|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Russ, you are either incredibly stupid or a Trolling Bigot
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Homosexuals are not a protected group. Sexuality is a protected characteristic. You cannot exclude heterosexuals for being heterosexual either.
In some circumstances you can, actually. As shown by a case when a heterosexual couple was refused leave to get a civil partnership.
How on earth is a discriminatory law, completely outside the sphere in which anti-discrimination law operates, relevant to how anti-discrimination law operates?
Oh sure, if we just switch the meaning of the word "you" mid-thought and start talking about the government or parliament, then we can manage to make it sound relevant.
But it's a bit like saying in response to "you can't kill people" that actually you can because of the death penalty.
I repeat: discrimination laws (including in this wildly obscure place called the UK) do not operate by saying you can't discriminate against homosexuals. They operate by saying that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
While you were busy berating me for not considering UK law, you paid no attention to the fact that David Goode posted a fucking link to the fucking website that would've fucking explained this to you.
Here, have it again.
From there you can even follow links to get the exact text of the legislation.
Because I'm worried you might not be able to get to it, here's the section that shows how homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are all lumped together in being protected.
And that's quite enough of trying to inform the woefully thoughtless for one night.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, according to you, one can walk into a general bookstore and expect to be able to order whatever the fuck you like because you happen to be gay (and or it is somehow about "being gay"), whereas a person who has a fascination with antique aeroplanes cannot force the bookseller to get him the book.
What total bullshit. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I expect to be able to order exactly the same things a straight person could order.
Your reading and comprehension skills are so sub-standard it's not funny. Your last two posts quote me and then reach the exact opposite conclusion to the one I actually made.
[ 05. January 2017, 14:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What total bullshit. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I expect to be able to order exactly the same things a straight person could order.
Right, then it ought to be fine to refuse to make cakes with SSM slogans or to refuse to stock specific books - providing the refusal is equally made to both gay and straight people (and people with other sexualities not mentioned here).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A barman can refuse to serve me because I'm wearing a moleskin coat, he can't because I'm gay. Therefore being gay means that I can force traders to trade with me in a way that I can't when wearing specific clothing.
Yes, because people who wear moleskin coats have faced just as much discrimination and hatred down the years as people who are gay. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You don't need specific laws to force people to do business with you if they're not trying to avoid doing business with you in the first place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because people who wear moleskin coats have faced just as much discrimination and hatred down the years as people who are gay.
You don't need specific laws to force people to do business with you if they're not trying to avoid doing business with you in the first place.
Yes, I am fully aware of the reasons, and they're good ones. But the end result is that anyone who truly wants to discriminate against a gay person need only to say it is because of their coat.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
cakes with SSM slogans
What's an SSM slogan look like?
I've already gone through the complete stupidity of treating the stocking of books as equivalent to the writing of things on cakes in Dead Horses. I'm not going through it again. Let's just focus on exactly how you think a "same-sex" wedding cake looks different to a "regular" wedding cake.
What makes a slogan into an SSM one? I mean, I'm really confused here. What happens when you've got a couple with names like "Chris" and "Lindsey" and you can't guess the genders? How can the same message be an "SSM slogan" and not at the same time?
What EXACTLY is it that you think homosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes that is different to what heterosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes?
Don't strain yourself by thinking about it too quickly, I'm off to bed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's an SSM slogan look like?
I've already gone through the complete stupidity of treating the stocking of books as equivalent to the writing of things on cakes in Dead Horses. I'm not going through it again. Let's just focus on exactly how you think a "same-sex" wedding cake looks different to a "regular" wedding cake.
It wasn't a fucking wedding cake. Have you been paying any attention at all?
quote:
What makes a slogan into an SSM one? I mean, I'm really confused here. What happens when you've got a couple with names like "Chris" and "Lindsey" and you can't guess the genders? How can the same message be an "SSM slogan" and not at the same time?
The slogan was "Support gay marriage" and it appeared below two cartoon characters.
quote:
What EXACTLY is it that you think homosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes that is different to what heterosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes?
Don't strain yourself by thinking about it too quickly, I'm off to bed.
