|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
It would come out differently in the US, then, as we don't have laws against hate speech.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht
"What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation."
Understanding what the law is seems a worthwhile exercise. And distinct from arguing about what the law ought to be.
Are you quoting this with approval, as what you think is right and just, or simply for information ?
I'm struggling to see what general principle is being put forward here.
Are Muslim printers allowed to print pro-Islamic texts but refuse anti-Islamic texts ?
Or is that right conditional on those texts not mentioning sexual orientation ? If so, why single out that protected characteristic over all others ?
Does it matter who does the refusing and who does the asking ? Can a gay advocate of free love who is committed to the idea that SSM is a bad thing refuse a print order for a text that says it's a good thing ?
If being Muslim and being gay are both protected characteristics, who has the right to insist on or refuse a text that sets out the Islamic view of homosexuality ?
Is there any coherent position here at all ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Is there any coherent position here at all ?
Yes, and it's been stated on this thread so many times, I'm surprised you missed it: if you do business with the public, you can't be a respecter of persons.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I'm struggling to see what general principle is being put forward here. ...
"I think gay sex is icky" (or the equivalent theological mumbo-jumbo) is not a valid legal reason to refuse to serve a customer. Is that clear enough for you?
And since Steve Langton has apparently bailed, perhaps you could provide me with the counter-argument that says I don't have to serve Christians at my workplace anymore.
I have had one personal dilemma of this type. I once rented my apartment to a Christian who was involved in "conversion ministry". It took all my willpower and principles to NOT slap her upside the head, never mind rent to her. She was a good tenant, aside from making a career of destroying people's lives.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm struggling to see what general principle is being put forward here.
Are Muslim printers allowed to print pro-Islamic texts but refuse anti-Islamic texts ?
Yes. They can also print pro-Christian, pro-Jewish, pro-gay, pro-trans, pro-disabled people, pro-women, pro-pregnancy texts, etc, etc. Go ahead and print lots of wonderful things about all sorts of people. Anyone can do this.
They can also refuse to print anti-just-about-anything. General rule: be nice, don't be nasty.
quote:
Or is that right conditional on those texts not mentioning sexual orientation ? If so, why single out that protected characteristic over all others ?
There is no reason why a pro-Islamic text should say nasty things about sexual orientation. If it does, then it crosses the line from being a pro-Islamic text to an anti-gay text, and you can refuse to print it. So you can't refuse to ice a cake saying, "Support Islamic Marriage"; but you can refuse to ice one that says "Support Islamic Marriage because Gays are Evil".
Also, sexual orientation is not 'singled out' here. If the texts mention negatively trans people, disabled people, pregnant people, old people, children, black people, white people, Christian people, or women or men as a class, then all are protected by the same legistlation.
quote:
Does it matter who does the refusing and who does the asking ?
No. We are all protected by the same equal rights legislation. If you ask for a 'Support Gay Marriage' cake, it makes no difference if you personally are gay or not. This is why it is irrelevant that Ashers' refusal was not about the customer's personal sexuality - as they say, and let's believe them, they would happily have served him. But by refusing to make the cake, the bakery discriminated against gay people as a class, especially given that gay people in general are more likely to order a pro-gay-marriage cake.
quote:
Can a gay advocate of free love who is committed to the idea that SSM is a bad thing refuse a print order for a text that says it's a good thing ?
No. Makes no difference who the seller is, or what they believe.
quote:
If being Muslim and being gay are both protected characteristics, who has the right to insist on or refuse a text that sets out the Islamic view of homosexuality ?
No one and anyone - assuming that the 'Islamic view of homosexuality' is negative. Just as anyone can refuse a text that sets out a negative 'Gay view of Islam'.
(btw, 'being Muslim' cannot be equated with 'the Islamic view of homosexuality'. There is no such thing as 'the Christian view of homosexuality' either.)
quote:
Is there any coherent position here at all ?
Yes. The bakery - a public company - refused to sell its product to the customer because of the word 'gay'. This is direct discrimination.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I'm struggling to see what general principle is being put forward here. ...
"I think gay sex is icky" (or the equivalent theological mumbo-jumbo) is not a valid legal reason to refuse to serve a customer. Is that clear enough for you?
And since Steve Langton has apparently bailed, perhaps you could provide me with the counter-argument that says I don't have to serve Christians at my workplace anymore.
Well I will instead - although Steve Langton may be back. Real life is permissible, surely?
Anyway, I think I alluded to my undecidedness earlier....
On the one hand, bigotry and anti-gay sentiment do my head in something chronic.
On the other hand, the question of the role of government/legislation sits on my mind. I don't have an answer to that.
But I will say, in my view, that any rule protecting people from having their religious sensibilities offended by the refusal of a baker to ice a cake the way they want it should protect people from offence based on sexual identity. In fact in my view, if there were a line drawn in a continuum, religious believe would be cut free from protection before sexual identity.
So as I see it, the "plural society" notion where legislation allow a plurality of views in the public sphere would mean that a baker/printer/webhost may deny a particular viewpoint about sexual identity may also deny a particular viewpoint about religion.
The response of the public in general, however, is another matter.
I just don't know if legislation should provide better protection than that, as that still leaves a lot of scope to be hurtful and downright inhuman.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
They can also refuse to print anti-just-about-anything. General rule: be nice, don't be nasty.
I don't think this is quite the point. It is entirely possible for one religion to believe different things about another. For example Christians might believe that Muslims need to convert to have Jesus as their Lord and saviour.
In many countries this is an offensive/blasphemous idea which might indeed be considered "nasty".
From what I was reading about the legal situation in the UK yesterday, the law(s) are specifically worded to not prevent religious disagreement. Which makes the whole thing pretty hard to parse - you can have a religious disagreement about the need to have Jesus as you Lord and Saviour, but you can't have a religious disagreement about the nature of homosexuality.
It is true to say that it is possible to argue that there is no Islamic position on homosexuality held by all Muslims. Obviously.
But I'm not sure that this matters - if there is a defined group of Muslims (or any other recognised and serious group) whose serious cogent belief includes the idea that homosexuals are "living in sin" then that appears to be on a collision course with the idea that homosexuals should be protected from those ideas.
Why should the homosexual be protected - to the extent of being able to force a Muslim printer to print that their own religious view about homosexuality is blasphemous - whereas the Muslim would not similarly be able to force the gay printer to do the reverse?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
But I will say, in my view, that any rule protecting people from having their religious sensibilities offended by the refusal of a baker to ice a cake the way they want it should protect people from offence based on sexual identity. In fact in my view, if there were a line drawn in a continuum, religious believe would be cut free from protection before sexual identity.
I'm not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that if I don't want to be offended by the non-sale of cakes for religious/political reasons, that should also mean that other people's right to be offended should be protected?
quote:
So as I see it, the "plural society" notion where legislation allow a plurality of views in the public sphere would mean that a baker/printer/webhost may deny a particular viewpoint about sexual identity may also deny a particular viewpoint about religion.
The response of the public in general, however, is another matter.
It seems like the situation in the UK is that "plural society" means that extreme views which disproportionally impact on minorities are outlawed. The problem is not this per say, but that the way it is being interpreted by the court. Saying that homosexuality is wrong and having a conscience position with regard to providing a service which can be seen as supporting it has been determined to be beyond the pail.
quote:
I just don't know if legislation should provide better protection than that, as that still leaves a lot of scope to be hurtful and downright inhuman.
Again, I can't see that it is in any way practical for the state to make moral judgements about private commerical relationships between free individuals where a range of other options are available.
Personally I support SSM and think that private views on homosexuality have nothing to do with the need of the state to treat different people with diverse views fairly. But to then say that someone who disagrees with me is forced to service my view even to the extent of tacitly supporting it seems unfair too.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
But I will say, in my view, that any rule protecting people from having their religious sensibilities offended by the refusal of a baker to ice a cake the way they want it should protect people from offence based on sexual identity. In fact in my view, if there were a line drawn in a continuum, religious believe would be cut free from protection before sexual identity.
I'm not sure I'm following this. Are you saying that if I don't want to be offended by the non-sale of cakes for religious/political reasons, that should also mean that other people's right to be offended should be protected?
Um. I think so?
I was trying to say that I can't personally see a fair and logical position that protects people from being denied service based on religion but fails to protect people being denied service based on sexual identity.
So in answer to your question, yes. In fairness, any rule protecting a christian from being offended by refusal of service based on anti-christian sentiment should also protect someone who is gay from being offended by refusal of service based on anti-gay sentiment.
quote:
quote:
So as I see it, the "plural society" notion where legislation allow a plurality of views in the public sphere would mean that a baker/printer/webhost may deny a particular viewpoint about sexual identity may also deny a particular viewpoint about religion.
The response of the public in general, however, is another matter.
It seems like the situation in the UK is that "plural society" means that extreme views which disproportionally impact on minorities are outlawed. The problem is not this per say, but that the way it is being interpreted by the court. Saying that homosexuality is wrong and having a conscience position with regard to providing a service which can be seen as supporting it has been determined to be beyond the pail.
I was using the term "plural society" in the sense that I interpreted Steve Langton using it - which seemed to me to mean "society with diverse views and allowing those diverse views" which further seemed to allow for views that marginalised minorities, while allowing for those minorities to have voice.
quote:
quote:
I just don't know if legislation should provide better protection than that, as that still leaves a lot of scope to be hurtful and downright inhuman.
Again, I can't see that it is in any way practical for the state to make moral judgements about private commerical relationships between free individuals where a range of other options are available.
Personally I support SSM and think that private views on homosexuality have nothing to do with the need of the state to treat different people with diverse views fairly. But to then say that someone who disagrees with me is forced to service my view even to the extent of tacitly supporting it seems unfair too.
While I see what you're saying, I still see the refusal of service based on rejection of a person for reasons such as sexual identity to be completely distasteful. And if the law prevents a bar from blocking women from entering, or a hotel from refusing entry to an asian, then why should it allow refusal of service because someone is gay? So part of me wants to see that legal protection from what I consider intolerable and unjustifiable rejection of personhood and the fundamental right to respect.
In the bakery case, the argument is put that the baker doesn't personally believe in SSM so shouldn't have to pipe a message supporting it. But does the baker really have to believe the message piped? If I ask a baker to pipe the message "congratulations on your promotion", does that mean that the baker personally believes that the backstabbing lying git who got the promotion deserved it? If a baker is asked to pipe "Happy birthday to the best dad in the world" is he really dissing his own dad in doing so?
