Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

Joe Bloggs isn't allowed a position on whether the existence of the Israeli state is acceptable?

O.

Joe Bloggs is, I was trying to find out if your argument wasbased on protected characteristics.  The question is whether the baker can refuse him because it has a position. As also asked of Trent - could the bakery refuse to to print Fuck as a message?

[Outrider]

They weren't refusing service because the customer was gay, they were refusing service because of the message they were being asked to put on the cake.

Which is the distinction the Supreme Court eventually relied upon, in the end.

I'd note the bigotry and I would not favour them with my custom anymore.

And if you're the majority that kind of market-force influence is effective; if you're not the majority, though, that leaves you at the mercy of those that are.  Morality by market forces is at best to rely on a fickle judge.

Note that, Im not black but if a black friend had asked me to order such a cake and it was refused because of the message, my reaction would be the same.

And mine wouldn't change, either - please note, I think someone who comes down on the side of free speech triumphing in this debate is an advocate of free speech, not a homophobe hiding behind that excuse.  I don't doubt there are homophobes out there who'd support the argument because in this instance it suits their purpose, and there are probably cancel-culture leftists who'd back my position because they think it's grounds to silence people they disagree with.  It's an argument of balance and nuance when you get people who actually appreciate that it's trying to balance rights against each other.

Yes they are.

If they were being stopped from having their say, we would never have heard about it, they'd never have been in all the papers they were...

O.

[Outrider]

You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent.

To what extent is it not?

You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own.

If that was what was happening, yes.

I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple.

Of course you can if a gay couple are being prohibited from service because they are gay (which is their nature, it's not something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen) then you can compare it fairly clearly with prohibiting a black couple from service because they are black (which is their nature, it's something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen).

If you were barring a Muslim because they're a Muslim then although it's equally protected under the law, it's not a directly comparable situation.

In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong.

There are people who believe that 'being' black makes you somehow lesser, less deserving.  I believe that being a Christian fundamentalist is idiocy of the first order, to a level that's verging on offensive in a first world country, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse service because someone's a Young Earth Creationist.

I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity.

And if a mixed race couple were to try to book a room and be turned away...?  There are people who believe that 'activity' is wrong, do they have grounds to refuse service?  And if so, is it any different to refusing a gay couple?

You might bar more than three children from a sweet shop at once, to prevent disruption, but you wouldn't bar children in general.

The children aren't banned, though, the situation in which they are permitted to do everything anyone else can do is moderated; and it's done so in order to achieve the specific, demonstrable, justifiable aim of reducing shoplifting.  Discrimination is permissible where it can be shown to be justified.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent. You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own. I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple. In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong. I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity.

But in refusing to allow a gay couple a room then you are treating them less favourably due to their sexual orientation. That the reason the B&B owner is doing this is because they don't like the 'activity' of gay sex is irrelevant - the relevant point is the discrimination.

And is also goes without saying that renting a B&B room to a gay couple doesn't mean they will have sex.

Bottom line - if you cannot run your business without discriminating then I think you are in the wrong business. There are plenty of professions where you will never be in a position of feeling conflicted in this manner. Better to choose one of those. In your private life you can think what you want, but in business you cannot discriminate in the provision of goods or services on the basis of a ranges of protected characteristics, one of which is sexual orientation.

[Roses]

You are comparing skin colour with sexual orientation, which is fine, to an extent. You can certainly compare barring one black person from your hotel with barring one gay person on his own. I'm not sure you can compare barring a gay couple from a double bedroom (provided they are offered single rooms) with barring a black straight couple. In that case you would be preventing a specific activity that you believe is wrong. I know the activity is legal, but I don't think one can compare skin colour with an activity. You might bar more than three children from a sweet shop at once, to prevent disruption, but you wouldn't bar children in general.

What is wrong with gay sex?

[SteveH]

What is wrong with gay sex?

LR → → → →

    The point.

[Nearly Sane]

LR → → → →

    The point.

Does Spud actually have a point?

[Spud]

Of course you can if a gay couple are being prohibited from service because they are gay

They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms

[Outrider]

They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms

They are not being offered the same service as other people in their situation, based upon their sexuality.  Equivalent but separate, similar but different, those were the hallmarks of segregation, Apartheid and Jim Crow era US law - is that really the equivalence you want to conjure up?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms

But if they were straight they'd be offered a double room. They are being treated less favourably on the basis of their sexual orientation - that is discrimination and quite rightly unlawful in the UK.

