Christian Bakery vs Queerspace
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
The history of marriage is quite fascinating. I read up on it for my elder daughter's marriage - hell of a speech, I can tell you - and I spent hours reading various links.
In essence, the marriage ceremony was just a nice little earner for the church. All they did normally was to 'bless', i.e. ask for money, from those already married.
Now there's a thing, pretty much like today. How many people who want to get married in a church are actually religious and how many just want the supposed kudos as part of their big day or feel pressured by family etc. The church know this, they insist you both rock up to services for X number off weeks and then gladly take your money.In essence, the marriage ceremony was just a nice little earner for the church. All they did normally was to 'bless', i.e. ask for money, from those already married.
The Church as an establishment is acutely aware of the opportu..., no, need to help the poor, to raise funds for 'the parish'. Is that not why the offertory box is the first thing you see when you enter and the last you see when you leave? Oh, and the in between bit when it's passed around so everyone can see what you put into it. Or am I being just a wee bit cynical?
jonby said:
my question is however that if they don't want gays marrying because the very word (to them) is inherently about a man, a woman and children being (attempted to be) conceived,
Are the complaining about an elderly widow and widower marrying? After all, no chance of any children being conceived.Of course they are not. It's just the weasel words they use to disguise their prejudice.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.
Why? There is no law, as far as I know, that says people who wish the age of consent to be lowered to 10 have to be treated equally to those who wish to raise it to 20!A business is quite entitled to act in a prejudicial way to any group who doesn't have the protection of equality in law.
Johnnytheboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.
Why? There is no law, as far as I know, that says people who wish the age of consent to be lowered to 10 have to be treated equally to those who wish to raise it to 20!A business is quite entitled to act in a prejudicial way to any group who doesn't have the protection of equality in law.
I can't discriminate of grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race and the like. I can discriminate in areas where the law doesn't stop me from doing so.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.
Why? There is no law, as far as I know, that says people who wish the age of consent to be lowered to 10 have to be treated equally to those who wish to raise it to 20!A business is quite entitled to act in a prejudicial way to any group who doesn't have the protection of equality in law.
I can't discriminate of grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race and the like. I can discriminate in areas where the law doesn't stop me from doing so.
If there were a campaign to lower or rise the age of consent and you refused to make a product with a slogan in support as part of a commercial transaction, would you not then be guilty of discrimination based upon treating those with a differing political opinion less favourably? This an area the bakery was also found to have discriminated against Mr Lee.
Discrimination and unlawful discrimination are defined by Article 3 of the 1998 Order Article 3.
(1) discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion;
and "discriminate" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A person discriminates against another person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion in any circumstance relevant for the purposes of a provision of this Order, other than a provision to which paragraph (2A) applies, if —
(a) on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons;
djstevec said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.
Why? There is no law, as far as I know, that says people who wish the age of consent to be lowered to 10 have to be treated equally to those who wish to raise it to 20!A business is quite entitled to act in a prejudicial way to any group who doesn't have the protection of equality in law.
I can't discriminate of grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race and the like. I can discriminate in areas where the law doesn't stop me from doing so.
If there were a campaign to lower or rise the age of consent and you refused to make a product with a slogan in support as part of a commercial transaction, would you not then be guilty of discrimination based upon treating those with a differing political opinion less favourably? This an area the bakery was also found to have discriminated against Mr Lee.
Discrimination and unlawful discrimination are defined by Article 3 of the 1998 Order Article 3.
(1) discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion;
and "discriminate" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A person discriminates against another person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion in any circumstance relevant for the purposes of a provision of this Order, other than a provision to which paragraph (2A) applies, if —
(a) on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons;
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's an interesting point, but I doubt it would extend to having to supply products for a campaign to lower the age of consent to 10. Or supporting IS, or any other extreme view. The key words are "in any circumstance relevant for the purposes of a provision of this Order"
So just for clarity - and I've no doubt you know the law better than I do - it's illegal to discriminate against people campaigning to change some laws, but not others?TwigtheWonderkid said:
djstevec said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Johnnytheboy said:
You either allow anyone to request anything that's currently illegal to be made lawful be written on a cake, or you don't.
Why? There is no law, as far as I know, that says people who wish the age of consent to be lowered to 10 have to be treated equally to those who wish to raise it to 20!A business is quite entitled to act in a prejudicial way to any group who doesn't have the protection of equality in law.
I can't discriminate of grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race and the like. I can discriminate in areas where the law doesn't stop me from doing so.
If there were a campaign to lower or rise the age of consent and you refused to make a product with a slogan in support as part of a commercial transaction, would you not then be guilty of discrimination based upon treating those with a differing political opinion less favourably? This an area the bakery was also found to have discriminated against Mr Lee.
Discrimination and unlawful discrimination are defined by Article 3 of the 1998 Order Article 3.
