Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,691
- Location
- North
Yes as part of my family, which already exists.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Yes as part of my family, which already exists.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,302
- Location
- 2
My family includes parents, siblings, nephews, aunties and uncles, and cousins. No kids of my own. Marriage is an artificial construct without any relevance beyond a tax break or two. People can contribute to society whether or not they are married (regardless of the sex of their spouse) and irrespective of whether they have children. Bad parents come in many guises and from all different family arrangement types.
If the business had any sense they would have said they'd do it for £20k. The customer would have found someone else sharpish.
If the business had any sense they would have said they'd do it for £20k. The customer would have found someone else sharpish.
And if (god forbid) something happened to your children and you and your wife were the only ones remaining, would you still regard her as part of your family?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why are we arguing over the meaning of the word 'family' for Pete's sake?
Can't we just all agree it's a rather vague term that can be used fairly liberally and get back to discussing whether a business can legally/morally refuse to provide a servce that promotes gay rights?
Can't we just all agree it's a rather vague term that can be used fairly liberally and get back to discussing whether a business can legally/morally refuse to provide a servce that promotes gay rights?
I can agree with that.
Talking about the linchpin and definition of civilised bit, way to complex a discussion for this thread but it comes from the same faulty thinking as is behind those bits of 2001. The familial bond side of it is another topic in its own right with its own merits entirely.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Apologies for the delay in replying but really it doesn't look as if the topic has moved on all that much despite the number of posts since then.
Your initial assertion was based on a preference for hiring straight white males - that still seems pretty irrelevant to me and linking to a study showing that attractive people are more likely to get hired doesn't really indicate why that preference for sexual orientation, skin colour and gender is supportable. Maybe some people do tend to hire in their own image (for want of a better phrase) but that's not exactly an argument to say that it's right to do so or that it's an even vaguely sensible proposition to do so.
The reason you've given there wasn't actually in your list as such but that's just pedantry on my part. The majority of reasons on your list would only have been applicable once in the job so the applicant would have had to overcome the biases of the hirer and be hired before they could positively influence them i.e. they've got a number of ways to influence if by some miracle they'd already got the job but what appeared to be a very limited scope for getting the role in the first place, possibly depending on how strong your preference for straight white males is.
We don't/can't know the underlying motivations here but let's leave that aside for the moment. If it's the political stance they've turned down then they fall foul of the law in Northern Ireland anyway as I understand it since that covers discrimination on political grounds.
You may have an argument in the wider UK on these grounds but not there. I'd still be inclined to class it as an example of indirect discrimination were it to happen in the rest of the UK but that would be up for debate.
Your initial assertion was based on a preference for hiring straight white males - that still seems pretty irrelevant to me and linking to a study showing that attractive people are more likely to get hired doesn't really indicate why that preference for sexual orientation, skin colour and gender is supportable. Maybe some people do tend to hire in their own image (for want of a better phrase) but that's not exactly an argument to say that it's right to do so or that it's an even vaguely sensible proposition to do so.
The reason you've given there wasn't actually in your list as such but that's just pedantry on my part. The majority of reasons on your list would only have been applicable once in the job so the applicant would have had to overcome the biases of the hirer and be hired before they could positively influence them i.e. they've got a number of ways to influence if by some miracle they'd already got the job but what appeared to be a very limited scope for getting the role in the first place, possibly depending on how strong your preference for straight white males is.
We don't/can't know the underlying motivations here but let's leave that aside for the moment. If it's the political stance they've turned down then they fall foul of the law in Northern Ireland anyway as I understand it since that covers discrimination on political grounds.
You may have an argument in the wider UK on these grounds but not there. I'd still be inclined to class it as an example of indirect discrimination were it to happen in the rest of the UK but that would be up for debate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
^^
Correct. An employer cannot refuse to take someone on if they have children for the reason it indirectly discriminates against women (on the basis there are far more single mothers than single fathers) despite the fact the employer could argue "well we wouldn't employ a man with children either".
It seems many in this thread don't understand how indirect discrimination works. If you introduce a rule than intrinsically applies to all but statistically affects one [protected] group more than anyone else the law regards it as direct discrimination against that group.
