legal letter from the Equality Authority that they decided to ask for legal advice.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581

The general manager said he was "very surprised" by the watchdog's letter and his firm asked the Christian Institute for advice on how to deal with the case.

The institute is supporting the bakery's stance and is now providing legal assistance.

Mr McArthur said: "I feel if we don't take a stand on this here case, then how can we stand up against it, further down the line?"

The general manager added that it was not the first time his company had refused customers' cake orders.

"In the past, we've declined several orders which have contained pornographic images and offensive, foul language."

jobbridge4life · 04-03-2015 2:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This relationship is never going to work if you expect me to do all the hard work. You find me an example of a same-sex marriage that's legally recognised in Northern Ireland, we can let the marriage equality lobbyists know then that they can call off the campaign.

That makes literally no sense and has no relevance to what I have said, repeatedly at this point.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that's a very defeatist attitude! You couldn't say that with any certainty though, I think it could make an interesting test case. Maybe I should get onto the Equality Commission about that, they seem quite fond of spending tax payers money on cases they can't win, like the previous cases against the christian owner of a printing business who refused a request to print a pornographic gay magazine, or the christian owner of a B&B who refused a gay couple.

No touching the buns though, they're strictly for the customers

Several b and b owners have been successfully pursued for discrimination on the basis of refusing lgbt couples. As for your reference to a Christian printer and pornography I am not aware that, that case has been completed I also dispute your characterization of it as a gay pornographic magazine, though I'll admit my knowledge of the case is at this point precursory so if you have additional information do let me know.

jobbridge4life · 04-03-2015 2:57pm

jank wrote: »

I would also stand by the bakery which refused to bake a cake for someone who wanted biblical slogans espousing slavery or killing homosexuals. I would come down just as hard on the other side.

I'm glad to know that you equate supporting gay marriage with promoting slavery or the genocide of gay people.

gozunda · 04-03-2015 3:12pm

jank wrote: »

That is a dishonest portrayal of events. Once the cake was refused to be baked, the bakery thought that was the end of the matter. After all they refused to bake cakes before for various reasons such as swear words and pornographic images being requested. It was only after the fact they were issued with a legal letter from the Equality Authority that they decided to ask for legal advice.

No that is how it happened - I said previously

gozunda wrote:

1) Ashers bakery initially accepted the order from the customer and then AFTER discussing it with the directors of the company (and who knows who else) they decided only latterly to refuse the order and then rang customer to tell them so. Ashers knew the law on discrimination but decided in conjunction with the well funded Christian Institute to publicise it and make a big issue of the whole thing.

In the interview made by Mr McArthur, he clearly states the customer placed the order at the Belfast branch on the 9th May. He then states that the order was considered by company head office. The following Monday the bakery rang up the customer to let him know that they could not take his order as it was against their beliefs(?)

My point was that in refute to your allegation that they could not have just waited on a person walking in to say no to a cake. They certainly had plenty of time to alert the likes of the Christian Institute and as far as I am aware there was no swear words or nudity on the cake ordered.

I believe it is disingenuous to lay an allegation of a fit up on the LGBT group considering the reputation for anti gay stance heralded by the Christian Institute in lobbying against SSM in the UK etc

jobbridge4life · 04-03-2015 3:21pm

jank wrote: »

I never state it thus. I am saying the individual in their work duties in as a private business owner can have any ethos they so wish. This seems to be a problem for you. This however would give you and anyone in the LGBT community the right to conduct their own private business affairs anyway they wish.

What about an LGBT person growing up in a small rural village with only one shop that doesn't want to serve LGBT people? What about black person living in a town where the principal employer has a religious objection to allowing black and white people work together? What about a woman who thinks her possession of a vagina shouldn't mean she is entitled to less of a wage for equal work.

jank wrote: »

State employees use public money, private business owners are not funded thus should be able to do as they wish. Its quite simple. State employees can in their private live have freedom of conscience but as in their duties as a public employe that cannot let any ethos interfere with their day to day work.

Firstly it is a nonesense to suggest that businesses do not depend on government expenditure. Secondly even if they were entirely privately funded and in no way benefited from state expenditure they still exist in the same legal world as the rest of us and therefor ought to be held to the same legal standards.

jank wrote: »

This is why the state recognises that religious organisations can not be forced into presently drafted equality legislation

No that is not the case at all.

jank wrote: »

I want to live in a world where people are free to live as they wish, you on the other hand have no problem telling people how they should live and will use the state to punish people that do not conform to your own moral values, much like Ireland was like 50 years ago. Replacing one system of tyranny with another.

That really just amounts to laughable hysteria.

gozunda · 04-03-2015 3:32pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

1) I lack the clarity to the exact motivation for the Equality Commission's stance on this issue.
2) As for making it up as I go along, come on now gozunda, I'm being fairly lenient in making allowances for you to express your "deep misgivings" and "making calls" that Ashers knew what they were doing and so on. I don't mind speculation and conjecture if it's based on reasonable assumptions, which you could well be right about, but you lack the evidence to prove anything for definite beyond your gut feeling.

1) I would suggest reading the relevant legislation and take a look at their website. Hopefully that will answer at least some of questions.

2) Your are extremely magnanimous in your leniency but first I would like to point out just some of your speculating and conjecturing contributions in this thread that appear to be based on anything but reasonable assumptions:

one eyed Jack wrote:

Ashers didn't make a huge show of anything until some numpty with an agenda wanted to make an example of them, and then said numpty went on to claim discrimination where there was none. Before you point out again that the Equality Comission are taking a civil case against the bakery, they still have yet to prove any discrimination actually took place in order to win their case.

one eyed Jack wrote:

One behemoth pressure group started this nonsense against a small business, why shouldn't said business accept any support from wherever they can get it in order to bolster themselves against a group that wants to either force them to do something that doesn't fit with their company ethos, or force them out of business?

one eyed Jack wrote:

It's an insidious PR effort orchestrated by misguided misfits claiming to represent people who are LGBT and I for one hope it backfires massively on them and bankrupts them into oblivion. I'm all for supporting marriage equality, but not at the expense of trampling all over other people in order to get my own way.

one eyed Jack wrote:

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.

one eyed Jack wrote:

You're right, but when groups like Queerspace go out of their way to orchestrate publicity stunts and then claim discrimination because they couldn't force a bakery with a religious ethos to support same-sex marriage, that's not doing their campaign any favours IMO

Speculation 'within reason' indeed. :rolleyes:

Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

Comments