I get that at the other end of the spectrum, I'd support a baker refusing to pipe a swastika onto a cake. Which is why I'm not crashing down hard on one perspective and walking away from the discussion.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why should the homosexual be protected - to the extent of being able to force a Muslim printer to print that their own religious view about homosexuality is blasphemous - whereas the Muslim would not similarly be able to force the gay printer to do the reverse?
Can you not see the difference? A Muslim printer may be obliged to print a pro-gay leaflet. A gay printer may be obliged to print a pro-Muslim leaflet. If that pro-gay leaflet includes anti-Muslim sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. If the pro-Muslim leaflet includes anti-gay sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. Both are protected.
However, an anti-gay belief is not on an equal legal footing with a pro-gay belief. To print a pro-gay slogan is not to attack another protected group. To print an anti-gay slogan is to attack a protected group. Substitute 'pro-Muslim' and 'anti-Muslim', 'pro-Christian' and 'anti-Christian', and you get the same result.
You main worry seems to be nothing to do with gay people at all, but more to do with inter-religious conflict: asking a person to print a proselytising leaflet from another religion. That would be interesting to test in court, but it is not the issue here, and nor is it opened up by this court case. Supporting gay marriage is not a 'belief' that needs protecting: it is gay people as a class that need protecting. Ashers thought they were believers refusing to print someone else's belief (i.e., effectively an inter-religious conflict). The court ruling implies that this was not about belief - it was about treating a protected class of people as equals.
Although equalities laws are UK wide, remember that the context here is Northern Ireland. You don't need to go to Muslims to find religious groups whose 'serious cogent belief' is that another religious group is living in damnable sin. It wouldn't have been hard in the old days to find a Protestant baker who refused to make a First Communion cake, or a Catholic printer who refused to print flyers for an evangelical rally at the Presbyterian Church. Equalities law is at the basis of the Peace Agreement precisely because you can't have peace if this kind of apartheid situation is perpetuated. So to reverse your question, why should equalities law protect Protestants and Catholics, and not gay people?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Can you not see the difference? A Muslim printer may be obliged to print a pro-gay leaflet. A gay printer may be obliged to print a pro-Muslim leaflet. If that pro-gay leaflet includes anti-Muslim sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. If the pro-Muslim leaflet includes anti-gay sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. Both are protected.
Sorry if the gay person wants a cake with (let's agree wildly inaccurate) view piped on it "the Muslim view of homosexuals is a travesty", the Muslim baker is obliged to make it.
Why should he have to?
quote:
However, an anti-gay belief is not on an equal legal footing with a pro-gay belief. To print a pro-gay slogan is not to attack another protected group. To print an anti-gay slogan is to attack a protected group. Substitute 'pro-Muslim' and 'anti-Muslim', 'pro-Christian' and 'anti-Christian', and you get the same result.
I don't think you get my meaning, and I think you're wrong anyway. The law hasn't been fully tested, but it appears that there are legal experts who believe the equalities legislation would oblige trading with a political minority such as a Nazi providing the content was legal. So the homosexual baker would be obliged to make a cake with "down with gay rights!".
According to the cake court ruling, it doesn't matter who the group is, you can't refuse to print a legal phrase on the basis that you don't like it.
quote:
You main worry seems to be nothing to do with gay people at all, but more to do with inter-religious conflict: asking a person to print a proselytising leaflet from another religion. That would be interesting to test in court, but it is not the issue here, and nor is it opened up by this court case. Supporting gay marriage is not a 'belief' that needs protecting: it is gay people as a class that need protecting. Ashers thought they were believers refusing to print someone else's belief (i.e., effectively an inter-religious conflict). The court ruling implies that this was not about belief - it was about treating a protected class of people as equals.
The law, as I discovered yesterday, includes various classes of protected groups. A political view honestly held is exactly to the other groups.
So now the discussion of why exactly the cake seller is disagreeing with the slogan is irrelevant, the court decision says it doesn't matter. If the slogan had been about a minority religious view or a minority political view there is exactly the same obligation.
Weirdly, SSM is not legal in Northern Ireland, so in this case the cake seller was bizarrely in the position of being prosecuted for refusing to write a slogan supporting a position that isn't legal.
quote:
Although equalities laws are UK wide, remember that the context here is Northern Ireland. You don't need to go to Muslims to find religious groups whose 'serious cogent belief' is that another religious group is living in damnable sin. It wouldn't have been hard in the old days to find a Protestant baker who refused to make a First Communion cake, or a Catholic printer who refused to print flyers for an evangelical rally at the Presbyterian Church. Equalities law is at the basis of the Peace Agreement precisely because you can't have peace if this kind of apartheid situation is perpetuated. So to reverse your question, why should equalities law protect Protestants and Catholics, and not gay people?
I don't think it should. I don't think those groups should be forced to make fliers or cakes for a religious position they don't believe in.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
I think mdijon put it well:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't want the marketplace in society to be inaccessible to certain minorities. That way lies marginalization and injustice.
Seems to me that there is something morally wrong with "we don't serve your kind here".
I've suggested that the law should protect every individual - not just members of certain legally-designated minorities - from discrimination by refusal of service.
If you sell cream buns then you have to sell cream buns to anyone - gays, Nazis, parrot-fanciers, anyone.
But you don't have to sell swastika-shaped cakes, parrot-shaped cakes, or any other product that you might (for any reason at all) not be comfortable with selling or not wish to sell.
That seems to me the morally just balance between the rights of seller and would-be buyer.
Everyone seems OK with that until it comes to the people who sell words.
Because words have no cost of production. The only reason why I might agree to print Duck! on your t-shirt but refuse to print Fuck! on your t-shirt is to do with my feelings about what the latter word means and whether I want to associate myself and my business with that text.
And suddenly it's not enough that the customer is treated politely and consistently with every other customer. You want my taste-boundaries - the limits of the service - to conform to what you think they ought to be.
As an act of attempted cultural engineering that goes beyond my moral obligation to treat each customer fairly.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Because words have no cost of production. The only reason why I might agree to print Duck! on your t-shirt but refuse to print Fuck! on your t-shirt is to do with my feelings about what the latter word means and whether I want to associate myself and my business with that text.
But this doesn't discriminate against a particular group of people. There's no people group that is more likely to want "fuck" on their shirts than any other people group. But there is a people group more likely to want "Thank goodness for marital equality!" than other people group, viz., LGBT++ people. So by allowing some slogans but not that one, you are discriminating against a people group.
The word "fuck" is a completely different and unrelated thing. Sure it's a word on a cake. But it has nothing to do with discrimination against people. Because as was pointed out above, the issue is discrimination against people, not discrimination against words. Words don't have civil rights. People do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Words don't have civil rights. People do.
Absolutely.
But I take that to mean that each of us has a moral obligation to deal fairly with the real individual in front of us at any moment.
And no obligation to any particular phrase or text or opinion or group of words.
Slogans having no civil rights means that we can reject them as we choose. People having rights means that we treat them with a certain dignity even if we disagree with their opinions.
Why is this so hard to grasp ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Words don't have civil rights. People do.
Absolutely.
But I take that to mean that each of us has a moral obligation to deal fairly with the real individual in front of us at any moment.
And no obligation to any particular phrase or text or opinion or group of words.
Slogans having no civil rights means that we can reject them as we choose. People having rights means that we treat them with a certain dignity even if we disagree with their opinions.
Why is this so hard to grasp ?
Oh it's plenty easy to grasp. It's just wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
by allowing some slogans but not that one, you are discriminating against a people group.
You could equally say that refusing to print a "Make America Great again" t-shirt would be discriminating against Trump supporters...
You're doing the opposite of what you say you're doing. Instead of affirming that only people have rights, you're in effect extending the protected status you think some groups of people should have to every set of words that that group of people might be expected to agree with.
Perhaps there are 3 options:
- that everyone who trafficks in words is expected to have no convictions of their own but to provide all words equally on demand, because any choice to reject slogan X is an act of discrimination against those who believe X and any discrimination is a bad thing. Goodbye religious bookshops. All private convictions must bow before the almighty dollar of the would-be purchaser, and if you don't like it you shouldn't be in business.
- that those on the protected minorities list get rights that others don't have, and we'll brush under the carpet what happens when one minority's right to dictate what is and is not allowable speech conflicts with the right of another minority to do the same
- that sellers of words have the same rights as sellers of other stuff to sell whatever products or services they like.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's like every post on this thread up to this point doesn't even exist. Or is illegible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There must be a corollary to the Gish Gallop that, instead of bounding from argument to argument, wears down opponents with a perpetual grind of the same argument.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Goodbye religious bookshops. ...
Oh, FFS. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
A Muslim printer may be obliged to print a pro-gay leaflet. A gay printer may be obliged to print a pro-Muslim leaflet. If that pro-gay leaflet includes anti-Muslim sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. If the pro-Muslim leaflet includes anti-gay sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. Both are protected.
If I've understood you right, you're suggestng that anyone can morally refuse a commission involving an anti-someone text, but that no-one can morally refuse a commission on the grounds of disagreeing with a text that is not anti-someone.
Do you mean that to apply only where the someone refers to a protected group ? Or is a text that is anti-anyone refusable ?
Seems clear to me that this is only workable if every text is unambiguously and objectively either an anti- text or not.
Is "we don't need no education" anti-teacher ?
Is "we are the One True Church" anti-every-other-Christian ?
Is "what has the EU ever done for us ?" anti-immigrant ?
Life's more complicated than that...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
If I ask a baker to pipe the message "congratulations on your promotion", does that mean that the baker personally believes that the backstabbing lying git who got the promotion deserved it?
Not necessarily - but a baker is free to refuse such a message if he thinks you are a backstabbing lying git (that not being a protected characteristic.)
There is a difference between "I endorse this statement" and "I find it offensive to be involved with the production of this statement" that might result in a Guardian-reading printer being happy to print election materials for the local Conservative Party (even though he opposes their policies) whilst wanting to refuse business from the BNP.
And the law (at least in the UK) will support the printer's right to make such a discrimination. It does not, however, permit him to make a similar discrimination with regard to a gay rights organization, even if he finds their opinions as offensive as he finds the BNP's.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The court has provided guidance on how to resolve Russ' dilemmas:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The ruling in the Ashers case is the opposite of this. The bakery were asked to bake a cake with a political slogan in support of marriage equality. They refused. The Appeal court called this unlawful.
"What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation."
Let's take another look at that last sentence:
"What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation."
So regardless of whether the baker is a WASP or a differently-abled trans Mennonite, they cannot select their customers according to their own beliefs about gender, ability, religion or race.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
A Muslim printer may be obliged to print a pro-gay leaflet. A gay printer may be obliged to print a pro-Muslim leaflet. If that pro-gay leaflet includes anti-Muslim sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. If the pro-Muslim leaflet includes anti-gay sentiment, they would not be obliged to print it. Both are protected.
If I've understood you right, you're suggestng that anyone can morally refuse a commission involving an anti-someone text, but that no-one can morally refuse a commission on the grounds of disagreeing with a text that is not anti-someone.
Do you mean that to apply only where the someone refers to a protected group ? Or is a text that is anti-anyone refusable ?
Seems clear to me that this is only workable if every text is unambiguously and objectively either an anti- text or not.
Is "we don't need no education" anti-teacher ?
Is "we are the One True Church" anti-every-other-Christian ?
Is "what has the EU ever done for us ?" anti-immigrant ?
Life's more complicated than that...
Indeed it is.
I was not talking morally. I was talking legally. And yes, I was referring to protected groups only. This is why I phrased the paragraph carefully to be about Muslims and gay people only. You might also note the conditional, 'may'.
You seem to be looking for a one-size-fits-all general law that will cover each and every eventuality. Law doesn't work that way. It deals with context, intention, motivation, precedent, effect, outcome. It is a much more subtle instrument than you envision.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
You seem to be looking for a one-size-fits-all general law that will cover each and every eventuality. Law doesn't work that way. It deals with context, intention, motivation, precedent, effect, outcome. It is a much more subtle instrument than you envision.
I'm looking for the law to treat everyone as having the same rights.
I'm looking for the law to reflect what is morally right and wrong, not to punish those who are morally innocent, but offer proportionate redress to those who have been morally wronged.
I'm looking for the law to be coherent, to make sense, to be transparent enough that people know their rights. The degree of punishment can depend on context, intention etc.
I believe Leorning Cnicht when he says what the law is.
But the fact doesn't make it right.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Oh, man, it's almost like an echo:
Former Manitoba marriage commissioner loses battle to opt out of performing same-sex weddings
quote:
... Kisilowsky can practice his faith as he chooses "but is simply not permitted to use his faith as a basis to refuse to marry couples whose weddings, due to religious or moral views, offend him."
Sounds the same as the US county clerk (sorry, can no longer recall the State). As long as he's a marriage commissioner, he must perform any marriage permitted by the Province. But he can't be forced to be a marriage commissioner even if he be qualified.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As long as he's a marriage commissioner, he must perform any marriage permitted by the Province. But he can't be forced to be a marriage commissioner even if he be qualified.
A county clerk is an employee of the State. Having a religious conviction is not an excuse for holding down a job and not doing the job.
It's not unknown for a person's faith to prohibit them from taking certain jobs.
If someone has invested a significant portion of their life in a job and the job changes so that it is no longer compatible with their faith, then they may be owed some compensation. But that's a side issue.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I appreciate that a county clerk is a public employee (probably employed by the county rather than the State). I had worked on the basis that the marriage commissioner is what we would call a marriage celebrant - that is, a private person who performs secular marriages.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
"What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation."
So regardless of whether the baker is a WASP or a differently-abled trans Mennonite, they cannot select their customers according to their own beliefs about gender, ability, religion or race.
First, it's not about selecting one's customers. It's about setting the boundaries of the service that one offers (and whatever service one offers should be available to all customers).
You feel that it's wrong to discriminate against some customers because of personal religious or quasi-religious convictions about gender, race etc. I fully agree.
But the decision as to what goods and services to offer (to every customer) is a different question.
And a large chunk of the moral force of your objection comes from confusing the two. Which is why I bang on about it - apologies to those who got the point the first time around.
Second, I welcome your agreement that the characteristics of the service provider are irrelevant.
Third, to the extent that this court ruling reflects your view, would you still agree with it with the last 5 words (in relation to sexual orientation) removed ?
In other words, do you think it wrong to provide a service that is limited to reflecting one's own belief / message Full Stop ?
Or do you think that there is something special about sexual orientation that removes it from the domain in which freedom of thought / freedom of conscience / freedom of religion apply ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I appreciate that a county clerk is a public employee (probably employed by the county rather than the State). I had worked on the basis that the marriage commissioner is what we would call a marriage celebrant - that is, a private person who performs secular marriages.
The states vary but the county clerks (or probate judges in other states) are elected officials not employees (their deputies are employees). In Kentucky at least their salaries are set by the state and depend on the size of the county and longevity in office. There is also the difference between issuing the license and doing the ceremony. In at least one state (Alabama) the probate judges by virtue of their office can do the ceremony but get to pocket the fee or part of it (it doesn't go to the state/county coffers, the ceremony can be done in the government office) as well as issue the license (fee split between the state and the county probate court itself).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
First, it's not about selecting one's customers. It's about setting the boundaries of the service that one offers
Those aren't as distinct as you'd like to believe. As we've been trying to tell you for 6 pages.
quote:
(and whatever service one offers should be available to all customers).
I don't think that's in dispute at all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
In other words, do you think it wrong to provide a service that is limited to reflecting one's own belief / message Full Stop ?
Or do you think that there is something special about sexual orientation that removes it from the domain in which freedom of thought / freedom of conscience / freedom of religion apply ?
I think I won't waste time on sophistry.
Look, here's what the law and the courts have now said in many nations. Broadly speaking:
#1. Serving the public does not give the server the right to judge said public according to the server's beliefs or values.
#2. Serving the public does not mean the server endorses or supports the actions of said public.
Based on your postings, it appears your personal beliefs and reasoning lead you to disagree with both those propositions. You want to know what I think? I think, yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And to forestall the inevitable:
Addendum to #1: Human rights law also includes protections for e.g. religious organizations allowing them to serve or employ only members of their own religion, according to their own beliefs. In other words, OMG!!! the Catholic church has rights that Tesco doesn't have!!!! Do you think that's wrong?
Addendum to #2: There are some situations where the server and/or establishment can be held responsible for the public's subsequent actions, such as over-serving liquor to someone who then crashes their car. Do you think that's right?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I appreciate that a county clerk is a public employee (probably employed by the county rather than the State). I had worked on the basis that the marriage commissioner is what we would call a marriage celebrant - that is, a private person who performs secular marriages.
The states vary but the county clerks (or probate judges in other states) are elected officials not employees (their deputies are employees). In Kentucky at least their salaries are set by the state and depend on the size of the county and longevity in office. There is also the difference between issuing the license and doing the ceremony. In at least one state (Alabama) the probate judges by virtue of their office can do the ceremony but get to pocket the fee or part of it (it doesn't go to the state/county coffers, the ceremony can be done in the government office) as well as issue the license (fee split between the state and the county probate court itself).
It can vary more than that. Here (NC), marriage licenses are issued by the register of deeds, a county official elected to 4-year terms. The civil official authorized to officiate at weddings is the magistrate, a judicial official appointed for a fixed-term (initially two years, 4 years for any re-appointments) by the senior resident superior court judge (elected) from nominees submitted by the clerk of superior court (also elected). We don't have "county clerks" as such here.
But for purposes of this thread, the point is that the persons directly involved in weddings are either elected county officials or appointed state officials, not county or state employees.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Broadly speaking:
#1. Serving the public does not give the server the right to judge said public according to the server's beliefs or values.
That's way too broad. The law (in many places) has said that someone serving the public can't judge said public according to a specific list of characteristics.
If I own a store selling stationery, and you come in wearing a fur coat, I am entitled to refuse you service because I disapprove of wearing fur, and as far as I know, no country anywhere will prevent me from doing so.
But I can't refuse you service because of my impressions of your race, sex, or sexual preference for example.
(Governments and their agents dealing with the public are different. Government agents have to deal with everyone whatever...)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
What Leorning Cniht says is 100% correct, at least here. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it is impermissible to decline to serve someone on the basis that the customer is wearing fur, lycra, leather shoes, you name it.
A variation seen yesterday was of a small suburban cake shop. It advertised a range of items sold, including birthday cakes. Now birthday cakes sold in such shops here are usually sponge cakes with pretty simple icing, whereas wedding cakes are either elaborately decorated fruit cakes or croquembouche. My opinion is that this shop owner would be entitled to refuse to sell any cake other than the simple layered sponge; but be unable to refuse to sell on on any of the proscribed grounds.
FWIT, that report of the Northern Ireland case has the court saying that a wedding cake vendor cannot refuse to include a political message of which the vendor does not approve. Is that true? It would mean, if correct, that a vendor cannot refuse to sell a cake with a Heil Hitler message piped onto the top.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
FWIT, that report of the Northern Ireland case has the court saying that a wedding cake vendor cannot refuse to include a political message of which the vendor does not approve. Is that true? It would mean, if correct, that a vendor cannot refuse to sell a cake with a Heil Hitler message piped onto the top.
That's not my reading of the ruling. My reading is that it applies to protected characteristics only, and political opinions in general are not such a characteristic. Whether one could parlay being a Nazi into a political opinion strongly correlated with race (which is a protected characteristic) I don't know for certain, but I suspect that a court would laugh at you.
[ 28. November 2016, 02:12: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This quotation from the newspaper article was in a post from Mr Cheesy the other day:
quote:
Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. 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 message in relation to sexual orientation.
That's where I found the reference by the court to political opinions. Surely the relevant legislation does not require a cake decorator to include a political comment?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That's way too broad. The law (in many places) has said that someone serving the public can't judge said public according to a specific list of characteristics.
I think you, me and Gee are all saying the same thing about our interpretation of the current situation. And personally I think that it is an appropriate one. I want the laws regarding the marketplace to be as light-touch as possible. I don't want communities or groups of people to be marginalized and denied equal access but this doesn't require a broad-brush approach prohibiting judging anyone or necessitating provision of services to anyone who walks in.
What is necessary is to protect discrimination on certain characteristics that do identify groups of people who might not readily escape discrimination.
If you are gay, or straight, or a member of a particular ethnic group you are stuck with that identity in a way that fur-coat-wearers or gum-chewers or loud-mouths aren't. The latter can legally be used to deny someone services, the former can't.
And before we get to the "doesn't everyone have the same rights?" argument it is worth noting, as above in the thread, that these characteristics are protected irrespective of which category a person is placed in. So you can't discriminate against straight people, white people or any group on the basis of race, age, ethnic group, sexual orientation etc. We do all have the same rights.
