Well I literally just explained so if you can't see it or see why the other examples ift better then I'm not sure I can help you. A Muslim employee having an issue with his employer just isn't the same thing and if his employer wishes to mitigate it by simply allowing him to not handle certain products then that's up to them.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Well I literally just explained so if you can't see it or see why the other examples ift better then I'm not sure I can help you. A Muslim employee having an issue with his employer just isn't the same thing and if his employer wishes to mitigate it by simply allowing him to not handle certain products then that's up to them.
Soldato
Here is a question for the thread...
If the guy hadn't been gay would this have gone to court?
I'm thinking not.
If the guy hadn't been gay would this have gone to court?
I'm thinking not.
Soldato
Glad the bakers won.
The whole thing surrounded whether it was discriminatory to either side, so naturally if there's no reason to be suspicious about that then no there would not have been a trial.
I imagine however if a bakery only served men and a woman tried to purchase a cake where said service is denied, they might have felt the need to go to court as well.
Of course not, it's the shops right to refuse to serve.
Soldato
I can see what you're saying now I'm not using a phone- and I'm not saying or suggesting your examples are not better either?
I am simply saying that the beliefs associated with the examples are similar/the same. Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning? The Muslim wasn't having issues with his employer but the customers
I can see what you're saying now I'm not using a phone- and I'm not saying or suggesting your examples are not better either?
I am simply saying that the beliefs associated with the examples are similar/the same. Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning? The Muslim wasn't having issues with his employer but the customers
The issue is one for the employer there, the business does sell the thing being requested, the employee doesn’t wish to handle it. The customer can still buy the thing from the business, they just need another staff member to handle it.
Soldato
It's still a belief that prevents him from selling it which is similar/same for both cases/individuals.
Last edited:
Yes there is a belief involved but the customer can still buy the product, the business doesn’t face a lawsuit from the customer, the only issue is a potential employment law one re whether the employer wants to make allowances for that employee or tell them they’re obliged to do their job or find a new one.
AFAIK the employer could tell them they have to serve it. A supermarket might be lenient and make allowances, a muslim going for a job in a pub but declaring he only wants to serve soft drinks would likely be told to do one.
Why did it even get to this stage let alone the 7 - 8 years of time wasted?
Soldato
No because his argument is he was being discriminated against for being gay so, if he wasn't gay, there would be no discrimination angle to play.
Sounds sensible to me.
I could very well have wound up in the courts for a similar thing years ago.
Prior to the smoking ban I drove into Paddington station and two thirty something Americans approached my taxi, both with lit cigars.
Before they could state their destination I held up the palm of my hand and said, “I’ll take you anywhere you want to go, but I don’t want those cigars in my cab.”
One, obviously a barrack room lawyer, said, “I know the law, you can’t stop us from smoking in your cab.”
I answered that I can say no to cigars and just did.
The other guy said, “We’ll take your badge number and report you!”
I held my badge up to them and said, “There you go, knock yourself out.”
They went to the next cab in line, I picked up another fare and heard no more about it.
Technically they were right, but I could just about suffer cigarette smoke, I wasn’t having cigar stench.
Soldato
But cigar smells so much better than nasty horrible cigarettes!
Associate
Probably not, but again depends on the person I guess - I believe as a business owner, being independent they should have a right to run the business as they like no harm was done they simply just said no. No one got hurt, they didn't spill hates speech (as far as im aware) than what the harm? If I was gay, wouldn't bother me lol but a lot of things do not bother me so im the worse kind of person this kind of subject
Caporegime
If the bakery refused to serve them because they were gay then they would, rightly, have lost the case. Peter Tatchell best explains why this was not that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,586
I've always had a lot of respect for Peter Tatchell.
Changing one's views publicly takes a lot of courage, especially when swimming against the tide.
Soldato
Of Guardian readers yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,586
I would never attempt to dissuade you from your respect for Mr. Tatchell, but I was a constituent, (still am), of Bermondsey in the by-election of 1983 when Bob Mellish the long time Labour MP stood down and the local Constituency Labour Party selected Mr. Tatchell.
It was bandied about at the time, that as Bermondsey’s dockers were rock solid Labour, the Party could stick a monkey up for Labour MP and the monkey would walk it.
As a tentative anti Socialist I could hardly contain my glee when Labour’s share of the vote fell from 63% in 1979 to 26% in 1983, and the Liberal Simon Hughes romped it, and remained MP for Bermondsey from 1983 until 2015.
The actual votes cast were Tatchell 7698, Hughes 17,017
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,586
In my opinion, Labour still take that approach to candidate selection: "you'll take what you're given because you have nowhere else to go"
The Democrats in the US did the same when they selected Hillary Clinton for the presidential election.