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

145679

Comments

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


    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.

    Yes

    Thats an interesting point. Both Jank and One Eyed Jack seem to be arguing that the state or state organisations should not be allowed to discriminate but that private organisations should be free to do so because of freedom of conscience.

    Its a completely contradictory stance. In various ways.

    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.

    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.

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

    Terry Pratchet



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


    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!

    That is an absolute incorrect and fact fudging statement. Asher's were expected to obey the law of the land which states that they cannot discriminate against a customer. This is exactly what they did. They refused to supply goods and services to a customer.

    YOUR presumption that they would not do so for anyone is irrelevant. That is not a Defence since they offered already bespoke cakes with messages which they clearly refused this particular customer. The letter put forward by the Equality Commission clearly stated that they had refused a customer service. I suggest that you read that letter again because you are making it up at this stage.

    By taking action on behalf of the customer who was refused their order and discriminated by the Bakery the EC are not by default 'supporting gay marriage' they are upholding the existing law of the land. The only reason the whole "political opinion' thing has had to be brought in is because that is what Ashers stated to claim AFTER the fact.
    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 -

    OEJ - that is Ashers new website. That was created after they decided they had a religous ethos for the benefit of the current anti gay campaign they are running in conjunction with the Christian Institute for which they are also soliciting public funds.

    No amount of twisting of existing anti discrimination legislation will make the Bakery's refusal to obey the law of the land legal or morally supportable. And no one is forcing Ashers to do anything but that. You might not like to be obliged to drive within the speed limit claiming that it's "against your beliefs" but you know what tough - we all have to obey laws so that everyone can be expected to be treated equally. People are free to hold whatever views they wish in their homes or places of worship but that does not give them permit to go and behave like dicks in the street.


    .


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


    gozunda have you got a link to this 17 page letter because I couldn't find it at all. I'm on the touch site and I remember a link was posted in the thread but I couldn't find it. It'll give me a much better idea of on what grounds the Equality Commission is not for the first time taking a case against a business with a religious ethos.

    Important to remember too that this business is a legal entity in it's own right and they are not a publicly funded body, so how the anti-discrimination legislation itself is applied would not apply in the same way to the bakery as it would a publicly funded body, that body of course being the Equality Commission, who have it on their website that they support marriage equality, a political statement in itself, which is in contradiction with the NI government's stance on the issue, and NI legislation which states that same-sex marriage is prohibited by law.

    I'm putting that forward as an example of how the laws can contradict each other, because it has yet to be decided if Asher's actually are in breach of anti-discrimination legislation. It all depends upon how the law is applied and under what circumstances does it apply.


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



    Important to remember too that this business is a legal entity in it's own right and they are not a publicly funded body, so how the anti-discrimination legislation itself is applied would not apply in the same way to the bakery as it would a publicly funded body, that body of course being the Equality Commission, who have it on their website that they support marriage equality, a political statement in itself, which is in contradiction with the NI government's stance on the issue, and NI legislation which states that same-sex marriage is prohibited by law.

    Well of course they support marriage equality. It is the Equality Commission! What do you expect? A homophobic Equality Commission? That would kind of defeat the purpose of their existence, which is working toward equality for all, would it not?

    Saying that the Equality Commission should not promote equality that is not currently legislated for, is like saying that a political party should not publicly campaign to change/remove/add a piece of current legislation after they are elected, or that a TD should not bring a bill before the Dail which contradicts current legislation. Utter nonsense!


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


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Well of course they support marriage equality. It is the Equality Commission! What do you expect? A homophobic Equality Commission? That would kind of defeat the purpose of their existence, which is working toward equality for all, would it not?

    Saying that the Equality Commission should not promote equality that is not currently legislated for, is like saying that a political party should not publicly campaign to change/remove/add a piece of current legislation after they are elected. Utter nonsense!


    You missed my point. The Equality Commission are supposed to be an independent body funded by the State, to promote equality for all the citizens of NI. They are not supposed to be able to make political statements (that's the grounds on which they claim Asher's is discriminating against the customer), while advocating a political position themselves.

    Their original mandate would have been to eliminate discrimination on any of the nine grounds, and yet here they are taking cases against business owners who are religious, on behalf of LGBT groups.

    If he had such a strong case against the bakery, why did the customer not take a civil case himself? Why do that when you can have a publicly funded body do it for you instead.

    Asher's bakery funding a case being taken against them by a group which claims to promote equality for all and prevent discrimination on any of the nine grounds which include religion... unless you're religious, then you're fair game.

    The Equality Commission have dug themselves into a hole, and instead of dropping the case, are using public funds to pursue a case where there's every likelihood they won't win. All they'll have done is helped to drive an even bigger wedge between the various communities in NI.

    Idiots. There's no other word for them.


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


    Promoting marriage equality is promoting equality for all citizens!