[Roses]

They are not being prohibited from service - if as I said, they are offered separate rooms

Which is discrimination and WRONG!

[Spud]

Of course you can if a gay couple are being prohibited from service because they are gay (which is their nature, it's not something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen) then you can compare it fairly clearly with prohibiting a black couple from service because they are black (which is their nature, it's something like a religion or a political affiliation which they've chosen).

O.

They would not be being prohibited due to their characteristic - as is evident from the fact that they would be accepted if they were only one person, or if they were two and used separate rooms - but because of their actions, which since you mention it, are a choice.

The miscegeny point is interesting - I will think about it.

Can I ask if you think that a vicar should be required to marry same sex couples or be allowed to decline to?

[Gordon]

They would not be being prohibited due to their characteristic - as is evident from the fact that they would be accepted if they were only one person, or if they were two and used separate rooms - but because of their actions, which since you mention it, are a choice.

You do realise, Spud, that neither bedrooms nor certain items of furniture are required for sexual activity to happen - not only that: said activity doesn't have to wait until 'bedtime'.

Can I ask if you think that a vicar should be required to marry same sex couples or be allowed to decline to?

These vicars, as I understand it, operate as registrars in order that the marriages they conduct are legal, since the religious bit in isolation is insufficient in legal terms. So I'd say that they should provide their legal services on an equitable basis to anyone who is qualified to marry, and if they can't then they should stop acting as registrars.

[Outrider]

They would not be being prohibited due to their characteristic - as is evident from the fact that they would be accepted if they were only one person, or if they were two and used separate rooms - but because of their actions, which since you mention it, are a choice.

They aren't being refused because of that characteristic? If one married man and his spouse can book a double room and another married man and his spouse can't, and the difference is that the second man is gay, then he's being refused because he's gay.  Whether or not either is going to conduct the sexy time when they get there isn't discussed (I'm presuming) so it can't be relevant - they are being treated differently - judged - because of their sexuality.

The miscegeny point is interesting - I will think about it.

Fair enough.

Can I ask if you think that a vicar should be required to marry same sex couples or be allowed to decline to?

I don't think they should be required to, but at the same time I don't see that churches should be permitted to conduct marriages with any legal standing at all until and unless all organisations are allowed to conduct them.

O.

[Aruntraveller]

Been out all afternoon and wanted to make this point earlier.

Regarding the case of B&B v. Cake Makers.

The cake makers refused to make a cake because it carried a political message that they considered promoted gay marriage which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy to bake a cake with a different message on it. (Like "Fuck off you poofs")

The B&B owners refused a room because they did not want to endorse a gay relationship which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy for them to stay in separate rooms, so it is clear that they objected to endorsing the relationship. Does it make a difference that their prejudice didn't involve icing on a cake?

Is there a difference between the two stances? I can't see it. And as I can't see it, all those of you that objected to Spud's support of the B&B owners have now got to amend your views.

Which means you are indeed supporting prejudice. The personal, is indeed, political.

[Nearly Sane]

Been out all afternoon and wanted to make this point earlier.

Regarding the case of B&B v. Cake Makers.

The cake makers refused to make a cake because it carried a political message that they considered promoted gay marriage which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy to bake a cake with a different message on it. (Like "Fuck off you poofs")

The B&B owners refused a room because they did not want to endorse a gay relationship which they felt was against their religious beliefs. They were happy for them to stay in separate rooms, so it is clear that they objected to endorsing the relationship. Does it make a difference that their prejudice didn't involve icing on a cake?

Is there a difference between the two stances? I can't see it. And as I can't see it, all those of you that objected to Spud's support of the B&B owners have now got to amend your views.

Which means you are indeed supporting prejudice. The personal, is indeed, political.

Can a baker refuse to write the message 'Fuck' on a cake?

[Aruntraveller]

Can a baker refuse to write the message 'Fuck' on a cake?

Yes.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes.

So they are allowed to refuse to write messages they don't agree with. What rules do you propose that will force them to write some messages they do not agree with?

[SteveH]

Turn it round: suppose a gay baker was asked to make a cake with the words "Homosexuality is sinful -Leviticus 18:22". Would s/he be justified in refusing the order? (I don't think it'd qualify as hate speech, so you can't get out of it that way.)

[Aruntraveller]

So they are allowed to refuse to write messages they don't agree with. What rules do you propose that will force them to write some messages they do not agree with?

