Return of the 'gay cake'

[Nearly Sane]

Why shouldn't any business be free to refuse anyone's custom without giving a reason? There'd have to be exceptions to that, but I think there's nothing wrong with it as a general principle.

Given you state there would have to be exceptions to that then you have already accepted Seb Toe's question that the exceptions have to exist and would benefit from discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

My contribution two years ago.

Quote from: Nearly Sane on October 25, 2016, 09:11:51 AM
Ashers lose appeal. I think this is problematic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37748681

FWIW I have a have a problem with this judgement as it would seem that the legislation in question is interfering with one of the fundamental conditions of contract, ie there must be consent. The complainants may well have had a case for breach of contract, but the disrcimination aspect seems to me to be OTT. I would not want to make a cake with a "pro choice" message on it (OK I concede that kind of thing is highly unlikely, but it's the unlikely events that make the consdieration of new legosaltion the timely process that it is.

The non discrimination laws cover that interference. Are you saying that you want people to be able to refuse to treat because someone is black?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The non discrimination laws cover that interference. Are you saying that you want people to be able to refuse to treat because someone is black?

No.

I am saying that there can be no contract under English Law without consent. If I do not consent to doing business with somebody, I should not be forced into the same by badly drawn up legislation intended to address a quite different issue.

[Nearly Sane]

No.

I am saying that there can be no contract under English Law without consent. If I do not consent to doing business with somebody, I should not be forced into the same by badly drawn up legislation intended to address a quite different issue.

Except if no legislation covers tgat, then you can exactly refuse to treat with someone who is black. So your principle supports that ability to refuse to treat with anyone for whatever reason. If you aren't supporting that, your position is contradictory.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Except if no legislation covers tgat, then you can exactly refuse to treat with someone who is black. So your principle supports that ability to refuse to treat with anyone for whatever reason. If you aren't supporting that, your position is contradictory.

No it is not. It is simply a matter of not being forced by a badly drafted law into a contract which I do not wish to enter. If I do not want to buy a copy of "The Big Issue" , then I do not wish to buy a copy of "The Big Issue", if the seller happens to be a Gypsy (and YES I know the difference between a Gypsy, and a Traveller), I am not guilty of discrimination. And if the seller happens to be gay, then I am not automatically guilty of discrimination, either.

The statute in question was well meaning, but badly drafted.

[Nearly Sane]

No it is not. It is simply a matter of not being forced by a badly drafted law into a contract which I do not wish to enter. If I do not want to buy a copy of "The Big Issue" , then I do not wish to buy a copy of "The Big Issue", if the seller happens to be a Gypsy (and YES I know the difference between a Gypsy, and a Traveller), I am not guilty of discrimination. And if the seller happens to be gay, then I am not automatically guilty of discrimination, either.

The statute in question was well meaning, but badly drafted.

Again this seems to have nothing to address the issue that if I want to buy a cake, and you want to refuse to treat with me because I'm black, then under your absolute priniciple then that is ok. You can argue that the legislation is badly drafted but since you don't support the idea that the offer to treat should be entirely dependent upon a simple principle of consent, your position is contradictory.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Perhaps I do not want to sell you a cake because you have walked into my shop wearing a puritan hat, a parachute on your back, and a T shirt bearing the logo "Who Farted?"

What matters is not whether I like the customer, but do I like the customers money? If the answer to the latter is "No", then I should not be forced to take your money.

"Thought Crime" is not yet enshrined in law (well not here anyway).

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps I do not want to sell you a cake because you have walked into my shop wearing a puritan hat, a parachute on your back, and a T shirt bearing the logo "Who Farted?"

What matters is not whether I like the customer, but do I like the customers money? If the answer to the latter is "No", then I should not be forced to take your money.

"Thought Crime" is not yet enshrined in law (well not here anyway).

Then that means that if you do not want to treat with me because I am black, you support that right.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I am kind of wondering what would happen if I, a Muslim woman, refused to do business with a Muslim woman in hijab, while agreeing to do business with a Sikh man in a turban. But my reason for refusing business was not because the person was a Muslim or a woman or wearing hijab. For example, if I know the Muslim woman is a hard negotiator or constantly asks for add-ons without offering to pay and I can't be bothered with the hassle, and I know the Sikh man just pays the quoted fee.   

Can a gay hotelier get away with refusing a room to a homosexual couple just because he finds them loud and obnoxious and then give a room to someone else who was quiet who happened to be heterosexual?

[Nearly Sane]

I am kind of wondering what would happen if I, a Muslim woman, refused to do business with a Muslim woman in hijab, while agreeing to do business with a Sikh man in a turban. But my reason for refusing business was not because the person was a Muslim or a woman or wearing hijab. For example, if I know the Muslim woman is a hard negotiator or constantly asks for add-ons without offering to pay and I can't be bothered with the hassle, and I know the Sikh man just pays the quoted fee.   

Can a gay hotelier get away with refusing a room to a homosexual couple just because he finds them loud and obnoxious and then give a room to someone else who was quiet who happened to be heterosexual?

Yes. Because as yet being loud and obnoxious isn't a protected characteristic - BUT IT FUCKING SHOULD BE!

And that would apply no matter the sexual preference of the hotelier.

In most cases showing discrimination is difficult, if not close to impossible, In cases where people openly state why they refuse business though it becomes easier, or where a pattern of behaviour can be demonstrated. I think, to an extent, this is what Humph is talking about in terms of bad drafting, it's impossible to stop discrimination totally but I'm not sure that means we shouldn't try.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Then that means that if you do not want to treat with me because I am black, you support that right.

As I have written here before, on one occasion I did not serve a customer because he wore a prominent "Sinn Fein/IRA" tattoo on his arm. Would you have had me forced to serve him?

[Nearly Sane]

As I have written here before, on one occasion I did not serve a customer because he wore a prominent "Sinn Fein/IRA" tattoo on his arm. Would you have had me forced to serve him?

Me? No. and neither would the law. It's not a protected characteristic. The point remains though that your position that there is an absolute decision to treat allows people to refuse to treat with black people (amongst others).

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Me? No. and neither would the law. It's not a protected characteristic. The point remains though that your position that there is an absolute decision to treat allows people to refuse to treat with black people (amongst others).

And my point remains that it was a badly drafted statute.

[Nearly Sane]

And my point remains that it was a badly drafted statute.

That's nice but doesn't address that you either want to restrict the consent to treating in some way, or you don't. Your previous post seemed to make clear that you didn't want to restrict it in which case you support the refusal to treat with someone because they are black. Now if you are saying that the is the drafting of the legislation that is the problem, you are back at contradicting yourself.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

That's nice but doesn't address that you either want to restrict the consent to treating in some way, or you don't. Your previous post seemed to make clear that you didn't want to restrict it in which case you support the refusal to treat with someone because they are black. Now if you are saying that the is the drafting of the legislation that is the problem, you are back at contradicting yourself.

The simple point is that I should not be forced to enter into a contract with somebody, if I do not want to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

The simple point is that I should not be forced to enter into a contract with somebody, if I do not want to do so.

In which case you do support the right of refusing someone because they are black.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

In which case you do support the right of refusing someone because they are black.

I can think what I like.

My kids, thanks to Ukip, are now "mixed race".

What I think of Ukip stays inside my head.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes. Because as yet being loud and obnoxious isn't a protected characteristic - BUT IT FUCKING SHOULD BE!

Nice 

And that would apply no matter the sexual preference of the hotelier.

In most cases showing discrimination is difficult, if not close to impossible, In cases where people openly state why they refuse business though it becomes easier, or where a pattern of behaviour can be demonstrated. I think, to an extent, this is what Humph is talking about in terms of bad drafting, it's impossible to stop discrimination totally but I'm not sure that means we shouldn't try.