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


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Promoting marriage equality is promoting equality for all citizens!


    That political position is fine if you're a private citizen, not so much if you're a Commission funded by the public and you're supposed to represent the interests of all citizens with regard to public services, not services provided in the private sector.

    It's beyond the remit of the Equality Commission to be promoting marriage equality while also claiming to represent the interests of people whose religious beliefs conflict with the political ideology of another group of people.

    The case is due to be heard on the 26th and 27th of March, should be interesting to see how the Equality Commission tries to argue it's case without tying itself up in knots.


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



    It's beyond the remit of the Equality Commission to be promoting marriage equality while also claiming to represent the interests of people whose religious beliefs conflict with the political ideology of another group of people.

    Are those religious people whose beliefs are in conflict with marriage equality going to be effected when equal marriage is legislated for? Will it cause them hardship, persecution, an infringement on their rights? No! It will have no effect on them what so ever. If marriage equality does not pass will this same group gain anything or be effected in any positive way? No! Either way marriage equality does not effect those who oppose it in the slightest. If it is passed they suffer no negative consequence, if it is not they do not gain any benefit. The way they go on you would swear they were going to be forced to swap their spouses for a person of the same gender. Basically it has nothing to do with them, is none of their business and therefore the promotion of equal marriage by the Equality Commission who's job it is to promote equality, does not negatively effect them as you suggest. This group of people are trying to promote inequality and it is the Equality Commissions job to counter that.

    The campaign against equal marriage however is discriminatory. LGBT people have a lot to gain if it does pass, and a lot to loose if it does not!

    Campaigning specifically to maintain discriminatory legislation against a certain group of people, when the outcome does not have any negative nor positive effect on anyone other than that group, is quite frankly being a dick of the highest order!


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


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Are those religious people whose beliefs are in conflict with marriage equality going to be effected when equal marriage is legislated for? Will it cause them hardship, persecution, an infringement on their rights? No! It will have no effect on them what so ever. If marriage equality does not pass will this same group gain anything or be effected in any positive way? No! Either way marriage equality does not effect those who oppose it in the slightest. If it is passed they suffer no negative consequence, if it is not they do not gain any benefit. The way they go on you would swear they were going to be forced to swap their spouses for a person of the same gender. Basically it has nothing to do with them, is none of their business and therefore the promotion of equal marriage does not discriminate against them.


    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.

    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 campaign against equal marriage however is discriminatory. LGBT people have a lot to gain if it does pass, and a lot to loose if it does not!


    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.

    What gets me is that instead of supporting the 78%, some lobby groups are wasting all their resources on going after the 22%, and forgetting about the 78% that need to be supported and encouraged to come out and vote in the upcoming referendum. It's easy to say you support something, requires a bit more effort to bother voting for it though.

    Campaigning specifically to maintain discriminatory legislation against a certain group of people, when the outcome does not have any negative nor positive effect on anyone other than that group, is quite frankly being a dick of the highest order!


    Yes it is, and so is attempting to force people to support you by using public money to pursue them through the courts. It may or may not give you a short victory in the short run, but it doesn't foster or promote good community relations in the long run.


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


    This campaign does not effect straight people (with the exception of those who are currently denied legal adoptive parents and sons, daughters, brothers and sisters in law because of the current legislation), our only obligation is to vote yes and end this inequality, and all who are decent human brings should be able to see that.


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


    One eyed jack, you're asking for the freedom to discriminate. Dishonest to say it's freedom from it.


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


    One Eyed Jack, if a black person* walked into a shoe shop to buy shoes, and the manager of the shop said "I'm sorry but my personal beliefs do not let me serve black people in this shop" so the state decided to prosecute them under equality laws, do you think that the state has a case?

    Or do you think that the managers expression of their personal beliefs is a legitimate position to hold and should be considered exempt from equality laws? Do you think that the states prosecution of them constitutes discrimination against them?


    * black person can be replaced by homosexual, Catholic, woman, and so on.


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


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    One eyed jack, you're asking for the freedom to discriminate. Dishonest to say it's freedom from it.


    Tbh Wayne I know my posts read like I'm arguing for the freedom to discriminate (and it was even mentioned to me at one stage that people may be interpreting my posts as homophobic), but I assure you that I wish a 'conscience clause' wasn't necessary. It shouldn't be, but if people are unwilling to show any tolerance towards other people whose opinion differs from their own, and they try to force their will on other people, I cannot in my own good conscience, support a system which enables people to treat each other like that.

    It's the kind of stuff you'd see going on in kindergarten, and you'd separate the children from each other because they couldn't play nice together, because they couldn't respect each other. We shouldn't have to legislate for that with adults, but the embarrassing reality is that now we may have to.

    I've argued previously against people on this site who have claimed that Women's support organisations are discriminating against men because they don't support men too, and I don't see this situation any differently - people of a religious belief should not be forced to support something which they do not, and by that same token, non-religious people should not be forced to support something which they do not. It's discriminatory, but you cannot force people to support something to which they have a conscientious objection.

    I wanted to join Atheist Ireland once, because I like their ideas about a secular society, but because I didn't like their ideas about eliminating religion from society, I chose not to join. I can hardly claim I was discriminated against, because I wasn't. AI just choose to advocate a certain political position which I do not share. They're entitled to do that. I don't take it personally.

    I did get pretty angry once alright with the priest at my local church when I heard that he had called the Gardaí because a group of people who were drug addicts had taken shelter in the Churchyard. To me it just wasn't right to force them to leave. It was discrimination, and he could have handled the situation in a much more compassionate manner.

    I would also support an LGBT business' right to refuse me entry to their premises on the grounds that I am heterosexual. It's never happened, but I wouldn't go complaining to any equality authority if it did happen. They're entitled as a private business to be open to the public, but to discriminate as to the type of clientele they wish to have access to their premises. I wouldn't take that personally either. A reasonable person understands that that's the nature of their business.


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



    I would also support an LGBT business' right to refuse me entry to their premises on the grounds that I am heterosexual. It's never happened, but I wouldn't go complaining to any equality authority if it did happen. They're entitled as a private business to be open to the public, but to discriminate as to the type of clientele they wish to have access to their premises. I wouldn't take that personally either. A reasonable person understands that that's the nature of their business.

    Regarding the first point in bold - They are not entitled to discriminate as to the clientele the wish to have access to their premises if it is in conflict with equality law. This is what the 'conscience clause' would change - it would in effect entitle businesses to do this.

    On the second point - 'the nature of their business' - what kind of business? a LGBT counselling service for LGBT folk who want support? A bakery run by LGBT?

    Very different 'nature' to each of those businesses. A reasonable person would probably react very differently to being refused service by each one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,969 ✭✭✭Mesrine65


    NI is fast becoming this island's equivalent of America's deep south.
    True that...

    http://rt.com/news/169612-ireland-kkk-flag-racism/


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


    I would also support an LGBT business' right to refuse me entry to their premises on the grounds that I am heterosexual. It's never happened, but I wouldn't go complaining to any equality authority if it did happen. They're entitled as a private business to be open to the public, but to discriminate as to the type of clientele they wish to have access to their premises. I wouldn't take that personally either. A reasonable person understands that that's the nature of their business.

    Only they are not entitled to do so. You seem to have a serious problem accepting the legal reality of business.


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


    Only they are not entitled to do so. You seem to have a serious problem accepting the legal reality of business.


    No more than your good self had a serious problem accepting the legal reality that it is legally prohibited in NI for two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry.

    You also seem to have difficulty with the reality that in just the same way as you have the right to advocate for laws you want changed, so too are other people entitled to advocate for laws they want changed, and then there's the people who are entitled to advocate for the laws to remain as they are.


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


    While homosexuality is a sin I am seeing no mention of persecution of others being part of Christianity.
    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
    This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
    Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

    5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
    Do to others as you would have them do to you.

    Being against the sin is fine but treating the person negatively is against Christian teaching is it not? Hence, anti discrimination legislation is perfectly in line with Christian teaching.

    Unless someone wants to try a justify stoning people and marrying children in the name of freedom.


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


    osarusan wrote: »
    Regarding the first point in bold - They are not entitled to discriminate as to the clientele the wish to have access to their premises if it is in conflict with equality law. This is what the 'conscience clause' would change - it would in effect entitle businesses to do this.

    On the second point - 'the nature of their business' - what kind of business? a LGBT counselling service for LGBT folk who want support? A bakery run by LGBT?

    Very different 'nature' to each of those businesses. A reasonable person would probably react very differently to being refused service by each one.


    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.


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


    No more than your good self had a serious problem accepting the legal reality that it is legally prohibited in NI for two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry.

    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.
    You also seem to have difficulty with the reality that in just the same way as you have the right to advocate for laws you want changed, so too are other people entitled to advocate for laws they want changed, and then there's the people who are entitled to advocate for the laws to remain as they are.

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


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


    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.


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


    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.


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


    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.


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


    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.


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


    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?


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


    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.


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


    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.
    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.
    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.


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



    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.
    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.


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


    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 :)


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


    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.
    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.


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


    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 :)


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


    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..


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


    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.


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



    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?
    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'.


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


    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.

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

    Terry Pratchet



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


    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!


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


    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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 ;)


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


    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... :p

    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... :o


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


    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.


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


    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 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


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


    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.
    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.


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


    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.


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


    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.


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


    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


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


    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."


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


    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.
    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.


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


    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.


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


    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


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


    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.


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


    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:


    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 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?
    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.
    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.
    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:


Advertisement