I mean if we're talking about discrimination, then not baking a cake for someone to be fair really has to fade into the background when you consider the governments stance on same sex marriage being that they don't want to recognize that two men can even have a marriage.
I mean, that is discrimination on a whole another level.
I've been here right from the start....I still don't get the relevance. In relation to this case there has been no discrimination against Christians.....but as I said, please don't put yourself out by explaining why you think there has been.
Nobody has for a moment suggested that there has been, so you can't have been reading it very thoroughly!
In my view the evidence simply does not support any finding that the bakery discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The judge in order to say that it did had to rule that there was no distinction between the gay customer and the cause he espoused. This is clearly nonsense and has the effect of protecting an idea instead of a person and of course there is no law to support this.
The 1998 order similarly does not confer the rights the judge claimed. Those rights are a general political stances ie unionist or nationalist. That is the mischief the order was intended to meet. It was never intended to cover opinion on any view imaginable.
A lot has been said about tolerance here. The suggestion that it was the bakers who were intolerant and that others who are in fact intolerant of the bakers views are in reality tolerant if far divorced from reality.
Question- if I asked a gay baker to bake a cake with the message Gay marriage is sinful, how many would support the baker if my order were refused?
I wasnt aware that homophobia was a protected characteristic
I mean if we're talking about discrimination, then not baking a cake for someone to be fair really has to fade into the background when you consider the governments stance on same sex marriage being that they don't want to recognize that two men can even have a marriage.
I mean, that is discrimination on a whole another level.
All the more reason to protect the rights of people who want cakes baked which are in support of a challenge against the government in relation to same sex marriage.
All you had to do was say that is not what you meant ....so no Christians have been discriminated against and all is well with the world then.
What is not what I meant? I was responding to another poster who seems to dislike religious people. Trying to bait me won't work so try it on someone else.
All the more reason to protect the rights of people who want cakes baked which are in support of a challenge against the government in relation to same sex marriage.
That's just the thin end of the wedge. It's only a matter of time before some clown tries approaching Muslim bakers demanding a logo of "Ban Sharia Law" with cartoon figures of Mohammed.
All the more reason to protect the rights of people who want cakes baked which are in support of a challenge against the government in relation to same sex marriage.
tbh, i don't get the point you're making. I would have thought that they would have had more protection rather than the gay man, considering that their views match the views of the goverment.
tbh, i don't get the point you're making. I would have thought that they would have had more protection rather than the gay man, considering that their views match the views of the goverment.
That's how this judge has effectively accused the entire NI Government of the same offence!
tbh, i don't get the point you're making. I would have thought that they would have had more protection rather than the gay man, considering that their views match the views of the goverment.
Exactly, all Ashers are guilty of is refusing to support a campaign favouring a change in the law.
What is not what I meant? I was responding to another poster who seems to dislike religious people. Trying to bait me won't work so try it on someone else.
What's with this baiting.....are you so sensitive that you see a question as baiting...if that's the case debating is not for you.
Indeed, I get the feeling that Ashers are being made scapegoats for government policy.
No, the Judge decided on the basis that a campaign to change the status of SSM is lawful and the political opinions held by the plaintiff are therefore lawful.
Discrimination can be lawful - we all do it, all the time and it is only unlawful if specific legally enshrined circumstances are met. The NI law covering marriage is lawful, despite being discriminatory because the NI government has decided that is the case. Their current view is that the people do not wish the discrimination to be removed... just as the UK still allows people to discriminate in their own homes or in religious organisations.
tbh, i don't get the point you're making. I would have thought that they would have had more protection rather than the gay man, considering that their views match the views of the goverment.
Did you not question why the government have not been challenged in relation to their stance on ssm because that is essentially discriminatory to people of the same sex who wish to get married. Surely to legislate against cake making to progress that challenge would be suppression as well as discriminatory?
No, the Judge decided on the basis that a campaign to change the status of SSM is lawful and the political opinions held by the plaintiff are therefore lawful.
Who suggested that their opinions were unlawful?
I think that some of the vitriol directed at them is to do with NI government policy on same sex marriage.
Of course. Publishing material for a cause supports it.
But it doesn't mean that the publishers support it.
If I read about book promoting the Conservative party, I wouldn't look at who published it and assume that they were Conservatives, all they do is to enter into a contract with the writer to print that book. The only sensible assumption to make is that the writer is a Conservative.
That's just the thin end of the wedge. It's only a matter of time before some clown tries approaching Muslim bakers demanding a logo of "Ban Sharia Law" with cartoon figures of Mohammed.
Lets see how far they get with that one.
Why would that also not be discriminatory, given that religion is a protected characteristic.
Are you saying the judge found the bakery guilty under a defunct since 2010 law?
It's not defunct. It came into force October 2010.
Changes to legislation:There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Equality Act 2010. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
Within part of which it states that; (1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
This the part the judge used to decide on discrimination but is open to serious questioning.
Comments
I mean if we're talking about discrimination, then not baking a cake for someone to be fair really has to fade into the background when you consider the governments stance on same sex marriage being that they don't want to recognize that two men can even have a marriage.
I mean, that is discrimination on a whole another level.
Nobody has for a moment suggested that there has been, so you can't have been reading it very thoroughly!
I wasnt aware that homophobia was a protected characteristic
All you had to do was say that is not what you meant
All the more reason to protect the rights of people who want cakes baked which are in support of a challenge against the government in relation to same sex marriage.
What is not what I meant? I was responding to another poster who seems to dislike religious people. Trying to bait me won't work so try it on someone else.
Lets see how far they get with that one.
Exactly, all Ashers are guilty of is refusing to support a campaign favouring a change in the law.
Indeed, I get the feeling that Ashers are being made scapegoats for government policy.
Ok, I got the wrong end of the stick, although I'm still not sure what you are talking about.
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2011/OFMdFM/7511.pdf
Are you saying the judge found the bakery guilty under a defunct since 2010 law?
For the millionth time, the Ashers were not being asked to support any campaign.
Do book publishers support every single thing printed in the books they publish?
Support, promote, associate with or contribute to.
Of course. Publishing material for a cause supports it.
What's with this baiting.....are you so sensitive that you see a question as baiting...if that's the case debating is not for you.
No, the Judge decided on the basis that a campaign to change the status of SSM is lawful and the political opinions held by the plaintiff are therefore lawful.
Discrimination can be lawful - we all do it, all the time and it is only unlawful if specific legally enshrined circumstances are met. The NI law covering marriage is lawful, despite being discriminatory because the NI government has decided that is the case. Their current view is that the people do not wish the discrimination to be removed... just as the UK still allows people to discriminate in their own homes or in religious organisations.
Did you not question why the government have not been challenged in relation to their stance on ssm because that is essentially discriminatory to people of the same sex who wish to get married. Surely to legislate against cake making to progress that challenge would be suppression as well as discriminatory?
Who suggested that their opinions were unlawful?
I think that some of the vitriol directed at them is to do with NI government policy on same sex marriage.
But it doesn't mean that the publishers support it.
If I read about book promoting the Conservative party, I wouldn't look at who published it and assume that they were Conservatives, all they do is to enter into a contract with the writer to print that book. The only sensible assumption to make is that the writer is a Conservative.
No it doesn't. Which is why you see disclaimers in published works.
Why would that also not be discriminatory, given that religion is a protected characteristic.
Within part of which it states that; (1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.
This the part the judge used to decide on discrimination but is open to serious questioning.