Do you support a conscience clause?

[symyjym]

Bert and Ernie have just released statement;

 

[Frampler]

I work in discrimination law so this is a familiar issue. The conflict between the rights based on sexual orientation and religion has no easy answers, and is made more difficult by the occasionally provocative behaviour and frequently disingenuous claims of fringe groups (Christian Voice I'm looking at you).

I'm an atheist, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself homophobic, but I can see how the message on the cake would cause problems for someone with deeply held beliefs against gay marriage. If I had a cake shop, and a customer came in and said he wanted a cake saying "Support Crystal Palace", I would show him the door. At high velocity.

However, the kind of conscience clause being proposed in this case is just unworkable. It leaves no room for objectivity and would be a licence to discriminate. As has been pointed out by others, it is quite easy to quietly exercise your religious beliefs and decline to do business with those who you disagree with. It's only when you wave the reason for doing so in other people's faces that legal entanglements are likely to arise.




The argument is quite widely circulated in the press that Christians are under siege from atheists and gays, and that they are being sacked or sued for their beliefs. It's utter nonsense. I've worked on a few of the higher profile cases, and the people concerned are, without fail, God-botherers with a distinct lack of social etiquette.

 

[studio150]

Why do you think your employers would carry on paying you your full salary? If you took on a job, and if you subsequently refused to do it, that's grounds for dismissal. You'd no more get paid than the cake makers would get paid for not making a cake.

But would it be grounds for dismissal if this law was adopted. I am not refusing to work I am saying that on religious grounds my beliefs prohibit me. It would be up to the employer to provide a working environment to meet these beliefs. If they followed your desire to sack me, a hefty payout would follow for unfair dismal in breach of this proposed new law

 

[happypig]

Some years ago I refused to go and fix the phones at Shamrock Farm, Small Dole, where they used to breed monkeys for vivisection. I refused on the grounds that I found vivisection to be morally repugnant and I would not assist them. Several other people also refused to go (in the end they found someone who wan't bothered). When I worked in the control, giving jobs out, there were occasionally similar occurrences and, almost always, a way was found around the problem (the only exception being a nutty woman in Stanmer Park Road whose house was full of dog shit).
If they allow this, then it will become a "Bigot's Charter" allowing people to get away with anything and then claiming "But it's what I believe in"

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Mr Lee, supported by the Commission, is seeking a small amount of compensation and a declaration that his treatment amounted to discrimination, based on equality regulations and employment law.

What exactly is the compensation for? Why does money have to come into it?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Some years ago I refused to go and fix the phones at Shamrock Farm, Small Dole, where they used to breed monkeys for vivisection. I refused on the grounds that I found vivisection to be morally repugnant and I would not assist them. Several other people also refused to go (in the end they found someone who wan't bothered). When I worked in the control, giving jobs out, there were occasionally similar occurrences and, almost always, a way was found around the problem (the only exception being a nutty woman in Stanmer Park Road whose house was full of dog shit).
If they allow this, then it will become a "Bigot's Charter" allowing people to get away with anything and then claiming "But it's what I believe in"

Is there anything in this lot to deal with the difference between an organisation and an individual.

If an organisation (i.e. a company) refuses to deal with something or someone on grounds of "conscience", like the Hotel which refused to honour a booking from a gay couple, then it is a question of discrimination.

If an individual within an organisation refuses to do something within an organisation, how much does it become a personnel matter. You wouldn't put a Hindu on the butchery counter at a supermarket because he or she is a vegetarian, but plenty of other people would be happy to do it, and there are plenty of other places for that person to work. The same for your monkeys and vivisection case, perhaps.

Someone else above has mentioned Christian Voice. I think they are an intolerant group who are looking for a fight most of the time. There was a case a while ago of a BA employee who was standing up for the right to wear a cross at work, when I seem to remember there were other very good reasons why this was not on - possibly a health and safety thing about jewellery at work. But it did seem the case was just "mischief making".

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Private business should be allowed to refuse any customer they please.

Should be no business of the Governments or the laws.

Why?
If they want a business within a society they should obey that societies laws, else they're just leeches...

If not they could go to a country that doesn't look out for (by making laws for) the disabled and vulnerable within it's society.

 

[Return of the Rev]

I give it about 2 pages before this descends into a binfest, but here goes.

Interesting article in the Telegraph regarding human rights lawyer trying to get a conscience clause introduced, this will stop people having to do things they disagree with on moral/religious grounds.

------------------
Muslim printers could be forced to produce cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed if the case against a Christian bakery which refused to make a Sesame Street gay marriage cake is upheld, a prominent human rights barrister has claimed.

Aidan O’Neill QC said a discrimination case against Ashers Baking Company – which cancelled an order to make a cake featuring the characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan ‘support gay marriage’ – could undermine freedom of conscience.

Mr O’Neill was commissioned by the Christian Institute, which is supporting the bakery’s legal defence, to provide a legal opinion on the implications of the case, which is due to come before a court in Belfast later this month.

He said the arguments upon which the legal action is based could also justify forcing a T-shirt company with a lesbian owner to print tops denouncing same-sex marriage as an “abomination” or an atheist web designer to build a website claiming the world was made by God in six days.

The row over the Bert and Ernie cake has divided opinion sharply in Northern Ireland, where the bakery is based, and led to attempts to introduce a so-called “conscience clause” into law in the province.
The proposal, put forward by members of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), would give businesses an exclusion from discrimination law enabling them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions.

Supporters claim it is needed to protect freedom of belief but opponents say it would be nothing more than legalised discrimination against gay people. The row first arose in May of last year when Ashers cancelled a £36.50 order for the novelty cake from Gareth Lee, an LGBT rights activist. Daniel McArthur, general manager of the firm, said it would amount to endorsing the campaign for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland – the only part of the UK where it is not yet legal – and go against his traditionalist Christian beliefs.

But the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a Government-backed body, wrote to the firm to say the refusal amounted to discrimination against Mr Lee, who wanted the cake for an event to mark International Day Against Homophobia.

Mr Lee, supported by the Commission, is seeking a small amount of compensation and a declaration that his treatment amounted to discrimination, based on equality regulations and employment law.
But Mr O’Neill argued that the Commission’s case ignores human rights protections and said the bakery’s case was based on the same principles as Sir Thomas More’s refusal recognise Henry VIII to be the Supreme Head of the Church in England.

“Their refusal to endorse this opinion – to protect their negative freedom of expression – has resulted in the State, in the form of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, funding court action against them which seeks to stigmatise as unlawful and render unactionable the defendants’ religious beliefs and political opinions,” he wrote.

He added: “If the approach of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland … were correctly based in law (which I do not consider it to be) then on the basis that the law does not protect the fundamental right, within the commercial context of supplying services, to hold opinions nor guarantee any negative freedom of expression, there would be no defence to similar actions being taken against individuals or companies supplying services in any of the following scenarios which have been presented to me.”

He listed several scenarios including “a Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed”.
Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “The strength and clarity of the advice from Mr O’Neill, who has a national reputation for his human rights expertise, should set off the alarm bells in this Government quango. “It spells out the very real dangers and far-reaching implications for freedom of speech.

“But the equality watchdog seems determined to force people to use their creative skills to promote a political cause they fundamentally disagree with.
“This family run bakers serve gay customers all the time but they didn’t want to promote gay marriage.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...o-print-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoons-lawyer.html

no!

 

[pastafarian]

The six scenarios listed by O`Neill QC

O’Neill states that if Ashers loses there would also be no defence to similar actions being taken against other businesses in any of the following scenarios



A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed

A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film

A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism

A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination”

A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised.

An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days



In the first 5 scenarios(all at the extreme end of the spectrum),considering how tetchy they can be about their beliefs (one scenario you may end up losing your head if it went totally boobs up) i cant help but think your best bet is to do a little research first and find out if they are friendly to your way of thinking before approaching to have some work done.It would seem the polite thing to do and would save potential grief, unless of course you are deliberately looking for a confrontation in the first place.

The last scenario i would suspect the company will take your money and bid you a fine day and please call again.If you are very unlucky they might say "you know you are wrong dont you" at which point you will probably walk out muttering something about heathens and eternal burning in hellfire anyway.

 

[Worthingite]

If I was a customer looking to have a picture of the prophet Mohamed on a t-shirt, i'm not sure going to a printing company with an Islamic sounding name (for instance) would be my first point of call?

