Christian Bakery vs Queerspace

[jonby]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Thorodin said:

Just occurred that's how hookers rationalise. Doesn't matter who or what they are or what they want, so long as they pay up and on time. And I get to preach as well. Some pages back on this the word conscience was mentioned. Oh yes, Peter Tatchell said it.

People's conscience should not override their legal obligations.

You don't necessarily need to have an opinion on a matter (such as gay marriage) to want your business to avoid being seen in any way, however tenuous, to have taken a 'side'.

The more obvious examples of a jewish printer being asked to print a pro-palestinian message or an muslim printer being asked to print a similarly contentious message have been brought up as possible implications from this case. But what about the printer that has no opinion on these matters but simply wants his business to avoid controversy by not making statements that support any view on the topic ?

Do we really want a world where the village baker (as opposed to large corporations) has to take expensive legal advice (this issue is now getting too difficult for the local village law firm to give reliable advice) regarding their terms & conditions of business, including how those terms are displayed & conveyed to customers, to ensure they have the right to refuse to print a message (not a customer, but a message) ? Or a world where they actually have no such right ? Or as many including myself argue, a world where if you produce an off the shelf product, you can't refuse any customer but if it's bespoke, you have the right to take on/refuse work for any reason you wish, without having to give that reason

[PugwasHDJ80]

Thorodin said:

And, to mention a minor consideration, why is he so discriminatory about people not having the same 'rights' as businesses? What's so special about businesses? Aren't they people too?

No, businesses are seperate legal entities quite distinct from both the people that own them and the people that run them.

[TTwiggy]

jonby said:

You don't necessarily need to have an opinion on a matter (such as gay marriage) to want your business to avoid being seen in any way, however tenuous, to have taken a 'side'.

The more obvious examples of a jewish printer being asked to print a pro-palestinian message or an muslim printer being asked to print a similarly contentious message have been brought up as possible implications from this case. But what about the printer that has no opinion on these matters but simply wants his business to avoid controversy by not making statements that support any view on the topic ?

Do we really want a world where the village baker (as opposed to large corporations) has to take expensive legal advice (this issue is now getting too difficult for the local village law firm to give reliable advice) regarding their terms & conditions of business, including how those terms are displayed & conveyed to customers, to ensure they have the right to refuse to print a message (not a customer, but a message) ? Or a world where they actually have no such right ? Or as many including myself argue, a world where if you produce an off the shelf product, you can't refuse any customer but if it's bespoke, you have the right to take on/refuse work for any reason you wish, without having to give that reason

I believe this has already been covered by the 'we don't print any political messages' defence. A defence not open to the bakery in question as they have printed such messages in the past.

[walm]

jonby said:

You don't necessarily need to have an opinion on a matter (such as gay marriage) to want your business to avoid being seen in any way, however tenuous, to have taken a 'side'.

Isn't the obvious solution then to print/bake everything?

[Jinx]

RobinOakapple said:

Homosexuality has never been illegal.

Sorry I stand corrected, it was only homosexual behaviour that was illegal

As to campaining as the way to change a law - so no homosexual behaviour until the law is changed? Right that's the way forward is it? Sometimes an unjust law needs breaking not just campaining against.

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

One day I'm going to sit down and try to get to grips with the PH 'hate league'. I was pretty sure that religionists of all flavours were universally despised on here but it seems they may actually get more support than 'the gays'. Obviously it's going to take something massive to shift 'Muslims' off the top spot, but you never know...

I think gays are quite low down the PH news politics and economics list of despicableness.

I think the last official poll resulted in this top ten.

Muslims
Lefties
Other god botherers
MMGW believers
Gays
Women
Scottish
Eurocrats
Estate Agents
Bankers

[TTwiggy]

el stovey said:

I think gays are quite low down the PH news politics and economics list of despicableness.

I think the last official poll resulted in this top ten.

Muslims
Lefties
Other god botherers
MMGW believers
Gays
Women
Scottish
Eurocrats
Estate Agents
Bankers

It's a good list, but I think women are above gays. Gays are male afterall, so they fare better on here.

[RobinOakapple]

Jinx said:

RobinOakapple said:

Homosexuality has never been illegal.

Sorry I stand corrected, it was only homosexual behaviour that was illegal

No need to roll your eyes, that's childish.

It's important to get facts right, and you still haven't managed that, because homosexual behaviour wasn't illegal either. The crimes (at the time) that people were put in prison for also applied to heterosexual behaviour.

[jonby]

TTwiggy said:

jonby said:

You don't necessarily need to have an opinion on a matter (such as gay marriage) to want your business to avoid being seen in any way, however tenuous, to have taken a 'side'.

The more obvious examples of a jewish printer being asked to print a pro-palestinian message or an muslim printer being asked to print a similarly contentious message have been brought up as possible implications from this case. But what about the printer that has no opinion on these matters but simply wants his business to avoid controversy by not making statements that support any view on the topic ?

