Taking offence is not the issue, discrimination is. Suggest you either read the thread or do some research to find out what constitutes discrimination.
Refusing to write a political statement, or any words that you disagree with, on a cake, does not mean a customer is discriminated against.
I think you are the one intent on derailing and the one having 'little outbursts' in an attempt to deflect. I was not, after all, the only person to mention your use of language. Perhaps you would like to return to your attempt to justify undermining the equality laws.
I've already stated my opinion on why I'm not convinced it was actually discrimination and why I think businesses should have the final say in which causes they support. I'm happy to discuss any points you disagree with.
I've already stated my opinion on why I'm not convinced it was actually discrimination and why I think businesses should have the final say in which causes they support. I'm happy discuss any points you disagree with.
But the courts and the law say differently.
They are guilty and have been found to be so.
Desperately turning to use words and see things in another way makes not a jot of difference to the facts.
Seems your views are that some can be treated unequally and disgustingly because of a Sky Fairy that you can't even prove it's existence.
Are you surprise that you are not taken seriously when you try to use religion as any kind of excuse?
I've already stated my opinion on why I'm not convinced it was actually discrimination and why I think businesses should have the final say in which causes they support. I'm happy to discuss any points you disagree with.
It was clearly discrimination - there is no debate about that because the owners chose not to sell a product to a specific person for a specific reason. As their reason was a difference in political views and because the customer was buying it for an LGBT organisation it was also unlawful discrimination. What you are actually saying is that you disagree with the current law - and want businesses to be able to discriminate if they have 'deeply held beliefs' - and as that will undermine and render ineffective all equality laws then I disagree with it for the reasons already stated.
It was clearly discrimination - there is no debate about that because the owners chose not to sell a product to a specific person for a specific reason. As their reason was a difference in political views and because the customer was buying it for an LGBT organisation it was also unlawful discrimination. What you are actually saying is that you disagree with the current law - and want businesses to be able to discriminate if they have 'deeply held beliefs' - and as that will undermine and render ineffective all equality laws then I disagree with it for the reasons already stated.
The simpler solution is for those with 'deeply held beliefs' should not set up businesses that may conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs' and then cry about it at a later date.
In fact I'd go far as to say that it's downright stupid to start up a business where they know that is my conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs'. So they very much did it to themselves.
Desperately turning to use words and see things in another way makes not a jot of difference to the facts.
Seems your views are that some can be treated unequally and disgustingly because of a Sky Fairy that you can't even prove it's existence.
Are you surprise that you are not taken seriously when you try to use religion as any kind of excuse?
I don't think refusing to print a message supporting gay marriage is the same as refusing to serve a gay person. I'm aware the courts have found differently but I disagree with that view.
The rest of your post seems a tad confused. I don't subscribe to any "sky fairy", and I don't wish for anyone to be treated unequally where I believe that's the case. I disagree with Ashers opinion on gay marriage, I just don't agree with the court ruling forcing them to print a message on a cake about it.
The simpler solution is for those with 'deeply held beliefs' should not set up businesses that may conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs' and then cry about it at a later date.
In fact I'd go far as to say that it's downright stupid to start up a business where they know that is my conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs'. So they very much did it to themselves.
Special order cakes are only a very small part of their business. I really don't think it's reasonable for us to expect that they would have anticipated the scenario of a customer asking them to produce a cake with a message promoting gay marriage, or any other cause they may disagree with.
That isn't the equalities legislation I was referring to however, but if you want to mention it then...
"The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief found in 2008
that the UK government had ‘balanced approaches in responding to difficult
situations with regard to freedom of religion or belief and the contentious
issues involved’ and welcomed the case-by-case approach which allowed each
complaint to be judged according to particular circumstances."
" Some forms of manifesting belief, such as wearing religious clothing
or jewellery, are likely to have a limited impact on other people; but other
forms of manifestation may result in a refusal to provide a service to, or
different treatment of, a particular group of people, and so may affect their
fundamental rights and freedoms. "
“The law in Northern Ireland prohibits the defendants from acting as they did and, in relation to the requirement to balance competing interests, she found that the extent to which the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order limit the manifestation of the defendants’ religious beliefs, those limitations are necessary in a democratic society and are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim which is the protection of the rights and freedoms of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that this does not give rise to any incompatibility between the rights of the defendants under Article 9 and the rights of the plaintiff under the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order. To do otherwise would be to allow a religious belief to dictate what the law is. That is a matter for the Assembly.”
