|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should there be conscience clauses in application of laws?
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
This touches on a DH issue, but I am concerned that it could extend into other areas. So please bear with the preamble.
A judge involved in the B&B case in which a gay couple were turned away has suggested that there should be a way in which Christians can apply their consciences in the delivery of services.
An interview on the radio had the B&B landlady emphasising that to understand their stance you had to understand the Christian position on SSM - ie, it isn't marriage. After I had shouted at the radio that she did not have the capacity to speak for all Christians, the ramifications became obvious. Not through the words of the Stonewall speaker, though, who referred to the days of "No Irish, No blacks".
If we are to allow conscience to Christians, all Christians, are we to allow people to withhold services to usurers, divorced and remarried people, people who have had abortions, women who are not surrendered to their husbands....or pacifists who don't want to serve the military, or people who don't want to serve pacifists, or vegetarians?
And if we are to allow conscience exclusions to Christians, surely we should also allow it to other religious groups? Hence the application of sharia in dealings of Muslims with non-Muslims, or Jewish law, or anybody else's beliefs which can be supported in some way by conscience. Withdrawal from lessons involving scientific interpretations of the origin of things also comes to mind. Blood transfusions.
I don't think these issues should be given the same weight as conscientious objection to conscription to kill people. It seems like a very worrying way of sneaking in ways of allowing the treating of outsiders as non-people under the umbrella of firmly held belief.
The judge, and the B&B landlady, seemed to think that only Christians (and only the narrow sort of Christian) would be affected, and that it was proper for them. The unintended consequences seem to be likely to be worrying.
And not part of what I would like to think of as British values.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
I heard the interview. She said that gay marriage isn't a marriage in a "Christian context". If that's her view, then fine, but in that case, does she turn away heterosexual couples who were married in a Register Office? Does she turn away Muslim or Jewish married couples? If not, why not?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a can of worms. Once you allow one group to discriminate, then how could you not allow other groups, who also have consciences on various things?
For example, some people might not want to serve women, or white people, or black people.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think the issue of conscience is a difficult one. I would argue the following position:
1. If you are offering services, you enter into a contract with someone to provide these services. Once you have agreed to provide them to someone or some group, you should stand by that. Of course, you can refuse to provide the services if you don't wish to.
2. If you are employed, there should be conscience clauses/acceptance. If a company cannot provide services because their employees do not wish to do this, then maybe they should reconsider what they are doing.
3. Advertising a hatred of others is wrong. "No blacks" is unacceptable if you are publicly offering a room for rent. If you want to offer a room in the UKIP magazine, then you can limit it to UKIP members only if you want, but not publicly.
The couple in question do have a right to no accept SSM couples in their B&B. What they don't have the right to do is use the public forums that I presume they used to advertise it, accept a booking, and then fail to provide the services.
If they want to limit their clientele, they should limit their publicity too, they should clarify their restrictions before accepting bookings.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Many of us who grew up in the aftermath of the Second World War and at a time when the whole of Eastern Europe was under the blanket domination of ideological totalitarian regimes take it for granted, in my opinion correctly, that one of the things that distinguishes a civilised state from an uncivilised one is whether or not it recognises and respects any role for conscience when it interposes itself inconveniently between the will of the state and the individual citizen.
The test as to whether you are yourself a civilised person or not, is whether you respect that conscience when the person claiming to exercise it is doing so in a way you don't agree with - or could even be to your personal detriment.
So, if you're generally a liberal progressive sort of person, whether you think the law should respect the consciences of Mr and Mrs Bull is rather more significant than your views on conchies in the 1st World War. But if you're Christian Concern, what's more significant than your views on Mr and Mrs Bull, is whether you're willing to respect the wishes of Moslem parents for their teenage daughters not to be required to sit next to boys in class.
etc etc.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If you offer services to the public then you don't get the right to discriminate against people on the basis of a protected characteristic. There should no more be a conscience clause to protect opponents of same sex relationships than there should be to protect opponents of interracial relationships, both of whom have claimed Biblical justification for their vile beliefs.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Rule of law is all about not allowing people to act on their personal opinion of what the rules should be.
And no, I don't think the fact that you can describe your opinion as conscience or religious belief makes it somehow a better opinion than an opinion that is purely personal. Not least because if you gave that kind of out, people would then start getting rather creative about what was a matter of conscience.
Besides, in some areas the law does indeed create exceptions for sincerely held beliefs. The whole notion of 'conscientious objection' for military service is one example. But it's still the prerogative of the law-making body to decide whether it's good policy to allow for people's beliefs in that. An individual person does not get to decide which parts of the law apply to them.
Allowing individuals to decide a law doesn't apply to them simply isn't law in the first place. The very purpose of laws is to tell people what to do when it isn't necessarily what they want to do. If people are allowed to do what they personally want, why would you need laws at all?
[ 21. June 2014, 11:14: 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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Maybe the system of conscientious objection to military service provides a suitable model? You can have your conscience clause, but you must provide some sort of "alternative service". In the case of the B&B owners, that should be making 10% of their nights of accommodation available for free to the local council for emergency housing, assisting victims of domestic violence or similar. Or would their conscience object to that as well, because female domestic violence victims should just have submitted to their abusers instead of getting out?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
My 2p worth
No special clauses. We're all the same and need to learn how to get along with each other.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
My 2p worth
No special clauses. We're all the same and need to learn how to get along with each other.
You mean love one another? Seems there was a bloke who advocated this. And not judging others and all sorts of things about treating others well. What was his name? Oh Jesus, I hate when I forget. Christ! I think it will come to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In most cases, there should not be exceptions. In a few rare cases, conscience must rule. Such as when the laws authorise racism, e.g., apartheid, the anti-Jewish laws of Nazi and allied countries. However, in these special cases, it is not about an individual's or small group's ideals, it is about manifestly wrong things. This, I think, is somewhat like obscenity and pornography, it is hard to define, but I know when I see it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
My 2p worth
No special clauses. We're all the same and need to learn how to get along with each other.
You mean love one another? Seems there was a bloke who advocated this. And not judging others and all sorts of things about treating others well. What was his name? Oh Jesus, I hate when I forget. Christ! I think it will come to me.
Just being polite and civil would be a start. You don't have to love everyone to treat them decently.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In most cases, there should not be exceptions. In a few rare cases, conscience must rule. Such as when the laws authorise racism, e.g., apartheid, the anti-Jewish laws of Nazi and allied countries.
You don't even have to go to these extremes. Consider the case in which euthanasia by demand was made legal. "My" right to die then becomes my doctor's legal obligation to kill me or to help kill me.
Would we allow a conscience clause for a doctor in this case?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
where do we already have these clauses?
And do they work?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If we are to allow conscience to Christians, all Christians, are we to allow people to withhold services to usurers, divorced and remarried people, people who have had abortions, women who are not surrendered to their husbands....or pacifists who don't want to serve the military, or people who don't want to serve pacifists, or vegetarians?
I think we do. don't we? Are businesses not free to refuse to serve particular customers for almost any reason? There are a few classes of customers/reasons that are protected - you can't refuse service to people because of their sex, race, sexual orientation and so on, but I don't think there's any legal impediment to someone refusing service to Fred the Shred on the grounds that he's a greedy bastard, is there?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
where do we already have these clauses?
And do they work?
A lot of these exemptions apply to organizations formed to pursue a stated agenda. For example, the Catholic Church is exempted from religious discrimination law when hiring clergy. They're free to limit employment in that position to Catholics only.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
In most cases, there should not be exceptions. In a few rare cases, conscience must rule. Such as when the laws authorise racism, e.g., apartheid, the anti-Jewish laws of Nazi and allied countries.
You don't even have to go to these extremes. Consider the case in which euthanasia by demand was made legal. "My" right to die then becomes my doctor's legal obligation to kill me or to help kill me.
Would we allow a conscience clause for a doctor in this case?
Which is nonsense. First of all, where have you heard of "euthanasia by demand"? While I don't personally agree with euthanasia other than the fully passive sort, this is a separate question. Let me compare, but may we please avoid the dead horse potential with this?.
We don't have an abortion law in Canada, it is only a medical decision as I think it should be. Conscience is irrelevant. The regulations vary to a degree from province to province in implementation of the abortion service but it must be available. There are many physicians who disagree with abortion, but they hold their opinions to themselves and refer onwards to the appropriate clinics and hospitals which provide the service. If there is an issue of access to a medically necessary service, the local health district or authority, and province are held to the standard of having it available. Nothing about conscience ever emerges, nor should it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Which is nonsense. First of all, where have you heard of "euthanasia by demand"? While I don't personally agree with euthanasia other than the fully passive sort, this is a separate question. Let me compare, but may we please avoid the dead horse potential with this?.
We don't have an abortion law in Canada, it is only a medical decision as I think it should be. Conscience is irrelevant. The regulations vary to a degree from province to province in implementation of the abortion service but it must be available. There are many physicians who disagree with abortion, but they hold their opinions to themselves and refer onwards to the appropriate clinics and hospitals which provide the service. If there is an issue of access to a medically necessary service, the local health district or authority, and province are held to the standard of having it available. Nothing about conscience ever emerges, nor should it.
...Whereas we do have a conscience clause in the abortion law in Britain. Medical practitioners can refuse to perform an abortion on the grounds of conscience, but must make provision available for the patient. (This conscience clause has come under a lot of attack recently, usually because some random atheist is taking a swipe at anything that even vaguely hints at religion. The British Medical Association continue to support the clause.)
As for "euthanasia on demand", why not let's think of "assisted dying"? An Assisted Dying Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 18 July. Under the Bill, medical practitioners would be obliged, under certain defined circumstances, to help a person commit suicide. There is a conscience clause in the proposed Bill. Do you think that's a good thing?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If we are to allow conscience to Christians, all Christians, are we to allow people to withhold services to usurers, divorced and remarried people, people who have had abortions, women who are not surrendered to their husbands....or pacifists who don't want to serve the military, or people who don't want to serve pacifists, or vegetarians?
I think we do. don't we? Are businesses not free to refuse to serve particular customers for almost any reason? There are a few classes of customers/reasons that are protected - you can't refuse service to people because of their sex, race, sexual orientation and so on, but I don't think there's any legal impediment to someone refusing service to Fred the Shred on the grounds that he's a greedy bastard, is there?
There was an interesting case here in NZ a couple of years ago (with regards to nationality rather than race). As I recall, (and I am happy to be corrected by a compatriot with better recall), some cafe owners somewhere in the South Island refused service to some would-be patrons who were Israeli, merely on the grounds that they were Israeli, because they disagreed with Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Now, I disagree with Israel's disagreement of Palestinians as well, but I really don't think that 'making a stand by not serving coffee' on the other side of the world, to two ordinary citizens of that state, is quite the way to go about things. That's not conscience. That's self-indulgence.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I heard the interview. She said that gay marriage isn't a marriage in a "Christian context". If that's her view, then fine, but in that case, does she turn away heterosexual couples who were married in a Register Office? Does she turn away Muslim or Jewish married couples? If not, why not?
And am I allowed to campaign for her marriage to be seen as invalid because her understanding of what marriage is clearly doesn't match mine?
And it depends on the conscience clause - for example the NHS clauses by which the job gets done are fine in my book. But if you are going to claim a "Conscience" prevents you doing something then you must be obviously prepared to pay a price for that.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As for "euthanasia on demand", why not let's think of "assisted dying"? An Assisted Dying Bill will receive its second reading in the House of Lords on 18 July. Under the Bill, medical practitioners would be obliged, under certain defined circumstances, to help a person commit suicide. There is a conscience clause in the proposed Bill. Do you think that's a good thing?
When marriage equality was legislated by the Canadian Supreme Court, which means that same sex couples have the same rights as anyone else, several marriage commissioners tried to assert that their consciences etc required them not to marry same sex couples. They lost. As civil servants their job definition is violated if they refuse. Conscience while interesting, cannot supersede their role. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality. However, there was nothing that would force a church to marry a same sex couple, nor any minister or priest. Who are not gov't employees.
It is a balance. If I understand it, a private individual cannot be forced to do something, but someone whose job must either do their job or resign. A physician would be a professional in Canada, self employed even though fees paid by government. Thus can't be made to perform a medical procedure if he/she doesn't want to. Conscience wouldn't even be discussed. You don't want to? then don't. I don't think this will ever come up actually. Parallel: the abortion issue has mostly evaporated here. It is fully legal and regulated only as to health and we have less abortions than jurisdictions to the south (USA) where they have such laws.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It is a balance. If I understand it, a private individual cannot be forced to do something, but someone whose job must either do their job or resign.
Not entirely true. We still consider things like minimum wage laws and anti-pollution regulation (for example) applicable, even if individuals have religious objections to such standards. Or someone who believes his religion allows him to enslave non-believers doesn't get exempted from anti-slavery laws, even though his beliefs are religiously based.
[ 23. June 2014, 14:16: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I thought, when I first read it, that "The Handmaid's Tale" was science fiction.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It is a balance. If I understand it, a private individual cannot be forced to do something, but someone whose job must either do their job or resign.
Not entirely true. We still consider things like minimum wage laws and anti-pollution regulation (for example) applicable, even if individuals have religious objections to such standards. Or someone who believes his religion allows him to enslave non-believers doesn't get exempted from anti-slavery laws, even though his beliefs are religiously based.
I think a judge in a court would sort this out pretty easily. I seem to recall one in Ontario where a judge said that although someone's religion might require them to smoke marijuana it was still illegal.
We also had the ruling that polygamy while part of some odd Mormon sects and required of them is still illegal. Even if it bothers their consciences and offends their religion.
It is about weighing the harm. Conscience not being an absolute right, but merely something to consider. Similarly, a doctor - patient relationship is important and so is the confidentiality, but a court can overrule it and force the doctor to reveal the information. It will usually explain the reasons for violating one right and promoting another.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
