Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[Pegscratch]

In a country where members of staff can opt not to serve alcohol to people based on their own beliefs, this judgement is horsest.

I don't suggest we go back to the times of stoning gays to death and denying women the vote, but this couple were by all accounts given polite in their refusal and even mindful of tackling it openly in front of others. Utterly disgusting to try and ruin a couple's business based on what they believe when they have done nothing more than be polite in their handling of their beliefs.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?

What if I, as a white person, went up to the bar to buy a round of drinks, and the barman refused to sell me them because my mates at the table were black and he didn't want to sell beer that was to be drunk black people. Surely that's still discrimination. I'm not sure the sexuality of the actual buyer is key.

That's not an answer to the question.

I think it is.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?

What if I, as a white person, went up to the bar to buy a round of drinks, and the barman refused to sell me them because my mates at the table were black and he didn't want to sell beer that was to be drunk black people. Surely that's still discrimination. I'm not sure the sexuality of the actual buyer is key.

That's not an answer to the question.

I think it is.

It isn't.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

What if the people ordering the cake were straight but wanted the same message?

What if I, as a white person, went up to the bar to buy a round of drinks, and the barman refused to sell me them because my mates at the table were black and he didn't want to sell beer that was to be drunk black people. Surely that's still discrimination. I'm not sure the sexuality of the actual buyer is key.

That's not an answer to the question.

I think it is.

It isn't.

The judge answers your question. If the customer was heterosexual and wanted the same message, the bakery said they would have refused. The bakery would still have been found to have discriminated on the grounds of political opinion.

[Eric Mc]

Gosh - is holding a political opinion now against the law - in Northern Ireland of all places.

Maybe the entire population should be charged.

And if that is a summary of the judge's ruling - I'd hate to see the full version.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

Gosh - is holding a political opinion now against the law - in Northern Ireland of all places.

Maybe the entire population should be charged.

No it isn't against the law to hold a political opinion. It is against the law to treat those with a different political opinion less favorably (ie refuse service) to how you would treat those with the same political opinion as you, in a commercial transaction.

Come on Eric, you're better than this.

[Halb]

r11co said:

Not a public service - a private company. IMO they should have the right to refuse custom to anyone without giving reason as no-one can be compelled to enter into a private contract.

A private company offering a public service.
Anti-discrimitory laws trump fairytales.

[Eric Mc]

But they were being asked to promote a political opinion they didn't agree with.

Is the law saying that if asked to print or display a message you don't agree with (whether on religious or other grounds), then you have no choice but to comply?

What if a pair of Republicans had entered the shop and asked the bakery to put "Ireland Divided will never be free" on a cake, would the bakery have been prosecuted for refusing to comply?

I think that you cannot use the law to make people promote political messages they don't agree with.

[vetrof]

Eric Mc said:

Gosh - is holding a political opinion now against the law - in Northern Ireland of all places.

No, but treating people differently because they hold different ones is. But you know that don't you Eric?

From the judgement:

"The crucial question in a case of any alleged discrimination is to ask why the claimant received less favourable treatment. Was it on grounds of religious belief and/ or political opinion? Or was it for some other reason. If it is on the grounds of religious belief and/ political opinion, direct discrimination is established. The reason why the discriminator acted on those grounds is irrelevant.

The crucial question in a case of any alleged discrimination is to ask why the claimant received less favourable treatment. Was it on grounds of religious belief and/ or political opinion? Or was it for some other reason. If it is on the grounds of religious belief and/ political opinion, direct discrimination is established. The reason why the discriminator acted on those grounds is irrelevant.

Have the Defendants directly discriminated against the Plaintiff on the ground of religious belief and/ or political opinion contrary to Article 3(2) of the 1998 Order?

I find that they have. "

[Stevanos]

djstevec said:

No it isn't against the law to hold a political opinion. It is against the law to treat those with a different political opinion less favorably (ie refuse service) to how you would treat those with the same political opinion as you, in a commercial transaction.

Come on Eric, you're better than this.

So, I cannot refuse business from Nazis?

[Eric Mc]

vetrof said:

Eric Mc said:

Gosh - is holding a political opinion now against the law - in Northern Ireland of all places.

No, but treating people differently because they hold different ones is. But you know that don't you Eric?

See my above post.

Is this court decision in relation to "discrimination on sexual orientation" grounds or "discrimination on political" grounds?

It's important that it is clear what grounds were used in deciding the verdict.

[Bill]

Johnnytheboy said:

As - I believe - gay marriage is still illegal in NI, could one now request a message advocating any lawbreaking, and not be refused?

"Support paedophilia"?

Don't be silly. Gay marriage is not illegal, it is just not recognised. Even if it was illegal, they are campaigning for a change in the law rather than for people to break the law.

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

But they were being asked to promote a political opinion they didn't agree with.

Is the law saying that if asked to print or display a message you don't agree with (whether on religious or other grounds), then you have no choice but to comply?

What if a pair of Republicans had entered the shop and asked the bakery to put "Ireland Divided will never be free" on a cake, would the bakery have been prosecuted for refusing to comply?

I think that you cannot use the law to make people promote political messages they don't agree with.

Then don't be in business. The business making a product for a customer is not promoting the cause.

[vetrof]

Eric Mc said:

See my above post.

Is this court decision in relation to "discrimination on sexual orientation" grounds or "discrimination on political" grounds?

It's important that it is clear what grounds were used in deciding the verdict.

I don't think the Act or the judge specify that clearly.

[anonymous-user]

Stevanos said:

djstevec said:

No it isn't against the law to hold a political opinion. It is against the law to treat those with a different political opinion less favorably (ie refuse service) to how you would treat those with the same political opinion as you, in a commercial transaction.

Come on Eric, you're better than this.

So, I cannot refuse business from Nazis?

Depends on the reason of your refusal, you could simply be "too busy" to complete the order in the required time frame. If the product contravened another law, ie a cake with a slogan saying "kill all Jews", you would be ok to refuse.

Edited by djstevec on Thursday 21st May 11:26

[Eric Mc]

vetrof said:

Eric Mc said:

See my above post.

Is this court decision in relation to "discrimination on sexual orientation" grounds or "discrimination on political" grounds?

It's important that it is clear what grounds were used in deciding the verdict.

I don't think the Act or the judge specify that clearly.

Therefore it is a poor judgement. I 100% agree that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

However, I am 100% against someone being discriminated against because they hold a particular political view. And I certainly do not think that the law should be used to force people to actively PROMOTE a political view with which they do not agree.

This judgement looks a real mess and I am sure that the bakery, if they so wish, could successfully appeal against the verdict. My hunch is they won't bother because they appear to be quite decent and reasonable people and want to put this episode behind them.

[vetrof]

I wonder if the garden centre guy with the anti-tories, blackboard could have been prosecuted under this legislation.

Eric Mc said:

However, I am 100% against someone being discriminated against because they hold a particular political view. And I certainly do not think that the law should be used to force people to actively PROMOTE a political view with which they do not agree.

I think the judge is of the opinion that they were merely asked (and agreed) to produce the cake and that by doing so, that was not equivqlent to promoting it.

I believe you are in the accounting field Eric, if you were asked to do the books of a tobacconist are we to assume you promote smoking?

Edited by vetrof on Thursday 21st May 11:34

Edited by vetrof on Thursday 21st May 11:34

[Einion Yrth]

djstevec said:

Stevanos said:

djstevec said:

No it isn't against the law to hold a political opinion. It is against the law to treat those with a different political opinion less favorably (ie refuse service) to how you would treat those with the same political opinion as you, in a commercial transaction.

Come on Eric, you're better than this.

So, I cannot refuse business from Nazis?

Depends on the reason of your refusal, you could simply be "too busy" to complete the order in the required time frame.

Edited by djstevec on Thursday 21st May 11:26

So it's fine to discriminate against people just so long as you lie about it. Ok.

[irocfan]

Bill said:

Johnnytheboy said:

As - I believe - gay marriage is still illegal in NI, could one now request a message advocating any lawbreaking, and not be refused?

"Support paedophilia"?

Don't be silly. Gay marriage is not illegal, it is just not recognised. Even if it was illegal, they are campaigning for a change in the law rather than for people to break the law.

clumsily put by Johnny, but I think what he's trying to say is that a request to make a similar cake made in support of lowering the age of consent to (let's say) 10 would be turned down even though a campaign to do this would be legal.



As regards the case I disagree with the findings - IF the cake had been requested as "To my darling partner Bert from his eternally loving partner Ernie" and been refused then I'd say bang to rights they should be prosecuted...

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

vetrof said:

Eric Mc said:

See my above post.

Is this court decision in relation to "discrimination on sexual orientation" grounds or "discrimination on political" grounds?

It's important that it is clear what grounds were used in deciding the verdict.

I don't think the Act or the judge specify that clearly.

Therefore it is a poor judgement. I 100% agree that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

However, I am 100% against someone being discriminated against because they hold a particular political view. And I certainly do not think that the law should be used to force people to actively PROMOTE a political view with which they do not agree.

This judgement looks a real mess and I am sure that the bakery, if they so wish, could successfully appeal against the verdict. My hunch is they won't bother because they appear to be quite decent and reasonable people and want to put this episode behind them.

Read the full Judgement Eric, it's more likely my copy/paste is messy. The Judge is painstaking in her reasoning and use of supporting case law.