Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 25, 2016, 09:11:51 AM
-
Ashers lose appeal. I think this is problematic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681
-
Good I am glad they lost, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Religious faith should not be used as an excuse for unpleasant bigotry, imo.
-
Good I am glad they lost, there is nothing wrong with being gay. Religious faith should not be used as an excuse for unpleasant bigotry, imo.
It's a political campaign that the company don't support. It reduces the freedom of a company in terms of what they can decide to do. They would have baked a cake for anyone.
-
So an immigrant baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake that had "Vote BNP" on it.
-
So an immigrant baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake that had "Vote BNP" on it.
I think that would need to be tested in court.
-
It's a complicated case.
I can see the problem with this from a freedom pov and the issues around Muslim bakers being forced to bake a cake with a pig on it - or whatever example you choose to make up.
But they made their case on their religious viewpoint - but they were quite happy to make Halloween cakes. Thus pointing to the fact that actually it was not on religious grounds but actually was discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
I'm not convinced either way on this and sit perched uncomfortably on the fence presently.
There is a good article by Peter Tatchell here:
http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/ashers-gay-cake-verdict-is-defeat-for-freedom-of-expression/
-
I don't see the relevance of the Halloween example, it's not a political campaign. They were not refusing to make a cake for someone who was gay. I'm in full agreement with Tatchell on this.
-
So an immigrant baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake that had "Vote BNP" on it.
Yes, of course he/she could. That is a political standpoint and is not discrimination within the meaning of ANY anti-discrimination law operative within the United Kingdom.
Your overt and unpleasant bigotry in blindingly obvious!
-
Your overt and unpleasant bigotry in blindingly obvious!
Yes, of course he/she could. That is a political standpoint and is not discrimination within the meaning of ANY anti-discrimination law operative within the United Kingdom.
Your overt and unpleasnt bigotry in blindingly obvious!
But the cake was a political standpoint. Given that ad_o is only using a similar example to Peter Tatchell, are you saying Tatchell's an overt and unpleasant bigot?
-
Moderator a post has been removed due to it being a personal insult. Please endeavour to conduct the discussion in line with the forum rules
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=7765.0
-
NS as I have said I am on the fence.
It would have been interesting if the wording had been different to see if Ashers would still have refused:
Darren and David are married - Celebrate.
What would have been their attitude then?
I can see Tatchell's argument. Unfortunately I also have this little voice in my head saying if it's brown and smelly, and it's lying turd-like on the pavement - then you can be pretty sure it is what you think it is.
-
NS as I have said I am on the fence.
It would have been interesting if the wording had been different to see if Ashers would still have refused:
Darren and David are married - Celebrate.
What would have been their attitude then?
I can see Tatchell's argument. Unfortunately I also have this little voice in my head saying if it's brown and smelly, and it's lying turd-like on the pavement - then you can be pretty sure it is what you think it is.
And shutting down political freedom does not get rid of bigots, it makes more of them, as it makes bigots of the people shutting down that freedom.
-
Except, and this is where I struggle:
Ashers had falsely advertised their services, saying they were willing decorate their cakes with any message that a customer wanted. They did not say there were any limits on the designs or wording.
That to me is the sticking point in my mind.
-
Remember that at the time of the incident, gay marriage was illegal in Northern Ireland (and, speaking as Ia Christian, I have no objection to secular gay marriage anywhere), this firm were not doing anything illegal as they saw it. If what they did was a matter of conscience, I think the law is in need of clarification. I'm with Taatchell on this.
-
Except, and this is where I struggle:
That to me is the sticking point in my mind.
In contractual terms that is still just an offer to treat and not a binding clause. I also suspect it was not considered in the sense of all messages no matter the content, just in the sense of you tell us your message we can print it because of the technology. I don't see how it can be taken as a restriction on their political freedom.
-
Remember that at the time of the incident, gay marriage was illegal in Northern Ireland (and, speaking as Ia Christian, I have no objection to secular gay marriage anywhere), this firm were not doing anything illegal as they saw it. If what they did was a matter of conscience, I think the law is in need of clarification. I'm with Taatchell on this.
And gay marriage is still illegal in NI
-
True, unfortunately, NS. So this firm were supporting the legal position as they saw it....even if that position was wrong in the eyes of many people.
-
True, unfortunately, NS. So this firm were supporting the legal position as they saw it....even if that position was wrong in the eyes of many people.
I don't think they can use the argument that they were supporting the legal position with any strength as that would be the equivalent shutting down of political freedom.
-
So an immigrant baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake that had "Vote BNP" on it.
That is very different indeed the BNP are racist scum. Would you support a cake with a racist comment? Racism and anti-gay bigotry are evil.
-
That is very different indeed the BNP are racist scum. Would you support a cake with a racist comment? Racism and anti-gay bigotry are evil.
The BNP are a legal party. It's a very similar issue. Just wanting to ban things you don't like is incredibly dangerous.
-
The BNP are a legal party. It's a very similar issue. Just wanting to ban things you don't like is incredibly dangerous.
They might be legal, but they are still evil racists! >:(
-
They might be legal, but they are still evil racists! >:(
So the test if what people have to produce if asked is whatever Floo thinks is right.
