Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Filcin

Religious Discrimination is Legal

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1693 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

"So who would think it right for a Christian or Muslim or whatever church, with strong beliefs on the sanctity of marriagelink3.gif between a man and a woman, to be forced to hold a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple?"

 

Can I just pop in here to lay out my understanding of this issue.

 

 

The Equality Act 2010 has been amended to state that people will not be breaking the law if they refuse to conduct, participate in or attend a same sex marriage
This quote is from a Methodist church website.

 

Also, from the same site

 

Refusing to allow same sex marriages on church premises is not contrary to the Equality Act nor any other legislation. The law makes it clear that individuals and religious organisations may not be compelled to consent to, to participate in or to conduct religious marriage ceremonies of same sex couples.

 

 

So in answer to your question, no they cannot be forced.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I just pop in here to lay out my understanding of this issue.

 

So in answer to your question, no they cannot be forced.

 

With due respect silverfox, that wasn't my question, although its an excellent point that in this particular case they should not be forced, but in the case of the cake they can.

I wasn't looking for interpretations on the law, but to peoples beliefs on whether it was right.

 

It seems to me that sabresheep, despite TALKING about peoples rights, is only interested in gay rights no matter the impact to others.

Now to me, that seems to be the exact opposite of what is actually right. NOT because it is gay people, but because it is a minority enforcing their wishes on others.

I would feel the same way no matter who the 'group was'

 

(and to clarify I would have baked a cake for them and wished them all happiness in their future - UNTIL they tried to force their wishes on others, at which stage I would appose them with my best endeavours)

  • Haha 1

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this could be 'the law of unintended consequences'? I can imagine when the anti discrimination laws came into effect, the lawmakers didn't investigate properly.

 

My own take on this is, of course anyone can refuse to do anything on the grounds of religious beliefs however, they run the risk of being ostracised by the offended people as well as a possible conviction.

 

In business, you follow the laws of the land. In private you can do what you want. I don't believe in any deity but if I worked in a cake shop would I refuse to decorate a card with religious symbolism or words. Of course not and that is how it should be.

 

No one should be saying that this couple are being religiously persecuted because they placed their religious beliefs above the business requirements and the law.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if this could be 'the law of unintended consequences'? I can imagine when the anti discrimination laws came into effect, the lawmakers didn't investigate properly.

 

My own take on this is, of course anyone can refuse to do anything on the grounds of religious beliefs however, they run the risk of being ostracised by the offended people as well as a possible conviction.

 

In business, you follow the laws of the land. In private you can do what you want. I don't believe in any deity but if I worked in a cake shop would I refuse to decorate a card with religious symbolism or words. Of course not and that is how it should be.

 

No one should be saying that this couple are being religiously persecuted because they placed their religious beliefs above the business requirements and the law.

 

Paragraph 1 - I agree.

Paragraph 2 - I agree except that there should be no prosecution in the case of personal choices as apposed to major corporate or governmental policy.

Paragraph 3 - I would phrase it:

I don't believe in any deity but if I worked in a cake shop would I refuse to decorate a card with religious symbolism or words? I would NOT but others, for example those with strong religious convictions may do.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to state in the last paragraph silverfox.

 

 

Lets be clear that we are NOT talking about people being attacked here.

Anyone arguing that the refusal is an attack should ALSO consider that the refusers moral beliefs are being attacked, something I consider far more important than any desire for a cake, whether I believe in those morals or not.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!!!

Edited by Crapstone
Removed due CAG update and could not be edited/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I am not "only for gay rights" I think you find I support EQUALITY I think you will find posts in this thread form me supporting Female Equality, Racial equality as well. I am sorry you feel I only champion gay rights, however as this issue raised is directly related to that issue, I think my approach is relevant.

 

The real discussion here is whether a religion can discriminate whilst in the course of providing a commercial service.

 

The answer is NO

 

Religious beliefs are protected, but this does not give them the right to discriminate in the course of providing a public commercial service.

As for the marriage history discussion, OK , bit of a tangent there. Im not going to argue that one for now. That is for another thread another day.

 

 

At the end of the day this is a free country. However with freedom comes consequences. If you choose to make a stand on your ideals and you decide to break the law for them, then you cannot complain about being prosecuted as a result.