It wasn't a fucking wedding cake. It was a cake with the slogan, if it had been a simple wedding cake there may not have been a problem at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But the end result is that anyone who truly wants to discriminate against a gay person need only to say it is because of their coat.
Only if they refuse to serve everyone who wears that type of coat. If they refuse to serve gay people on the grounds of their coat choice but happily serve straight people wearing the same type of coat then that's still discrimination based on sexuality.
I'm not aware of any particular types of coat that are only ever worn by gay people, but if there are any then banning them would constitute de facto discrimination against gay people, in much the same way that having premises that are only accessible via a staircase discriminates against wheelchair users.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
When I raised the point about books it wasn't to start a massive tangent about bookselling.
The point was that some unthinking person was trying to say in effect that because the controversial cake was made from the same ingredients as other cakes it was no different.
I used the example from the book world to make the point that although books are pretty much all made from the same ingredients - paper, ink, etc. - the actual content of the book, what its text was about, made a considerable difference. I quoted 'Mein Kampf' as a clear example of that kind of difference.
In the case of the cake, of course it was made from the same flour, butter, eggs, sugar etc. as any other cake. The problem was that the cake was adorned with a specific controversial slogan - and as in the case of books, that slogan can make a considerable difference to the implications of making/selling/using the cake.
To suggest that merely using the same ingredients for the cake makes its 'message' irrelevant is seriously confused thinking.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But the end result is that anyone who truly wants to discriminate against a gay person need only to say it is because of their coat.
A gay person; one. Yeah, that can happen. But it is a pattern of discrimination that gets people in trouble, like the nightclub example given on either this thread or the DH one.
Without protected characteristics, it is just back to the old ways where you and I cannot shop in the same shops or go to the same clubs.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Ashers are very popular where I live. But just recently they've gone up-market in their lunch menus - not appreciated by my mother, who likes her food plain. So we tend to frequent other establishments at the moment.
Frankly, I've given up trying to see it from the McArthur's point of view. Or rather I think I see it so clearly from their point of view, I've totally lost sympathy for them or their point of view. They released a video for the media, during the trials, to show how awful it was being persecuted for their faith. It showcased their picture-perfect domestic life, presumably to demonstrate how God rewards his good little soldiers, with marriage, nice house, children, happy smiles, societal approval etc.
The implicit message was; 'This is what WE get, because WE'RE right with God. YOU don't get this. And we're gong to make sure you NEVER do.'
Northern Ireland is such a mess over same-sex marriage. The Assembly voted for it, but Arlene Foster, First Minister, on behalf of the DUP, submitted a Petition of Concern, in order to veto any change in legislation to allow same-sex marriage. Like the McArthur's her excuse was pleading her religious conscience, too.
Seems strange to me that the McArthurs have been ruled out of order in allowing their religious convictions to get in the way of meeting business obligations; but Foster is actually enabled to let her religious beliefs be imposed on the political life of the population of the Province.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
To suggest that merely using the same ingredients for the cake makes its 'message' irrelevant is seriously confused thinking.
Have to take your word for it, confused thinking appears to be your speciality.
First, gay people are the worst, then supporting gay marriage is the equivalent of Nazism. We hold our breath in anticipation of the next, wonderful comparison you shall utter.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What total bullshit. This is the complete opposite of what I said. I expect to be able to order exactly the same things a straight person could order.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, then it ought to be fine to refuse to make cakes with SSM slogans or to refuse to stock specific books - providing the refusal is equally made to both gay and straight people (and people with other sexualities not mentioned here).
Again it isn't about protected people but characteristics. It is the discrimination versus a characteristic that is important.
Thus, if a gay man walks into a shop and asks for a Mills and Boon novel and is refused it because they don't stock romantic slush then that's not discriminatory.
If a straight man walks into a shop and asks to order a book about Gay rights and is told the bookshop has a policy of not stocking books relating to Gay rights then that is discriminatory.
If the reason is they don't stock non-fiction then it's not discriminatory.
I think that if one used a sensible excuse for being discriminatory it would be very difficult to use the legislation. I don't think the burden of proof would be on the shopkeeper to show they consistently refused everyone with moleskin coats, it would be up to the prosecution to show that the moleskin coat excuse didn't add up.
I can't think of anyway round that. The law is written with a presumption of innocence and we don't despair over other offences on the statute that might be difficult to prosecute. Sexual harassment, for instance, is notoriously prone to he-said-she-said situations but that doesn't make us give up on trying cases.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
.... like the nightclub example given on either this thread or the DH one.
*waves* It was me.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
When I raised the point about books it wasn't to start a massive tangent about bookselling.
The point was that some unthinking person was trying to say in effect that because the controversial cake was made from the same ingredients as other cakes it was no different.
I used the example from the book world to make the point that although books are pretty much all made from the same ingredients - paper, ink, etc. - the actual content of the book, what its text was about, made a considerable difference. I quoted 'Mein Kampf' as a clear example of that kind of difference.
In the case of the cake, of course it was made from the same flour, butter, eggs, sugar etc. as any other cake. The problem was that the cake was adorned with a specific controversial slogan - and as in the case of books, that slogan can make a considerable difference to the implications of making/selling/using the cake.
To suggest that merely using the same ingredients for the cake makes its 'message' irrelevant is seriously confused thinking.
No, what is confused thinking is believing that booksellers make books in the same way that bakers make cakes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's an SSM slogan look like?
I've already gone through the complete stupidity of treating the stocking of books as equivalent to the writing of things on cakes in Dead Horses. I'm not going through it again. Let's just focus on exactly how you think a "same-sex" wedding cake looks different to a "regular" wedding cake.
It wasn't a fucking wedding cake. Have you been paying any attention at all?
quote:
What makes a slogan into an SSM one? I mean, I'm really confused here. What happens when you've got a couple with names like "Chris" and "Lindsey" and you can't guess the genders? How can the same message be an "SSM slogan" and not at the same time?
The slogan was "Support gay marriage" and it appeared below two cartoon characters.
quote:
What EXACTLY is it that you think homosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes that is different to what heterosexual couples want written on their wedding cakes?
Don't strain yourself by thinking about it too quickly, I'm off to bed.
It wasn't a fucking wedding cake. It was a cake with the slogan, if it had been a simple wedding cake there may not have been a problem at all.
I don't actually care as much about the general field of slogan cakes, but fine. Everything that's been said by others about actual results and trends of this refusal applies.
If the ONLY slogans that get refused are the ones that are frequently asked for by gay people, it's not hard for a court to conclude that what is happening isn't about the words, it's about the people. And fixing that is NOT giving some special favour to gay people that enables them to "force" service, it's putting them in the same position as all the other people who are ALREADY getting service.
Okay? It's not rocket science. If the baker can show that actually, other people who ask for slogans on cakes also get told no, because the bakery isn't keen on slogans, then there's no problem.
The law focuses on the customer.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay? It's not rocket science. If the baker can show that actually, other people who ask for slogans on cakes also get told no, because the bakery isn't keen on slogans, then there's no problem.
The law focuses on the customer.
Given that you seem to know feck all about the thing under discussion, it is impossible to tell how you could possibly know that. If it was as simple as showing that other slogans had been refused by the baker, presumably that would have been tried as a defence.
It sounds very much like it made not a jot of difference who else the baker chose not to trade with, on this occasion refusing to make the cake and/or honour the contract breached the Equalities Act.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given that you seem to know feck all about the thing under discussion, it is impossible to tell how you could possibly know that.
By reading the fecking law, and by having worked in the area. FFS.
And as to whether "it would have been tried as a defence"... well, is there any evidence AVAILABLE of refusing other slogans? It can't be "tried as a defence" if it's not actually true.
[ 05. January 2017, 20:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm reading some of the Dead Horses thread again and finding that all of this was explained to you very cogently in November.
Complete with quotes from the judgement. Expressing the same principle I've expressed.
The answers won't change just because you don't like them. But by all means, let's see how many more months we can spend grinding through all these fallacies about the supposed awful consequences of people having to treat all their customers on an equal basis.
Including the bit where you decide that something I've said about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation means that the actual, real world law doesn't deal with any other kind of discrimination or any other protected characteristic.
I'm sure I can fit it in, between having root canal surgery on every single one of my teeth.
[ 05. January 2017, 21:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I mean, which bit of this direct quote from the judgement didn't you understand the first 5 times?
quote:
In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious belief in relation to sexual orientation.
I'd be willing to bet a healthy sum the reason that they didn't "try as a defence" showing that they'd refused other slogans was because they hadn't refused them.
Because that's about a clear an explanation of where their legal escape route would've been as you can find.
[ 05. January 2017, 21:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be willing to bet a healthy sum the reason that they didn't "try as a defence" showing that they'd refused other slogans was because they hadn't refused them.
Because that's about a clear an explanation of where their legal escape route would've been as you can find.
No, they clearly refused to make a cake with the SSM slogan and the court said that if they were offering slogan cakes they couldn't refuse to make a gay slogan cake. The judgment says absolutely nothing about other slogan cakes they may or may not have refused - because that's not even slightly relevant.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
because that's not even slightly relevant.
Oh FFS if you can't read the actual text of what the judge said, there's no hope.
Never mind what at least half a dozen other posters have said to you.
[ 05. January 2017, 21:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Read for comprehension. It says nothing here about the refusal of other slogans.
quote:
The judge reached the following conclusions:
1. The appellants had the knowledge or perception that the respondent was gay and/or associated with others who were gay;
2. What the respondent wanted the appellants to do would not require them to promote or support gay marriage which was contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs;
3. The appellants cancelled the order as they opposed same sex marriage which is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation; and
4. The respondent did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confined marriage to heterosexual orientation.
District Judge Brownlie concluded that the appellants’ actions amounted to direct discrimination contrary to Regulation 5(1) of the 2006 Regulations.
In relation to the claim for discrimination on the ground of political opinion, District Judge Brownlie noted the 1998 Order did not provide a definition of political opinion and adopted the analysis contained in the authorities that political opinion means opinion relating to the policy of government and matters touching upon government. In light of the ongoing political debate as to whether the Assembly should legislate on same-sex marriage, she found that the respondent’s support for same-sex marriage was a political opinion. The judge concluded that the appellants disagreed with the religious belief and political opinion held by the respondent with regard to the change in law to permit gay marriage and, accordingly, they treated him less favourably by refusing to provide him with the service sought. In those circumstances the appellants had directly discriminated against him. The judge said that even if she had been persuaded that the appellants had not been aware of the respondent’s religious belief and/or political opinion, she would have found that the appellants discriminated against him by treating him less favourably on the grounds of their own religious beliefs and political opinion.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Read the judgement.
Read the FUCKING JUDGEMENT and all the stuff about comparators.
You cant' decide whether someone was treated LESS FAVOURABLY without comparing them to others, you twit. You can't work out if someone was treated DIFFERENTLY if you don't have a baseline.
[ 06. January 2017, 09:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
By Mr Cheesy Logic (patent pending), a naked gay man with no money can go to a bakery, ask for a cake saying "Support Same Sex Marriage", and when he's refused he can say "but there's a court case that says you have to do it".
Every adult in the room can see that this isn't true and why it isn't true, but under Mr Cheesy Logic the bakery is forced to serve gays.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
No, what is confused thinking is believing that booksellers make books in the same way that bakers make cakes.
I know booksellers don't 'make books' in the way bakers make cakes. That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that despite books being physically made of the same basic stuff as each other, the content of the text makes a considerable difference to one's opinion of the book and how acceptable it is to various people.
Likewise although two cakes may be made from the same physical stuff in terms of flour, eggs, sugar etc., they can be considerably different in their practical implications depending on the different slogans the two cakes may carry. As with books, the identical physical composition is not relevant to issues raised by the wording the physical elements are used to convey.
You surely know that to be the case as a matter of simple commonsense - so why not accept it? Why carry on with sneering at an irrelevant aspect?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Because the whole bloody point is that the baker's opinion about the content of the message on the cake isn't that relevant.
As the judgement says, putting a sports team logo on a cake is not endorsement of a sports team. Putting witches on a cake for Halloween is not endorsement of witchcraft.
The bakery can, if it wishes, declare a general ban on a certain kind of message. The one thing it cannot do is say that it will accept messages anti- a protected characteristic but not pro- a protected characteristic.
Your Mein Kampf strategy is a diversion solely designed to get people having an emotional reaction without any analysis. Mein Kampf is a perfectly legal book as far as I'm aware (certainly it's legal in Germany). It is not intrinsically different in kind from any other book made with ink and paper. I've explicitly said to you I don't have a problem with people reading it, so with me your strategy simply fails. If YOU want to explain a basis for discriminating against Mein Kampf readers, go ahead, but you're not going to succeed in making me back down by just throwing the name of an "evil" book around.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Because you can actually talk about a thing without resorting to stupid arse irrelevant nonsense. That's why.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Noting that every time you focus on the cake or the book, you are apt to miss the point that it is the customer who is protected from discrimination, not the item.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Anyway, where does this weird unstated assumption come from, that reading Mein Kampf is inextricably linked to liking Hitler?
The fact that counterterrorism experts read material published by ISIS must make your brain explode.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Anyway, where does this weird unstated assumption come from, that reading Mein Kampf is inextricably linked to liking Hitler?
The fact that counterterrorism experts read material published by ISIS must make your brain explode.
Smallest explosion ever
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
.... like the nightclub example given on either this thread or the DH one.
*waves* It was me.
Sorry, EM. Wasn't slighting you, was just too lazy to look.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Anyway, where does this weird unstated assumption come from, that reading Mein Kampf is inextricably linked to liking Hitler?
The fact that counterterrorism experts read material published by ISIS must make your brain explode.
Smallest explosion ever
This is actually pretty funny. Props where props are due.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By Mr Cheesy Logic (patent pending), a naked gay man with no money can go to a bakery, ask for a cake saying "Support Same Sex Marriage", and when he's refused he can say "but there's a court case that says you have to do it".
Every adult in the room can see that this isn't true and why it isn't true, but under Mr Cheesy Logic the bakery is forced to serve gays.
They were prepared to make a cake supporting heterosexual marriage, they were not prepared to make one supporting homosexual marriage. That was the comparison, and therefore the person ordering the cake got a worse deal. That was the comparison.
The fact that they'd not actually made a pro-heterosexual marriage slogan cake didn't come into it. Any other slogan cakes that they'd refused didn't come into it. The comparison was a simple one; they stipulated that they would have made a pro-heterosexual-marriage cake but not a SSM slogan one.
That's the simple point here. There was no comparison with other groups that they wouldn't have served or other slogan cakes they wouldn't have made.
I absolutely said nothing about other characteristics or reasons for denial of service, indeed, I specifically said that the way that the Equalities Act is written means that one could deny service provided reasons given (or not given) were nothing to do with protected characteristics.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Likewise although two cakes may be made from the same physical stuff in terms of flour, eggs, sugar etc., they can be considerably different in their practical implications depending on the different slogans the two cakes may carry. As with books, the identical physical composition is not relevant to issues raised by the wording the physical elements are used to convey.
I asked you before, without answer, what the difference is between making this cake and making any other baked product available to people with whom you disagree.
A bunch of gay people might be having a "support SSM party" and ask you to supply a dozen pasties. In what moral universe are you somehow supporting SSM by supplying a cake but not in supplying a pasty?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The comparison was a simple one; they stipulated that they would have made a pro-heterosexual-marriage cake but not a SSM slogan one.
Sounds fair enough for that to be considered evidence of illegal discrimination doesn't it?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Or, come to that, how is the supply of any uniced party cake any less (or more) supportive of those holding a "support the llamas" party than an iced one.
Surely the only difference is that in this particular example you happen to have some preknowledge of what is going to happen to the cake (and that might be nothing at all different to what would happen to an equivalent uniced cake).
It seems like a fucking stupid thing to get het up about unless you're trying to signal to your community about your marvellous Christian family credentials.
If you're really concerned about the potential moral ramifications in icing a particular slogan, there is a simple solution: don't ice slogans. Don't ice cakes at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sounds fair enough for that to be considered evidence of illegal discrimination doesn't it?
Yes, but the point being made was apparently the bakers could have given a list of slogan cakes that they'd refuse to sell and therefore show that non-service of a SSM-slogan was just like non-service of a bunch of other slogan cakes.
The point (from this case) apparently being that all things being equal (and legal), you can't decide which slogans to make if they happen to entail the protected characteristics. You can discriminate all you like on slogans about things that are nothing to do with protected characteristics.