-
So the test if what people have to produce if asked is whatever Floo thinks is right.
So don't you think the BNP is racist?
-
So an immigrant baker couldn't refuse to bake a cake that had "Vote BNP" on it.
The BNP is not a protected group under British law.
However, I do see the point. It's one thing to refuse to serve somebody because of who they are, it's another different thing to refuse to serve any person with a particular thing they want.
-
So don't you think the BNP is racist?
I don't think that what I believe something to be is the test of restricting political freedom. To extend the analogy do you think a Muslim printer should be able to be forced to print cartoons of Mohammed?
-
So don't you think the BNP is racist?
can't speak for NS but I imagine he does. But I think you are misunderstanding what NS is getting at here.
As far as I can see it is the issue of the intention of the bakers at play here - that is did they intend to discriminate against the person or the idea.
Tatchell is arguing that it is the idea they did not like, not the person. I find that distinction a little disingenuous but I am enough of a realist to see that it causes issues that are not easily resolvable.
-
I don't think that what I believe something to be is the test of restricting political freedom. To extend the analogy do you think a Muslim printer should be able to be forced to print cartoons of Mohammed?
But surely being racist is something which should be restricted, especially when those sentiments are put into practise?
-
can't speak for NS but I imagine he does. But I think you are misunderstanding what NS is getting at here.
As far as I can see it is the issue of the intention of the bakers at play here - that is did they intend to discriminate against the person or the idea.
Tatchell is arguing that it is the idea they did not like, not the person. I find that distinction a little disingenuous but I am enough of a realist to see that it causes issues that are not easily resolvable.
I can't see the distinction myself, like saying, 'hate the sin, but love the sinner', when applied to homosexuality.
-
But surely being racist is something which should be restricted, especially when those sentiments are put into practise?
I don't understand this line of reasoning. Who was putting a racist sentiment into practice here? I thought this was about a cake with a pro-gay marriage political slogan.
-
But surely being racist is something which should be restricted, especially when those sentiments are put into practise?
It is restricted but that's not relevant to the point here.
I suppose a closer analogy is whether a Muslim could force a Jewish bakery to produce a cake that said 'Israel should cease to exist' as both groups, as in this case are protected groups.
-
Ashers lose appeal. I think this is problematic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681
FWIW I have a have a problem with this judgement as it would seem that the legislation in question is interfering with one of the fundamental conditions of contract, ie there must be consent. The complainants may well have had a case for breach of contract, but the disrcimination aspect seems to me to be OTT. I would not want to make a cake with a "pro choice" message on it (OK I concede that kind of thing is highly unlikely, but it's the unlikely events that make the consdieration of new legosaltion the timely process that it is.
-
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Ashers was not discriminating when they refused to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.
I agree with the result on the grounds that a business should have a choice about promoting political slogans.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
-
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Ashers was not discriminating when they refused to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.
I agree with the result on the grounds that a business should have a choice about promoting political slogans.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
Agreed.
-
I agree with the result on the grounds that a business should have a choice about promoting political slogans.
I think it's more fundamental than that. This is a free speech issue. Free speech is not free if you do not have the right not to say something.
-
I think it's more fundamental than that. This is a free speech issue. Free speech is not free if you do not have the right not to say something.
Quite.You are free to say what you like, within limits (you can't say absolutely anything), but no-one is obliged to give you a platform.
-
Relentless secularism will manage to level the playing field in the end and it's also obvious that there's always going to be the occasional setback.
ippy
-
Relentless secularism will manage to level the playing field in the end and it's also obvious that there's always going to be the occasional setback.
ippy
I don't see it as a setback at all. I agree with the verdict. I think peter Tatchell had it about right when he changed his view in 2016.
-
I don't see it as a setback at all. I agree with the verdict. I think peter Tatchell had it about right when he changed his view in 2016.
Have a look at this link:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/nss-members-challenge-judicial-church-service-that-reinforces-links-between-church-and-state
ippy
-
Have a look at this link:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/nss-members-challenge-judicial-church-service-that-reinforces-links-between-church-and-state
ippy
Ippy what is the relevance?
I worked in the Royal Courts of Justice between 1978, and 1984, and saw this procession many times. It is just a piece of pageantry, as is the lesser known Ceremony of the Quit Rents. To my mind the most annoying part was the fact that the procession is led by the Tipstaff, usually a career civil servant who sends his subordinates to do the dirty work (ie eject people from the buiding).
-
Ippy what is the relevance?
I worked in the Royal Courts of Justice between 1978, and 1984, and saw this procession many times. It is just a piece of pageantry, as is the lesser known Ceremony of the Quit Rents. To my mind the most annoying part was the fact that the procession is led by the Tipstaff, usually a career civil servant who sends his subordinates to do the dirty work (ie eject people from the buiding).
If you don't want to see you wont, it's not for me to explain it to you and if I were to take the time?
ippy
-
Ippy that is a total fail upon your part and I do not intend to debate this diversion further.
-
Ippy that is a total fail upon your part and I do not intend to debate this diversion further.
What a surprise!!
ippy
-
Have a look at this link:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/nss-members-challenge-judicial-church-service-that-reinforces-links-between-church-and-state
ippy
They have same thing in USA (Red Mass and all that).
