Which discrimination should trump which discrimination?

legspin · 09-07-2014 1:13pm

seamus wrote: »

...and someone comes in wanting a "Jesus is a cvnt" design on his cake...

I had to go looking but this was all I could find...

http://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/993981_10151639190369077_983078671_n.jpg

robindch · 09-07-2014 1:30pm

On foot of the SCOTUS Hobby-Lobby ruling last week, religious groups in the US now demand to be exempted from federal requirements that companies who do work for the government can't discriminate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/faith-groups-seek-exclusion-from-bias-rule.html

New York Times wrote:

WASHINGTON — After a setback in the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case, President Obama is facing mounting pressure from religious groups demanding to be excluded from his long-promised executive order that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians by companies that do government work.

The president has yet to sign the executive order, but last week a group of major faith organizations, including some of Mr. Obama’s allies, said he should consider adding an exemption for groups whose religious beliefs oppose homosexuality. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the court ruled that family-run corporations with religious objections could be exempted from providing employees with insurance coverage for contraception.

The demands of the faith organizations pose a dilemma for Mr. Obama, who has struggled to preserve freedom of expression among religious groups while supporting the rights of gay men and lesbians. Mr. Obama could unleash a conservative uproar if he is seen as intruding on religious beliefs, but many of his strongest supporters would be bitterly disappointed if he appeared to grant any leeway to anti-gay discrimination. The White House has given no reason for the executive order’s delay.

In a July 1 letter to Mr. Obama sent the day after the Hobby Lobby case was decided, leaders of religious groups wrote that “we are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need.”

The effort behind the letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the White House faith-based initiative during Mr. Obama’s first term and directed the president’s faith outreach in the 2012 campaign. The letter, which called for a “robust religious exemption” in the planned executive order, was also signed by the Rev. Larry Snyder, the chief executive of Catholic Charities U.S.A.; Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church, who delivered the invocation at Mr. Obama’s first inauguration; and Stephan Bauman, president of World Relief, an aid group affiliated with the National Association of Evangelicals.

Mr. Wear, who calls himself an “ardent supporter” of the president and a backer of gay rights, said in an interview on Tuesday that the rationale of the organizations was to maintain the rights they have. “We’re not trying to support crazy claims of religious privilege,” he said. He described the letter as a request from “friends of the administration” to ensure that the executive order provides “robust” protection of religious service organizations that uphold religious-based moral standards for their staff members, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim.

To give an example, faith leaders said a Catholic charity group that believes sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin should not be denied government funding because it refused to employ a leader who was openly gay. Gay-rights groups countered that it would be unacceptable to allow religious organizations receiving taxpayer money to refuse to hire employees simply because they were gay, and said they did not expect the White House to provide such an exclusion. On Tuesday they stepped up their calls for Mr. Obama to quickly complete and sign the order.

“Activists have every expectation that this executive order will be issued without any further religious exemption,” Fred Sainz, vice president for communications and marketing at the Human Rights Campaign, said in an interview. The July 1 letter followed one on June 25 that was signed by more than 150 conservative religious groups and leaders, including many major evangelical associations. That letter warned the president that “any executive order that does not fully protect religious freedom will face widespread opposition and will further fragment our nation.”

[...]

Vivisectus · 09-07-2014 1:38pm

Anyway, on to your second point - I never even implied the bakery were solely being persecuted,

Nor did I imply exclusivity was either here nor there. You seem confused.

I said the lobby group were doing no different to what they were claiming has been done to them for decades,

Yeah I thought that was what you were trying to say. Amazing how the majority with the special privileges keeps ending up being persecuted by getting their privileged status (slightly) reduced!

so you'd imagine they would be all too aware of people persecuting other people who do not share their experiences or world view. You can disagree with that point of view all you like, but like I said, won't change the facts, or peoples perception of the facts.

So then you would feel the same about a whites-only school, businesses that do not allow females to have positions of authority, the no-gingers-allowed playground organization, and doctors that refuse to treat travellers. You just feel that any organization has the right to discriminate, and that not allowing them to do so constitutes persecution?

Let me guess... I am once again putting words in your mouth? Only all that follows pretty much directly from what you just said...

By giving the businesses that support them their custom instead? (would've thought it was common sense that one surely, that's why I buy Bosch instead of Hotpoint appliances - Bosch offer great service, reliable appliances and fantastic warranty. Hotpoint are pure dirt and charge a call-out fee when their appliances go tits up). That is the beauty of consumer choice - I can take my custom somewhere else, and if enough people take their custom somewhere else - the business has a choice, give more people what they want, or stand by their shoddy principles and eventually go out of business.

The "voting with your feet / wallet" argument is flawed. If you wonder why, just ask gay teachers how easy it is for them to punish Catholic schools by withdrawing their labor. We are fixing this, fortunately, but the point is still valid.

I hate it when people equate racism and homophobia as if they are the same thing. They're not, and keeping them separate allows us to say that discrimination is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances, otherwise you run the gauntlet of saying we cannot discriminate against anyone under any circumstances.

They are essentially the same thing: they are forms of discrimination that seek to exclude or punish people because of their race, sexual orientation, religion or gender.

If your argument held any water, then I should be entitled to have a whites only hiring policy at my company.

But basically what you are saying is that it is OK to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, but not on the basis of skin color, because else all discrimination would be valid? How on earth does that follow?

I don't suffer fools gladly, so I'm perfectly entitled to discriminate against people whom I think are talking utter shìte.

And yet you foolishly conflate challenging someone on their opinion with discrimination, which is objectionable on very different grounds. A few sentences after complaining how people conflate racism and homophobia, I might add.

We can legislate against human nature, but human nature being what it is means that legislation is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Homosexuality was illegal in this country up to 1993 and it still didn't stop people getting their groove on. They just ignored laws that didn't suit them.

No point in having laws at all then, now is there? Unless we legislate along with whatever you choose to call "human nature".

As for giving out awards for failing to be homophobic, no, but giving out awards for promoting LGBT rights might be a runner - such and such a business were incredibly helpful and provide a top notch service, promote them among your family and friends, same as you would award any other business.

That mean no LGBT rights advocacy at all then? Because we are just doing what we would do for every other business. Or do you mean little reviews about how businesses were totally helpful by not being homophobic? I don't think you thought this one through.

Any hope you might stop putting words in my mouth? I think that LGBT lobby groups engaging in these sort of tactics are doing a disservice to the people they claim to represent, and are doing nothing more than the equivalent of outing people who don't want to be outed, but would rather carry on about their business and be seen as no different from anyone else.

I respond to what you say, that is all. I would consider putting words in your mouth, but your foot seems to be in it most of the time so I doubt there will be room.

And how the hell does gay rights advocacy equate forced outing of people? How is that germane to this discussion?

Penny 4 Thoughts · 09-07-2014 2:25pm

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'm with ShooterSF on this one too. A company should have the right to discriminate on the kinds of business that they do, just not the people they do business with.

I would disagree. I think that misses the woods for the trees. Anti-discrimination laws are on the books so that minorities who society have decided are not doing anything wrong, are not excluded by public businesses. Public businesses must operated on the standards of society, not on their own standards. That is why anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place.

recedite · 09-07-2014 2:27pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

... I have completely failed to be anti-semitic all day and I could use a nice little trophy to cheer me up!

I'll give you a jaffa cake, if it makes you feel more impotant.

Czarcasm · 09-07-2014 2:33pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I would disagree. I think that misses the woods for the trees. Anti-discrimination laws are on the books so that minorities who society have decided are not doing anything wrong, are not excluded by public businesses. Public businesses must operated on the standards of society, not on their own standards. That is why anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place.

"Public businesses"? Is the bakery not a private enterprise that can serve who it likes, when it likes, and how it likes? They have every right to operate on their own standards, which is why I'm genuinely not sure what the Equality Authority are at stepping in here in the affairs of a business that is not being funded by tax payers government funding.

In robindch's post above, it's much clearer what's going on, and it's why Obama finds himself in such a quandary - no matter which way he goes to cover his political arse, either way it's bound to get kicked.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 09-07-2014 2:45pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

"Public businesses"? Is the bakery not a private enterprise that can serve who it likes, when it likes, and how it likes?

Running a business is a contract between yourself and the government, you agree to abide by societies standards. A bakery that sells to the public is not a private members club.

It has a contract with society, the government regulates the business on behalf of the public good, from discrimination law down to copyright (no unofficial Disney cakes for example) to food and health safety.

Vivisectus · 09-07-2014 2:53pm

Is the bakery not a private enterprise that can serve who it likes, when it likes, and how it likes?