[ 06. January 2017, 07:48: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Put it this way, Steve. As a baker would you turn down icing any of the following;
- West Ham for the Cup
- Vote Green (matching green icing requested)
- Happy Returns 1800th Constantine
- Jack is a really great bloke (you are unaware of testimonials to support this)
- Down with marriage
- I hate my mother-in-law
- SSM Rules
My guess is you could disagree with all of these. But if the last one is the only statement which you wouldn't ice isn't that a problem?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sounds fair enough for that to be considered evidence of illegal discrimination doesn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The point (from this case) apparently being that all things being equal (and legal), you can't decide which slogans to make if they happen to entail the protected characteristics. You can discriminate all you like on slogans about things that are nothing to do with protected characteristics.
I'm not totally sure what the point is - to clarify I think that had the reason for not doing the slogan been "we don't do abbreviations" or "it's too long" then I don't think the inclusion of protected characteristics would have allowed the case to go ahead. (Unless it was shown that the excuses were just a smoke-screen for discrimination vs protected characteristics).
In this case the defendants seem to have admitted guilt quite readily so it was easy.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Put it this way, Steve. As a baker would you turn down icing any of the following;
- West Ham for the Cup
- Vote Green (matching green icing requested)
- Happy Returns 1800th Constantine
- Jack is a really great bloke (you are unaware of testimonials to support this)
- Down with marriage
- I hate my mother-in-law
- SSM Rules
My guess is you could disagree with all of these. But if the last one is the only statement which you wouldn't ice isn't that a problem?
Of course the whole thing makes no logical sense anyway. If one is supporting a position one doesn't like by supplying a cake, one must be when supplying anything. If there is moral guilt connected to the retailer when supplying objects that are used for ordinary purporses, then being consistent then your conscience would prevent you from retailing anything.
Which is ridiculous.
Of course, Steve and these bakers believe nothing of the sort, they just want their day in the sun and court to protest loudly about the injustice of being bible-believing Christians in a land that doesn't appreciate them. Which in Steve's case, is more-than-slightly ironic.
[ 06. January 2017, 08:02: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not totally sure what the point is - to clarify I think that had the reason for not doing the slogan been "we don't do abbreviations" or "it's too long" then I don't think the inclusion of protected characteristics would have allowed the case to go ahead. (Unless it was shown that the excuses were just a smoke-screen for discrimination vs protected characteristics).
Orfeo said:
quote:
If the ONLY slogans that get refused are the ones that are frequently asked for by gay people, it's not hard for a court to conclude that what is happening isn't about the words, it's about the people. And fixing that is NOT giving some special favour to gay people that enables them to "force" service, it's putting them in the same position as all the other people who are ALREADY getting service.
Not correct. The court compared this cake with a theoretical cake supporting heterosexual marriage not all the other cakes that they might have refused in the past or pontentially might refuse if asked.
quote:
In this case the defendants seem to have admitted guilt quite readily so it was easy.
Absolutely, in saying that they wouldn't make this cake but would make the other, they were clearly showing that they were illegally discriminating on the basis of a protected characteristic, according to the court.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The court compared this cake with a theoretical cake supporting heterosexual marriage not all the other cakes that they might have refused in the past or pontentially might refuse if asked.
It seems like a fairly fine difference - the principle is the same surely? Simply that in practice detailed evidence to show discrimination wasn't necessary as the couple concerned readily admitted it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems like a fairly fine difference - the principle is the same surely? Simply that in practice detailed evidence to show discrimination wasn't necessary as the couple concerned readily admitted it.
I think the argument is that if they could show a range of slogans that they'd not make - or have not made - they'd be showing that they were not singling out Gay Marriage as the one cause they wouldn't ice and therefore this cause wasn't getting any special refusal, it was just one amongst a bunch of others that the bakers wouldn't ice.
I don't think the law is written like that. Discriminated people only have to show that their restricted characteristics have been used to refuse service compared to someone else (with everything else otherwise equal).
[ 06. January 2017, 08:28: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the argument is that if they could show a range of slogans that they'd not make - or have not made - they'd be showing that they were not singling out Gay Marriage as the one cause they wouldn't ice and therefore this cause wasn't getting any special refusal, it was just one amongst a bunch of others that the bakers wouldn't ice.