Fail to see what a bit of tradition has to do with a cake, gay or straight.
-
Have a look at this link:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/nss-members-challenge-judicial-church-service-that-reinforces-links-between-church-and-state
ippy
Looked at your link. Can't find the slightest relevance to the cake decision whatever. I still think that it was the right decision. :)
-
Particularly gay cakes
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/517702919650491604/?lp=true
-
Particularly gay cakes
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/517702919650491604/?lp=true
Definitely emoji infested. Not sure about gay though unless you meant “gay” in its earlier sense.
-
Yeah, just trying to lighten up a bit.
-
Sauce. Goose. Gander.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/11/gay-cake-christian-institute-photography/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Buffer&utm_campaign=PN
-
;D Love it!
-
They have same thing in USA (Red Mass and all that).
Fail to see what a bit of tradition has to do with a cake, gay or straight.
This daft anachronistic hokum is confined to the English court.
Similar - though thankfully unrelated and much lestr faft - rigmarole happens in Scotland.
I don't know whether it happens in NI.
Either way, id ousn't happen in the so-called UK Supreme court; nor should it.
-
Sauce. Goose. Gander.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/11/gay-cake-christian-institute-photography/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Buffer&utm_campaign=PN
I agree with this. I prefer a society where businesses have the freedom to decide who they will and won't do business with based on their ethical outlook. I think people should be free to disagree with each other's values and everyone should try to accept that others might dislike or disagree with their values or ethical choices and seek to persuade them to change by not doing business with them. I think that freedom is more important than hurt feelings.
-
I agree with this. I prefer a society where businesses have the freedom to decide who they will and won't do business with based on their ethical outlook. I think people should be free to disagree with each other's values and everyone should try to accept that others might dislike or disagree with their values or ethical choices and seek to persuade them to change by not doing business with them. I think that freedom is more important than hurt feelings.
To a certain extent I agree. I just want to remind posters, that to me at least, this doesn't feel as if it comes from any moral value held but from something much more base in nature. I could be wrong but as I posted elsewhere (or possibly here) if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck.
-
I prefer a society where businesses have the freedom to decide who they will and won't do business with based on their ethical outlook.
I don't - that means that businesses would be able to refuse to serve black people if they were racist, or to hire muslim people if they were islamophobic. That is fundamentally opposed to basic human rights. And if this applies to businesses then why not other professional roles - a teacher allowed to refuse to teach a Jewish child, a doctor refusing to treat a gay patient.
We need to recognise the distinction between personal beliefs and ethics, and how someone needs to act in a professional or business context. Someone might be a raging racist in their personal belief, but if they are a doctor or in business you need to park those beliefs at the door the moment you start your working day and treat people without discrimination until the moment you leave at night.
-
I don't - that means that businesses would be able to refuse to serve black people if they were racist, or to hire muslim people if they were islamophobic. That is fundamentally opposed to basic human rights. And if this applies to businesses then why not other professional roles - a teacher allowed to refuse to teach a Jewish child, a doctor refusing to treat a gay patient.
We need to recognise the distinction between personal beliefs and ethics, and how someone needs to act in a professional or business context. Someone might be a raging racist in their personal belief, but if they are a doctor or in business you need to park those beliefs at the door the moment you start your working day and treat people without discrimination until the moment you leave at night.
You misunderstood. This Supreme Court verdict does not alter the Equality legislation - you still can't discriminate based on protected characteristics and if Ashers had refused to make the cake because the person requesting the service was gay, then quite rightly the law prevents this.
The issue is whether you can refuse to do business with someone because you disagree with their ethics or values - and the photography firm were able to refuse to do business with the Christian Institute on that basis. As much as a business could refuse to print leaflets that support changing to an immigration policy they disagreed with or they could refuse to print leaflets supporting the introduction of sharia law into English criminal law etc
-
To a certain extent I agree. I just want to remind posters, that to me at least, this doesn't feel as if it comes from any moral value held but from something much more base in nature. I could be wrong but as I posted elsewhere (or possibly here) if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck.
If you mean Ashers rather than Perfocal, the photography company - I assume it comes from either their belief that homosexual sex is a sin or that marriage from their religious perspective is only between a man and a woman so they won't support the political idea of legalising gay civil marriages as they don't see a distinction between civil and religious marriages. I assume by "duck" you mean their outlook falls within the definition of homophobic.
-
or they could refuse to print leaflets supporting the introduction of sharia law into English criminal law etc
Do you think thry could refuse to print you a leaflet announcing a bring and buy sale, because they know that you support the introduction of sharia law?
That's where it gets a bit grey and confusing for me!
-
You misunderstood. This Supreme Court verdict does not alter the Equality legislation - you still can't discriminate based on protected characteristics and if Ashers had refused to make the cake because the person requesting the service was gay, then quite rightly the law prevents this.