(1) discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion;
and "discriminate" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) A person discriminates against another person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion in any circumstance relevant for the purposes of a provision of this Order, other than a provision to which paragraph (2A) applies, if —
(a) on either of those grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons;
I cant the see the difference in that set of circumstance or your example for lowering the age of consent, but to a number you do not agree with based on your political opinion of being against the change in law.
vetrof said:
Eric Mc said:
I think it's called sticking to your principles. I actually admire that in people - even if I might not agree with those principles on occasion.
I find it very difficult to admire bigots, whether standing up for their principals or not.Could apply to either side in this case
king djstevec said:
I dont see how you separate the two examples. Same sex marriage in NI is not legal. There is a campaign to change the law to allow this. The cake slogan did not contravene any other relevant laws and it did not encourage others to break the law, merely support a change in law to allow that activity.
I cant the see the difference in that set of circumstance or your example for lowering the age of consent, but to a number you do not agree with based on your political opinion of being against the change in law.
In the eyes of the law I don't think there is, but what pressure group would try to take it forward? A better analogy would be drug legalisation, although gay marriage does absolutely no harm so even that might be too contentious.I cant the see the difference in that set of circumstance or your example for lowering the age of consent, but to a number you do not agree with based on your political opinion of being against the change in law.
Johnnytheboy said:
So just for clarity - and I've no doubt you know the law better than I do - it's illegal to discriminate against people campaigning to change some laws, but not others?
That's my view. If Muslims didn't have equal rights in the UK, I can't refuse to serve a Muslim customer who wants a t shirt printed asking for equal rights for Muslims, but I can refuse to serve a Muslim customer wanting a t shirt printed supporting IS.I think.
As Ian Hislop said last night on HIGNFY, the verdict is creating quite a difficult area.
It's saying you can go into a muslim bakery and say you want Muhammed on a cake, "you're open for business you have to make the cake"
No doubt the verdict will be reviewed.
And if not, expect lots of people to try the above in exactly the same way as Queerspace did.
I also hope Sesame Street's owners to sue Queerspace for copywright infringement.
(They can't sue the cake shop because, "they were open for business and have to do what the customer asks"
It's saying you can go into a muslim bakery and say you want Muhammed on a cake, "you're open for business you have to make the cake"
No doubt the verdict will be reviewed.
And if not, expect lots of people to try the above in exactly the same way as Queerspace did.
I also hope Sesame Street's owners to sue Queerspace for copywright infringement.
(They can't sue the cake shop because, "they were open for business and have to do what the customer asks"
Hackney said:
As Ian Hislop said last night on HIGNFY, the verdict is creating quite a difficult area.
It's saying you can go into a muslim bakery and say you want Muhammed on a cake, "you're open for business you have to make the cake"
No doubt the verdict will be reviewed.
And if not, expect lots of people to try the above in exactly the same way as Queerspace did.
I also hope Sesame Street's owners to sue Queerspace for copywright infringement.
(They can't sue the cake shop because, "they were open for business and have to do what the customer asks"
Nice to see that Hislop sees the conundrum caused by the judge's reasoning - which is the problem I've been conscious of all along.It's saying you can go into a muslim bakery and say you want Muhammed on a cake, "you're open for business you have to make the cake"
No doubt the verdict will be reviewed.
And if not, expect lots of people to try the above in exactly the same way as Queerspace did.
I also hope Sesame Street's owners to sue Queerspace for copywright infringement.
(They can't sue the cake shop because, "they were open for business and have to do what the customer asks"
TwigtheWonderkid said:
jonby said:
Of course some people against it are simply bigoted but as I see it, to some people, the very word marriage is much more about a religious union than a legal or civil one. In that religious definition, depending upon which religion you subscribe to, marriage is very strictly defined as being between a man & a woman.
That would be all very well if those people were up in arms about straight couples marrying in a registry office. Thus in contradiction of a religious union. But they are not. They are quite relaxed about straight couples having a non religious marriage. My brother in law and his wife got married in a registry office.
Certain members of his family (my wife's family) don't consider them properly married.
Not exactly "up in arms" about it, just don't think it's the real thing.
On the latest 'vote', there used to be a saying rarely heard these days: married but not churched. It was generally used as a whispered criticism of cohabitation. We've come a long way.
A very long way, it seems. You can evidently now be criminalised for declining to say, or give tacit support to, something you merely disagree with. No matter what the so-called progressive arguments are for alleged equality or discrimination, that is ultimately a repressive step. A long way backwards instead of, perhaps the better option, sideways.
A very long way, it seems. You can evidently now be criminalised for declining to say, or give tacit support to, something you merely disagree with. No matter what the so-called progressive arguments are for alleged equality or discrimination, that is ultimately a repressive step. A long way backwards instead of, perhaps the better option, sideways.
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 24th May 12:08
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff