DUP 'Conscience Clause' Bid

[Chucky Arla]

A DUP MLA is calling for amendments to equality legislation after a Christian bakery was told to pay compensation or face court following its refusal to bake a cake with a pro-gay slogan.

Ashers Baking Co. has been threatened with legal action after the Equality Commission found it had discriminated against a gay rights activist who had asked for the cake.

In July, it emerged they had received an order for a cake with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' and a picture of the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie.

The manager of the business, Daniel McArthur, said they had to contact the customer to decline the request because it went against their Christian beliefs about marriage.

He said they then received a letter from the Equality Commission accusing them of discrimination and saying they could end up in court.

Earlier this month, the owner was instructed by the Commission to pay compensation or face court action.

In a letter, the company was told that if it did not offer compensation within seven days it would face litigation.

The DUP's Paul Givan wants to add a 'conscience clause' to current equality legislation, by bringing forward a private member's bill at Stormont, which he hopes would avoid similar legal cases in the future.

He said that the Ashers case had generated "huge public interest."

The Justice Committee chair said that the case had caused him to examine current legislation.

"I think there needs to be absolute clarity on this. There needs to be an enhancement made of equality legislation and that's what I intend to bring forward in a private member's bill.

"The Equality Commission are wrong in terms of their interpretation of the law. But, obviously, if it is a grey area it needs to be clarified and I am going to do that through the private member's bill and I trust people will recognise it for what it is."

Ashers was founded in Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, in 1992. The Christian directors oversee six shops in Northern Ireland and employ around 60 people.

The company was named after a verse from the Bible, which refers to 'Bread from Asher'.

Looks like the DUP fundamentalist knuckle draggers are back at it again. Stung by the fact that they can't discriminate against the gays they're eyeing up their chance to add a clause to equality legislation which using typical DUP logic would "enhance" it by allowing people to discriminate against the gays. They should be ashamed of their actions and I can only hope that some day soon their kind will be long gone. Any thoughts?

[Divitaen]

Sigh, I can't believe this. For the last time there is no such thing as a bogus "right to discriminate". Everyone is equal! If the bakery had refused an interracial couple, I swear this wouldn't even be a debate. I'm not homosexual, but if I were a gay couple I want to be able to go into stores and public accomodations and be treated like a human being, not a dehumanised, hated second-class citizen. If I can't sit, dine and shop at the same places everyone else can, then I'm living in an apartheid society.

[Frazers]

Sigh, I can't believe this. For the last time there is no such thing as a bogus "right to discriminate". Everyone is equal! If the bakery had refused an interracial couple, I swear this wouldn't even be a debate. I'm not homosexual, but if I were a gay couple I want to be able to go into stores and public accomodations and be treated like a human being, not a dehumanised, hated second-class citizen. If I can't sit, dine and shop at the same places everyone else can, then I'm living in an apartheid society.

They didn't discriminate against the men they discriminated against the message. Were they to have asked for a cake without a message there wouldn't have been an issue.

[Divitaen]

Sigh, I can't believe this. For the last time there is no such thing as a bogus "right to discriminate". Everyone is equal! If the bakery had refused an interracial couple, I swear this wouldn't even be a debate. I'm not homosexual, but if I were a gay couple I want to be able to go into stores and public accomodations and be treated like a human being, not a dehumanised, hated second-class citizen. If I can't sit, dine and shop at the same places everyone else can, then I'm living in an apartheid society.

They didn't discriminate against the men they discriminated against the message. Were they to have asked for a cake without a message there wouldn't have been an issue.

Yeah, and if the cake had an interracial couple and a KKK-supporter refused to make it wouldn't it be a moot issue? If you discriminate because the cake has gay characters that's still an attempt to reduce homosexuals to second-class citizenry.

[Idzequitch]

Sigh, I can't believe this. For the last time there is no such thing as a bogus "right to discriminate". Everyone is equal! If the bakery had refused an interracial couple, I swear this wouldn't even be a debate. I'm not homosexual, but if I were a gay couple I want to be able to go into stores and public accomodations and be treated like a human being, not a dehumanised, hated second-class citizen. If I can't sit, dine and shop at the same places everyone else can, then I'm living in an apartheid society.

They didn't discriminate against the men they discriminated against the message. Were they to have asked for a cake without a message there wouldn't have been an issue.

This exactly. If they refuse to serve gay customers, that would be an issue. They can choose what does and does not go on their product. It's their own business they're limiting, so they're hurting no one but themselves.

[Frazers]

They didn't discriminate against the men they discriminated against the message. Were they to have asked for a cake without a message there wouldn't have been an issue.

Yeah, and if the cake had an interracial couple and a KKK-supporter refused to make it wouldn't it be a moot issue? If you discriminate because the cake has gay characters that's still an attempt to reduce homosexuals to second-class citizenry.

No. It's really not and if a KKK supporter refused to make a cake with the message "Black on white : It's right"* but would make a normal cake for an interracial couple or something they wouldn't have discriminated.

*or something, I dunno

[Divitaen]

They didn't discriminate against the men they discriminated against the message. Were they to have asked for a cake without a message there wouldn't have been an issue.

This exactly. If they refuse to serve gay customers, that would be an issue. They can choose what does and does not go on their product. It's their own business they're limiting, so they're hurting no one but themselves.

It amounts to the same thing. People put messages on cakes all the time, and if bakeries single out a pro-gay slogan then it is still treating an image of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple differently. It's still an affront to an equal society.

[Frazers]

This exactly. If they refuse to serve gay customers, that would be an issue. They can choose what does and does not go on their product. It's their own business they're limiting, so they're hurting no one but themselves.

It amounts to the same thing. People put messages on cakes all the time, and if bakeries single out a pro-gay slogan then it is still treating an image of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple differently. It's still an affront to an equal society.

They are perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that a gay lifestyle is a negative one and therefore they do not wish to support it. They aren't entitled to refuse service entirely to a gay couple, they can only control the message their product sports.

[Idzequitch]

They didn't discriminate against the men they discriminated against the message. Were they to have asked for a cake without a message there wouldn't have been an issue.

Yeah, and if the cake had an interracial couple and a KKK-supporter refused to make it wouldn't it be a moot issue? If you discriminate because the cake has gay characters that's still an attempt to reduce homosexuals to second-class citizenry.

No, it's standing for their views, however outdated they may be. An atheist baker would be equally within his rights to refuse to make a cake with a picture of Jesus saying "He is risen." He's limiting his own business, but he should not be forced to sell a product that he does not wish to sell, especially if said product conflicts with his views of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

[Divitaen]

It amounts to the same thing. People put messages on cakes all the time, and if bakeries single out a pro-gay slogan then it is still treating an image of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple differently. It's still an affront to an equal society.

They are perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that a gay lifestyle is a negative one and therefore they do not wish to support it. They aren't entitled to refuse service entirely to a gay couple, they can only control the message their product sports.

They can hold that opinion and pray it in a church, but they are a secular business organization and if they discriminate against LGBT rights activists and treat them like their message is immoral and inferior, that is an affront to a dignified and civilised society. They have to put their personal beliefs aside and make the cake.

[Idzequitch]

This exactly. If they refuse to serve gay customers, that would be an issue. They can choose what does and does not go on their product. It's their own business they're limiting, so they're hurting no one but themselves.

It amounts to the same thing. People put messages on cakes all the time, and if bakeries single out a pro-gay slogan then it is still treating an image of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple differently. It's still an affront to an equal society.

>Society where everyone is treated exactly equally
> Society in which people have freedom of expression
Choose one.

[Divitaen]

Yeah, and if the cake had an interracial couple and a KKK-supporter refused to make it wouldn't it be a moot issue? If you discriminate because the cake has gay characters that's still an attempt to reduce homosexuals to second-class citizenry.

No, it's standing for their views, however outdated they may be. An atheist baker would be equally within his rights to refuse to make a cake with a picture of Jesus saying "He is risen." He's limiting his own business, but he should not be forced to sell a product that he does not wish to sell, especially if said product conflicts with his views of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

Wouldn't that be an infringement on the rights of the Christians who wanted the cake made? I mean if he discriminates on a faith-based message, that would amount to faith-based discrimination right?

[Divitaen]

It amounts to the same thing. People put messages on cakes all the time, and if bakeries single out a pro-gay slogan then it is still treating an image of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple differently. It's still an affront to an equal society.

>Society where everyone is treated exactly equally
> Society in which people have freedom of expression
Choose one.

The former. I'm all for expression but if it infringes on the rights of people to live equally that's where the right ends.

[Frazers]

They are perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that a gay lifestyle is a negative one and therefore they do not wish to support it. They aren't entitled to refuse service entirely to a gay couple, they can only control the message their product sports.

They can hold that opinion and pray it in a church, but they are a secular business organization and if they discriminate against LGBT rights activists and treat them like their message is immoral and inferior, that is an affront to a dignified and civilised society. They have to put their personal beliefs aside and make the cake.

There is no obligation to put personal beliefs aside and operate as an automaton in business nor are they a secular business. There is only the obligation to operate within the law. Ashers will win their case, as they rightly should, and the clause will prevent others being harassed in future.

[Margno]

This really just amounts to trying to ban people from acting on religious beliefs the state doesn't hold. Which isn't exceptional, the state always bans people from acting on positions it doesn't hold, but we should admit that that's what we're doing, and not try to pass it off as neutrality.

[Divitaen]

They can hold that opinion and pray it in a church, but they are a secular business organization and if they discriminate against LGBT rights activists and treat them like their message is immoral and inferior, that is an affront to a dignified and civilised society. They have to put their personal beliefs aside and make the cake.

There is no obligation to put personal beliefs aside and operate as an automaton in business nor are they a secular business. There is only the obligation to operate within the law. Ashers will win their case, as they rightly should, and the clause will prevent others being harassed in future.