The issue is whether you can refuse to do business with someone because you disagree with their ethics or values - and the photography firm were able to refuse to do business with the Christian Institute on that basis. As much as a business could refuse to print leaflets that support changing to an immigration policy they disagreed with or they could refuse to print leaflets supporting the introduction of sharia law into English criminal law etc
But the distinction then needs to be between individual people, on the basis of protected characteristics, and ideas and organisations. The latter do not have protections in the manner that the former do. My concern is the blurring of the distinction, and indeed it is sometimes extremely difficult to determine whether someone is discriminating against the individual or against the idea. This was certainly the situation in this case as it was at the heart of the matter and there wasn't unanimity of view at the differing levels of the legal system.
In this case there were also complications around discrimination on the grounds of political beliefs which are more stringent (for obvious reasons) in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK.
So what about a similar, but hypothetical, situation where it wasn't a cake making a quasi-political statement, but a wedding cake. If a man came into a bakers and asked them to make a traditional wedding cake for his marriage to his husband and asked for the cake to be topped with two little male 'groom' figures - should a bakery be allowed to refuse to make it. This seems to be a clear cut case of discriminating against the person (who is clear being treated less favourable as they are gay rather than straight), but the bakery could claim that it was merely their objection to same sex marriage.
-
But the distinction then needs to be between individual people, on the basis of protected characteristics, and ideas and organisations. The latter do not have protections in the manner that the former do. My concern is the blurring of the distinction, and indeed it is sometimes extremely difficult to determine whether someone is discriminating against the individual or against the idea. This was certainly the situation in this case as it was at the heart of the matter and there wasn't unanimity of view at the differing levels of the legal system.
In this case there were also complications around discrimination on the grounds of political beliefs which are more stringent (for obvious reasons) in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK.
So what about a similar, but hypothetical, situation where it wasn't a cake making a quasi-political statement, but a wedding cake. If a man came into a bakers and asked them to make a traditional wedding cake for his marriage to his husband and asked for the cake to be topped with two little male 'groom' figures - should a bakery be allowed to refuse to make it. This seems to be a clear cut case of discriminating against the person (who is clear being treated less favourable as they are gay rather than straight), but the bakery could claim that it was merely their objection to same sex marriage.
I think from what I remember of the legal arguments from when The case was initially brought, as same-sex marriages were not legal in NI, this was considered a political slogan to campaign for political change. That’s a different scenario from same-sex marriages being legal and refusing to make a cake for the wedding.
-
I think from what I remember of the legal arguments from when The case was initially brought, as same-sex marriages were not legal in NI, this was considered a political slogan to campaign for political change. That’s a different scenario from same-sex marriages being legal and refusing to make a cake for the wedding.
Yes I understand the context of the NI case, but I'd be interested in your views on my alternative scenario assuming, for the sake of argument, this occurred in England where same sex couples can marry.
Should a baker being able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple presuming that they'd happily make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple?
-
Should a baker being able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple presuming that they'd happily make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple?
I think the law is clear on that. If the cake is ordered by a wedding planner or other third party they might be able to refuse, but if it is ordered by one of the parties getting married then that is clear discrimination.
-
I think the law is clear on that. If the cake is ordered by a wedding planner or other third party they might be able to refuse, but if it is ordered by one of the parties getting married then that is clear discrimination.
Surely even if it was ordered by a third party it would still be clear discrimination - probably direct discrimination, but certainly indirect discrimination, which is just as unlawful.
-
Surely even if it was ordered by a third party it would still be clear discrimination - probably direct discrimination, but certainly indirect discrimination, which is just as unlawful.
Even if it is lawful it's a very easy one to get around.
-
Yes I understand the context of the NI case, but I'd be interested in your views on my alternative scenario assuming, for the sake of argument, this occurred in England where same sex couples can marry.
Should a baker being able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple presuming that they'd happily make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple?
My agreement with the Supreme Court's judgement rests purely on the grounds that a political message was being delivered, and the business had every right not to promote that message.
As for your question, in my view this would amount to a clear case of discrimination against the same sex couple if the baker refused, so I would suggest that this would be against the law.
-
Even if it is lawful it's a very easy one to get around.
How
-
Even if it is lawful it's a very easy one to get around.
Yep - all any supplier need do if they don't fancy what is asked them is say that they aren't able to meet the request, for which there are any number of plausible excuses that would be an easy and smart way of opting out of certain work without rancour: 'can't do it pal, too many staff off sick you see, plus we're out of icing sugar anyway'.
Mind you, that way they don't get to proclaim their outrage at requested cakes being against their religions scruples.
-
Yep - all any supplier need do if they don't fancy what is asked them is say that they aren't able to meet the request, for which there are any number of plausible excuses that would be an easy and smart way of opting out of certain work without rancour: 'can't do it pal, too many staff off sick you see, plus we're out of icing sugar anyway'.
Mind you, that way they don't get to proclaim their outrage at requested cakes being against their religions scruples.
No, I don't think that works unless they can show that they refuse all orders at that time.
What I meant was that if a third party (eg a wedding venue) ordered the cake they could ensure compliance with equality legislation by directing payment directly from the couple.
-
Do you think thry could refuse to print you a leaflet announcing a bring and buy sale, because they know that you support the introduction of sharia law?
That's where it gets a bit grey and confusing for me!
I think they could refuse. I think I’m right in saying a business can refuse to do business with you because they find you annoying and they don’t like you. They just can’t refuse because they don’t like your race, gender, disability, religion or sexual orientation. So long as their reasons for refusing are not one of those I assume you can refuse to print leaflets supporting Brexit or support lowering the age of consent for marriage etc etc
-
To a certain extent I agree. I just want to remind posters, that to me at least, this doesn't feel as if it comes from any moral value held but from something much more base in nature. I could be wrong but as I posted elsewhere (or possibly here) if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it probably is a duck.
So you think that the court should have applied the "mischief rule", and found in favour of the Plaintiff?
-
This daft anachronistic hokum is confined to the English court.
Similar - though thankfully unrelated and much lestr faft - rigmarole happens in Scotland.
I don't know whether it happens in NI.
Either way, id ousn't happen in the so-called UK Supreme court; nor should it.
What about the hymn, reading and prayer that we used to have at my secondary school assembly every day, would you advocate that?
-
Surely even if it was ordered by a third party it would still be clear discrimination - probably direct discrimination, but certainly indirect discrimination, which is just as unlawful.
I also think it would be discrimination - the baker would be refusing based on the couple getting married being homosexual and it doesn’t matter who is pays for the service. In this scenario the wedding planner would be acting as an agent for the principal - the couple who hired them. But even if the couple’s friends or parents hired them, it would still be refusal of service based on a protected characteristic.
-
So you think that the court should have applied the "mischief rule", and found in favour of the Plaintiff?
No - as I said earlier on I sit uncomfortably on the fence on this issue. My view is that they were likely motivated by bigotry, that doesn't stop the law being wrong as it was initially interpreted. I just think this area is a fairly impenetrable minefield.
-
This daft anachronistic hokum is confined to the English court.
Similar - though thankfully unrelated and much lestr faft - rigmarole happens in Scotland.
I don't know whether it happens in NI.
Either way, id ousn't happen in the so-called UK Supreme court; nor should it.
I think that you will find that the Supreme Court members take part in the procession.
-
I think the law is clear on that. If the cake is ordered by a wedding planner or other third party they might be able to refuse, but if it is ordered by one of the parties getting married then that is clear discrimination.
I think it depends on why they are refusing to bake the cake. If they are refusing because the customer is gay, that is illegal. If they are refusing because the customer wants them to put a message on the cake of which they disapprove, I think this ruling makes that legal.
I'm not gay or a part of any protected group. If I walked into their bakery and asked them to bake me a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan on it, nothing in law prevents them from refusing. Why should it be different if a gay person walks in with an identical request?
-
Do you think thry could refuse to print you a leaflet announcing a bring and buy sale, because they know that you support the introduction of sharia law?
That's where it gets a bit grey and confusing for me!
Why shouldn't any business be free to refuse anyone's custom without giving a reason? There'd have to be exceptions to that, but I think there's nothing wrong with it as a general principle.
-
Why shouldn't any business be free to refuse anyone's custom without giving a reason? There'd have to be exceptions to that, but I think there's nothing wrong with it as a general principle.
My contribution two years ago.
Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 25, 2016, 09:11:51 AM
Ashers lose appeal. I think this is problematic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681
FWIW I have a have a problem with this judgement as it would seem that the legislation in question is interfering with one of the fundamental conditions of contract, ie there must be consent. The complainants may well have had a case for breach of contract, but the disrcimination aspect seems to me to be OTT. I would not want to make a cake with a "pro choice" message on it (OK I concede that kind of thing is highly unlikely, but it's the unlikely events that make the consdieration of new legosaltion the timely process that it is.
-
Why shouldn't any business be free to refuse anyone's custom without giving a reason? There'd have to be exceptions to that, but I think there's nothing wrong with it as a general principle.
Given you state there would have to be exceptions to that then you have already accepted Seb Toe's question that the exceptions have to exist and would benefit from discussion.
-
My contribution two years ago.
Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 25, 2016, 09:11:51 AM
Ashers lose appeal. I think this is problematic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681
FWIW I have a have a problem with this judgement as it would seem that the legislation in question is interfering with one of the fundamental conditions of contract, ie there must be consent. The complainants may well have had a case for breach of contract, but the disrcimination aspect seems to me to be OTT. I would not want to make a cake with a "pro choice" message on it (OK I concede that kind of thing is highly unlikely, but it's the unlikely events that make the consdieration of new legosaltion the timely process that it is.
The non discrimination laws cover that interference. Are you saying that you want people to be able to refuse to treat because someone is black?
-
The non discrimination laws cover that interference. Are you saying that you want people to be able to refuse to treat because someone is black?
No.
I am saying that there can be no contract under English Law without consent. If I do not consent to doing business with somebody, I should not be forced into the same by badly drawn up legislation intended to address a quite different issue.
-
No.
I am saying that there can be no contract under English Law without consent. If I do not consent to doing business with somebody, I should not be forced into the same by badly drawn up legislation intended to address a quite different issue.
Except if no legislation covers tgat, then you can exactly refuse to treat with someone who is black. So your principle supports that ability to refuse to treat with anyone for whatever reason. If you aren't supporting that, your position is contradictory.
