Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 5:03 AM
257 online now:
Pressie, Tangle (2 members, 255 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,039 Year: 16,862/29,783 Month: 850/1,956 Week: 353/331 Day: 12/69 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8687
88
899091Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1306 of 1358 (838538)
08-23-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Aussie
08-23-2018 12:51 PM


Re: For the record: Canaanites sacrificial system was largely adopted by Israelites.
I don't post opinions about things I've said I don't know.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Aussie, posted 08-23-2018 12:51 PM Aussie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by ringo, posted 08-23-2018 1:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


(2)
Message 1307 of 1358 (838547)
08-23-2018 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1306 by Faith
08-23-2018 1:11 PM


Re: For the record: Canaanites sacrificial system was largely adopted by Israelites.
Faith writes:

I don't post opinions about things I've said I don't know.


The problem is that you don't know how much you don't know.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by Faith, posted 08-23-2018 1:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6240
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1308 of 1358 (841270)
10-10-2018 4:30 PM


The UK's very own gay cake case was resolved in the supreme court today in favour of the bakers.

On balance I think I agree; it wasn't discrimination against an individual, it was about a message on a cake which is about free speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1309 by Faith, posted 10-10-2018 8:00 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1309 of 1358 (841277)
10-10-2018 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by Tangle
10-10-2018 4:30 PM


Too bad we can't get our gay cake/flowers/photos cases settled by the UK supreme court, cuz ours don't discriminate against the man either, just the message symbolized by the cake.

Is there some way to get your court's opinion on our cases? Could someone write to them and ask?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by Tangle, posted 10-10-2018 4:30 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1310 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 3:13 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6240
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1310 of 1358 (841288)
10-11-2018 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1309 by Faith
10-10-2018 8:00 PM


There's pdf here:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html

The press summary is probably easiest

quote:
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
The sexual orientation claim

The district judge found that the appellants did not refuse to fulfil Mr Lee’s order because of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. The objection was to the message on the cake, not any personal characteristics of the messenger [22], or anyone with whom he was associated [33-34]. The message was not indissociable from the sexual orientation of the customer, as support for gay marriage was not a proxy for any particular sexual orientation [25]. The benefit of the message accrues not only to gay or bisexual people, but to their families and friends and to the wider community who recognise the social benefits which such commitment can bring [33]. Thus, there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in this case.
The political beliefs claim

Protection against direct discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion has constitutional status in Northern Ireland [37]. The discrimination has to be on the ground of the religion or belief of someone other than the alleged discriminator [43-45]. As the appellants’ objection was not to Mr Lee, but to being required to promote the message on the cake, the situation was not comparable with people being refused jobs or services simply because of their religious faith, but it was arguable that the message was indissociable from Mr Lee’s political opinion. It was therefore necessary to consider the impact of the McArthurs’ ECHR rights on the meaning and effect of FETO [48].
Impact of ECHR rights

The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown, and it had not been in this case [56, 62].
Jurisdiction

The appellants were entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to FETO notwithstanding their election to appeal to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated. Although such appeals are usually final under article 61(6) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (‘article 61(6)’), there is an exception in section 42(6) Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 in respect of decisions involving any question as to the validity of measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly. FETO was equivalent to such a measure and the appellants did challenge its validity if it failed to protect their rights. It was not necessary to decide whether this also permitted the SORs appeal, given the overlap in the circumstances, because of the Supreme Court’s conclusions on the Attorney General’s references [63- 71].

The Court of Appeal had been wrong to reject the reference requested by the Attorney General under paragraph 33 on the ground the proceedings were concluded. In principle, appeals are against orders not judgments and, in this context, it is natural to regard the proceedings as live until a final order is issued. This error had deprived the appellants of the inevitably different judgment on the question of whether the SORs imposed civil liability on them for their refusal to express a political opinion contrary to their religious beliefs, which would have eventually followed. An appeal to the Supreme Court following such a procedural error was not precluded by article 61(6), which was focused on the point of law not on a challenge to the fairness or regularity of the Court of Appeal’s process. Even though the error was collateral to the litigation between the appellants and Mr Lee, it would be overly technical to deny the appellants the benefit of the proper handling of the reference. An appeal therefore lay to the Supreme Court against all aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, including its decision in respect of the alleged discrimination under the SORs as well as under FETO [76-90].


Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1309 by Faith, posted 10-10-2018 8:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1311 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 8:48 AM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1311 of 1358 (841291)
10-11-2018 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1310 by Tangle
10-11-2018 3:13 AM


There are parts of this judgment that I found too confusing, possibly irrelevant to the main point although I'm not sure. In any case just to identify the parts that I think most important I went through it and crossed out the other parts, and then moved the ones that make the most sense to me to the bottom.

quote:
The district judge found that the appellants did not refuse to fulfil Mr Lee’s order because of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. The objection was to the message on the cake, not any personal characteristics of the messenger [22], or anyone with whom he was associated [33-34].

The message was not indissociable from the sexual orientation of the customer, as support for gay marriage was not a proxy for any particular sexual orientation [25]. The benefit of the message accrues not only to gay or bisexual people, but to their families and friends and to the wider community who recognise the social benefits which such commitment can bring [33]. Thus, there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in this case.

The political beliefs claim
Protection against direct discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion has constitutional status in Northern Ireland [37].

The discrimination has to be on the ground of the religion or belief of someone other than the alleged discriminator [43-45].

As the appellants’ objection was not to Mr Lee, but to being required to promote the message on the cake, the situation was not comparable with people being refused jobs or services simply because of their religious faith,

but it was arguable that the message was indissociable from Mr Lee’s political opinion. It was therefore necessary to consider the impact of the McArthurs’ ECHR rights on the meaning and effect of FETO [48].
Impact of ECHR rights

The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown, and it had not been in this case [56, 62].

Jurisdiction
The appellants were entitled to appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to FETO notwithstanding their election to appeal to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated. Although such appeals are usually final under article 61(6) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (‘article 61(6)’), there is an exception in section 42(6) Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 in respect of decisions involving any question as to the validity of measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly. FETO was equivalent to such a measure and the appellants did challenge its validity if it failed to protect their rights. It was not necessary to decide whether this also permitted the SORs appeal, given the overlap in the circumstances, because of the Supreme Court’s conclusions on the Attorney General’s references [63- 71].

The Court of Appeal had been wrong to reject the reference requested by the Attorney General under paragraph 33 on the ground the proceedings were concluded. In principle, appeals are against orders not judgments and, in this context, it is natural to regard the proceedings as live until a final order is issued. This error had deprived the appellants of the inevitably different judgment on the question of whether the SORs imposed civil liability on them for their refusal to express a political opinion contrary to their religious beliefs, which would have eventually followed. An appeal to the Supreme Court following such a procedural error was not precluded by article 61(6), which was focused on the point of law not on a challenge to the fairness or regularity of the Court of Appeal’s process. Even though the error was collateral to the litigation between the appellants and Mr Lee, it would be overly technical to deny the appellants the benefit of the proper handling of the reference. An appeal therefore lay to the Supreme Court against all aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, including its decision in respect of the alleged discrimination under the SORs as well as under FETO [76-90].


=======================================
The parts that seem most relevant separated out:

quote:
The district judge found that the appellants did not refuse to fulfil Mr Lee’s order because of his actual or perceived sexual orientation. The objection was to the message on the cake, not any personal characteristics of the messenger [22], or anyone with whom he was associated [33-34]…

The political beliefs claim
Protection against direct discrimination on grounds of religious belief or political opinion has constitutional status in Northern Ireland [37]…

As the appellants’ objection was not to Mr Lee, but to being required to promote the message on the cake, the situation was not comparable with people being refused jobs or services simply because of their religious faith, …

The rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9) and to freedom of expression (article 10) were clearly engaged by this case [49]. They include the right not to be obliged to manifest beliefs one does not hold [52]. The McArthurs could not refuse to provide their products to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed [55]. FETO should not be read or given effect in such a way as to compel them to do so unless justification was shown, and it had not been in this case [56, 62].


On the basis of these comments I'd like to hire these judges to sit on our cases.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 3:13 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 10:04 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1313 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 11:23 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6240
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1312 of 1358 (841312)
10-11-2018 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Faith
10-11-2018 8:48 AM


Faith writes:

On the basis of these comments I'd like to hire these judges to sit on our cases.

It feels like a sensible judgement to me, though some seem to think they found a loophole that allowed a good fudge.

It may yet go to the Court of Human Rights in Europe so probably best to hold back cheering for a bit.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 8:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1515
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1313 of 1358 (841315)
10-11-2018 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Faith
10-11-2018 8:48 AM


On the basis of these comments I'd like to hire these judges to sit on our cases.

I think you may be misinterpreting the judgement a little. When the judges refer to being required to promote the message, they're not discussing any message implied from the fact that the cake would be used at a gay wedding - I'm not sure if the cake was actually even intended for a wedding in this case. They're referring to the literal message they were requested to write on the cake. They had been asked to bake a cake which said 'Support Gay Marriage' on top. This is a different thing to baking a cake which would be used at a gay wedding.

I suspect the UK Supreme Court would have ruled that refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple was discriminatory. In a different case they ruled that it was discriminatory for a hotel to refuse to rent a room with a double bed to a gay couple. Given that the Colorado bakery won its case in the Supreme Court, you should probably be happier with the judges you have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 8:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1314 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 11:47 AM caffeine has responded
 Message 1316 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 1:41 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 1323 by Chiroptera, posted 10-11-2018 7:51 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6240
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1314 of 1358 (841317)
10-11-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1313 by caffeine
10-11-2018 11:23 AM


To summarise.

Refusing to sell a cake to a gay person because s/he is gay would be discrimination

Refusing to put a (any?) message on a cake that you object to is not discrimination.

I think also that refusing to sell a cake to anybody because it would be used at a gay wedding would be discrimination?

The reason being that discrimination must be against people, not ideas.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 11:23 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1315 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 1:18 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1515
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1315 of 1358 (841329)
10-11-2018 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1314 by Tangle
10-11-2018 11:47 AM


I think also that refusing to sell a cake to anybody because it would be used at a gay wedding would be discrimination?

This has never been tested at law, but I think you're right. The Equality Act is quite specific on the exceptions. It mentions "for the avoidance of doubt" that the act cannot be used to force a religious establishment to host a gay wedding; and section 23 goes into a detailed host of exceptions allowing churches and other organisations set up for religious purposes to refuse access or services to gay people and avoid any involvement in gay weddings, but crucially states

quote:
This paragraph does not apply to an organisation whose sole or main purpose is commercial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1314 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 11:47 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1317 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 1:44 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1316 of 1358 (841331)
10-11-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1313 by caffeine
10-11-2018 11:23 AM


No I'm not missing that. I'm assuming the judges would recognize that a wedding cake is a very special creation made specifically for a wedding and a particular wedding at that, designed especially for the customers. All by itself it carries the message "wedding" without any writing on it at all. It isn't just "a cake," which they could purchase off the shelf.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 11:23 AM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1317 of 1358 (841332)
10-11-2018 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1315 by caffeine
10-11-2018 1:18 PM


The way I read that judgment it seemed to me that a person who objects to gay marriage is not obligated to do ANYTHING that would imply participation or support of a gay marriage, in a commercial capacity or otherwise. However, if they make exceptions that a religious person can't accept, the religious person will not accept them and take the consequences, basically a form of Inquisition by the State against a citizen.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1315 by caffeine, posted 10-11-2018 1:18 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2018 1:58 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1318 of 1358 (841333)
10-11-2018 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1317 by Faith
10-11-2018 1:44 PM


I think that your reading is very questionable.

For instance you regard this part as unimportant, but it suggests that a gay couple asking for a wedding cake would be on much stronger ground.


The message was not indissociable from the sexual orientation of the customer, as support for gay marriage was not a proxy for any particular sexual orientation [25]. The benefit of the message accrues not only to gay or bisexual people, but to their families and friends and to the wider community who recognise the social benefits which such commitment can bring [33]. Thus, there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1317 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 1:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1319 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 2:04 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30033
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1319 of 1358 (841335)
10-11-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1318 by PaulK
10-11-2018 1:58 PM


I put it aside as incomprehensible, which is how I still see it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1318 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2018 1:58 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by PaulK, posted 10-11-2018 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1321 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2018 2:12 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14489
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1320 of 1358 (841336)
10-11-2018 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1319 by Faith
10-11-2018 2:04 PM


If you can’t understand the ruling, then speculating about how ithe judges would rule in different cases is less than entirely sensible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1319 by Faith, posted 10-11-2018 2:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8687
88
899091Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018