They are - in the same way that they can hire who they want

and pay them whatever the hell they like

Vivisectus · 09-07-2014 3:02pm

But I forget - women who do not like getting paid less should just go and work somewhere else, legislating against paying women less is useless as you cannot legislate against human nature, demanding that people give women equal pay when they did not feel like doing so and that any laws to this effect were enforced was persecution, we should just have given the companies that DID give women equal pay our business (as we would with any other business) and advocacy for equal pay for women has just made people turn against working women and allowed the companies that did not want to give them equal pay to tap into massive reserves of anti-feminist sentiment.

And isn't it crappy when people pretend that sexism is a form of discrimination just like racism? Because then we may have to deal with the fact that it is a pretty awful thing just like racism.

Czarcasm · 09-07-2014 3:02pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Running a business is a contract between yourself and the government, you agree to abide by societies standards. A bakery that sells to the public is not a private members club.

I think you're stretching definitions to suit your argument there. I run a business. I am not contracted to work for the Government, and I abide by my own standards on how to run my business, within the confines of Irish legislation. The public are my customers, but I don't owe the general public anything. I'm not a Government funded charity organization.

It has a contract with society, the government regulates the business on behalf of the public good, from discrimination law down to copyright (no unofficial Disney cakes for example) to food and health safety.

State legislation is not the same thing as Government regulation, so the Government cannot force me to provide customers with Apple products as well as Microsoft products or else I fall foul of discrimination legislation.

Czarcasm · 09-07-2014 3:14pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

They are - in the same way that they can hire who they want

and pay them whatever the hell they like

Vivisectus wrote: »

But I forget - women who do not like getting paid less should just go and work somewhere else, legislating against paying women less is useless as you cannot legislate against human nature, demanding that people give women equal pay when they did not feel like doing so and that any laws to this effect were enforced was persecution, we should just have given the companies that DID give women equal pay our business (as we would with any other business) and advocacy for equal pay for women has just made people turn against working women and allowed the companies that did not want to give them equal pay to tap into massive reserves of anti-feminist sentiment.

And isn't it crappy when people pretend that sexism is a form of discrimination just like racism? Because then we may have to deal with the fact that it is a pretty awful thing just like racism.

Now you're getting the idea. I'll also address the issues raised in your previous post momentarily. I was in the middle of addressing them when I went to check my facts on the ACLU website in a separate tab and the browser crashed out on me, damn Windows phone, perhaps I might have another look at the Apple iPolished turd after all.

Discrimination is a good thing, even Panti Bliss acknowledges we're all a little bit racist, as she understands too that you can't change human nature with legislation.

Vivisectus · 09-07-2014 3:23pm

Discrimination is a good thing, even Panti Bliss acknowledges we're all a little bit racist, as she understands too that you can't change human nature with legislation.

Action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice is a good thing?

because that is what we are discussing here.

As for a gay rights activist being opposed to legislating against homophobia...

Czarcasm · 09-07-2014 3:37pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

Action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice is a good thing?

because that is what we are discussing here.

The phrase "Let them eat cake" comes to mind, when an LGBT lobby group chooses to make a big deal out of the fact their request for a cake was refused, and that's somehow more important than marriage equality?

That's the disconnect from ordinary LGBT peoples concerns I'm referring to. Their right to eat cake is more important than their right to marriage equality, apparently...

As for a gay rights activist being opposed to legislating against homophobia...

Quite the fondantness for putting words in other peoples mouths, haven't you?

Have you tried this irony cake? It's delicious.

Brian Shanahan · 09-07-2014 3:58pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

How is the one made trump the other?

Simple, by recognising that treating people differently because of their nature is discrimination; and that stopping people from discriminating against others because their beliefs say that they should is not.

A belief is simply put a thought or idea which is taken to be true when either there is no evidence for or against that idea (e.g. that there is a god), or where the evidence shows that idea is wrong (e.g. that yhwh is real).

Therefore you cannot allow any action harmful (and yes, not making a cake for a person or group because they are gay is a harm) another person based on a belief if you want to have a social system which works. You have to strive at all times to make your rules according to what has been shown by evidence to be best practise available, or as close as possible within the constraints of your environment (to take an extreme example, if it were shown that firing criminals into the sun cut 99% of all crime, it would not be feasible on cost grounds and therefore should not be considered). Thus tellling a person that they have to serve customers regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other grounds is not discrimination no matter how loudly and idiotically their "holy" books or people scream that said discrimination is the "word of god".

Penny 4 Thoughts · 09-07-2014 3:58pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think you're stretching definitions to suit your argument there. I run a business. I am not contracted to work for the Government, and I abide by my own standards on how to run my business, within the confines of Irish legislation.

I'm not saying you are contracted to work for the government, I'm saying there is a contract between you and the government that allows you to operated a business, which as you say, must be operated in the confines of Irish law. You are not free to do what ever you like with regards to your business, you agree to run your business as the government says you should. If you didn't they would refuse to recognize your business as a legitimate legal business. I'm guessing you filled out a signed a ton of forms in order to set up your business.

Czarcasm wrote: »

State legislation is not the same thing as Government regulation, so the Government cannot force me to provide customers with Apple products as well as Microsoft products or else I fall foul of discrimination legislation.

The government can force you to do what ever the law says you have to do. For example if you produced encryption software that software would have to fall within security software export law. If you imported beef from Brazil that beef would have to be inspected.

You agree to all of this when you apply to the government to set up and recognize your business. The idea that you just start running a business and then do what ever the hell you like is nonsense. You are regulated by the government, and the moral justification for the existence of that regulation is that you have a contract between your business and society, represented by the government.

Or to put it another way, the government has a right to meddle in your business precisely because you are operating to the public, and the interests of the public are protected by the government. That applies for everyone, including the person who wants a gay cake

Brian Shanahan · 09-07-2014 4:04pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One is discrimination based on something people can't change (sexual orientation), one is discrimination based on something people can change (obnoxious religious beliefs).

I'm sorry to be stepping on your toes, but stopping person A from discriminating against person B is not in itself discrimination, it is simply allowing for an equal playing field. If we allowed anyone to act in a harmful manner against anyone else because of their beliefs, then logically we would have to scrap all laws, and the human race would quickly, painfully and brutally go extinct.

Vivisectus · 09-07-2014 4:19pm

The phrase "Let them eat cake" comes to mind, when an LGBT lobby group chooses to make a big deal out of the fact their request for a cake was refused, and that's somehow more important than marriage equality?

That's the disconnect from ordinary LGBT peoples concerns I'm referring to. Their right to eat cake is more important than their right to marriage equality, apparently...

I wholeheartedly agree they picked the wrong battle. But if the case was nice and clear cut - for instance if they refused to sell ALL cake to gay people - then it would have been a better one. And that still falls squarely into the range of things you consider "persecution", according to your posts, and apparently also unimportant. Better not to mention it lest they anger people!

Quite the fondantness for putting words in other peoples mouths, haven't you?

You complain about that almost every time I point out you have said something foolish. And yet somehow you fail to point out why what you said was not foolish.

Have you tried this irony cake? It's delicious.

We will add "irony" to the list of expressions and phrases you seem to use in idiosyncratic ways, next to "running the gauntlet".

Philo Beddoe · 09-07-2014 4:54pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

But wouldn't the Equality commission be discriminating against the cake maker on the grounds of his religious beliefs?

No, they would only be doing that if they came to their conclusion based on his religious beliefs. For example, let's assume this baker is, oh, I don't know, a Presbyterian. He refuses to make the cake to the customer's specifications. The following day the Catholic baker down the road also refuses to make the cake. The customer complains about both bakers but the Equality Commission only sends a letter to the first baker, because they believe Catholics should be allowed refuse service to whomever they wish. That would be discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs.

antiskeptic · 09-07-2014 7:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Cause one side wants freedom to love and marry who they want.
The other side wants freedom to deny rights to those people because of an irrational, arbitrary rule from their fictional deity.

I can see why one needs more protection than the other.

Speaking of arbitrary: your answer dangles out of nothing in particular.

antiskeptic · 09-07-2014 7:11pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One is discrimination based on something people can't change (sexual orientation), one is discrimination based on something people can change (obnoxious religious beliefs).

Not relevant to the law. The law is discriminating against this persons religious beliefs

Would you be asking this question if instead of gay people it was black people, whose pro-racial equality cake was rejected by a baker because of his/her religious belief that black people were not equal to white people?

Asking a question isn't an answer. It's a dodge.

recedite · 09-07-2014 10:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not relevant to the law. The law is discriminating against this persons religious beliefs.

The law does not discriminate against beliefs, that would be thoughtcrime.
The law acts against people and and their actions.
If the actions of the baker were deemed to be discriminatory in refusing to serve the customer, based on his sexual orientation, then the law would act against the baker.

Mark Hamill · 09-07-2014 11:00pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not relevant to the law. The law is discriminating against this persons religious beliefs

It is relevant. His actions, based on his religious beliefs, are deemed unacceptable by the law because of who they discriminate, much like a man who might think he is religiously justified in beating his wife would end up in trouble with the law regardless.

You are in the wrong forum if you think you will find people who think his religious beliefs should be automatically protected by law.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Asking a question isn't an answer. It's a dodge.

I answered the question and then followed up with one of my own. What you are doing here is dodging.

lynski · 09-07-2014 11:12pm

recedite wrote: »

The law does not discriminate against beliefs, that would be thoughtcrime.
The law acts against people and and their actions.
If the actions of the baker were deemed to be discriminatory in refusing to serve the customer, based on his sexual orientation, then the law would act against the baker.

But as i understand it he did not refuse to provide a service because they customer was gay but because they did not agree with the sentiments expressed on the cake.
It is a hard call on discrimination. They are idiots yes but i like my bigots big and stupid and in the open

Czarcasm · 09-07-2014 11:22pm

recedite wrote: »

The law does not discriminate against beliefs, that would be thoughtcrime.
The law acts against people and and their actions.
If the actions of the baker were deemed to be discriminatory in refusing to serve the customer, based on his sexual orientation, then the law would act against the baker.

How would it exactly be able to act as in this case where a service can be denied and the argument can be made that it was denied on the basis that it infringes on an individual's freedom of religion?

I checked on the Equality Commissions website (and they seem to have as much legal teeth as the UN has in matters of influencing Irish law regarding LGBT rights) and this is the only semblance of relevant information I could find pertinent to this case -

You are protected from sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of a wide range of services whether they are paid for or free of charge.

They include: Access to public places
Facilities for education – admissions to schools / or discrimination against existing pupils or excluding pupils/students or subjecting them to any other detriment.
Housing/accommodation
Health
Getting or using services such as:

– Financial services – Banking / Insurance
– Government departments
– Entertainment
– Transport
Professional or trade services

However, there are very limited circumstances where sexual orientation discrimination is allowed. These relate to:
the activities of religious organisations
disposal and management of small premises

For example: The owner of a four bed-roomed detached house has converted two bedrooms into bed-sit accommodation for two people. As the owner continues to live in the house with their family, the house satisfies the laws definition of small premises.
private clubs, associations and charities set up for people of a particular sexual orientation may be allowed to discriminate in some circumstances.

For example: A club is established to enable gay and bisexual men to form friendships and provide mutual support.
- See more at: http://www.equalityni.org/Individuals/I-have-a-problem-with-a-service/Sexual-orientation#sthash.3rdTW7GL.dpuf

Now, seeing as the bakery also have the backing of an influential lobby group, it seems the Equality Commission are only available in an advisory capacity and don't have all that much power at all really.

I'm still not seeing how a customer was discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. I'm seeing how a bakery refused to endorse a campaign that contravened their religious beliefs.

recedite · 09-07-2014 11:59pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

How would it exactly be able to act as in this case where a service can be denied and the argument can be made that it was denied on the basis that it infringes on an individual's freedom of religion?

The baker is claiming the right to freedom of concience, the freedom to support or not support the gay rights campaign. Religion informs the bakers conscience, but this is not really about freedom of religion, or freedom to practice religion.

If I was the baker, I would simply invite the (gay) customer back to purchase an ordinary slogan-free cake. This would prove that I was not refusing service based on the sexual orientation of the customer. I wouldn't even bother paying for a lawyer, I'd just do it. Not that the bakers will be paying anyway; the evangelical orgs will be queuing up to represent them and be seen to be fighting on their behalf. IMO the "equality" people will eventually be forced to retract, but we will see.