Do we really want a world where the village baker (as opposed to large corporations) has to take expensive legal advice (this issue is now getting too difficult for the local village law firm to give reliable advice) regarding their terms & conditions of business, including how those terms are displayed & conveyed to customers, to ensure they have the right to refuse to print a message (not a customer, but a message) ? Or a world where they actually have no such right ? Or as many including myself argue, a world where if you produce an off the shelf product, you can't refuse any customer but if it's bespoke, you have the right to take on/refuse work for any reason you wish, without having to give that reason

I believe this has already been covered by the 'we don't print any political messages' defence. A defence not open to the bakery in question as they have printed such messages in the past.

That's right. But I'm talking about the wider implications - the inference from what I've read is that such a defence, even if they had behaved differently historically, would not have worked. There are certain topics, sexuality being one, where it appears rights we are happy to apply in other instances suddenly go out of the window

[TTwiggy]

jonby said:

That's right. But I'm talking about the wider implications - the inference from what I've read is that such a defence, even if they had behaved differently historically, would not have worked. There are certain topics, sexuality being one, where it appears rights we are happy to apply in other instances suddenly go out of the window

I'm pretty sure a business is allowed to state that they will not print anything political or with the potential to be views as polital. But IANAL

[Jinx]

RobinOakapple said:

No need to roll your eyes, that's childish.

It's important to get facts right, and you still haven't managed that, because homosexual behaviour wasn't illegal either. The crimes (at the time) that people were put in prison for also applied to heterosexual behaviour.

The Criminal Law Amendment act 1885?

"In the Commons, after a second reading without comment, it was referred to a committee of the whole House. In committee Mr Labouchere moved to insert into the Bill the clause which ultimately became section 11 of the Act, creating the new offence of indecency between male persons in public or private."
From (Hyde, The Trials of Oscar Wilde, p. 12)
Bold - my emphasis.

[Some Gump]

TTwiggy said:

el stovey said:

I think gays are quite low down the PH news politics and economics list of despicableness.

I think the last official poll resulted in this top ten.

Twigthewonderkid
Twiggy
Other gobstes

It's a good list, but I think women are above gays. Gays are male afterall, so they fare better on here.

IMO gobstes and wkers are top of the list. Especially ones that get on their high horse about what other people's opinions should be, whilst grouping other people into the same clumps to prove their point, with no hint of irony.

[jonby]

TTwiggy said:

jonby said:

That's right. But I'm talking about the wider implications - the inference from what I've read is that such a defence, even if they had behaved differently historically, would not have worked. There are certain topics, sexuality being one, where it appears rights we are happy to apply in other instances suddenly go out of the window

I'm pretty sure a business is allowed to state that they will not print anything political or with the potential to be views as polital. But IANAL

Sure. But my issue is that IMO you shouldn't need to have such a policy to be able refuse bespoke work. The key issue for me really is this 'bespoke' element. What work you can/cannot refuse really should not be down to the wording of your corporate policy. Of course if you can prove work was refused on the basis of who the client was and/or what they believe in, rather than because of what the work actually was, that's a very different matter

[TTwiggy]

Some Gump said:

IMO gobstes and wkers are top of the list. Especially ones that get on their high horse about what other people's opinions should be, whilst grouping other people into the same clumps to prove their point, with no hint of irony.

My, aren't we a charmer?

[anonymous-user]

Some Gump said:

IMO gobstes and wkers are top of the list. Especially ones that get on their high horse about what other people's opinions should be, whilst grouping other people into the same clumps to prove their point, with no hint of irony.

Do you mind deleting your edit of my post thanks.

[anonymous-user]

Case adjourned for 3 months following intervention of NI Attorney General.

[RobinOakapple]

Jinx said:

RobinOakapple said:

No need to roll your eyes, that's childish.

It's important to get facts right, and you still haven't managed that, because homosexual behaviour wasn't illegal either. The crimes (at the time) that people were put in prison for also applied to heterosexual behaviour.

The Criminal Law Amendment act 1885?

"In the Commons, after a second reading without comment, it was referred to a committee of the whole House. In committee Mr Labouchere moved to insert into the Bill the clause which ultimately became section 11 of the Act, creating the new offence of indecency between male persons in public or private."
From (Hyde, The Trials of Oscar Wilde, p. 12)
Bold - my emphasis.

Good point, but anal intercourse with a woman was already illegal.

[AJS-]

TTwiggy said:

So you don't think that people on here are guilty of any 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking? You don't find it odd – to take one example – that a site that generally displays scant regard for women's rights suddenly comes over all Emily Pankhurst where the burka is concerned?

Maybe.

But then point it out where you see it. As a general perception it may or may not have merit but there are specific reasons why you may for instance be against all female selection lists for political office and also against burkas.

[SpeckledJim]

Derek Smith said:

The law judges actions in the main. Should it judge thoughts and character then I would condemn it.

The action is not that the shop keepers are nasty, but that they did not comply with the law. If they were told by their vicar, as many of us have been, that homosexuality is wrong and still believe it, then that is their right. It does not make them nasty.

That's basically the Nuremburg Defence.

[FiF]

According to the Telegraph the Attorney General has halted the appeal in order to allow an examination of issues between the Equality Legislation and European Human Rights legislation.

Case is going to drag on for months more.