Which discrimination should trump which discrimination?

robindch

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not that I'm siding with the cake maker (plus I'd like to see more details on the case) but hypothetically speaking couldn't a situation where a baker is asked to make a cake with the slogan "Anyone who has gay sex should be killed" and refuses risk the same treatment?

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal in Belfast upheld a judgment that cake-maker Asher had discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/24/born-again-christian-ashers-bakery-lose-court-appeal-in-gay-cake-row

The Daily Mash and News Thump weren't long in showing up to the party:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/gay-cake-converted-entire-tray-of-bread-rolls-to-homosexuality-2015052098454
http://newsthump.com/2016/10/24/gay-baker-sued-after-refusing-to-make-angel-cake-for-christian-couple/

recedite

I won't be eating any baps for a while

I see the baker is going to appeal..

Following the judgment, Daniel McArthur, flanked by his wife Amy, said: “This ruling undermines democratic freedom, religious freedom and freedom of speech.”
Wells said an appeal would be mounted against the ruling at the supreme court in London.

Mc Arthur missed a golden opportunity there, to quip "I'll be back" at the end of his soundbyte.

Anyway, the judge's reasoning is interesting;

On Ashers’ stance regarding the cake, Morgan said: “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.

McArthur the baker could argue that he does not do any controversial or illegal messages on cakes, for anybody. As SSM is currently illegal in NI, that helps him. It would be hard to disprove this, unless somebody can produce an uneaten Ashers cake bearing a controversial message.
But instead, he has argued that he only does cakes with messages he agrees with, regardless of the sexual orientation of the customers. That was not a good enough argument, apparently.

Reading between the lines, the judge might even be saying McArthur was badly advised and used the wrong legal defence. He criticised the equality officers there for not providing McArthur with advice.

Ah well, that's what happens when you let bible bashers provide you with free legal services.

McArthur said he was very surprised by the watchdog's letter and had asked the Christian Institute, an evangelical pressure group, for advice. The institute supports the bakery's stance and is providing legal assistance.

source

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, the judge's reasoning is interesting; McArthur the baker could argue that he does not do any controversial or illegal messages on cakes, for anybody. As SSM is currently illegal in NI, that helps him.

A message supporting change in the law is not the same thing as a message encouraging people to break the law. This has already been discussed on the thread. In a democracy, the latter may be illegal but the former can never be (unless what you're asking for is something like a law to ban Mexicans and muslims from your country, then perhaps...)

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

.. the former can never be (unless what you're asking for is something like a law to ban Mexicans and muslims from your country, then perhaps...)

As I said, its easier to just steer clear of anything controversial or "possibly" illegal. That policy was open to the baker, and still is.

silverharp

Regardless of how the law is at the moment I wouldn't support a particular religious objection however secular baker and a hard line religious person comes in wanting a cake with anti Jewish sentiments on it or pro religious extremist position and its only right that a small business owner has some control over their work. there seems to be a permission to be a d1ck built into the current arrangement. Mohammed cake? , gay Mohammed cake? Jewish baker and Hitler birthday cake?

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

Mohammed cake? , gay Mohammed cake? Jewish baker and Hitler birthday cake?

Basically, you could refuse all these. Also all pro SSM cakes and all anti SSM cakes. But you can't necessarily pick and choose according to your own preferences or convictions.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Basically, you could refuse all these. Also all pro SSM cakes and all anti SSM cakes. But you can't necessarily pick and choose according to your own preferences or convictions.

I don't get what you mean by "pick and choose"? I don't think individual staff should have the right, they sell whatever the employer sells, but the employer should have the right to choose based on whatever floats their boat

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

I don't get what you mean by "pick and choose"?

Mc Arthur here wanted to refuse a SSM cake based on his own convictions. But he had no general policy to refuse political/religious messages. So he wanted to be free to make cakes with political/religious messages he agreed with (or at least that's the precedent his bible bashing lawyers were trying to set). That was his downfall here.

As it turned out, it didn't really matter whether the client asking for the cake was gay or not. Mc Arthur thought he would be within the law because he didn't ask about that individual's sexuality, but it was the message itself that counted in this case.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

Mc Arthur here wanted to refuse a SSM cake based on his own convictions. But he had no general policy to refuse political/religious messages. So he wanted to be free to make cakes with political/religious messages he agreed with (or at least that's the precedent his bible bashing lawyers were trying to set). That was his downfall here.

As it turned out, it didn't really matter whether the client asking for the cake was gay or not. Mc Arthur thought he would be within the law because he didn't ask about that individual's sexuality, but it was the message itself that counted in this case.

ok but leaving the law aside he should have that right. going forward it doesnt really matter, slogans on cakes are not really a thing, better have a policy to not make them so as to not to be set up
but take another business like a printer, if you dont want to print some political party's literature or some cause you might personally find offensive (which you might not even be aware of ahead of time) the owner should be allowed have full discretion , here a printer saying he wont print political stuff might hurt his business

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

slogans on cakes are not really a thing, better have a policy to not make them so as to not to be set up.

