Closing Nigel Farage’s bank account

[ProfessorDavey]

If political views were protected characteristics, he would be within his rights to complain (not to Coutt's because he also didn't meet their financial requirements).

Political beliefs are protected characteristics under the Equality Act provided they meet the threshold that is meant to apply to all beliefs on equality grounds (albeit religious beliefs tend to be nodded through without much consideration).

[jeremyp]

I'm not really sure they are fundamentally different in principle. In effect both involved a person being refused a service because of their political opinions.

No. The Asher's case is explicitly not that. They refused to bake the cake because it had a message on it supporting gay marriage.

I think it is pretty clear that someone asking for a cake supporting gay marriage is doing so because they ... err ... support gay marriage.

Not necessarily. Somebody who was against gay marriage might order the cake for their gay friends because they put their friendship above their political views.

And I don't think Ashers had a policy of refusing to bake any cake with a message that is a political belief - so the reason they refused in this case was because they disagreed with the political belief of the person asking for the service.

They disagreed with the political belief they were being asked to put on the cake, not because of the beliefs of the person making the order.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not really talking about the case per se (which was about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) but on the general principle - but there does seem to be double standards. Perhaps in the Ashers cake case they should have made a case on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief rather than on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Nope, wouldn't have worked either. Given you jave decided to ignore the law, the principle is still different as one involves enforced speech.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. The Asher's case is explicitly not that. They refused to bake the cake because it had a message on it supporting gay marriage.

Asked for by a person who supported gay marriage.

Presumably they have been perfectly happy to make a cake for someone who opposed gay marriage - for example with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman'.

It isn't the cake they were discriminating against, but the person on the basis of that person's political belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope, wouldn't have worked either. Given you jave decided to ignore the law, the principle is still different as one involves enforced speech.

Given that it hasn't been challenged in the courts, I don't think you can be sure a case of that nature wouldn't have worked.

It seems to me that in both the Farage case and the cake case that the people in question were refused a service because the organisation in question didn't like their political views, when they'd have been happy to offer a similar service to someone else holding a different view.

[Nearly Sane]

Asked for by a person who supported gay marriage.

Presumably they have been perfectly happy to make a cake for someone who opposed gay marriage - for example with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman'.

It isn't the cake they were discriminating against, but the person on the basis of that person's political belief.

A baker could, of course, refuse to make  cake with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman' if they disagreed with it. The principle here is about endorsing political views.

[ProfessorDavey]

They disagreed with the political belief they were being asked to put on the cake, not because of the beliefs of the person making the order.

I don't think you can decouple the two things so easily.

And in the Farage case we have been told (probably correctly) that the job of a company when offering a service isn't to make judgements about political opinions.

[jeremyp]

Political beliefs are protected characteristics under the Equality Act provided they meet the threshold that is meant to apply to all beliefs on equality grounds (albeit religious beliefs tend to be nodded through without much consideration).

OK I stand corrected.

Looking at the criteria, Farage's beliefs about Brexit would probably be protected but I'm fine with that: I don't think Farage should be refused a bank account on the grounds of his politics.

[Nearly Sane]

Given that it hasn't been challenged in the courts, I don't think you can be sure a case of that nature wouldn't have worked.

It seems to me that in both the Farage case and the cake case that the people in question were refused a service because the organisation in question didn't like their political views, when they'd have been happy to offer a similar service to someone else holding a different view.

That's because you seem ignorant the question of  competing rights.

[jeremyp]

Asked for by a person who supported gay marriage.

Which is irrelevant to their refusal.

Presumably they have been perfectly happy to make a cake for someone who opposed gay marriage - for example with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman'.

Which is irrelevant to their refusal.

It isn't the cake they were discriminating against, but the person on the basis of that person's political belief.

They weren't discriminating against anybody: they wouldn't have baked that cake for anybody no matter their personal opinions about gay marriage or anything else. They were exercising freedom of speech.

[ProfessorDavey]

A baker could, of course, refuse to make  cake with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman' if they disagreed with it. The principle here is about endorsing political views.

A company baking a cake for someone as a commercial transition isn't about endorsing views. I doubt they think Aunty Mabel is the best Aunty in the world and they certainly aren't endorsing that view if they make a cake with that on for her nephew.

[jeremyp]

A company baking a cake for someone as a commercial transition isn't about endorsing views. I doubt they think Aunty Mabel is the best Aunty in the world and they certainly aren't endorsing that view if they make a cake with that on for her nephew.

If they knew Aunty Mabel and they knew she was a cantankerous old cow, they'd be perfectly within their rights not to bake the cake.

[ProfessorDavey]

If they knew Aunty Mabel and they knew she was a cantankerous old cow, they'd be perfectly within their rights not to bake the cake.

The point was about whether they are endorsing the message on the cake when they make it - they clearly aren't. They are a commercial organisation providing a service.

[jeremyp]

The point was about whether they are endorsing the message on the cake when they make it - they clearly aren't.

That's your opinion. It's not the opinion of Asher's bakers.

They are a commercial organisation providing a service.

So? That doesn't abrogate the right of free speech within the law.

[Nearly Sane]

A company baking a cake for someone as a commercial transition isn't about endorsing views. I doubt they think Aunty Mabel is the best Aunty in the world and they certainly aren't endorsing that view if they make a cake with that on for her nephew.

Which is not a political message so false equivalence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is not a political message so false equivalence.

True - but not helpful to the argument on the basis that the political beliefs of an individual are protected under Equality legislation, but I doubt a hyperbolic opinion about Aunty Mabel would probably not reach the threshold for protection as a belief.

[Nearly Sane]

True - but not helpful to the argument on the basis that the political beliefs of an individual are protected under Equality legislation, but I doubt a hyperbolic opinion about Aunty Mabel would probably not reach the threshold for protection as a belief.

You are confused. The point is about Asher's right to their political beliefs.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's your opinion. It's not the opinion of Asher's bakers.

The claim was against the company, not against individuals. Do companies hold political opinions? Should they? I don't expect a Bakery to be in the business to preferring political opinions. That seems to be the view in the Farage case - that the bank should be in the business of offering banking serviced, not involved in policing political opinions of potential customers.

So? That doesn't abrogate the right of free speech within the law.

Does a company benefit from the right to free speech in the manner that an individual does?

[Nearly Sane]

The claim was against the company, not against individuals. Do companies hold political opinions? Should they? I don't expect a Bakery to be in the business to preferring political opinions. That seems to be the view in the Farage case - that the bank should be in the business of offering banking serviced, not involved in policing political opinions of potential customers.
Does a company benefit from the right to free speech in the manner that an individual does?

So you think employees should just obey orders. Bit dictatorial of you.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are confused. The point is about Asher's right to their political beliefs.

Does a company have the right to political beliefs NS? Does that trump the rights of individuals not to suffer discrimination. If they do we are in big trouble - and again comparing with Farage - the whole point seems to be that the company (in this case the bank) should not refuse a service to a person even if the company (or individuals in that company) held different political opinions.

You and Jeremy seem rather confused about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and organisations (such as companies).

[ProfessorDavey]

So you think employees should just obey orders. Bit dictatorial of you.

Did Ashers ask all their employees to check whether all felt so strongly about the message that they couldn't, in conscience, make the cake. I don't think so. And if they ended up with a situation where they were only employing people with a particular belief, then I think there is another equality issue going on there.

[Nearly Sane]

Does a company have the right to political beliefs NS? Does that trump the rights of individuals not to suffer discrimination. If they do we are in big trouble - and again comparing with Farage - the whole point seems to be that the company (in this case the bank) should not refuse a service to a person even if the company (or individuals in that company) held different political opinions.

You and Jeremy seem rather confused about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and organisations (such as companies).

Given that Jeremy and I are backed up by the legal case, it would appear that you are the one who is confused. Companies have the legal fiction of being persons for the sake of making law feasible, and in doing so to protect individuals. Why do you want to tell individuals to produce politocal statements they don't believe?

[ProfessorDavey]

Given that Jeremy and I are backed up by the legal case, it would appear that you are the one who is confused.

Which legal case - as far as I'm aware Ashers were never taken to court on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief. I am speculating about what might have happened if they were and comparing to the current Farage situation, which is also about discrimination on the basis of political belief, but there has been no legal case (yet) in the Farage situation.

[jeremyp]

The claim was against the company, not against individuals.

The proprietor of the company is an individual and he didn't want his company associated with the message.

Do companies hold political opinions? Should they? I don't expect a Bakery to be in the business to preferring political opinions. That seems to be the view in the Farage case - that the bank should be in the business of offering banking serviced, not involved in policing political opinions of potential customers.

I do not find this controversial.

Does a company benefit from the right to free speech in the manner that an individual does?

Well Asher's Bakers did and they ultimately won their legal case.

[Nearly Sane]

Which legal case - as far as I'm aware Ashers were never taken to court on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief. I am speculating about what might have happened if they were and comparing to the current Farage situation, which is also about discrimination on the basis of political belief, but there has been no legal case (yet) in the Farage situation.

So your claiming that Jeremy and I are confused because we don't agred with your decision of what would happen in a case that didn't occur. Ok....