Of course there is. Just as how the religious freedoms argument was rejected with the Elane Photography case, so it should be here. As a secular business your religious beliefs do not shape your employment practices, the clients you choose to serve and the state regulations you abide by. All that must be put aside for wider societal principles.

[Idzequitch]

>Society where everyone is treated exactly equally
> Society in which people have freedom of expression
Choose one.

The former. I'm all for expression but if it infringes on the rights of people to live equally that's where the right ends.

"Dammit, I have the right to that cake, and I have the right to have it made by people who have the nerve to believe differently than I do!"
It's ridiculous. Look, I agree that their views are outdated, but the moment you start infringing on their rights, you're no better than they are.

[Divitaen]

The former. I'm all for expression but if it infringes on the rights of people to live equally that's where the right ends.

"Dammit, I have the right to that cake, and I have the right to have it made by people who have the nerve to believe differently than I do!"
It's ridiculous. Look, I agree that their views are outdated, but the moment you start infringing on their rights, you're no better than they are.

By that argument are you saying you support even the actions of Elane Photography to discriminate against a gay couple? Because that's what the argument sounds like.

[Divitaen]

This really just amounts to trying to ban people from acting on religious beliefs the state doesn't hold. Which isn't exceptional, the state always bans people from acting on positions it doesn't hold, but we should admit that that's what we're doing, and not try to pass it off as neutrality.

The state doesn't hold any religious beliefs. There is separation of church and state. And no one is saying this is neutrality, it's about equality.

[Frazers]

There is no obligation to put personal beliefs aside and operate as an automaton in business nor are they a secular business. There is only the obligation to operate within the law. Ashers will win their case, as they rightly should, and the clause will prevent others being harassed in future.

Of course there is. Just as how the religious freedoms argument was rejected with the Elane Photography case, so it should be here. As a secular business your religious beliefs do not shape your employment practices, the clients you choose to serve and the state regulations you abide by. All that must be put aside for wider societal principles.

Ok here's a top tip. The DUP and this case aren't in the US. Please don't do the typical NSG thing of making it all about America.

[Divitaen]

Of course there is. Just as how the religious freedoms argument was rejected with the Elane Photography case, so it should be here. As a secular business your religious beliefs do not shape your employment practices, the clients you choose to serve and the state regulations you abide by. All that must be put aside for wider societal principles.

Ok here's a top tip. The DUP and this case aren't in the US. Please don't do the typical NSG thing of making it all about America.

Ok fair enough, the DUP is in Northern Ireland so yeah it's not the same as in America, but the principle remains the same. The principle in rejection Elane Photography's case should be the principle governments follow in general. Religion does not provide a line-item veto against equality.

[Idzequitch]

"Dammit, I have the right to that cake, and I have the right to have it made by people who have the nerve to believe differently than I do!"
It's ridiculous. Look, I agree that their views are outdated, but the moment you start infringing on their rights, you're no better than they are.

By that argument are you saying you support even the actions of Elane Photography to discriminate against a gay couple? Because that's what the argument sounds like.

I don't support their right to discriminate against those people, solely on the basis that they were gay. I'm saying that if they don't support gay marriage, they are under no obligation to take photographs at a gay wedding.

[Divitaen]

By that argument are you saying you support even the actions of Elane Photography to discriminate against a gay couple? Because that's what the argument sounds like.

I don't support their right to discriminate against those people, solely on the basis that they were gay. I'm saying that if they don't support gay marriage, they are under no obligation to take photographs at a gay wedding.

If you refuse to take photographs of a gay wedding isn't that discrimination against homosexuals?

[Margno]

This really just amounts to trying to ban people from acting on religious beliefs the state doesn't hold. Which isn't exceptional, the state always bans people from acting on positions it doesn't hold, but we should admit that that's what we're doing, and not try to pass it off as neutrality.

The state doesn't hold any religious beliefs. There is separation of church and state. And no one is saying this is neutrality, it's about equality.

In business, the state believes that homosexuality is acceptable, and that saying that homosexuality is unacceptable or acting on the belief that it is unacceptable is unacceptable. The reason we can say that it believes this is because it legally enforces it. The state may claim to be neutral, but if it prohibits one side from acting on its views, it is not.

[Frazers]

Ok here's a top tip. The DUP and this case aren't in the US. Please don't do the typical NSG thing of making it all about America.

Ok fair enough, the DUP is in Northern Ireland so yeah it's not the same as in America, but the principle remains the same. The principle in rejection Elane Photography's case should be the principle governments follow in general. Religion does not provide a line-item veto against equality.

And there is no veto against equality here. There is only consideration that product message discrimination and person discrimination are different things. As long as they offer the same products to everyone they're not discriminating unfairly. If a butcher, for example, refused to sell halal meat to a Muslim because of their disagreement with the process they wouldn't be discriminating as long as they would sell the same meat they sell to others.