Do you support a conscience clause?

[Nibble]

I really don't see why the law is getting in involved. It's hardly Rosa Parks. Here's how it should have played out:

Cake man: Sorry I'm a Christian and don't agree with same sex marriage therefore I don't feel I can complete your order.
Gay Men: Fine , **** you we'll take our business elsewhere you Neanderthal.

My advice to the whoopsies would be to pay more than £36 for a wedding cake, they might not be so keen to turn away business if you spent more.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

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.

Yes they are. They are driven by stupid people and even thicker people who enable them.

The fact we have people arguing here that a private business cannot pick and choose who it wants to serve proves that the real purpose of any discrimination legislation has been hijacked by said stupid people. Discrimination now has been pushed to the point where it's not even ok for people to be offended now. Oh no, to be offended has to be linked to some form of discrimination.

Ron Swanson makes more sense than the people who want the Government to hold their hands through life because they can't manage to do it by themselves the poor petals.

As for the hypocrisy, it's all around.

A true anti-discrimination law would consider all things equal and as such all discrimination equal. This however is not the case. Discrimination is all around us and its widely accepted. Especially when it gets the moronic "positive discrimination" tag label applied to it. See the hypocrisy? The law allows some people to discriminate but not others. What a flawed system that is.
.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

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.

You cant just change my anology to suit your views.

Address the original one.

Even if the person only wanted to buy a loaf of bread the store owner has every right to refuse serving if they don't like what the customer is representing.

 

[MattBackHome]

You cant just change my anology to suit your views.

Address the original one.

Even if the person only wanted to buy a loaf of bread the store owner has every right to refuse serving if they don't like what the customer is representing.

Your analagy isn't analogous which is problematic for an analogy - but I'll address it anyway.

You said:

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. In that scenario there is ample reason for the shop owner to refuse service. The Protection from Harrassment Act would cover this, due to the obvious religious motivated threat.

But once again there is no need for a 'conscience clause', and this example is nothing like the one being discussed.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

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

As i understand anarchy, it is a utopian state where there are no laws.

Everyone is supposed to be personally responsible. So yes in an anarchistic state, there would be no laws including discrimination ones. People would not discriminate naturally rather than being forced by law into non discriminatory behaviour.

 

[Hastings gull]

As i understand anarchy, it is a utopian state where there are no laws.

Everyone is supposed to be personally responsible. So yes in an anarchistic state, there would be no laws including discrimination ones. People would not discriminate naturally rather than being forced by law into non discriminatory behaviour.

I appreciate that you are simply giving a definition, and that this might not necessarily be your view, but what a joke. Everyone will be personally responsible and no one would discriminate naturally. I am amazed that some folk would truly believe that this is what would happen. It might be in theory highly desirable, but the reality of everyday life falls very short of this. If we are honest, I think we probably all discriminate at some point, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps only internally, but we do it all the same.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

There was a case like this where a Christian wedding photographer turned down a couple because they didn't want to photograph a gay wedding. The photographer got sued and lost.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

I appreciate that you are simply giving a definition, and that this might not necessarily be your view, but what a joke. Everyone will be personally responsible and no one would discriminate naturally. I am amazed that some folk would truly believe that this is what would happen. It might be in theory highly desirable, but the reality of everyday life falls very short of this. If we are honest, I think we probably all discriminate at some point, perhaps subconsciously, perhaps only internally, but we do it all the same.

Well said. Anarchy is completely unworkable, well for a society as a whole... i guess it may be possible with a small society of 'well adjusted' individuals.

As said, it's a 'utopia', an idealistic extreme. It wouldn't last 2 minutes with any sociopaths there, which is estimated to be between 5-10% of the population.

As for the everybody discriminating, i'd agree also. I think you'd have to live in a bubble to have no hangups. As i understand it it's part of the physiology of the brain hardwired as part of our 'disgust' system. All there for a reason, no doubt.
That plus every generation of breeding since the dawn of man, where if you get 'outed' from society, your chance of your genes continuing shrinks drastically. This system seems to me to create bigotry. I think it's inherent for some.

So while i hate bigots i also feel sorry for them, they probably can't help it, and in general are too small minded to even realise why they are.

 

[BadFish]

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

My view is that if something they don't want to do conflicts with a job they should be doing (unless it's a one off), they shouldn't be in that job.

I kind of agree with this and Tyrone. We are supposed to live in a system where the market deal with this kind of stuff. If a bakery refuses to make a cake based on homophobia then surely those consumers who disagree with homophobia should refuse to buy their cakes. The end result of this is that if we are a society who dislikes homophobia then the bakery has a highly limited customer base and goes out of business. Net result; no homophobic bakery.......... Job done.

All we have to do is use our consumer choices to benefit society. This way we have no need to complex laws. Let the market decided.

I suspect that I have bought this down to a far too simplistic level but perhaps instead of endless legislation and red tape we should let the market forces do their job without the endless influences people put on them to further their own ends. A free market economy is a wonderful idea it just doesn't run that free at present.

 

[BadFish]

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.

I agree here. If you are wanting to have work done based on such beliefs why would you want the job done by those who oppose your viewpoint. Surely given the choice one would rather their work or contract was carried out by someone sympathetic to their ideas. This is especially true if the person carrying out the work has been forced to do it by legislation. I would much rather have my Bert and Ernie gay cake made with love by someone who respects my homosexuality than some knuckle dragging homophobic knobhead who is gurning and slobbering hate and anger all over it.

 

[beorhthelm]

I suspect that I have bought this down to a far too simplistic level

probably, you've just argued away all consumer and employment law. we tend to have laws because the market is pretty bad at determining this sort of thing because, by its nature, it favours majority or large groups and not minorities. in your example, unless it advertises itself as "the homophobic bakery" those opposed to its behavoir would be oblivious and there would be no negative market effect. most of us dont really care much about the ethics of the businesses and services we use, just price and sometimes quality.

 

[BadFish]

probably, you've just argued away all consumer and employment law. we tend to have laws because the market is pretty bad at determining this sort of thing because, by its nature, it favours majority or large groups and not minorities. in your example, unless it advertises itself as "the homophobic bakery" those opposed to its behavoir would be oblivious and there would be no negative market effect. most of us dont really care much about the ethics of the businesses and services we use, just price and sometimes quality.

and herin lies the problem (IMHO). As consumers we don't use our choices to develop the marked we would like so we end up with the market we deserve. (I say we very deliberately as i am guilty of this. Although i do try but cost and laziness often get the better of me).

Perhaps if we were more thoughtful and discerning of our consumer choices we could avoid the red tape and excessive laws that gum up our free market economy.

I also disagree with your point about people being oblivious to such things. This is where the power of social media comes into its own I believe that if this happen in your town then word would get around pretty quickly and many people would avoid the business. A local shop round the corner from me had treated one of his sub-letters very badly and word got around of his antics. I know many people who refused to use his shop and chose to get their coffee's etc elsewhere. The shop and the owner are no longer around.

I don't think i argued away all consumer and employment law at all. Much of both is largely irrelevant to the discussion being had here.

 

[looney]

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.

Puritanical

 

[DJ Leon]

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

No, I do not.

I thought discrimination was a bad thing.

 

[Dan Aitch]

Yes they are. They are driven by stupid people and even thicker people who enable them.

The fact we have people arguing here that a private business cannot pick and choose who it wants to serve proves that the real purpose of any discrimination legislation has been hijacked by said stupid people. Discrimination now has been pushed to the point where it's not even ok for people to be offended now. Oh no, to be offended has to be linked to some form of discrimination.

Ron Swanson makes more sense than the people who want the Government to hold their hands through life because they can't manage to do it by themselves the poor petals.

As for the hypocrisy, it's all around.

A true anti-discrimination law would consider all things equal and as such all discrimination equal. This however is not the case. Discrimination is all around us and its widely accepted. Especially when it gets the moronic "positive discrimination" tag label applied to it. See the hypocrisy? The law allows some people to discriminate but not others. What a flawed system that is.
.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination and is outlawed. If you have a problem with positive 'action', or don't understand why it's such a good thing then that's a pity. If people don't understand how the Equality Act is designed to work that's unfortunate but it's a pity to find so many on here so firmly entrenched in the view that 'ethics' (usually a euphemism for 'religious beliefs') should be allowed to outweigh legislation.

Let's make damn sure we treat everybody the same, eh?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Positive discrimination is still discrimination and is outlawed.

No it's not.

All female gyms ring a bell? Why is it ok for all female gyms to turn away customers based on a principle but not other businesses?

If you have a problem with positive 'action', or don't understand why it's such a good thing then that's a pity. If people don't understand how the Equality Act is designed to work that's unfortunate but it's a pity to find so many on here so firmly entrenched in the view that 'ethics' (usually a euphemism for 'religious beliefs') should be allowed to outweigh legislation.

There is nothing "positive" in legislation which can ruin peoples lives or livelihood simply because they do not share a view or like someone. That's closet facism you support.

Let's make damn sure we treat everybody the same, eh?

Let's make sure we don't tell people what to do and how to live their lives, eh?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

No, I do not.

I thought discrimination was a bad thing.

It's subjective.

With made up rules and reasoning based on personal opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Frutos]

With made up rules and reasoning based on personal opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

A good description of religion there.