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.
That is the judge's opinion and her opinion only - she doesn't even attempt to back it up with law or reasoning.
I've outlined in a few other recent posts why the book publisher analogy is not valid.
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.
Where have I said that I want to give religious people special rights? I've said quite the opposite, that everyone should have the same right to freedom of conscience.
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
Well, members of the National Front and the BNP have their own ethical and moral principles. People generally consider themselves to be "good", regardless of how others may see them.
The question is how far do you let someone go with unfavourable treatment of certain groups based on personal ethical and moral principles?
Well, members of the National Front and the BNP have their own ethical and moral principles. People generally consider themselves to be "good", regardless of how others may see them.
The question is how far do you let someone go with unfavourable treatment of certain groups based on personal ethical and moral principles?
I've already said where I would personally draw the line.
If the bakery were simply refusing to serve a gay person, or provide a cake for a gay wedding then freedom of conscience should not intervene. But where someone is asked to act directly against their political or religious beliefs, such as being asked to contribute to a political campaign they don't agree with, they should have the right to decline to do so without falling foul of discrimination legislation.
That is the judge's opinion and her opinion only - she doesn't even attempt to back it up with law or reasoning.
That's not true, jesaya has just mentioned what the judge did in post #1649.
There are competing human rights in this case, if you are going to give priority to freedom of conscience over equality rights then we are never going to agree.
I've outlined in a few other recent posts why the book publisher analogy is not valid.
I've already said where I would personally draw the line.
If the bakery were simply refusing to serve a gay person, or provide a cake for a gay wedding then freedom of conscience should not intervene. But where someone is asked to act directly against their political or religious beliefs, such as being asked to contribute to a political campaign they don't agree with, they should have the right to decline to do so without falling foul of discrimination legislation.
So let's say there's a bi-election and a black candidate asks a BNP-supporting printer to print the leaflets for his campaign. The printer refuses because he deeply believes that black people should not hold positions of power.
As i understand it, the owners refused to put a specific slogan on the cake. Lame yes, but within their rights.
Im pro lgbt but forcing business owners yo go against their beliefs! Cmon. Id simply not shop there anymore.
So let's say there's a bi-election and a black candidate asks a BNP-supporting printer to print the leaflets for his campaign. The printer refuses because he deeply believes that black people should not hold positions of power.
Would you be OK with that?
Or a misogynist teacher who refuses to teach girls because he doesn't believe women should be educated or a doctor who believes health services are for the young and won't treat the elderly?
As i understand it, the owners refused to put a specific slogan on the cake. Lame yes, but within their rights.
Im pro lgbt but forcing business owners yo go against their beliefs! Cmon. Id simply not shop there anymore.
As i understand it, the owners refused to put a specific slogan on the cake. Lame yes, but within their rights.
Im pro lgbt but forcing business owners yo go against their beliefs! Cmon. Id simply not shop there anymore.
"He was discriminated against" ok, so what if he was! The Ashers might be offended by Mr Lee supporting gay marriage, therefore the shop has to be offended by Lee's actions, but Lee isn't allowed to be offended by the shops decision because its "discrimination" therefore the Ashers are discriminated against as this violates their religious rights.
Refusing to add a certain design to a cake is not discrimination.
We all know the outcome if this was a Muslim owned shop.
Yes, it would be exactly the same.
I don't know why some people are so obsessed with dragging hypothetical Muslim bakers into this. The religion or non-religion of the business has no effect whatever on whether they are guilty of discrimination or not.
So let's say there's a bi-election and a black candidate asks a BNP-supporting printer to print the leaflets for his campaign. The printer refuses because he deeply believes that black people should not hold positions of power.
Would you be OK with that?
If the situation was the other way around would you be ok with a black printer being forced to print leaflets for a BNP candidate?
Because I would like the printer to be able to refuse in that situation but I fear the law in NI would not be on his side.
Or a misogynist teacher who refuses to teach girls because he doesn't believe women should be educated or a doctor who believes health services are for the young and won't treat the elderly?
Not really relevant analogies because that would be exactly the same service being denied to someone because of a protected characteristic so no doubt to me there would be discrimination there.
In the case we are discussing it is the message on the cake that the baker disagreed with and that particular cake would be refused to everyone. Perhaps it was discrimination but if it was I think it was indirect.
No you were not. You even stated the year date as 2010 in your own post!
Also it's clear for all to see that it was you who stated it was 'defunct since 2010 law' and not me. In fact i've never used the word other than to quote from your postings.
Here is the start of the string;
No i won't as it's you who made the mistake and now been shown up for it. The Act is still in force current day legislation.
Now do the decent thing and apologise.
Please don't lecture me about decent anything or apologising.
My post
Are you saying the judge found the bakery guilty under a defunct since 2010 law?
Yes and.... can't you understand English? Please stop trying to make that my problem. You were totally wrong, you can't admit it or apologise. The 1998 law, under which they were found guilty, is not a defunct since 2010 law, when the 2010 Equality Law was passed. I did not say anywhere that the 2010 law is defunct. Your dramatic claim that this law rules out the 1998 law was totally wrong. Although the fact you think you or anyone else knows more about case law than any judge, was arrogance personified, but a much needed amusing interlude on the thread. So please, stop embarrassing yourself and stop accusing me of lying in your silly game of deflection. We're adults on a forum, not kids in a classroom.
Still waiting for you to take up your offer of linking the posts from your 17 page thread not 50 pages as you dramatically claimed, in relation to this torrent of ridiculous dramatic false accusations against unnamed FM's, you chose to drag into not only this thread to suit your argument. There are some nasty unfounded accusations here and you need to back them up, as you offered and as you've spread them around DS forums.
No i can't and haven't read any either.....but i've read no end of disparaging, scornful quite nasty comments from some gay/pro-gay posters and i still haven't forgot, or forgiven, how some of those vindictive people ganged up on the gay Christian Irish poster from a thread a couple of months back until you had all hounded him out for daring to say he didn't agree with same sex marriage.
You use the homophobe word so casually and flippantly you lose sight of it's true meaning of hate that you even turn on one of your own community.
From memory i think that's the second time in this thread i mentioned it.....out of almost 1300 posts over 50 pages i'd hardly term that as 'keep banging on'.
I think his absence from this thread should be more than enough to tell you of his feelings. Even though i'm not gay i felt for the bloke as he was literally on his own, yet folk piled in on the guy until he just left. I was disgusted at the behaviour and shocked at how other gay people could turn against one gay person. Playground bullying at it's most despicable.
I looked back into the thread as it began to fizzle out, just like this one will, and quickly saw it just consisted of the remnants of those who had hounded that guy, all sitting around gleefully crowing like vultures after their feast.
Far from exaggeration. It was a disgraceful display of behaviour and actually i was quite surprised at some posters. One of your own fellow gay chaps who just happened to have a religious faith but also Irish with a pov which didn't meet with approval of others. Gay people want their pov's listened to, yet vilify any fellow gay who dares to disagree with them.
Not 'glossing' anything. It was what i saw and read. I can't remember him saying anything about "lesser" though ironically that was the exact same term Gareth Lee claimed Ashers made him feel when refunding his money after issues of the inscription only.
I thought it an odd term to use at the time and still do now. It wouldn't make me feel a 'lesser' person.
AFAIK none of knew how old he was or how long he'd been religious, i certainly didn't anyway, so i don't see how that's his 'prime reason'. He had a pov but got shouted down for it. Yes in a way, similar to Ashers who've been told they discriminated against a gay person when in fact they never did.
Even more ridiculous and stupid, they've been hung out to dry by a court in their own country which, according to some, does discriminate by not recognising gay marriage.
Matters not. The guy had a right to express his own pov and did not deserve the vilification over his religious views and there are posts there if you really want them picking out.
Also every one of us should have taken on board the fact that SSM was then, and still is, not legally possible in NI.
That the guy hasn't even come to this thread should tell you he had more than a bellyful from last time.
Yes please, for the umpteenth time of asking and not only by me, I really want them picking out.
But that will be the result of allowing such an exemption.
And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't accept that refusing to provide a specific cake saying "support gay marriage" equates to "won't serve gay people".
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 publisher disclaimer analogy addresses a different point altogether: endorsement. The point we are making is one of facilitation, and it is you who has failed to counter that point, hence your focus on endorsement.
A business may not want to produce literature for a political cause, not because he doesn't want to endorse the cause, but because he holds an opposing view and does not want to help it achieve it's goals. The Sun isn't going to run a positive piece about Labour and the Mirror isn't going to do the same for the Tories, even with a disclaimer, because doing so would further the cause of a movement which they stand against.
Not really relevant analogies because that would be exactly the same service being denied to someone because of a protected characteristic so no doubt to me there would be discrimination there.
In the case we are discussing it is the message on the cake that the baker disagreed with and that particular cake would be refused to everyone. Perhaps it was discrimination but if it was I think it was indirect.
The misogynist teacher is a Muslim and his religious beliefs do not agree with women being educated. The doctor is part of a religious cult who believes that life belongs to the young and the elderly should just slip away.
The misogynist teacher is a Muslim and his religious beliefs do not agree with women being educated. The doctor is part of a religious cult who believes that life belongs to the young and the elderly should just slip away.
Makes no difference. The religion of the person is irrelevant to whether they are guilty of discrimination or not.
So let's say there's a bi-election and a black candidate asks a BNP-supporting printer to print the leaflets for his campaign. The printer refuses because he deeply believes that black people should not hold positions of power.
Or a misogynist teacher who refuses to teach girls because he doesn't believe women should be educated or a doctor who believes health services are for the young and won't treat the elderly?
So directly discriminating against people because of who they are? Analogies are clearly not your strong point.
And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't accept that refusing to provide a specific cake saying "support gay marriage" equates to "won't serve gay people".
You really think Ashers will be whipping up wedding cakes with two grooms/two brides when SSM becomes legal in NI?
Comments
That is the judge's opinion and her opinion only - she doesn't even attempt to back it up with law or reasoning.
I've outlined in a few other recent posts why the book publisher analogy is not valid.
Where have I said that I want to give religious people special rights? I've said quite the opposite, that everyone should have the same right to freedom of conscience.
The question is how far do you let someone go with unfavourable treatment of certain groups based on personal ethical and moral principles?
I've already said where I would personally draw the line.
If the bakery were simply refusing to serve a gay person, or provide a cake for a gay wedding then freedom of conscience should not intervene. But where someone is asked to act directly against their political or religious beliefs, such as being asked to contribute to a political campaign they don't agree with, they should have the right to decline to do so without falling foul of discrimination legislation.
That's not true, jesaya has just mentioned what the judge did in post #1649.
There are competing human rights in this case, if you are going to give priority to freedom of conscience over equality rights then we are never going to agree.
You responded to my earlier post with
The only word that is relevant to the Ashers case and book publishers is 'associate' but that can be covered by a disclaimer.
Would you be OK with that?
Im pro lgbt but forcing business owners yo go against their beliefs! Cmon. Id simply not shop there anymore.
Or a misogynist teacher who refuses to teach girls because he doesn't believe women should be educated or a doctor who believes health services are for the young and won't treat the elderly?
It was a bakers not a religious organisation.
Yeah.
It's hardly a "non story".
Yes, it would be exactly the same.
I don't know why some people are so obsessed with dragging hypothetical Muslim bakers into this. The religion or non-religion of the business has no effect whatever on whether they are guilty of discrimination or not.
If the situation was the other way around would you be ok with a black printer being forced to print leaflets for a BNP candidate?
Because I would like the printer to be able to refuse in that situation but I fear the law in NI would not be on his side.
Not really relevant analogies because that would be exactly the same service being denied to someone because of a protected characteristic so no doubt to me there would be discrimination there.
In the case we are discussing it is the message on the cake that the baker disagreed with and that particular cake would be refused to everyone. Perhaps it was discrimination but if it was I think it was indirect.
Please don't lecture me about decent anything or apologising.
My post
Yes and.... can't you understand English? Please stop trying to make that my problem. You were totally wrong, you can't admit it or apologise. The 1998 law, under which they were found guilty, is not a defunct since 2010 law, when the 2010 Equality Law was passed. I did not say anywhere that the 2010 law is defunct. Your dramatic claim that this law rules out the 1998 law was totally wrong. Although the fact you think you or anyone else knows more about case law than any judge, was arrogance personified, but a much needed amusing interlude on the thread. So please, stop embarrassing yourself and stop accusing me of lying in your silly game of deflection. We're adults on a forum, not kids in a classroom.
Still waiting for you to take up your offer of linking the posts from your 17 page thread not 50 pages as you dramatically claimed, in relation to this torrent of ridiculous dramatic false accusations against unnamed FM's, you chose to drag into not only this thread to suit your argument. There are some nasty unfounded accusations here and you need to back them up, as you offered and as you've spread them around DS forums.
Yes please, for the umpteenth time of asking and not only by me, I really want them picking out.
And that's the crux of our disagreement. I don't accept that refusing to provide a specific cake saying "support gay marriage" equates to "won't serve gay people".
The publisher disclaimer analogy addresses a different point altogether: endorsement. The point we are making is one of facilitation, and it is you who has failed to counter that point, hence your focus on endorsement.
A business may not want to produce literature for a political cause, not because he doesn't want to endorse the cause, but because he holds an opposing view and does not want to help it achieve it's goals. The Sun isn't going to run a positive piece about Labour and the Mirror isn't going to do the same for the Tories, even with a disclaimer, because doing so would further the cause of a movement which they stand against.
The misogynist teacher is a Muslim and his religious beliefs do not agree with women being educated. The doctor is part of a religious cult who believes that life belongs to the young and the elderly should just slip away.
Makes no difference. The religion of the person is irrelevant to whether they are guilty of discrimination or not.
So directly discriminating against people because of who they are? Analogies are clearly not your strong point.
You really think Ashers will be whipping up wedding cakes with two grooms/two brides when SSM becomes legal in NI?
Yes I know.....but some posters are calling for discrimination to be exempt on the grounds of a religious belief.
So you agree that a religious belief is not grounds to discriminate against others with a protected characteristic?
Oh I see. Sorry.
I agree that there should be no such exemption.
Where have I said otherwise?