Yes, avoiding contentious slogans is the best policy for bakers for now. And it does look as if this baker was deliberately set up alright, although that has not been proven or even alleged AFAIK.

..but take another business like a printer, if you dont want to print some political party's literature or some cause you might personally find offensive (which you might not even be aware of ahead of time) the owner should be allowed have full discretion, here a printer saying he wont print political stuff might hurt his business

I think that is most peoples opinion, and indeed that was the general consensus on this thread about how this case would play out. We thought the baker would only be done for discrimination if it could be shown that he was discriminating against the customer personally. But we were wrong, apparently. It was deemed to be discrimination due to the nature of the slogan the customer was asking for.

I'm inclined to think it was a bad decision because
(a) discrimination happens when a person is treated differently because of their personal characteristics or religious beliefs, and the sexual orientation of the customer was never really discussed, it was only inferred by the slogan, which I don't think is a fair or reliable inference.
(b) It was reported that the judge suggested McArthur "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" but AFAIK political persuasion is not a protected characteristic under the law, though religious persuasion would be. Maybe he was just offering friendly advice, but it seems wrong or misleading if it was part of a judgement.

BTW McArthur did say they would appeal to a London court, so maybe its not over yet.

magicbastarder

i'm inclined to disagree with the ruling too.
if i went in to a bakers asking for a cake with a 'your mother sucks cocks in hell' message, i would not get very far in many bakers. it's easy to think of many cake toppings which would not be illegal, but which a baker should reasonably be able to refuse to provide.

i've heard claims - though not substantiated yet - that the customer in question had frequented ashers before this incident; any know if this is true? even with that, that would not necessarily prove they knew anything about the customer's sexual orientation.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm inclined to disagree with the ruling too.
if i went in to a bakers asking for a cake with a 'your mother sucks cocks in hell' message, i would not get very far in many bakers. it's easy to think of many cake toppings which would not be illegal, but which a baker should reasonably be able to refuse to provide.

Nothing in this case about being forced to provide an illegal or obscene message.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

I'm inclined to think it was a bad decision because
(a) discrimination happens when a person is treated differently because of their personal characteristics or religious beliefs, and the sexual orientation of the customer was never really discussed, it was only inferred by the slogan, which I don't think is a fair or reliable inference.
(b) It was reported that the judge suggested McArthur "might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message" but AFAIK political persuasion is not a protected characteristic under the law, though religious persuasion would be. Maybe he was just offering friendly advice, but it seems wrong or misleading if it was part of a judgement.

BTW McArthur did say they would appeal to a London court, so maybe its not over yet.

its easy enough to switch it around and have a religious customer and an atheist business owner or any variant off and you have potential problems. I hope they do appeal and get the law back to only selling "off the shelf" stuff and services and leave bespoke services to the discretion of the owner. the court of Yelp will balance everything else and not clog the courts with pointless cases.

Considering this ruling - What kind of messages is the proprietor not entitled to refuse to print from now on?

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering this ruling - What kind of messages is the proprietor not entitled to refuse to print from now on?

maybe this? , Muslim street preacher wants thousands of leaflets printed up on the benefits on Sharia law and the evils of the west and Israel. I'd like the freedom be able to say on yer bike son. ?

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering this ruling - What kind of messages is the proprietor not entitled to refuse to print from now on?

I presume he can only refuse hate speech, promotion of illegal activities, and anything untrue or libelous. Its a bit much to expect a busy baker to sort out one from the other though.

The other alternative is he puts up a sign to say his policy is to refuse all political, religious and potentially controversial slogans. But then he can't do any pro-Christian slogans for his mates.

ShooterSF

OT: Not sure that this hasn't been pointed out yet but anyone notice the thread title contains the words "Trump" and "Discrimination"?

learn_more

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering this ruling - What kind of messages is the proprietor not entitled to refuse to print from now on?

I don't think the message was personally offensive or hateful to the proprietor.

Opinions are just opinions. I'm not insulted if someone disagrees with my opinion. I think a religious belief is just an opinion. I know it's more than that for the believer but I think in law religious beliefs should be treated exactly the same as any other opinion and should not be elevated to some higher status.

I think Ashers believe that 'Religious beliefs' should have some special status in law. And that is why I'm sure that they are going to take this case further.

To answer the question @emmet asked, the better question is what messages are they entitled to refuse. I would say it's only ones they are personally offended by and ones that are restricted in law.

recedite

learn_more wrote: »

To answer the question @emmet asked, the better question is what messages are they entitled to refuse. I would say it's only ones they are personally offended by and ones that are restricted in law.

Only the latter. He was in court because he refused the former; a slogan that he personally disagreed with.

Hotblack Desiato

Disagreed with, yes.
More than a bit of a stretch if he's claiming he was offended by the actual words "Support Gay Marriage", however much he may disagree with the legalisation of same.

learn_more

learn_more wrote: »

To answer the question @emmet asked, the better question is what messages are they entitled to refuse. I would say it's only ones they are personally offended by and ones that are restricted in law.

Of course you're right, I double negatived myself .

recedite

Its not about disagreeing with, or being offended by the customers. Neither is allowed. Its about whether discrimination is being applied in dealings with the customers.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've heard claims - though not substantiated yet - that the customer in question had frequented ashers before this incident; any know if this is true? even with that, that would not necessarily prove they knew anything about the customer's sexual orientation.

I remember reading in the reports way back when this first broke, the Gareth Lee was a regular customer.

MrP

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I remember reading in the reports way back when this first broke, the Gareth Lee was a regular customer.

MrP

I recall that too, though I can't find it now. But whilst the original Judge spent some time pointing out that the bakers must have or should have known his sexual orientation, the Appeals Judges felt the finding of discrimination did not rely on this; the fact that the benefit of the message accrued entirely to gay people as a class they said meant that simply not producing the message itself was illegally discriminatory.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

... the Appeals Judges felt the finding of discrimination did not rely on this; the fact that the benefit of the message accrued entirely to gay people as a class they said meant that simply not producing the message itself was illegally discriminatory.

A fair asessment I think.
IMO the judge has crossed the boundary of "protecting minority rights" and strayed into "political correctness gone mad" territory.
But everyone will have their own opinion on where that boundary lies.

Arcade_Tryer

recedite wrote: »

A fair asessment I think.
IMO the judge has crossed the boundary of "protecting minority rights" and strayed into "political correctness gone mad" territory.
But everyone will have their own opinion on where that boundary lies.

Essentially what they have done is erode the fundamental rights of free expression and speech (which were designed especially to protect minorities) in an effort to appear to protect minorities. Thus eroding the rights of minorities. The stupidity on show is simply mind boggling. More evidence to support my belief that legal "experts" are nothing more than glorified rote learners and spelling champions. An embarrassing decision.

seanaway

Enough of the politically 'correct' going into the judiciary. Time citizens got our democracy back.

magicbastarder

that post can be easily cariacatured as 'we've had enough experts defining our law, what we need is more pitchforks at dawn'.

you'll need to define more cleary what is wrong with the system, and what 'citizens' means.

robindch

The case of alleged discrimination by Ashers' Bakery has reached the UK's Supreme Cour - moves on this are expected today:

https://www.ft.com/content/962f54b0-4b8c-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493

FT wrote:

The UK’s highest court will convene in Belfast this week to make a landmark decision in a case involving a bakery in Northern Ireland that refused to ice a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage”. The Christian owners of Ashers Bakery are asking five Supreme Court justices to overturn earlier rulings that they breached equality laws by refusing to make the cake for Gareth Lee, a member of QueerSpace, an LGBT advocacy group in Northern Ireland.

The case has attracted huge public interest and highlights the deep cultural divisions in Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where gay marriage is not legal. In earlier court appeals, senior politicians from Northern Ireland’s socially conservative Democratic Unionist party have voiced their support for the bakery.

In May 2014, Mr Lee placed an order with Ashers for a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” and the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie. The bakery initially accepted the order but later cancelled it and refunded Mr Lee. Colin and Karen McArthur, the co-owners of Ashers, oppose the introduction of same-sex marriage. Mrs McArthur has said she was unable to complete the order because the slogan went against the family’s Christian beliefs. Backed by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission, Mr Lee sued the Ashers for discrimination under the Equality Act.

In court filings, he said the “blatant refusal of a service” made him “feel like a second-class citizen”. He said it was not right that a “business can choose to serve me depending on its views of my sexual orientation, religion or politics”. Mrs McArthur has said she cancelled the order because of her concerns about the slogan, not Mr Lee’s sexual orientation. Mr Lee has won his case in two lower courts, including the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal, which ruled in October 2016 that there was unlawful direct discrimination by the bakery.

Declan Morgan, Northern Ireland’s Lord Chief Justice, said at the time: “To prohibit the provision of a message on a cake supportive of gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is to permit direct discrimination. “The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.” Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to uphold the earlier rulings.

Nicholas Le Riche, an employment partner at law firm Bircham Dyson Bell, said: “It’s well established that businesses cannot pick and choose who they provide services to based on a customer’s sexual orientation. Religious belief cannot be used as a shield for not serving someone.”

A similar case is also being considered by the US Supreme Court.

recedite

Declan Morgan, Northern Ireland’s Lord Chief Justice, said at the time: “To prohibit the provision of a message on a cake supportive of gay marriage on the basis of religious belief is to permit direct discrimination. “The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either.

Declan touches on an interesting example there. There are some protestant sects that take a very dim view of the whole Halloween festival. Perhaps Ashers would have been the type of bakery to refuse an invitation to bake a cake featuring witches. If Declan cannot understand that, then he fails to grasp the true meaning of discrimination, or indeed the whole concept of minority rights.
Instead he is enforcing conformity to a particular agenda, which is set by a "liberal" majority, or perhaps an elite who are not even the majority.