 

Also actually this thread title is correct, Religious discrimination IS legal. Look at the areas religious organisations ARE allowed to discriminate :)

 

AS for being forced to bake a cake for a same sex couple compared to being forced to marry a same sex couple. One is illegal to refuse whilst the other can legitimately be refused.

It comes back down to whether you shoudl be allowed to discriminate whilst providing a public service vs being allowed to discriminate in a religious ceremony. I think the law here is right and I think the balance is good.

Their religion after all does not state that "Thou shall not bake cakes for gay marriages" If they were Islamic bakers asked to bake a wedding cake for a Christian wedding then if they refused then I would expect the same prosecution to occur.

 

To me this thread now seems to be going around in circles. So I am going to step out of it and let you all debate. :)


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record, I am not "only for gay rights" I think you find I support EQUALITY I think you will find posts in this thread form me supporting Female Equality, Racial equality as well.

 

No you haven't, the way you have presented them appears to be that you have simply used those to accuse others here of prejudice.

 

and since when has baking a cake been a public service you keep shouting about?

as I have said 'we are not talking about governmental or major institution policy here, just people passively adhering to their beliefs.

 

Def:

A public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

 

Refers to consumer discrimination

 

Minimally.

 

Yet page 2

"harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

It would seem that perhaps the law thinks (and interprets) that only people with a 'protected characteristic' can have their dignity violated or have an offensive environment created for them by behavior which is simply UNWANTED?

That sounds like a very discriminatory statement to me.

Surely its everyone, or its discriminatory by its very nature?


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimally.

 

Yet page 2

"harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

It would seem that perhaps the law thinks (and interprets) that only people with a 'protected characteristic' can have their dignity violated or have an offensive environment created for them by behavior which is simply UNWANTED?

That sounds like a very discriminatory statement to me.

Surely its everyone, or its discriminatory by its very nature?

 

You have added that bit to the original wording.

 

let us not forget, this issue was about sexual discrimination, no more no less. Discriminating against another person who has a sexual orientation that is different to yours is illegal. It doesn't matter that the bakers were Christians. That was a side issue as it was against their beliefs.

 

Perhaps a copy of the actual judgement will help focus minds on the actual issue.

 

http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have not added anything silverfox, simply re-arranged the words to make clearer a valid, and clearly USED, perspective on the meaning'

It does quite clearly say "harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

it does NOT say "harassment - unwanted behaviour that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

It is discriminatory by definition.

 

Re-reading the judgement simply reinforces in my mind that the judgement was wrong.

I am not religious in any way, I simply believe that laws should be for ALL, without discrimination or favour.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same judgement, a reference was made of a gay baker who refused to bake a cake for a Christian. This is also discriminatory and the Christian would have had the right to challenge by virtue of the discrimination.

 

It is accepted that anyone can express an opinion, religious or otherwise (so long as it is not hateful) but a company who has actively discriminated against this man (who may or may not be gay) is unlawful. I, also have no religion but I firmly believe in equality for all.

 

Did this company treat this man equally. I will leave that as an open question.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did this company treat this man equally?

 

No, absolutely not.

 

As for 'normal' I think the ROI spoke very clearly as to what the 'normal person's' view is on all of this...


My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same judgement, a reference was made of a gay baker who refused to bake a cake for a Christian. This is also discriminatory and the Christian would have had the right to challenge by virtue of the discrimination.

 

In the case in question here, the verdict was utterly wrong in my view, including any suggestion of delivering a similar verdict with a Gay baker in similar circumstances, or a Muslim baker being asked to write (for example) 'Jesus is the one true prophet'.

 

BUT If ANY of them refused to write Happy Birthday (for example) just because the requester was Gay/Christian/Black/white/disabled/etc, then they should be prosecuted.

 

The right to challenge is a different matter.

But in the cases exampled in para 1, these perhaps should have resulted in fines for wasting the courts time at the very least.

 

I firmly believe that it is a miscarriage of justice and the absolute opposite of the judgement that should have been given.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toby, I honestly couldn’t disagree any more than I already do.

 

 

Society at large, andthe lawmakers in Britain have made it blatantly clear what the view is on such people who use their businesses to express their views. Frankly, if you can’t work in a service industry, don’t.

 

 

What about if it was a more serious situation? Should a person be able to express their religious preferences or beliefs when working as a police officer perhaps? What about as a firefighter, where do we draw the line that it’s okay to discriminate on a cake but not in the operating theatre?

 

 

That’s right, we can’t, we’re protected by law to ensure that ‘people’, and that’s the key part of this, ‘people’ are treated equally.

 

 

What is so threatening about two people spending their lives together? What makes me, as a heterosexual, married man any different to a homosexual man in terms of our desire to choose a life partner and have that partnership recognised? Nothing, remember that these passages in the bible sit alongside those that justify genocide and the repression of women but not so many people choose to quote those ones...


My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so threatening about two people spending their lives together? What makes me, as a heterosexual, married man any different to a homosexual man in terms of our desire to choose a life partner and have that partnership recognised? Nothing, remember that these passages in the bible sit alongside those that justify genocide and the repression of women but not so many people choose to quote those ones...

 

At what stage has ANYONE, even the bakery in question if you read the link, objected to any couple of whatever sexual orientation celebrating their partnership?

I certainly haven't.

 

A more relevant simile than those you use would be the Nirenberg trials where soldiers said they were ordered to do it, but that would be used against your stance, not for it.

 

Surely it is one of the most basic rights - the right to act according to your conscience.

Even if you don't agree with that, and I could understand that, surely you agree that the right NOT to act AGAINST your conscience is fundamental?


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what stage has ANYONE, even the bakery in question if you read the link, objected to any couple of whatever sexual orientation celebrating their partnership?

I certainly haven't.

 

A more relevant simile than those you use would be the Nirenberg trials where soldiers said they were ordered to do it, but that would be used against your stance, not for it.

 

Surely it is one of the most basic rights - the right to act according to your conscience.

Even if you don't agree with that, and I could understand that, surely you agree that the right NOT to act AGAINST your conscience is fundamental?

 

I'm not sure what your point is and why you are ranting here on a site that sticks up for CONSUMER rights, perhaps you would be better off taking your rants elsewhere.

 

The law is quite clear in this area and it has spoken..end of.

 

Think about it's reply above spells out the position quite clearly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conscience isn't a protected characteristic, equality is. To compare cake decorating to mass murder, exploitation and genocide is laughable - IT'S A CAKE. Let's not forget that those very protected characteristics were born out of a desire to protect those groups of people so dreadfully persecuted and murdered by the Nazi regime. The unwillingness to ice a simple message onto a lump of cake makes the business owners' beliefs very clear indeed.


My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is quite clear in this area and it has spoken..end of.

Just like a bakery isnt a public service, a judgement isn't a LAW, despite the rather foolish statements which I am surprised to find on this site, let alone site staff..

 

Here is a one which i am sure you will find a better example of its implementation rather than the questionable one which is the porigin of this thread. How the law should be implemented.

 

 

 

and here is one you undoubtedly wont like so much, but is another I broadly agree with, as I do the one above.

Edited by citizenB
links to USA websites removed

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no homophobic thoughts whatsoever, they can marry the bulldog next door for all I care, I just don't see why they make a law forcing others to agree and gagging them from expressing their views.

What a pile of xxxx

The mere statement of saying normal heterosexuals says it all.

 

As sabre says, if you run a business you need to accept that you are expected to provide services without regard to sex race sexual orientation etc. IMO it's bad enough that Churches can refuse to do gay marriage. If you replaced the word gay with 'black' 'muslim' 'female' 'one legged' you would not accept it.

 

No one is being told they can not express a view however it's the business that can not discriminate

I am sure had it been a muslim bakery then yes it would have been taken to court although I imagine they would have had more sense than to try and fight it.

 

In my opinion, and it is my opinion only, organised religion is all about social control. Having said that, if it gets you out of bed in the morning and it doesn't harm anyone else get on with it.

 

Final question, what is normal? In ancient Athens it was quite normal for younger men to have close physical relationships with older men prior to marraige


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be the last post before closure as we are going round in circles.

 

Both those sites are American who have different laws to us.

 

A bakery is selling to the public etc etc.

 

Thread closed


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1693 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...