Correct. An employer cannot refuse to take someone on if they have children for the reason it indirectly discriminates against women (on the basis there are far more single mothers than single fathers) despite the fact the employer could argue "well we wouldn't employ a man with children either".
It seems many in this thread don't understand how indirect discrimination works. If you introduce a rule than intrinsically applies to all but statistically affects one [protected] group more than anyone else the law regards it as direct discrimination against that group.
I'm not sure it applies in that way... rather they've not discriminated against the customer as a result of their politics - they've refused to make a certain product/endorse a particular political view. I don't believe NI law requires everyone to support any political view... rather its there to stop nationalists discriminating against unionists and vice versa as customers... in the same way you're not allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, race, etc..etc..
Its again the product not the customer they've taken issue with and the principle remains - if we're going to have freedom of speech/freedom of expression then you can't force people to support your views/beliefs, force them to create something they don't want to create... this is separate from simply refusing to serve someone on the basis of who that person is.
A B&B owner, for example, is clearly discriminating if they refuse a room to a gay couple... they're not discriminating however if they turn down an extra payment/refuse a request for a supplied rainbow flag and gay rights slogan to be flown from the roof of the B&B while a bunch of gay couples are staying there for some pride event etc... Not discriminating against customers doesn't meant you have to accept any request from those customers and/or are forced to support any view those customers want to express. If that were the case then I'll buy a full page spread in Al-Arab newspaper for my Mohammed cartoon/god probably doesn't exist advert.
It does equal association. A company can be associated by implication to the products it manufactures for others. It doesn't mean they endorse a thing, but it does mean that they can be seen to endorse a thing by association, whether that is true or not. Just look at how clothing companies are associated to the suppliers and/or contractors they use, electronics and engineering companies are associated to some of the products that their components are used for and so on.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
You're arguing with me against a point I haven't made. I appreciate that you, and people like you, are desperate to make some sort of "look how wonderful I am" point, but please, just learn to read and comprehend.
I didn't say that it's right to hire with a bias, nor that I support it or indeed that it is supportable, my whole point was that discrimination is wrong. Why you're confused is a) you're not as clever as you think you are, just super argumentative and b) that I've stated that since there exists a bias, anyone not benefiting from that bias can improve things, ie reduce bias in the future, by working even harder than everyone else (straight white male or otherwise) thus improving a biased employers view of people he or she may have previously thought not as suitable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
How does a cake maker fulfilling a request equal them 'supporting' what that cake says?
Would a Watford supporting baker suddenly become a Man U fan if he makes a United themed cake for little billy's birthday? Of course not.
I could understand if the customer asked them to not only bake the cake in question but also display it in the window with a big sign saying "We at Ashers support this message" but they didn't.
But they are discriminating against their sexuality unless they only provide neutral wedding cakes. They don't however and would happily provide cakes with heterosexuals couples on.
But they've forced the customer to accept their opposition to gay marriage by refusing to make the cake. Again, the gay couple's freedom of speech has been denied here as it is them making the proclamation, not the bakers.
That depends, if they offer a flag flying service (which I don't believe any B&B does) and they refuse to offer it for gay themed flags then it would be discriminatory based on sexuality.
But not doing it because it's not a service they offer isn't.
Firstly, "God Probably Doesn't Exist" is a campaign that has featured in the media (Think it was Richard Dawkins' group that ran it) but secondly you keep comparing being able to discriminate against protected groups with being able to discriminate against anything. Apples and Oranges.
A newspaper can turn down your Muhammad cartoon because cartoonists aren't a protected/persecuted group and it would be clearly be considered at attack on a protect group itself.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,135
- Location
- Paisley
Im going to a gay wedding next friday, I will post on the gay friendly cake maker on my return.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,333
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
It wasn't a gay wedding cake if I read the story right.
I don't think you understood the story.
It's just tiaras and tantrums from the gay community.
I don't agree. Whilst this case may be specifically about a gay themed cake, as far as I'm concerned it represents something that I don't believe in - a business picking and choosing what work to undertake based on the personal beliefs of individuals.
Whilst individuals are free to pick and choose who to associate with and do business with, a business itself is not.
Fixed that for you considering it was the baker that decided to take it to the press...