--------------------
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 Gee D:
That's where I found the reference by the court to political opinions. Surely the relevant legislation does not require a cake decorator to include a political comment?
Well philosophical belief is one of the named characteristics which are listed in the Equalities Act we're discussing above, although the case law seems to suggest that the courts in practice have different approaches to philosophical/political against religious against race discrimination, in the UK at least.
Again, IANAL, but from what I'm reading, the British courts rarely find in favour of someone who has been discriminated against because they are members of a political party (such as a neo-Nazi party), seem to only be prepared to support religious applicants when the religion meets certain criteria etc.
On the cake issue, it seems to me that the judgement is saying that if a cake decorator is prepared to make wedding cakes, he can't decide to not-make a wedding cake for a single-sex couple. If he makes bright cakes with slogans supporting heterosexual marriage, he can't decide to refuse to make one supporting gay marriage.
But, like Peter Tatchell, it seems to me that this judgement has gone a step beyond that and appears to be saying that if a baker is prepared to make a cake with a slogan, he can't then decide to refuse any legal slogan, whoever is asking for it - on the basis that the cake maker isn't professing support for the position by making the cake.
Which to me still seems stupid, but I appreciate that almost nobody else on this thread agrees with me.
[ 28. November 2016, 07:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
appears to be saying that if a baker is prepared to make a cake with a slogan, he can't then decide to refuse any legal slogan, whoever is asking for it - on the basis that the cake maker isn't professing support for the position by making the cake.
Which to me still seems stupid, but I appreciate that almost nobody else on this thread agrees with me.
Actually I think I would agree with you if that's what I thought the judgement was saying. But I don't think it is, I think it is saying because the occasion for disagreeing with this slogan was related to sexual orientation then the basis of not supporting the slogan isn't a sufficient defence.
To get caught by this law you don't just have to be bigoted, you have to make a point of professing the bigotry as your defence.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
In its protection of philosophical statements, the UK legislation goes much further than any of which I'm aware in any of the States here. The newspaper report does have the word "political" though - if correct, that seems to me to be a very dangerous step.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Actually I think I would agree with you if that's what I thought the judgement was saying. But I don't think it is, I think it is saying because the occasion for disagreeing with this slogan was related to sexual orientation then the basis of not supporting the slogan isn't a sufficient defence.
To get caught by this law you don't just have to be bigoted, you have to make a point of professing the bigotry as your defence.
Well I've posted the shorter version of the judgment above so everyone can read what it says; in my opinion it has taken a wider view of the matter and said that a cake maker who makes cakes with slogans cannot decide to refuse to make legal slogans. Given that almost anything can be considered a political or philosophical position, this leaves the door open to essentially controlling what anyone ices on any cake.
I agree with you that the structure of the law seems to be such that someone would have to obligingly say that they're discriminating against something specifically mentioned in the legislation - but it would be an interesting test to see whether someone refused to make a gay wedding cake because of the colour, the gay couple went to court and the court decided that it was actually because they were gay. More interesting would be if a gay Nazi was refused a cake on the basis it was a Nazi slogan but the court decided it was because they were gay.
In this case the judges have already apparently decided that it wouldn't have mattered if the customers had not been gay, the issue was the slogan on the cake and that the cake makers were prepared to make some slogans, just not this one.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And I see why you conclude that based on the short version, but it seems to me that the longer version makes it clear that the issue is a) the slogan is legal *and* b) the discrimination against the slogan in this instance is based on a protected characteristic.
As far as I know all the discriminators caught by these laws have obligingly taken a public stand of principle on their motivations and therefore been thoroughly incriminated.
It would be interesting to see a case where the accused deny homophobia but have some tissue-thin excuse to cover their homophobia. In terms of racist discrimination that is much more common in my experience. Very few individuals make it a point of principle that they are entitled to be racist, they are more likely in denial. And generally very little can be done.
--------------------
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:
And I see why you conclude that based on the short version, but it seems to me that the longer version makes it clear that the issue is a) the slogan is legal *and* b) the discrimination against the slogan in this instance is based on a protected characteristic.
Err, yes I thought that was a given. The issue is that the protected characteristics include political/philosophical beliefs, so just as one cannot decide to refuse to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage, one equally cannot decide to refuse to make a cake with any political or philosophical slogan (which, if one stops to think about it, pretty much includes everything). Which is to say that if you are prepared to make a cake with a slogan, you have to be prepared to make any slogan.
If you understand that there is any way to avoid making a legal political slogan cake, I'd be interested to hear it (other than by pointing to your hatred of pink icing or whatever). I'm not sure this judgment allows for you to decide that you don't like making any slogan providing it is legal.
quote:
As far as I know all the discriminators caught by these laws have obligingly taken a public stand of principle on their motivations and therefore been thoroughly incriminated.
Well yes, as we've discussed above, those who have been caught out are those who have said "I'm not letting you do x because we don't serve your protected minority here."
Which is a bit of a problem if you are a Romany and the barman has determined that you can't get served because he takes exception to the clothing you are wearing. And also a bit of a problem for the red-heads I've heard being ejected from a particular bar because the owner doesn't like them (and actually that particular arsey barman frequently decides not to serve people who look under 35).
