INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Gay Cake

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
animist
Posts: 6068
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Gay Cake

#41 Postby animist » October 27th, 2016, 6:41 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:
animist wrote:also, the issue is not about breaking the law, since the whole point of the case revolved on whether the baker's decision was legal or not! In other words, the legal position at the time that the incident occurred was not clear
Surely no less so than any other case before a court: it's up to the court to decide whether a law was breached on the facts of the case and understanding of the law before them
actually, not at all, surely. Most court cases revolve around whether the defendant was guilty of the crime, not whether there was a crime or other breach of the law. I imagine that cases like the cake one were in fact deliberately staged in order to test the law, and there's nothing wrong with that

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6068
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Gay Cake

#42 Postby animist » October 27th, 2016, 7:20 pm

Alan H wrote:I'm not sure what the differences are between this ruling and the B&B ruling - what do you see them as?
I base this on the Tatchell article, in particular: "His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for." You have no doubt read the article and are not impressed by it, so I will elaborate with a thought experiment. Imagine that I (not you, as you apparently cannot put yourself into unlikely situations) am in turn a B&B owner and a baker, in order to ponder the two cases. But also imagine that the unsuccessful customers in both cases were not gay persons but neo-Nazis. If I were a B&B owner requested for accommodation by a couple who were clearly neo-Nazis I would feel morally bound to comply with their request provided that they were polite to other guests (who might be black or Jewish). However, if I were a baker who was asked by a neo-Nazi to produce a cake sloganned (legally I assume) with "Hitler was right!" I would steadfastly refuse to comply. Does this help? The first case is one of direct discrimination against a minority group, the second is certainly not so

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Gay Cake

#43 Postby Alan H » October 27th, 2016, 10:58 pm

animist wrote:
Alan H wrote:I'm not sure what the differences are between this ruling and the B&B ruling - what do you see them as?
I base this on the Tatchell article, in particular: "His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for." You have no doubt read the article and are not impressed by it, so I will elaborate with a thought experiment. Imagine that I (not you, as you apparently cannot put yourself into unlikely situations) am in turn a B&B owner and a baker, in order to ponder the two cases. But also imagine that the unsuccessful customers in both cases were not gay persons but neo-Nazis. If I were a B&B owner requested for accommodation by a couple who were clearly neo-Nazis I would feel morally bound to comply with their request provided that they were polite to other guests (who might be black or Jewish). However, if I were a baker who was asked by a neo-Nazi to produce a cake sloganned (legally I assume) with "Hitler was right!" I would steadfastly refuse to comply. Does this help? The first case is one of direct discrimination against a minority group, the second is certainly not so
I'm really not sure whether or not I'm missing something here - please explain it if I am.

Ignoring the fact that the slogan may well be incitement to (religious) hatred, I can't see the difference between the B&B owner and the baker. Both are offering a service to the public. In the case of the B&B, it is discrimination to refuse them a room, but (unless, as I said, the NI law on political discrimination comes into play), it's not unlawful discrimination because being a member of a neo-Nazi organisation is not a characteristic that is protected by discrimination law. As I understand it - and I may be wrong - you can choose who you enter into a transaction with as long as you do not contravene discrimination law. That is why the law is there and is needed: it protects people who have particular characteristics from being discriminated against purely on those protected grounds.

But in the 'gay' cake case, the judge made it clear (and as I quoted above), it wasn't the sexual orientation of the customers that caused the discrimination; it was that the customers were being discriminated against and treated differently to others (irrespective of their own sexual orientation) because of the religious beliefs of the bakers and that discrimination was on the grounds of sexual orientation. It matter not that customers were gay: what matters is whether they were treated differently to others and whether the grounds for that different treatment was one of the protected characteristics. The protected characteristics doesn't need to be characteristics held by the customers - the discrimination on sexual orientation still existed and caused the bakers to treat the customers differently. That is illegal.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22418
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Gay Cake

#44 Postby Alan H » October 29th, 2016, 10:47 am

Had the Ashers ‘gay cake’ ruling gone the other way it would have seriously undermined equality law
Despite the outcry following this week's Ashers 'gay cake' ruling, Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal delivered a clear and logical judgment.
We very much concur with the respected former BBC legal correspondent, Joshua Rozenburg, who described the judgment as "surprisingly straightforward". As he paraphrased the ruling, "the correct comparison was not with a straight man who wanted a 'gay' cake, which Ashers would have refused. It was with a gay or straight person who ordered a cake celebrating traditional marriage -- which the company would have supplied."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest