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

Which discrimination should trump which discrimination?

Options
1…468910

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    Can't agree with the original decision.

    Cake maker should be free to refuse to bake cake on religious grounds.

    The rest of society should be free to boycott his bakery because he's a bigoted arsehole.


  • Options
    #153
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,170 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Why should religion get a free pass when discrimination in the name of racism or homophobia does not?

    Although some people dress up their racism or homophobia in a religious cloak...

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #154
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    mickydcork wrote: »
    Cake maker should be free to refuse to bake cake on religious grounds.
    what other services or products should they be allowed withhold on religious grounds?


  • Options
    #155
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Why should religion get a free pass when discrimination in the name of racism or homophobia does not?

    Although some people dress up their racism or homophobia in a religious cloak...

    If the baker is not being directly racist or homophobic then we should have the same approach.

    Say someone asked him to bake a cake with a message saying 'black people are equal' and the baker refused to bake it based on the contents of the bible or some other religious quackery - he should be allowed to do so.

    And we should all be free to boycott his bakery and ridicule his ridiculous beliefs!

    There should be a social penalty to having ridiculous and bad ideas.

    I'm not sure there should be legal penalties.


  • Options
    #156
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    mickydcork wrote: »
    And we should all be free to boycott his bakery and ridicule his ridiculous beliefs!
    you *are* aware of what happens when people are allowed freely discriminate? this is not even ancient history...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    what other services or products should they be allowed withhold on religious grounds?

    A private company? Any they want.

    It should be widely publicised and we should all act accordingly.

    I'm sure they're competitors will be delighted with the business if we all abandon them for being ignorant.


  • Options
    #158
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    you *are* aware of what happens when people are allowed freely discriminate? this is not even ancient history...

    I think we are in a different place now in Ireland.


  • Options
    #159
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    bloody hell; where to even start with this.

    *why* do you think we're in a different place now in ireland?


  • Options
    #160
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    bloody hell; where to even start with this.

    *why* do you think we're in a different place now in ireland?

    Okay maybe we're not in a totally different place.

    Definitely still some work to do.

    I just think having these bigoted views are not going to be helpful in private enterprise in a country like Ireland (fully accept that NI may be a different story).


  • Options
    #161
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    Consider this - should I as an atheist or secularist be allowed to refuse to bake a cake with some religious fundamentalist anti-secular, crazy quackery slogan on it.

    I think I should.

    Or, if I was a Jewish baker and some Nazi's wanted me to bake a cake celebrating the holocaust.

    I should be free to tell them to take their business elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i don't see that as a relevant comparison. if ashers had been asked to bake a cake saying 'death to fundamentalist protestants', then yes, the jewish baker analogy might make more sense.

    the discrimination flows in different directions there.

    what i was getting at is that if you're arguing that religious discrimination is OK, where do you propose to draw the line? at being asked to bake a cake with a pro gay rights slogan on it, or would you also argue that if it was a plain cake to be sold at a gay rights bake sale, should they also be allowed refuse?


  • Options
    #163
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i don't see that as a relevant comparison. if ashers had been asked to bake a cake saying 'death to fundamentalist protestants', then yes, the jewish baker analogy might make more sense.

    the discrimination flows in different directions there.

    what i was getting at is that if you're arguing that religious discrimination is OK, where do you propose to draw the line? at being asked to bake a cake with a pro gay rights slogan on it, or would you also argue that if it was a plain cake to be sold at a gay rights bake sale, should they also be allowed refuse?

    I agree that the analogy is flawed.

    Maybe a better analogy would be if a passionately secular baker was asked to bake a cake with 'secularism is wrong' on it and they refused because they disagree. Should they be free to do so?

    With regards to refusing to sell the plain cake - if they were asked why and they stated that it was because the purchaser was gay, that is unacceptable direct discrimination that should be punishable by law.

    I'm not sure where I draw the line but it's somewhere between these two situations.

    I'm absolutely clear that we should all avoid purchasing from Asher's bakery and I hope they go out of business!


  • Options
    #164
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    what other services or products should they be allowed withhold on religious grounds?

    Abortion, if they were a doctor.


  • Options
    #165
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Abortion, if they were a doctor.

    This is slippery, because if an abortion was in the best interests of the patient, then the Doctor should absolutely be required to do their best for the patient and perform the abortion.

    This is why Doctors or scientists having irrational beliefs is very problematic!


  • Options
    #166
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    mickydcork wrote: »
    This is slippery, because if an abortion was in the best interests of the patient, then the Doctor should absolutely be required to do their best for the patient and perform the abortion.

    Not if they view the baby as a card carrying member of the human race. You'd have the best interests of both to consider. And you'd have therefore, a stalemate. Stalemate means nothing moves.

    This is why Doctors or scientists having irrational beliefs is very problematic!

    The heads of the abortion bill allow for conscientious objection. I really don't know how you could have it any other way.


  • Options
    #167
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    you *are* aware of what happens when people are allowed freely discriminate? this is not even ancient history...
    Important to note here that the baker is not accused of refusing to serve a gay man.
    The baker refused to paint a particular slogan on a cake (with icing or whatever)


  • Options
    #168
    mickydcork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭mickydcork


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not if they view the baby as a card carrying member of the human race. You'd have the best interests of both to consider. And you'd have therefore, a stalemate. Stalemate means nothing moves.




    The heads of the abortion bill allow for conscientious objection. I really don't know how you could have it any other way.

    As I said, irrational beliefs can cause problems.


  • Options
    #169
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,434 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    recedite wrote: »
    Important to note here that the baker is not accused of refusing to serve a gay man.
    The baker refused to paint a particular slogan on a cake (with icing or whatever)
    This seems to have been missed by so many people. Refusing to print an image relating to a sexuality they don't like != refusing to serve someone because of their sexuality.

    I haven't seen any quoted from their defence making that point either, so I wonder is there more to it than what's been reported.


  • Options
    #170
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    TheChizler wrote: »
    This seems to have been missed by so many people.
    actually, most people i have talked about this with seem quite cognisant of the shades of grey here.


  • Options
    #171
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,575 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    i think one of the arguments made is that ashers is not a small operation - and that surely they would have at least one staff member who would have no issue with writing the requested message on the cake. if that view is credible, it could be argued that they are claiming an objection based on personal beliefs, but at an institutional level.

    there would be some interesting side arguments though i guess - as to whether someone working in such an environment would wish to 'out' themselves as being perfectly OK with the notion of gay marriage. which could further call into question whether there are institutional biases (governed by law) at an industrial relations level...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yeah, it has been fairly widely noted. As it happens, the person who sought to place the order is gay, but the bakers didn't know that when they rejected the order. They say - and I don't think anyone doubts that it's true - that even if a person they knew to be straight sought to place the order, they would have rejected it.

    They will seek to frame this as an issue of free speech/freedom of conscience - you can't be compelled to provide support to a political campaign that you don't agree with, not even if offered money to do so. And the other side will frame this as an issue of discrimination - if your refusal of service adversely impacts gay people, that's discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation, regardless of your motivation.

    A key issue here is that the law in question ("only straight couples can marry") is of course discriminatory in itself. But it's not unlawfully discriminatory, because (a) it's the law; how can the law be unlawful? And, (b), the European Court of Human Rights has already held that the protections against discrimination in the European Convention don't give rise to a right to equal marriage. So if the law is not unlawfully discriminatory against gay people, can it be unlawfully discriminatory against gay people to exercise your right of free speech by declining to support a campaign for change in that law?


  • Options
    #173
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i think one of the arguments made is that ashers is not a small operation - and that surely they would have at least one staff member who would have no issue with writing the requested message on the cake. if that view is credible, it could be argued that they are claiming an objection based on personal beliefs, but at an institutional level.

    there would be some interesting side arguments though i guess - as to whether someone working in such an environment would wish to 'out' themselves as being perfectly OK with the notion of gay marriage. which could further call into question whether there are institutional biases (governed by law) at an industrial relations level...
    I don't think that helps. Joe or Jane Baker weren't asked to bake the required cake; Asher's Bakery Ltd was. They would have been paid to bake the cake; they would have organised the baking of it. If they do have a right to decline, they don't lose that right just because they have one staff member who wouldn't personally object to being involved in filling the order.

    And of course this would cut both ways. You can't argue that Asher's wouldn't be "tainted" by the actions of a staff member in baking this cake, but would be "tainted" if a staff member had, say, engaged in homophobic bullying of a colleague. You can't argue that the staff member represents the employer in one situation, but not in the other.


  • Options
    #174
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    TheChizler wrote: »
    This seems to have been missed by so many people. Refusing to print an image relating to a sexuality they don't like != refusing to serve someone because of their sexuality.

    I haven't seen any quoted from their defence making that point either, so I wonder is there more to it than what's been reported.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    ...They will seek to frame this as an issue of free speech/freedom of conscience - you can't be compelled to provide support to a political campaign that you don't agree with, not even if offered money to do so. And the other side will frame this as an issue of discrimination - if your refusal of service adversely impacts gay people, that's discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation, regardless of your motivation.
    There is something important that is not being widely reported. In NI they have some unique legislation specifying a persons politics as possible grounds for unlawful discrimination. So the whole thing could hinge on that, and not on either religion or sexuality.
    The problem is, I don't think this concept has ever really been tested at the highest level of the justice system. So for example, its plain that a unionist bakery could not refuse to employ somebody because they wore a an Easter lily lapel badge. On the other hand, should the same bakery be compelled to paint a Tiocfaidh Ar La slogan on a cake?
    This would leave the bakery open to vexatious customers who might be just going in to annoy them (which appears to have been exactly what happened in the actual case involving the SSM slogan)

    As an added complication, the appeal is being heard by the UK Supreme Court, which may take into account a wider UK legal perspective. And for those of us watching from ROI, the laws are slightly different again.
    The UK Supreme Court will hear the case today and tomorrow – and it is the first time it has sat in Northern Ireland.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/bakers-supreme-court-3987520-May2018/

    Not sure who will be presiding over this, but I see at least one of them is from NI; Brian Kerr, AKA Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore. Of course the SC will still have to apply NI law, but they may also be inclined to take account of broader UK principles involving free speech and freedom of conscience.


  • Options
    #175
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    . . . .Of course the SC will still have to apply NI law, but they may also be inclined to take account of broader UK principles involving free speech and freedom of conscience.
    I don't think there are any "broader UK principles" that come into play here. NI has more extensive human rights law than other parts of the UK, not less extensive.


  • Options
    #176
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think there are any "broader UK principles" that come into play here.
    Well, we'll see.
    Grab your popcorn :pac:
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    NI has more extensive human rights law than other parts of the UK, not less extensive.
    That's what I said. It has this extra "political" grounds for illegal discrimination.
    The question is one of its exact interpretation, and how far that narrow right should be allowed to eat into broader rights of free speech and freedom of conscience.


  • Options
    #177
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    That's what I said. It has this extra "political" grounds for illegal discrimination. The question is one of its exact interpretation, and how far that should be allowed to eat into broader rights of free speech and freedom of conscience.
    I don't think the Equality Commission is arguing the case on the basis of Lee's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of his polical opinion. They are framing this as discrimination on the gender orientation ground.

    There is a significant difference. If they win the case on the gender orientation ground, then you can't refuse to bake a "support gay marriage" cake, but you can refuse to bake a "support traditional marriage" cake. But if they win the case on the political opinion ground, then you can't refuse to bake either cake.


  • Options
    #178
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,170 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    So for example, its plain that a unionist bakery could not refuse to employ somebody because they wore a an Easter lily lapel badge. On the other hand, should the same bakery be compelled to paint a Tiocfaidh Ar La slogan on a cake?

    Unless they also refuse to put union jacks and God Save The Queen slogans on cakes too, then yes, yes they should.

    How pathetic and damning of NI is it though that someone can introduce the analogy of having a "unionist bakery" in that society and nobody considers it a ridiculous or outlandish notion that a cake shop could have a political view...

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #179
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think the Equality Commission is arguing the case on the basis of Lee's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of his polical opinion. They are framing this as discrimination on the gender orientation ground.

    There is a significant difference. If they win the case on the gender orientation ground, then you can't refuse to bake a "support gay marriage" cake, but you can refuse to bake a "support traditional marriage" cake. But if they win the case on the political opinion ground, then you can't refuse to bake either cake.
    If my understanding is correct, the customer did not identify as gay when he walked into the shop. It could be deduced from the slogan that he was a gay rights campaigner, but that would not necessarily make him gay.

    So the case is about alleged discrimination against a particular political opinion, which happens to relate to gender orientation (indirectly).


  • Options
    #180
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    How pathetic and damning of NI is it though that someone can introduce the analogy of having a "unionist bakery" in that society and nobody considers it a ridiculous or outlandish notion that a cake shop could have a political view...
    Hey, even the pavement outside the shop can have a political view, depending on what colour it is painted. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Its a heady mixture of religion, politics, and sex.
    Just the kind of thing I like :D


Advertisement