-
Except if no legislation covers tgat, then you can exactly refuse to treat with someone who is black. So your principle supports that ability to refuse to treat with anyone for whatever reason. If you aren't supporting that, your position is contradictory.
No it is not. It is simply a matter of not being forced by a badly drafted law into a contract which I do not wish to enter. If I do not want to buy a copy of "The Big Issue" , then I do not wish to buy a copy of "The Big Issue", if the seller happens to be a Gypsy (and YES I know the difference between a Gypsy, and a Traveller), I am not guilty of discrimination. And if the seller happens to be gay, then I am not automatically guilty of discrimination, either.
The statute in question was well meaning, but badly drafted.
-
No it is not. It is simply a matter of not being forced by a badly drafted law into a contract which I do not wish to enter. If I do not want to buy a copy of "The Big Issue" , then I do not wish to buy a copy of "The Big Issue", if the seller happens to be a Gypsy (and YES I know the difference between a Gypsy, and a Traveller), I am not guilty of discrimination. And if the seller happens to be gay, then I am not automatically guilty of discrimination, either.
The statute in question was well meaning, but badly drafted.
Again this seems to have nothing to address the issue that if I want to buy a cake, and you want to refuse to treat with me because I'm black, then under your absolute priniciple then that is ok. You can argue that the legislation is badly drafted but since you don't support the idea that the offer to treat should be entirely dependent upon a simple principle of consent, your position is contradictory.
-
Perhaps I do not want to sell you a cake because you have walked into my shop wearing a puritan hat, a parachute on your back, and a T shirt bearing the logo "Who Farted?"
What matters is not whether I like the customer, but do I like the customers money? If the answer to the latter is "No", then I should not be forced to take your money.
"Thought Crime" is not yet enshrined in law (well not here anyway).
-
Perhaps I do not want to sell you a cake because you have walked into my shop wearing a puritan hat, a parachute on your back, and a T shirt bearing the logo "Who Farted?"
What matters is not whether I like the customer, but do I like the customers money? If the answer to the latter is "No", then I should not be forced to take your money.
"Thought Crime" is not yet enshrined in law (well not here anyway).
Then that means that if you do not want to treat with me because I am black, you support that right.
-
I am kind of wondering what would happen if I, a Muslim woman, refused to do business with a Muslim woman in hijab, while agreeing to do business with a Sikh man in a turban. But my reason for refusing business was not because the person was a Muslim or a woman or wearing hijab. For example, if I know the Muslim woman is a hard negotiator or constantly asks for add-ons without offering to pay and I can't be bothered with the hassle, and I know the Sikh man just pays the quoted fee.
Can a gay hotelier get away with refusing a room to a homosexual couple just because he finds them loud and obnoxious and then give a room to someone else who was quiet who happened to be heterosexual?
-
I am kind of wondering what would happen if I, a Muslim woman, refused to do business with a Muslim woman in hijab, while agreeing to do business with a Sikh man in a turban. But my reason for refusing business was not because the person was a Muslim or a woman or wearing hijab. For example, if I know the Muslim woman is a hard negotiator or constantly asks for add-ons without offering to pay and I can't be bothered with the hassle, and I know the Sikh man just pays the quoted fee.
Can a gay hotelier get away with refusing a room to a homosexual couple just because he finds them loud and obnoxious and then give a room to someone else who was quiet who happened to be heterosexual?
Yes. Because as yet being loud and obnoxious isn't a protected characteristic - BUT IT FUCKING SHOULD BE!
And that would apply no matter the sexual preference of the hotelier.
In most cases showing discrimination is difficult, if not close to impossible, In cases where people openly state why they refuse business though it becomes easier, or where a pattern of behaviour can be demonstrated. I think, to an extent, this is what Humph is talking about in terms of bad drafting, it's impossible to stop discrimination totally but I'm not sure that means we shouldn't try.
-
Then that means that if you do not want to treat with me because I am black, you support that right.
As I have written here before, on one occasion I did not serve a customer because he wore a prominent "Sinn Fein/IRA" tattoo on his arm. Would you have had me forced to serve him?
-
As I have written here before, on one occasion I did not serve a customer because he wore a prominent "Sinn Fein/IRA" tattoo on his arm. Would you have had me forced to serve him?
Me? No. and neither would the law. It's not a protected characteristic. The point remains though that your position that there is an absolute decision to treat allows people to refuse to treat with black people (amongst others).
-
Me? No. and neither would the law. It's not a protected characteristic. The point remains though that your position that there is an absolute decision to treat allows people to refuse to treat with black people (amongst others).
And my point remains that it was a badly drafted statute.
-
And my point remains that it was a badly drafted statute.
That's nice but doesn't address that you either want to restrict the consent to treating in some way, or you don't. Your previous post seemed to make clear that you didn't want to restrict it in which case you support the refusal to treat with someone because they are black. Now if you are saying that the is the drafting of the legislation that is the problem, you are back at contradicting yourself.
-
That's nice but doesn't address that you either want to restrict the consent to treating in some way, or you don't. Your previous post seemed to make clear that you didn't want to restrict it in which case you support the refusal to treat with someone because they are black. Now if you are saying that the is the drafting of the legislation that is the problem, you are back at contradicting yourself.
The simple point is that I should not be forced to enter into a contract with somebody, if I do not want to do so.
-
The simple point is that I should not be forced to enter into a contract with somebody, if I do not want to do so.
In which case you do support the right of refusing someone because they are black.
-
In which case you do support the right of refusing someone because they are black.
I can think what I like.
My kids, thanks to Ukip, are now "mixed race".
What I think of Ukip stays inside my head.
-
Yes. Because as yet being loud and obnoxious isn't a protected characteristic - BUT IT FUCKING SHOULD BE!
Nice ;D
And that would apply no matter the sexual preference of the hotelier.
In most cases showing discrimination is difficult, if not close to impossible, In cases where people openly state why they refuse business though it becomes easier, or where a pattern of behaviour can be demonstrated. I think, to an extent, this is what Humph is talking about in terms of bad drafting, it's impossible to stop discrimination totally but I'm not sure that means we shouldn't try.
I don't have any stats but hope the case would not go against the hotelier if he was straight. Or against me if I am a non-Muslim refusing service to a Muslim woman in hijab. I hope the courts do not uphold unjustified assumptions as that would be discrimination. I get the feeling that this is the perception some people have of the courts - that they are discriminatory e.g. men get harsher sentences than women for similar acts of violence. It's hard to compare as no two cases are the same but that perception of unfairness causes an erosion of trust.
-
I can think what I like.
My kids, thanks to Ukip, are now "mixed race".
What I think of Ukip stays inside my head.
Yes,of course you can think what you like. Doesn't stop that your position on contracts allows someone to refuse to treat with someone because they are black.
-
Nice ;D
I don't have any stats but hope the case would not go against the hotelier if he was straight. Or against me if I am a non-Muslim refusing service to a Muslim woman in hijab. I hope the courts do not uphold unjustified assumptions as that would be discrimination. I get the feeling that this is the perception some people have of the courts - that they are discriminatory e.g. men get harsher sentences than women for similar acts of violence. It's hard to compare as no two cases are the same but that perception of unfairness causes an erosion of trust.
You seem to be mixing up whether courts uphold unjustified perceptions, which you admit you have no evidence for, and some vague talk about people's perceptions. In addition what the sentences are for violence seems irrelevant to the question of discrimination in cases such as the gay cake by suppliers.
-
You seem to be mixing up whether courts uphold unjustified perceptions, which you admit you have no evidence for, and some vague talk about people's perceptions. In addition what the sentences are for violence seems irrelevant to the question of discrimination in cases such as the gay cake by suppliers.
Yes because I decided to broaden out the discussion - if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post. I don't have evidence, but by mentioning the issue I am opening up the possibility that someone else on this forum knows and more importantly has the time to find some stats on it, if they exist.
Even if the courts do not uphold the unjustified perceptions, if the CPS decide to prosecute someone for a hate crime based on unjustified perceptions or because they have targets to meet, it unfairly penalises a defendant who will have expensive legal fees to pay. The common theme is badly drafted legislation and a judicial system or CPS with an agenda that might lead to having to defend yourself against unjustified accusations of discrimination.
The Equality Act reverses the burden of proof in all cases except those which relate to a criminal offence. Sections 136 (2) and (3) provides that if there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention ocurred unless A can show otherwise.
Where the allegation concerns a criminal offence the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) applies.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/equality-act-2010/
-
Yes because I decided to broaden out the discussion - if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post. I don't have evidence, but by mentioning the issue I am opening up the possibility that someone else on this forum knows and more importantly has the time to find some stats on it, if they exist.
Even if the courts do not uphold the unjustified perceptions, if the CPS decide to prosecute someone for a hate crime based on unjustified perceptions or because they have targets to meet, it unfairly penalises a defendant who will have expensive legal fees to pay. The common theme is badly drafted legislation and a judicial system or CPS with an agenda that might lead to having to defend yourself against unjustified accusations of discrimination.
The Equality Act reverses the burden of proof in all cases except those which relate to a criminal offence. Sections 136 (2) and (3) provides that if there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention ocurred unless A can show otherwise.
Where the allegation concerns a criminal offence the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) applies.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/equality-act-2010/
Widening the discussion is ok. Widening it irrelevantly and then providing no justification for it, uninteresting.
-
Widening the discussion is ok. Widening it irrelevantly and then providing no justification for it, uninteresting.
As I said "if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post."
Replying to a post is ok. Replying to a post you find uninteresting to state you find it uninteresting - foolish.
-
As I said "if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post."
Replying to a post is ok. Replying to a post you find uninteresting to state you find it uninteresting - foolish.
Assumes your 'broadening ' is relevant. Lego, eh!
-
Assumes your 'broadening ' is relevant. Lego, eh!
Yes I do think what I wrote is relevant to the discussion. It's fine if you don't.
If you want to keep replying to any of my posts to say that you think my post is irrelevant... if it helps you pass the time go ahead.
-
Yes I do think what I wrote is relevant to the discussion. It's fine if you don't.
If you want to keep replying to any of my posts to say that you think my post is irrelevant... if it helps you pass the time go ahead.
why is it relevant?
-
No.
I am saying that there can be no contract under English Law without consent.
This is blatantly false. You cannot, for example, refuse service, if your reason for doing so is that the other party is gay or black.
-
This is blatantly false. You cannot, for example, refuse service, if your reason for doing so is that the other party is gay or black.
Jeremy, anybody who has ever taken a Legal Executive course knows that for a contract to be valid, there must be consent. Otherwise you could claim monies from me for failing to wash your windows regardless of the fact that I had never agreed to wash them!
-
Yes,of course you can think what you like. Doesn't stop that your position on contracts allows someone to refuse to treat with someone because they are black.
OK I was being deliberately provocative.
But you seem to be arguing that the statute in question means that I would have to do business with somebody because they are black. That would be in legal terms "an absurdity", and the judiciary would most probably apply "the golden rule".
-
Jeremy, anybody who has ever taken a Legal Executive course knows that for a contract to be valid, there must be consent. Otherwise you could claim monies from me for failing to wash your windows regardless of the fact that I had never agreed to wash them!
In your example there never was a contract. However, if you refuse to accept a contract to wash somebody’s windows purely on the grounds that they were gay, or black, you would be breaking British law.
The whole argument: we can’t have a law to do X because in British law X is illegal is a nonsense. British law is what the government and courts say it is. As such, it can always be changed.
-
In your example there never was a contract. However, if you refuse to accept a contract to wash somebody’s windows purely on the grounds that they were gay, or black, you would be breaking British law.
The whole argument: we can’t have a law to do X because in British law X is illegal is a nonsense. British law is what the government and courts say it is. As such, it can always be changed.
There is no such thing as "British law". Don't ask the Daily Wail, ask Gordon, or Anchorman.
If I don't want to enter into a contract with Mr X just because he is black, that is different from me not wanting to enter into a contract with Mr X because he wants me to bake a cake with the slogan "Black Power".
-
There is no such thing as "British law".
Are you really going to try to defend yourself on such a triviality? My point stands whether I say English law, Scottish law, Welsh law or any other laws that apply in any of the jurisdictions that make up Great Britain.
If I don't want to enter into a contract with Mr X just because he is black, that is different from me not wanting to enter into a contract with Mr X because he wants me to bake a cake with the slogan "Black Power".
I agree that those two cases are different. The former is illegal under English law. The latter is not illegal according to the ruling about which we are talking and rightly so, in my opinion.
[/quote]
-
I picked this up on the NSS site, whether it's liked or not I think it's a good point to file at the back of the mind for future reference, when something similar might crop up.
=====
"However, it has created a potentially confusing grey area for shoppers whereby businesses can 'opt out' of supplying services where the owners disagree with the message a customer wants to convey. We hope this doesn't embolden bigots by allowing them to use 'disagreement with the message' as a cloak for refusing services to people on the basis of who they are."
ippy
-
I picked this up on the NSS site, whether it's liked or not I think it's a good point to file at the back of the mind for future reference, when something similar might crop up.
=====
"However, it has created a potentially confusing grey area for shoppers whereby businesses can 'opt out' of supplying services where the owners disagree with the message a customer wants to convey. We hope this doesn't embolden bigots by allowing them to use 'disagreement with the message' as a cloak for refusing services to people on the basis of who they are."
ippy
Interesting point actually. If you order a wedding cake with two male figures on the top, is that a message?
-
There is no such thing as "British law". Don't ask the Daily Wail, ask Gordon, or Anchorman.
If I don't want to enter into a contract with Mr X just because he is black, that is different from me not wanting to enter into a contract with Mr X because he wants me to bake a cake with the slogan "Black Power".
However, as far as legislation concerning this particular issue goes, you could not put a parliamentary order paper between English and Scots Law.
Northern Ireland - sadly - is a different kettle of cheese......
-
why is it relevant?
I think it's relevant because one of the points of discussion seems to be about courts interpreting legislation and facts. In the case of the cake it is an interpretation of what does and does not constitute a request for a political message, as that is not a protected characteristic. Interpretations are influenced by assumptions that are made by the person or people deciding the case. As was seen in the Ashers case, different judges reach opposing conclusions based on their differing interpretation of legislation.
I was broadening out the discussion to suggest that assumptions made in interpretation of legislation and facts in court cases can result in conflict in society, in employment or in provision of goods and services. This can lead to an erosion of trust in the judicial system. I don't know if there is evidence to justify that perception of the judicial system, hence I was hoping that by bringing it up it was possible that other posters can link to stats or evidence on the judicial system discriminating in deciding cases that hinge on the perception of credibility of the respective parties.
For example in civil cases assumptions may have been made by a claimant that the respondent is prejudiced and discriminated against them based on a protected characteristic.
Or assumptions may be made in tribunals and courts that the claimant is dishonest or that the respondent could not possibly be a bigot, because finding for the person claiming discrimination would potentially destroy the reputation of the respondent. In criminal cases assumptions might be made based on sex, e.g. results in the court finding that an alleged criminal act was wholly out of character for the defendant.
It would be useful to see a study on outcomes of different types of discrimination cases and any investigation into why they might have been decided the way they were. You might consider that as irrelevant and uninteresting and I might consider your opinion on the matter irrelevant and uninteresting. Oh well.