Christian bakers versus the Equality Act

[soysauce]

Distaste for traditional religious views is one thing. I find some of them distasteful myself, in fact. It is another thing, though, when distaste for traditional religious views starts to translate into a diminution in respect for the welfare and rights of religious individuals and communities. Once that starts happening, all sorts of things become conceivable that were never previously envisaged. This is why, as a liberal, cases like this ring alarm bells for me. Perhaps more safeguards are needed in the legislation.

Well, Why do religious people deserve special treatment?

[Aquinas]

Distaste for traditional religious views is one thing. I find some of them distasteful myself, in fact. It is another thing, though, when distaste for traditional religious views starts to translate into a diminution in respect for the welfare and rights of religious individuals and communities. Once that starts happening, all sorts of things become conceivable that were never previously envisaged. This is why, as a liberal, cases like this ring alarm bells for me. Perhaps more safeguards are needed in the legislation.

Well, Why do religious people deserve special treatment?

It's not about "special treatment", at least from my perspective. It is about recognsing gays and lesbians have a moral right not to be discriminated against, just as religious people have a moral right to exercise religious conscience, and that where these rights appear to conflict, a reasonable balance should be struck between the two. My concern is that in this case, a reasonable balance has not been struck. Nor, it seems, has any serious attempt even been made to strike a reasonable balance.

[Amazeroth]

I'm not defining providing a service in general as endorsing their point of view. But providing a service considering political messages, and the message to "support gay marriage", especially in a country where gay marriage isn't even allowed, is a political one, is always an act of endorsement. Not if you have no consciousness or no opinion on the subject, obviously, but that's not really a requirement to work in the service industry now, is it? But a baker putting political messages on his cakes is just as much helping to endorse them, and thus endorsing them himself, as an advertising agency that puts up posters for political parties.

I don't agree, if political parties commonly use the same printers for their election material then I don't believe that printing something constitutes an endorsement of it. Anyway, if you say that you'll print cakes for anyone with any message then you are offering a platform for people to exercise their freedom of speech, you would be restricting their rights to freedom of speech if you refused to print something because you didn't agree with them.

The baker didn't say that he'd print any messages on his cakes for anyone. Not for anyone, because normally bakers, like everybody else, can choose their customers, there's nothing in Northern Ireland either legally or by way of common practice that says that bakers have to contract with anyone coming to them. And not any message, because I'm pretty sure the baker didn't give that guarantee - they even mention in the article that they have also refused other jobs, like erotic motives.

An ad agency does more than just printing - it usually develops the whole campaign. And I do believe in the freedom of an ad agency to not contract with a party whose ideology they don't like. Imagine yourself being the boss of the agency, and your proposed client being the BNP, wanting you to print something to ensure people still know they don't like immigrants. Even if you're getting paid, you're still putting yourself behind it, even if it's just by doing a good job promoting something you find wrong.

[soysauce]

Distaste for traditional religious views is one thing. I find some of them distasteful myself, in fact. It is another thing, though, when distaste for traditional religious views starts to translate into a diminution in respect for the welfare and rights of religious individuals and communities. Once that starts happening, all sorts of things become conceivable that were never previously envisaged. This is why, as a liberal, cases like this ring alarm bells for me. Perhaps more safeguards are needed in the legislation.

Well, Why do religious people deserve special treatment?

It's not about "special treatment", at least from my perspective. It is about recognsing gays and lesbians have a moral right not to be discriminated against, just as religious people have a moral right to exercise religious conscience, and that where these rights appear to conflict, a reasonable balance should be struck between the two. My concern is that in this case, a reasonable balance has not been struck. Nor, it seems, has any serious attempt even been made to strike a reasonable balance.

But what you are proposing is to make them exempt from the standards which we may expect from anyone else, while I understand that religious people may hold certain views I don't think that they should be treated differently from anyone else who express such views.

[Aquinas]

But what you are proposing is to make them exempt from the standards which we may expect from anyone else, while I understand that religious people may hold certain views I don't think that they should be treated differently from anyone else who express such views.

As I explained before, in general terms I respect both the right of gays and lesbians not to be unfairly discriminated against and the right of religious people to religious conscience, and where those rights conflict, I believe an attempt should be made to strike a reasonable balance. In this particular case, though, I am actually not really proposing to make religious people exempt from standards applied to anyone else. As I said earlier, I believe the Equality Commission's actions are misguided, and I am not convinced the baker's actions contravened the Equality Act (an Act which, as I said before, I broadly support). Also, I would point out that I would support the right of a non-religious baker to decline to produce a cake bearing a political message he objected to.

[Amazeroth]

But what you are proposing is to make them exempt from the standards which we may expect from anyone else, while I understand that religious people may hold certain views I don't think that they should be treated differently from anyone else who express such views.

As I explained before, in general terms I respect both the right of gays and lesbians not to be unfairly discriminated against and the right of religious people to religious conscience, and where those rights conflict, I believe an attempt should be made to strike a reasonable balance. In this particular case, though, I am actually not really proposing to make religious people exempt from standards applied to anyone else. As I said earlier, I believe the Equality Commission's actions are misguided, and I am not convinced the baker's actions contravened the Equality Act (an Act which, as I said before, I broadly support). Also, I would point out that I would support the right of a non-religious baker to decline to produce a cake bearing a political message he objected to.

I'd say this is exactly the point, which is why I'd run this more under "freedom of opinion" or "freedom of speach" than "freedom of religion".

[EEL123]

Don't be stupid, this is just another form of discrimination in general (which is a widespread societal problem).

That's ridiculous. The baker is refusing to make a cake because its political content, not because of the sexual orientation of the customer. I suspect that if a heterosexual person walked into the bakery and asked for an identical cake, the baker would also object. That's not a case of discrimination; that's simply a case of a baker refusing to disseminate a political message with which he disagrees. If someone went into your bakery and asked for you to print a cake supporting the legalisation of bestiality, are you discriminating against people who shag animals (whatever they're called) if you refuse? (Yes I am drawing a comparison between same-sex marriage and bestiality, but that's not because I'm a Christian wingnut, it's because I see no reason to condemn either. Really, what's the moral difference between having a sexual relationship with a man, woman, animal, some combination thereof, or someone else altogether? It's not like you're causing any great social malaise.)

Anyway, if you say that you'll print cakes for anyone with any message then you are offering a platform for people to exercise their freedom of speech, you would be restricting their rights to freedom of speech if you refused to print something because you didn't agree with them.

That's even more ridiculous. Nobody is obliged to assist anyone else in exercising their freedom of speech. You are free to express your opinion, but you are not free to enlist the help of other people in doing so without their consent. Suppose I had a megaphone. Am I violating your rights by refusing to provide you with it when you want to should pro-independence slogans or whatever?

Why do religious people deserve special treatment?

It's not just religious people. It's all people. Nobody should be obliged to disseminate a political message which they disagree with, or to facilitate an act their disapprove of.

[Aquinas]

Anyway, if you say that you'll print cakes for anyone with any message then you are offering a platform for people to exercise their freedom of speech, you would be restricting their rights to freedom of speech if you refused to print something because you didn't agree with them.

As you know, I don't go along with this line of argument, but it is worth adding that the baker's website provides a program allowing customers to design and order cakes with them. That might, one suppose, give some customers an impression they can order a cake with any design they request. Especially as no guidelines are provided there.

[Aquinas]

According to the latest ComRes poll, 60% of Britons believe the Equality Commission was "disproportionately heavy-handed" in threatening to prosecute the bakers, and 54% believe this incident reveals David Cameron was wrong when he assured Parliament that introducing gay marriage would not lead to unfair discrimination against those who believe it is wrong. Also, 54% believe "Christian-run businesses appear to be being singled out unfairly by gay activists" and 64% believe "The law should provide protection so that people are not forced to provide goods or services that violate their sincere, profoundly-held beliefs".

If the polling had been restricted to Northern Ireland, these figures would probably be even higher. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has really shot itself in the foot over this.

[UniSocAll]

According to the latest ComRes poll, 60% of Britons believe the Equality Commission was "disproportionately heavy-handed" in threatening to prosecute the bakers, and 54% believe this incident reveals David Cameron was wrong when he assured Parliament that introducing gay marriage would not lead to unfair discrimination against those who believe it is wrong. Also, 54% believe "Christian-run businesses appear to be being singled out unfairly by gay activists" and 64% believe "The law should provide protection so that people are not forced to provide goods or services that violate their sincere, profoundly-held beliefs".

If the polling had been restricted to Northern Ireland, these figures would probably be even higher. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has really shot itself in the foot over this.

Not sure whether that's a knock against the Equality Commission or the people of Great Britain, at least those who took that poll.

In this day and age I am not sure prosecuting them was the right thing to do. But I don't know the exact situation in Northern Ireland. If this person or couple is going to have to go to several bakeries to get such a cake - a cake that doesn't hurt or promote hurtful messages - then yes, prosecute the bakeries because there is a systematic problem.

However, if this is just one bakery out of the lot, then no need to prosecute. I would much rather make their life and businesses more difficult: single them out, campaign against them, shame them in the media for being homophobic, see who they work with and where they get their supplies and pressure them in renouncing their partnership with this bakery.

Someone mentioned earlier that had a gay baker refused to bake a homophobic cake, then that would be rightfully okay as well. And I agree with this statement in principal. However, the two cakes are not equal, as one promotes hatred and homophobia based on something that is a choice, while the other doesn't hurt anyone, and promotes equal treatment for something that is not a choice. But yes, depending on the context (whether it's a systematic problem or just the odd bakery out), a business-owner should be able to refuse service. If this impedes someone who doesn't promote hate, exclusion and inequality to get a product and service that they need, then there is a problem with the system, and the right to refuse shouldn't be held up and over the right to equal treatment. Especially seeing as people choose to believe and have a religion, but can't choose their sexual preferences, or race, or gender, etc.

On the first underlined part: I would disagree immensely with the 'unfairly' part. If you spread hateful message, refuse service and actively or passively support homophobia and deny equal rights, you deserved to be singled out, so much so that you should be out of business.

On the second underlined part: I feel this might do more harm than good. It'd be awful if certain groups of people can't live anymore in certain neighbourhoods due to them being refused vital goods and services. So it all depends on the context, as I'm not sure how religious Northern Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom are.