"M'lud, it is absolutely not the case that my client discriminates uniquely unfairly against Gay people, I will demonstrate that my client in fact hates niggers, pakis, women and socialists with scrupulously equitable vitriol and has in fact consistently declined custom from all these groups."
But to be serious, I don't think that was what Orfeo was arguing that or that one could get out of it with a scattering of arbitrary decisions.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's the simple point here. There was no comparison with other groups that they wouldn't have served or other slogan cakes they wouldn't have made.
No, the simple point here is that you seem incapable of grasping anything about presenting evidence.
You're not the first person I've encountered that seems to think saying "I would/wouldn't have iced this other slogan" is the sum total of the question, or that when someone says "it's not about the customer, it's about the slogan" they must be immediately believed.
I'll lay out that sentence from the court decision again. The one that you're simply not reading because it didn't have some magic word in it that you wanted.
quote:
In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message.
For some reason that I can't fathom, you won't turn you mind to the possible ways in which a bakery would demonstrate that it had a policy of refusing to write any religious or political message. How would you show that you wouldn't have made a cake saying "Support heterosexual marriage" if you've never been asked to make one?
You've flatly said to me that because this bakery didn't produce any evidence of refusing other customers, any evidence of refusing other customers would not have been legally relevant.
But that's utter rubbish.
By your logic, all the next baker has to do is say when refusing a gay customer "we won't do political messages and wouldn't have made a cake supporting heterosexual marriage" and they'll be fine, even if it's a complete lie. Because you've just told me that evidence either that (1) yes, they have a history of refusing to do political messages or (2) no, they've in fact never refused to do a political message and no-one has ever heard of this supposed policy before won't make the slightest bit of difference.
In other words, you're treating the judge's conclusion in this case about this bakery as if it determines whether or not every other baker who is ever asked to write this message on a cake is obliged to do so. Which is emphatically not true. That's the whole point of the sentence from the judgement.
This is the fundamental difference between legal principles and specific cases. The exact facts of the case - that this particular bakery managed to be spectacularly explicit in telling a gay customer they were discriminating against a pro-SSM message - aren't the principle. The principle is the sentence I've quoted from the judgement. And that sentence means that evidence of how other customers are treated will be relevant when such evidence exists.
[ 06. January 2017, 09:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And can I just say that, after having you yell at me for talking about cakes without slogans, it is INCREDIBLY frustrating to have you focusing entirely on the gay/not-gay part of the judgement and completely ignoring the part about political opinions and slogans.
Sexuality is NOT the only protected characteristic discussed in the decision. Because the requested writing was not just "gay writing", it was a political slogan about gays.
[ 06. January 2017, 09:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
Mein Kampf is a perfectly legal book as far as I'm aware (certainly it's legal in Germany).
Again, a point I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure we'd all be worried if there was a state of affairs where refusing to publish or sell [I]Mein Kampf[I] would get you into legal trouble....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Put it this way, Steve. As a baker would you turn down icing any of the following;
- West Ham for the Cup
- Vote Green (matching green icing requested)
- Happy Returns 1800th Constantine
- Jack is a really great bloke (you are unaware of testimonials to support this)
- Down with marriage
- I hate my mother-in-law
- SSM Rules
My guess is you could disagree with all of these. But if the last one is the only statement which you wouldn't ice isn't that a problem?
ALOL but then people probably *have* asked for these or similar.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:
Mein Kampf is a perfectly legal book as far as I'm aware (certainly it's legal in Germany).
Again, a point I'm aware of. But I'm pretty sure we'd all be worried if there was a state of affairs where refusing to publish or sell Mein Kampf would get you into legal trouble....
Oh FFS, when are you going to figure out there is no law requiring equal treatment of books?
The law requires equal treatment of customers! Okay? The law is that you can't offer Mein Kampf to white customers and refuse to sell it to black customers. You can't sell it to straights and refuse to sell it to gays.
You can't offer a kind of service to one customer but not another. If you don't stock or order Mein Kampf for anyone, WHO THE FUCK IS IT THAT YOU THINK IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