 

[DJ Leon]

The six scenarios listed by O`Neill QC

O’Neill states that if Ashers loses there would also be no defence to similar actions being taken against other businesses in any of the following scenarios



A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed

A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film

A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism

A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination”

A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised.

An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days



In the first 5 scenarios(all at the extreme end of the spectrum),considering how tetchy they can be about their beliefs (one scenario you may end up losing your head if it went totally boobs up) i cant help but think your best bet is to do a little research first and find out if they are friendly to your way of thinking before approaching to have some work done.It would seem the polite thing to do and would save potential grief, unless of course you are deliberately looking for a confrontation in the first place.

The last scenario i would suspect the company will take your money and bid you a fine day and please call again.If you are very unlucky they might say "you know you are wrong dont you" at which point you will probably walk out muttering something about heathens and eternal burning in hellfire anyway.

#


Hmmm, I'm not sure about those scenarios:

A Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed - if they don't do this, who are they discriminating against? Are they producing other racially insensitive material?

A Christian film company refusing to produce a “female-gaze/feminist” erotic film - if they produce other erotic films and are stupid enough to say we're not doing it because we don't approve of homosexuality then I think that's probably discrimination

A Christian baker refusing to take an order to make a cake celebrating Satanism - that's discriminating against Satanists is it? Purlease

A T-shirt company owned by lesbians declining to print T-shirts with a message describing gay marriage as an “abomination” Again, who are we discriminating against here? As long as they are not producing other T-shirts with moral condemnation about other groups, who cares?

A printing company run by Roman Catholics declining an order to produce adverts calling for abortion on demand to be legalised. - again this discriminates against who? People who are pro-abortion? I don't get it?

An atheist web designer refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days - again, if the designer produces websites for other belief systems and says ' I just don't like Christians' then perhaps

I once wanted a rude message iced onto a cake, Waitrose refused. Was I being discriminated against? No. We just need to be sensible here.

 

[looney]

I dont understand the argument.

If you cant do the job you are in the wrong job. If your morality is so puriant it restricts your options then that is your problem and no one elses.. Conversley, if someone doesn't want your business take it elsewhere, if nobody wants your business then maybe there is a good reason for it?

Sesame street characters are copyrighted, this is waved under fair usage etc and not wanting to be seen hauling kids into the dock. Similar for Albion vis fans. If someone starts making coin out of the CTW and using it for political purposes lawyers would soon swoop in.

QED this non-issue is all about money for lawyers,

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

If your morality is so puriant it restricts your options then that is your problem and no one elses.

What do you mean by the word 'puriant'?

Do you mean prurient?

prurient
ˈprʊərɪənt
adjective
having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters, especially the sexual activity of others.

 

[pastafarian]

Nobody should be made to do anything they don't want to do, except convicted criminals.

people do things they dont want to do every day,its called compromise and its how law making works in a democratic civilised country.

Your idea is anarchy.

Its so past its sell by date its laughable.

Its good to know though that anarchists are so screwed up they believe nobody should be made to adhere to discrimination laws if they dont want to

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

So you want to bin ALL discrimination laws?

That's some viewpoint right there.

You do realise the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of anti-discrimination laws don't you?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Its good to know though that anarchists are so screwed up they believe nobody should be made to adhere to discrimination laws if they dont want to

Hypothetically if a nut job walked into a Jewish owned store dressed in full Nazi garb, would you have an issue with them refusing that person service?

 

[McTavish]

Hypothetically if a nut job walked into a Jewish owned store dressed in full Nazi garb, would you have an issue with them refusing that person service?

No, because there is no law forbidding discrimination against Nazis.

 

[MattBackHome]

Hypothetically if a nut job walked into a Jewish owned store dressed in full Nazi garb, would you have an issue with them refusing that person service?

The correct analogy would be a Nazi going into a Jewish owned bakery and asking for a cake with "Let's all have a pogrom" written on it.

And in that case the owner could legitimately argue that the outcome is potentially harmful and refuse service. It's completely different to the original case, and they wouldn't need a conscience clause to tell NMH where to shove his pogrom cake.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

You do realise the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of anti-discrimination laws don't you?

We don't because they're not stupid or hypocritical. It seems to me you have failed to realise that Ron Swanson is a joke and not meant to be someone you base your whole life on.

 

[Nibble]

What?