I don't have any stats but hope the case would not go against the hotelier if he was straight. Or against me if I am a non-Muslim refusing service to a Muslim woman in hijab. I hope the courts do not uphold unjustified assumptions as that would be discrimination. I get the feeling that this is the perception some people have of the courts - that they are discriminatory e.g. men get harsher sentences than women for similar acts of violence. It's hard to compare as no two cases are the same but that perception of unfairness causes an erosion of trust.   

[Nearly Sane]

I can think what I like.

My kids, thanks to Ukip, are now "mixed race".

What I think of Ukip stays inside my head.

Yes,of course you can think what you like. Doesn't stop that your position on contracts allows someone to refuse to treat with someone because they are black.

[Nearly Sane]

Nice 
I don't have any stats but hope the case would not go against the hotelier if he was straight. Or against me if I am a non-Muslim refusing service to a Muslim woman in hijab. I hope the courts do not uphold unjustified assumptions as that would be discrimination. I get the feeling that this is the perception some people have of the courts - that they are discriminatory e.g. men get harsher sentences than women for similar acts of violence. It's hard to compare as no two cases are the same but that perception of unfairness causes an erosion of trust.

You seem to be mixing up whether courts uphold unjustified perceptions, which you admit you have no evidence for, and some vague talk about people's perceptions. In addition  what the sentences are for violence seems irrelevant to the question  of discrimination in cases such as the gay cake by suppliers.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seem to be mixing up whether courts uphold unjustified perceptions, which you admit you have no evidence for, and some vague talk about people's perceptions. In addition  what the sentences are for violence seems irrelevant to the question  of discrimination in cases such as the gay cake by suppliers.

Yes because I decided to broaden out the discussion - if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post. I don't have evidence, but by mentioning the issue I am opening up the possibility that someone else on this forum knows and more importantly has the time to find some stats on it, if they exist.

Even if the courts do not uphold the unjustified perceptions, if the CPS decide to prosecute someone for a hate crime based on unjustified perceptions or because they have targets to meet, it unfairly penalises a defendant who will have expensive legal fees to pay. The common theme is badly drafted legislation and a judicial system or CPS with an agenda that might lead to having to defend yourself against unjustified accusations of discrimination.

The Equality Act reverses the burden of proof in all cases except those which relate to a criminal offence. Sections 136 (2) and (3) provides that if there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention ocurred unless A can show otherwise.

Where the allegation concerns a criminal offence the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) applies.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/equality-act-2010/

[Nearly Sane]

Yes because I decided to broaden out the discussion - if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post. I don't have evidence, but by mentioning the issue I am opening up the possibility that someone else on this forum knows and more importantly has the time to find some stats on it, if they exist.

Even if the courts do not uphold the unjustified perceptions, if the CPS decide to prosecute someone for a hate crime based on unjustified perceptions or because they have targets to meet, it unfairly penalises a defendant who will have expensive legal fees to pay. The common theme is badly drafted legislation and a judicial system or CPS with an agenda that might lead to having to defend yourself against unjustified accusations of discrimination.

The Equality Act reverses the burden of proof in all cases except those which relate to a criminal offence. Sections 136 (2) and (3) provides that if there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention ocurred unless A can show otherwise.

Where the allegation concerns a criminal offence the criminal burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) applies.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/equality-act-2010/

Widening the discussion is ok. Widening it irrelevantly and then providing no justification for it, uninteresting.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Widening the discussion is ok. Widening it irrelevantly and then providing no justification for it, uninteresting.

As I said "if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post."

Replying to a post is ok. Replying to a post you find uninteresting to state you find it uninteresting - foolish.

[Nearly Sane]

As I said "if no one else is interested in broadening out the discussion they are free to not engage with my post."

Replying to a post is ok. Replying to a post you find uninteresting to state you find it uninteresting - foolish.

Assumes your 'broadening ' is relevant. Lego, eh!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Assumes your 'broadening ' is relevant. Lego, eh!

Yes I do think what I wrote is relevant to the discussion. It's fine if you don't.

If you want to keep replying to any of my posts to say that you think my post is irrelevant... if it helps you pass the time go ahead.