Another entirely separate issue I see with this is the abuse of power by the (gay) mayor who is behind the cake fiasco. IMO an elected TD or MP or MLA is obliged to represent the people who voted them in, and to a lesser extent is "allowed" to help the various lobbyists and donors who helped with funding during their election campaign.
But if they take up an "office of state", say govt. minister, or mayor, or even President (if in ROI)then they must represent all the people. Not just their own bunch of supporters. So this guy Andew Muir who was hosting the event for which the cake was ordered, also happened to be the mayor of North Down at the time. So he should have been more careful not to step on anyone's toes. By way of comparison, if there is a SF mayor, you do not expect them to alienate unionists, and if a DUP mayor, you do not expect them to use their power/position to start baiting republicans.
Now if you were working in the equality commission and the mayor gives you a call, saying he is sending in a written complaint and he wants it dealt with properly... what are you gonna do? At the very least, write a letter to the baker. Later on, let the courts decide on it. What these people know best is how to "cover their own ass" as they say.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 10-07-2014 9:32am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not relevant to the law. The law is discriminating against this persons religious beliefs

Is that a bad thing?

Most modern concepts in law such as secular government and freedom of religion "discriminat[e]" against religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not protected by law. Religious affiliation is. You cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds they are, for example, a Mormon. You can though say it is illegal to marry 2 women at the same time.

Brian Shanahan · 10-07-2014 10:41am

lynski wrote: »

But as i understand it he did not refuse to provide a service because they customer was gay but because they did not agree with the sentiments expressed on the cake.

Just because they were refusing to do a specific cake (which is probably their "oh ****, we're really in it now, let's make up an excuse" get out of jail card), they are still not excused from discriminating against others.

To be honest the only times you should be allowed to refuse custom* are a) where such custom would either have you breaking the law or facilitating the customers in breaking the law (e.g. making a banner calling for people to "hunt down and beat up gays"), and b) where such custom would involve activities or facilitating of activities which are beyond the bounds of common decency (e.g. making bunting for a Nazi pride parade).

*Ok there are lots of commercial reasons, but I'm talking in the terms of anti-discrimination legislation.

Czarcasm · 10-07-2014 10:56am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just because they were refusing to do a specific cake (which is probably their "oh ****, we're really in it now, let's make up an excuse" get out of jail card), they are still not excused from discriminating against others.

To be honest the only times you should be allowed to refuse custom* are a) where such custom would either have you breaking the law or facilitating the customers in breaking the law (e.g. making a banner calling for people to "hunt down and beat up gays"), and b) where such custom would involve activities or facilitating of activities which are beyond the bounds of common decency (e.g. making bunting for a Nazi pride parade).

*Ok there are lots of commercial reasons, but I'm talking in the terms of anti-discrimination legislation.

What's the difference between the bakers "making up excuses" as you call it, and your excuses above?

Their standards are based on their religious beliefs, and according to your own standards, they would be involved in promoting an illegal activity were they to bake a cake with a message promoting SSM (which is still illegal in NI).

They didn't refuse to accommodate the customer, they simply refused to fulfill an order that they felt contravened their religious beliefs.

Straight question - Do you believe they should be forced to fulfill the order?

Can you see why this particular lobby group chose this particular bakery, when there are numerous bakeries they could have given their custom?

Absolam · 10-07-2014 11:03am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just because they were refusing to do a specific cake (which is probably their "oh ****, we're really in it now, let's make up an excuse" get out of jail card), they are still not excused from discriminating against others.

If they are prepared to sell those others a different cake, how are they discriminating against them?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

To be honest the only times you should be allowed to refuse custom* are a) where such custom would either have you breaking the law or facilitating the customers in breaking the law (e.g. making a banner calling for people to "hunt down and beat up gays"), and b) where such custom would involve activities or facilitating of activities which are beyond the bounds of common decency (e.g. making bunting for a Nazi pride parade).

If you're not allowed to decide for yourself whether you want to work for someone or not, that sounds remarkably like involuntary servitude? Which is itself illegal....

Vivisectus · 10-07-2014 11:05am

Their standards are based on their religious beliefs, and according to your own standards, they would be involved in promoting an illegal activity were they to bake a cake with a message promoting SSM (which is still illegal in NI)..

Nonsense. Legality is not something that is subjective based on your personal or religious standard: actions are not legal or illegal depending on your personal beliefs. Also it is not against the law to promote the changing of legislature. No-one was promoting somehow illegally getting married. This is a complete misrepresentation.

Which discrimination should trump which discrimination?

Comments