It was clearly discrimination - there is no debate about that because the owners chose not to sell a product to a specific person for a specific reason. As their reason was a difference in political views and because the customer was buying it for an LGBT organisation it was also unlawful discrimination. What you are actually saying is that you disagree with the current law - and want businesses to be able to discriminate if they have 'deeply held beliefs' - and as that will undermine and render ineffective all equality laws then I disagree with it for the reasons already stated.
I don't want businesses to refuse to serve people because they are gay, if that's what you are trying to insinuate, regardless of their beliefs and whether they are deeply held or not.
The simpler solution is for those with 'deeply held beliefs' should not set up businesses that may conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs' and then cry about it at a later date.
In fact I'd go far as to say that it's downright stupid to start up a business where they know that is my conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs'. So they very much did it to themselves.
Yes, that is the simpler solution. Or just respect the fact we have legislation and get on with making cakes for everyone.
Special order cakes are only a very small part of their business. I really don't think it's reasonable for us to expect that they would have anticipated the scenario of a customer asking them to produce a cake with a message promoting gay marriage, or any other cause they may disagree with.
They're making bespoke products to the specifications of customers. Of course they must anticipate a certain amount of customers may ask them to produce a cake with a message promoting gay marriage, or any other cause with which they may disagree.
I don't want businesses to refuse to serve people because they are gay, if that's what you are trying to insinuate, regardless of their beliefs and whether they are deeply held or not.
But that will be the result of allowing such an exemption.
That isn't the equalities legislation I was referring to however, but if you want to mention it then...
I know but the Human Rights Act requires that every piece of legislation must be read so that it is compatible with the ECHR.
"Some forms of manifesting belief, such as wearing religious clothing
or jewellery, are likely to have a limited impact on other people; but other
forms of manifestation may result in a refusal to provide a service to, or
different treatment of, a particular group of people, and so may affect their
fundamental rights and freedoms "
The problem with this is that it is not a fundamental right or freedom to have a particular political message iced onto a cake. Ashers did not decline the order simply because Mr Lee was gay or because he supports gay marriage but because they themselves did not agree with it (as is their right to) and did not want to contribute to or associate themselves with such a campaign.
“The law in Northern Ireland prohibits the defendants from acting as they did and, in relation to the requirement to balance competing interests, she found that the extent to which the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order limit the manifestation of the defendants’ religious beliefs, those limitations are necessary in a democratic society and are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim which is the protection of the rights and freedoms of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that this does not give rise to any incompatibility between the rights of the defendants under Article 9 and the rights of the plaintiff under the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order. To do otherwise would be to allow a religious belief to dictate what the law is. That is a matter for the Assembly.”
I have to disagree with the judge here because Article 9 is not exclusively about protecting religious beliefs but, from the link you posted,
It also protects people’s right to freedom of conscience, and the right to follow one’s own ethical and moral principles in one’s actions
They're making bespoke products to the specifications of customers. Of course they must anticipate a certain amount of customers may ask them to produce a cake with a message promoting gay marriage, or any other cause with which they may disagree.
Again, it is a tiny section of their business and is clearly meant for special occasions such as birthdays, weddings, christenings etc and NOT to cater for political campaigns.
Special order cakes are only a very small part of their business. I really don't think it's reasonable for us to expect that they would have anticipated the scenario of a customer asking them to produce a cake with a message promoting gay marriage, or any other cause they may disagree with.
What cakes with all manner of slogans and celebrations on them. just like any other cake shop?
You are becoming less and less plausible.
THE LAW clearly states that you can't discriminate and so they should shape up or ship out!
What you don't explain is why do you think decent gay people should put up with vile discrimination because of some utter nonsense about a Sky Fairy that someone has chosen to think is true.
Let's start with the types who think this strangely and ask why they are setting up businesses and think that they will EVER be allowed to persecute people ever again?
I think it should be invoked in a case like this where someone is being asked to contribute to a political campaign they don't agree with.
Whatever word you want to use, this is what the judge said: "I have reached a finding in this case that what the Defendants were asked to do did not require them to support, promote or endorse any viewpoint."
I've made an analogy with book publishers and disclaimers have been mentioned, but I've yet to hear anything convincing to counter these points.
I know but the Human Rights Act requires that every piece of legislation must be read so that it is compatible with the ECHR.
"Some forms of manifesting belief, such as wearing religious clothing
or jewellery, are likely to have a limited impact on other people; but other
forms of manifestation may result in a refusal to provide a service to, or
different treatment of, a particular group of people, and so may affect their
fundamental rights and freedoms "
The problem with this is that it is not a fundamental right or freedom to have a particular political message iced onto a cake. Ashers did not decline the order simply because Mr Lee was gay or because he supports gay marriage but because they themselves did not agree with it (as is their right to) and did not want to contribute to or associate themselves with such a campaign.
“The law in Northern Ireland prohibits the defendants from acting as they did and, in relation to the requirement to balance competing interests, she found that the extent to which the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order limit the manifestation of the defendants’ religious beliefs, those limitations are necessary in a democratic society and are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim which is the protection of the rights and freedoms of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that this does not give rise to any incompatibility between the rights of the defendants under Article 9 and the rights of the plaintiff under the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order. To do otherwise would be to allow a religious belief to dictate what the law is. That is a matter for the Assembly.”
I have to disagree with the judge here because Article 9 is not exclusively about protecting religious beliefs but, from the link you posted,
It also protects people’s right to freedom of conscience, and the right to follow one’s own ethical and moral principles in one’s actions
The Judge was following multiple other cases where the same balance has been struck. You have the right of course to disagree, but the law was followed... you just don't like the law and are free to campaign to overturn it, and give religious people special rights to discriminate if you are happy to live with the consequences of that.
Again, it is a tiny section of their business and is clearly meant for special occasions such as birthdays, weddings, christenings etc and NOT to cater for political campaigns.<snip>.
What cakes with all manner of slogans and celebrations on them. just like any other cake shop?
You are becoming less and less plausible.
I'm sorry but their decision to sell special order cakes was obviously NOT taken to invite people to order cakes with political slogans. If you don't think that's plausible then that's up to you.
THE LAW clearly states that you can't discriminate and so they should shape up or ship out!
What you don't explain is why do you think decent gay people should put up with vile discrimination because of some utter nonsense about a Sky Fairy that someone has chosen to think is true.
Let's start with the types who think this strangely and ask why they are setting up businesses and think that they will EVER be allowed to persecute people ever again?
IE Let's start with the problem, not excuse them.
Well, they already have shipped out and decided that they won't be offering special order cakes to anyone now, so presumably you're happy with that?
You seem to be slightly obsessed with the Sky Fairy?
My thinking has nothing to do with religion but the right of everyone to follow one’s own ethical and moral principles in one’s actions - It is of no importance to me where those ethical and moral principles are derived from, it could be from one's religion, one's sexuality, one's parents or anywhere else.
Comments
Refusing to write a political statement, or any words that you disagree with, on a cake, does not mean a customer is discriminated against.
I've already stated my opinion on why I'm not convinced it was actually discrimination and why I think businesses should have the final say in which causes they support. I'm happy to discuss any points you disagree with.
There is no 'freedom of conscience' in the current legislation, so she couldn't.
But the courts and the law say differently.
They are guilty and have been found to be so.
Desperately turning to use words and see things in another way makes not a jot of difference to the facts.
Seems your views are that some can be treated unequally and disgustingly because of a Sky Fairy that you can't even prove it's existence.
Are you surprise that you are not taken seriously when you try to use religion as any kind of excuse?
Of course there is, Article 9 of the ECHR.
In my opinion, equality rights should always take precedence over the freedom of conscience.
This has been covered numerous times in this thread, so why don't you read it?
It was clearly discrimination - there is no debate about that because the owners chose not to sell a product to a specific person for a specific reason. As their reason was a difference in political views and because the customer was buying it for an LGBT organisation it was also unlawful discrimination. What you are actually saying is that you disagree with the current law - and want businesses to be able to discriminate if they have 'deeply held beliefs' - and as that will undermine and render ineffective all equality laws then I disagree with it for the reasons already stated.
I think it should be invoked in a case like this where someone is being asked to contribute to a political campaign they don't agree with.
The simpler solution is for those with 'deeply held beliefs' should not set up businesses that may conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs' and then cry about it at a later date.
In fact I'd go far as to say that it's downright stupid to start up a business where they know that is my conflict with their 'deeply held beliefs'. So they very much did it to themselves.
The rest of your post seems a tad confused. I don't subscribe to any "sky fairy", and I don't wish for anyone to be treated unequally where I believe that's the case. I disagree with Ashers opinion on gay marriage, I just don't agree with the court ruling forcing them to print a message on a cake about it.
Special order cakes are only a very small part of their business. I really don't think it's reasonable for us to expect that they would have anticipated the scenario of a customer asking them to produce a cake with a message promoting gay marriage, or any other cause they may disagree with.
That isn't the equalities legislation I was referring to however, but if you want to mention it then...
"The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief found in 2008
that the UK government had ‘balanced approaches in responding to difficult
situations with regard to freedom of religion or belief and the contentious
issues involved’ and welcomed the case-by-case approach which allowed each
complaint to be judged according to particular circumstances."
" Some forms of manifesting belief, such as wearing religious clothing
or jewellery, are likely to have a limited impact on other people; but other
forms of manifestation may result in a refusal to provide a service to, or
different treatment of, a particular group of people, and so may affect their
fundamental rights and freedoms. "
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_9.pdf
And from the judgement
“The law in Northern Ireland prohibits the defendants from acting as they did and, in relation to the requirement to balance competing interests, she found that the extent to which the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order limit the manifestation of the defendants’ religious beliefs, those limitations are necessary in a democratic society and are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim which is the protection of the rights and freedoms of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that this does not give rise to any incompatibility between the rights of the defendants under Article 9 and the rights of the plaintiff under the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order. To do otherwise would be to allow a religious belief to dictate what the law is. That is a matter for the Assembly.”
Yes, that is the simpler solution. Or just respect the fact we have legislation and get on with making cakes for everyone.
But that will be the result of allowing such an exemption.
I know but the Human Rights Act requires that every piece of legislation must be read so that it is compatible with the ECHR.
"Some forms of manifesting belief, such as wearing religious clothing
or jewellery, are likely to have a limited impact on other people; but other
forms of manifestation may result in a refusal to provide a service to, or
different treatment of, a particular group of people, and so may affect their
fundamental rights and freedoms "
The problem with this is that it is not a fundamental right or freedom to have a particular political message iced onto a cake. Ashers did not decline the order simply because Mr Lee was gay or because he supports gay marriage but because they themselves did not agree with it (as is their right to) and did not want to contribute to or associate themselves with such a campaign.
“The law in Northern Ireland prohibits the defendants from acting as they did and, in relation to the requirement to balance competing interests, she found that the extent to which the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order limit the manifestation of the defendants’ religious beliefs, those limitations are necessary in a democratic society and are a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim which is the protection of the rights and freedoms of the plaintiff. I am satisfied that this does not give rise to any incompatibility between the rights of the defendants under Article 9 and the rights of the plaintiff under the 2006 Regulations and/or the 1998 Order. To do otherwise would be to allow a religious belief to dictate what the law is. That is a matter for the Assembly.”
I have to disagree with the judge here because Article 9 is not exclusively about protecting religious beliefs but, from the link you posted,
It also protects people’s right to freedom of conscience, and the right to follow one’s own ethical and moral principles in one’s actions
Again, it is a tiny section of their business and is clearly meant for special occasions such as birthdays, weddings, christenings etc and NOT to cater for political campaigns.
I know, some people on here insist on replying to threads even when they claim not to be interested in the subject. Bizarre.
What cakes with all manner of slogans and celebrations on them. just like any other cake shop?
You are becoming less and less plausible.
THE LAW clearly states that you can't discriminate and so they should shape up or ship out!
What you don't explain is why do you think decent gay people should put up with vile discrimination because of some utter nonsense about a Sky Fairy that someone has chosen to think is true.
Let's start with the types who think this strangely and ask why they are setting up businesses and think that they will EVER be allowed to persecute people ever again?
IE Let's start with the problem, not excuse them.
Whatever word you want to use, this is what the judge said: "I have reached a finding in this case that what the Defendants were asked to do did not require them to support, promote or endorse any viewpoint."
I've made an analogy with book publishers and disclaimers have been mentioned, but I've yet to hear anything convincing to counter these points.
The Judge was following multiple other cases where the same balance has been struck. You have the right of course to disagree, but the law was followed... you just don't like the law and are free to campaign to overturn it, and give religious people special rights to discriminate if you are happy to live with the consequences of that.
Then they should stick to those categories.
I'm sorry but their decision to sell special order cakes was obviously NOT taken to invite people to order cakes with political slogans. If you don't think that's plausible then that's up to you.
Well, they already have shipped out and decided that they won't be offering special order cakes to anyone now, so presumably you're happy with that?
You seem to be slightly obsessed with the Sky Fairy?
My thinking has nothing to do with religion but the right of everyone to follow one’s own ethical and moral principles in one’s actions - It is of no importance to me where those ethical and moral principles are derived from, it could be from one's religion, one's sexuality, one's parents or anywhere else.