I suspect that an ejected Romany person could make a claim against the bar under the Equalities Act even if the barman wasn't loudly protesting that he hated that minority - otherwise the law is a bit idiotic.
quote:
It would be interesting to see a case where the accused deny homophobia but have some tissue-thin excuse to cover their homophobia. In terms of racist discrimination that is much more common in my experience. Very few individuals make it a point of principle that they are entitled to be racist, they are more likely in denial. And generally very little can be done.
Exactly, but I'm not convinced that little can be done. If the court is determining motivations of the person doing the discriminating, one would think that they could use available evidence to show that the barman was indeed ejecting people because they were Romany and not because he had an objection to blue shirts.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the court is determining motivations of the person doing the discriminating, one would think that they could use available evidence to show that the barman was indeed ejecting people because they were Romany and not because he had an objection to blue shirts.
Sure - this kind of thing is done on a regular basis. It's not nearly as easy, though - you'd need to show that the barman didn't actually object to blue shirts - perhaps by pointing at the dozen blue-shirted men drinking in his pub, or by having the Romany man show up in a different shirt, or something.
But there have been successful prosecutions of landlords who magically had no vacancies when faced with a black prospective tenant, for example.
It's just so much easier when someone says "we don't serve your sort here."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The issue is that the protected characteristics include political/philosophical beliefs, so just as one cannot decide to refuse to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage, one equally cannot decide to refuse to make a cake with any political or philosophical slogan (which, if one stops to think about it, pretty much includes everything).
While it is true that you could theoretically make a case that any slogan was discriminated against because of it's political basis, it isn't necessarily winnable. For instance, if I decide that I don't like short slogans, or I don't like poorly written slogans, or (more seriously) slogans that I consider to be at risk of promoting violence then I'm not refusing to write them because I discriminate against the politics of the writer. I think I'd get away with it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The issue is that the protected characteristics include political/philosophical beliefs,
I think you're going a bit broad there.
Here's the relevant bit of the UK Equality Act. "Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief." - so you're not free to discriminate against an atheist, or an ethical humanist or whatever.
"Political" doesn't enter in to it at all, and I'd think it would be a bit of a stretch to include Naziism.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I am not a lawyer, however those who are lawyers say that the Equalities legislation protects political views.
quote:
The EAT (Employment Appeal Tribunal) also expressly confirmed that the EqA (Equalities Act) does not give special protection to one category of belief and less protection for another. It also emphasised that there had been no appeal on the Tribunal’s finding that Mr Henderson’s beliefs did amount to philosophical beliefs for the purposes of the EqA. The EAT confirmed that all qualifying philosophical and religious beliefs are afforded equal protection by the EqA.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I think I won't waste time on sophistry.
Why waste time on thinking through a consistent philosophy when you already know who you sympathise with in any given situation ?
quote:
here's what the law and the courts have now said in many nations.
Is this an Argument from Authority that I see before me ? In a thread where mousethief keeps referencing Jim Crow for some reason, you're suggesting that it's the law so it must be morally right ?
Come on, you can do better than that.
quote:
#1. Serving the public does not give the server the right to judge said public according to the server's beliefs or values.
Freedom of thought gives the server the right to form a judgment in their own mind. Value systems stand over and judge people's conduct - that's what it means to have values.
I have said, several times, words to the effect that the server has no moral right to allow any disapproval of the customer (or their behaviour outside of the shop) that they might feel to get in the way of serving the customer.
You advertise a service, you provide that service to everyone. And you offer that customer that you disapprove of the same courtesy that you offer any other customer. And yes that service does not of itself convey approval.
If I refuse to print for you a t-shirt that says "XXXX" that is not about you It is about me and my belief system and the relationship of the slogan "XXXX" to that belief system.
There are two people in the situation. Both of them are human beings who may have convictions and beliefs. The problem comes when one of those two people tried to impose their convictions on the other.
Treatment with dignity and respect cuts both ways.
quote:
the Catholic church has rights that Tesco doesn't have!!!! Do you think that's wrong?
Yes, I do. But, without knowing exactly what rights you have in mind, it's possible that I would give Tesco more rights rather than the Catholic church fewer rights...
quote:
There are some situations where the server and/or establishment can be held responsible for the public's subsequent actions, such as over-serving liquor to someone who then crashes their car. Do you think that's right?
Driving when impaired by alcohol is a morally wrong choice by the driver, which in most cases it would be unfair to blame the publican for.
However, assisting someone to a level of intoxication when they are no longer responsible for their actions doesn't seem morally right either.
So yes I'd support the duty of the server to say no in those circumstances. As a matter between the server and their conscience, that does not amount to a personal judgment on or expression of animosity towards the customer.
Is there some contradiction there that I'm not seeing ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am not a lawyer, however those who are lawyers say that the Equalities legislation protects political views.
Also from your link
quote:
It gave guidance on what amounts to a philosophical belief for the purposes of the EqA. The belief must be genuinely held, must have a similar status or cogency to a religious belief and must be more than an opinion or viewpoint. Support of a political party cannot, itself, amount to a philosophical belief but belief in a political philosophy might qualify.
I find "must be more than an opinion" amusing, as it suggests to me that one is not protected for things that one thinks because of data, but is protected for things that one thinks in spite of data ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