Why do you want to force B&B owners to accept gay couples sharing a room when they don't want to? The B&B owners are expressing their free speech and acting on it, as are the cake makers who don't want to bake a cake with a message on it. What's the difference? The B&B owners probably think they are being forced to make a statement that they think it is acceptable to be in a gay partnership. Same objection that the cake makers had. I repeat, what's the difference?

As to rules, too complicated for me, but we could start by looking at the motivation rather than the action that follows.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you want to force B&B owners to accept gay couples sharing a room when they don't want to? The B&B owners are expressing their free speech and acting on it, as are the cake makers who don't want to bake a cake with a message on it. What's the difference? The B&B owners probably think they are being forced to make a statement that they think it is acceptable to be in a gay partnership. Same objection that the cake makers had. I repeat, what's the difference?

As to rules, too complicated for me, but we could start by looking at the motivation rather than the action that follows.

I want people to be treated as equally as possible and sensible (that sensible is about women's sports amongst others). The problem with motivation is that you need to define good and bad motivations, be able to prove them, and then justify that one person is allowed to act exactly opposite to another. It is always about rules.

[Nearly Sane]

Turn it round: suppose a gay baker was asked to make a cake with the words "Homosexuality is sinful -Leviticus 18:22". Would s/he be justified in refusing the order? (I don't think it'd qualify as hate speech, so you can't get out of it that way.)

The sexual orientation of the owner is irrelevant here. If people can refuse to put certain messages then it doesn't matter who or why.


BTW can you cover what specific exemptions you want to  give to 'religious' people to be able to discriminate against gay people and why?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why do you want to force B&B owners to accept gay couples sharing a room when they don't want to? The B&B owners are expressing their free speech and acting on it, as are the cake makers who don't want to bake a cake with a message on it. What's the difference? The B&B owners probably think they are being forced to make a statement that they think it is acceptable to be in a gay partnership. Same objection that the cake makers had. I repeat, what's the difference?

The B&B owners are clearly treating the gay couple less favourably than a straight couple in the provision of a service (in this case a double room). That is clear cut direct discrimination.

The case of the bakers is more complicated - they are objecting to the message and presumably would have objected if the person asking them to bake the cake was straight not gay, which could easily have been the case. Whether the person asking for the service (baking a cake with a message) is being treated less favourably due to their sexuality is less clear cut - probably indirect discrimination and the courts thought not even that.

The motivation of the B&B owners or bakers in discriminating is irrelevant - the law quite rightly focusses on the victim of the discrimination and whether discrimination has taken place rather than why the perpetrator decided to discriminate. If someone refuses to employ women (clear direct discrimination) it doesn't matter if it is because they think:

1. A woman's place is in the home
2. That women aren't as intelligent as men
3. That women aren't as hard working as men
4. That women aren't trustworthy and will spend all their time gossiping
5. A general hatred of women due to a bad relationship experience

The motivation isn't the issue and the discrimination is the same regardless of whether the motivation is 1 or 3 or 5 etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

So they are allowed to refuse to write messages they don't agree with. What rules do you propose that will force them to write some messages they do not agree with?

The distinction lies in whether their objection contravenes the equality act legislation. In the case of the latter it would be judged on whether it was deemed to be direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics.

So (in a situation more akin to the B&B owners) had the baker refused to make a wedding cake for Adam and Steve, but would make one for Adam and Eve, then I think that would be clear cut unlawful discrimination - treating one couple less favourably on the basis of their sexuality.

However, once outside of the realm of protected characteristics I think any business owner is able to refuse business if they choose (they might be stupid to do so as business owners, but I think it is their right). So a baker can refuse to make a cake with a message they deem offensive or bake a Arsenal cake if they are a hard-core Tottenham fan etc etc - but only if it doesn't infringe on equalities rights of protected characteristics.

[Spud]

And if a mixed race couple were to try to book a room and be turned away...?  There are people who believe that 'activity' is wrong, do they have grounds to refuse service?  And if so, is it any different to refusing a gay couple?

This, it turns out, is the big issue that influenced the courts to allow same sex marriage, in that opposition to it was likened to opposition to mixed race marriage.

But the argument is specious. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the family, anti-miscegenation is based on ideas of preserving racial purity and maintaining racial supremacy in a region. Its motivation is bad. Opposition to gay marriage is based on connecting a child to his/her biological parents. It fundamentally supports the offspring of a man and a woman, thus its motivation is good.

It's not the opponents of gay marriage who should be likened to the opponents of mixed race marriage, but those who support gay marriage, because they advocate sterility and prevention of the natural conception and rearing (by both biological parents) of children.