The problem with this ruling is that it would appear to open the door to forcing a Jewish baker to a discrimination charge if he refuses to make a cake bearing a swastika logo (to pick a rather extreme example). In reality of course the court would almost certainly have ruled differently if the plaintiff were a neo-nazi, but this in itself calls the supposed neutrality of the court into question.

I do think there's a difference between providing services which do not imply any kind of advocacy and providing services which clearly do. Should a gay owner of an advertising agency be obliged by law to act on behalf of a campaign against gay marriage ? It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that he should, but this is the implication of the court's verdict.

I suspect it will be overturned on appeal.

Sassenach wrote:The thing is, there's potentially a very interesting conversation to be had here about the extent to which freedom of conscience can legitimately be infringed in order to ensure equal treatment and whether anti-discrimination laws have gone too far or are being interpreted by the courts in ways which push the balance too far in one direction. If we want to have that conversation in a grown-up fashion then I daresay we'd arrive at a lot of common ground and find it to be worthwhile.

It is a tough area. Freedom of thought and belief is different from freedom of action or expression. We have a different culture to that of the USA in that we don't have the same level of history of a Bill of Rights. Our nearest equivalent, the European Convention on Human Rights, is different in several ways. As we have discussed elsewhere, there are some ECHR rights that are absolute, some are limited and some are qualified, whereas the Bill of Rights is interpreted usually to mean rights are towards the absolute end.

But the biggest tests of rights are when people perceive that their rights to do X conflict with another's right to do Y. Especially when it is seen as the same sort of "right".

There are all kinds of examples and hypotheticals we could discuss. One set is whether we should apply the same religious conscience/opinion exemptions to all religions. As Christianity is the majority religion in our countries, we kind of take it for granted. Even so there are a lot of variations in what people who call themselves Christians believe. Some accept or at least tolerate gay marriage, others reject it totally. 200 years ago, some Christians accepted or tolerated slavery, and others rejected it totally - and back then both could point to aspects of scripture to justify their beliefs. I'm not up on the arguments in favour of, or just not opposing, gay marriage from Christianity, but I am sure they can be found and scripture is quoted. Not that it really matters which sects of Christianity are "right", because all sides are of course expressing their own beliefs.

But beyond Christianity and the various sects and interpretations there are various other religions with all kinds of beliefs that some or all of the adherents may hold. There are plenty of examples provided of nasty things that some/all Muslims believe - referencing writings from the Koran or Hadiths as well as the expressions of extremists, clerics or lay.

Should we be as tolerant of a sincere expression by a Muslim shopkeeper of the following:

"(9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. "

Similarly, there are a load of political opinions out there, and as much as it's not considered right for the government to suppress expression of them (unless of course you were a Communist in the 1950s USA or a Nazi in parts of Europe to this day), do we have to tolerate them all? And do we have to tolerate them if they are presented to us when we are just trying to do our shopping? And do some of those interfere with our rights to express our own?

The curse of Redscape is that nuance is never permitted.

Can't help ourselves, sometimes, can we? I know I bite a bit, but frankly the opening post was a red rag and set the tone.

Sassenach wrote:The problem with this ruling is that it would appear to open the door to forcing a Jewish baker to a discrimination charge if he refuses to make a cake bearing a swastika logo (to pick a rather extreme example). In reality of course the court would almost certainly have ruled differently if the plaintiff were a neo-nazi, but this in itself calls the supposed neutrality of the court into question.

Perhaps. I tend to agree that it would have been a different outcome in your hypothetical - but then there would have been the question of whether the plaintiff was themselves acting in a discriminatory way. I'm not sure that asking for a cake promoting a change in the law is quite the same thing.

I do think there's a difference between providing services which do not imply any kind of advocacy and providing services which clearly do. Should a gay owner of an advertising agency be obliged by law to act on behalf of a campaign against gay marriage ? It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that he should, but this is the implication of the court's verdict.

I suspect it will be overturned on appeal.

I think it's likely that an appeal will be raised. I also think there is a chance it will be overturned. Whether it is, or whether it goes higher still to the Supreme Court I guess depends on how much money is raised/allocated to fight the case.

Sassenach wrote:Ok, so it would seem you have no interest in a meaningful discussion on this. Fine, enjoy your echo chamber.

Oh, but I do. I have always been wanting to understand why people have different standards depending on the side of the issue.

I meant no slight to you, Sass.

bbauska wrote:Oh, but I do. I have always been wanting to understand why people have different standards depending on the side of the issue.

This of course already presumes that they do have different standards based on the side, or the "double standards" you are fond of alleging.

They may well instead be applying standards just as objectively as you do, but based on having a different criteria set or values.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Oh, but I do. I have always been wanting to understand why people have different standards depending on the side of the issue.

This of course already presumes that they do have different standards based on the side, or the "double standards" you are fond of alleging.

They may well instead be applying standards just as objectively as you do, but based on having a different criteria set or values.

I agree that their criteria may be different. My question is concerning the jewelry purchasing couple. Do they appear to expect the jeweler to accept their view? Do they appear to accept the jeweler's view?

Using whatever standard the couple has, are they equally applying it between them and the jeweler?

They're understandably upset that the rings they bought to symbolise their marriage to each other will now forever be tainted in their eyes by the knowledge that the man who made them does not support their right to marry in the first place, serving as a constant reminder right there on their finger of the way that many in society do not accept them. It's a reaction that anybody with a little empathy ought to be able to comprehend, even if like me they don't think that it's sufficient justification to merit them getting a refund.

It is too bad that they feel this way.

Perhaps they should just have another (pre-approved perhaps?) jeweler make some more rings. Or not. Perhaps the symbol is made by their marriage, not the marriage by the symbol. I have had 3 wedding rings, and one wife (just to ensure clarity). The ring does not make my marriage, but the ring is a symbol of what I have in my marriage.

I would urge the couple to make the marriage more than the rings, and grow more deeply together.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Based on your definition, a gay baker would be discriminating if he/she refused to bake a cake and deliver it to a party for a group that was explicitly endorsing traditional marriage. So, the cake would say something like "(Matt. 19:4-5) Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

What if they refused on the grounds that that is a ridiculously long message on a cake?

It's a big cake.

Surely you, as you keep insisting Republicans are more prone to, would wait until the facts are in before judging?

Sass has made his position clear enough to judge.

Indeed, I suspect that Sass would care to some degree if the law was invoked in a case like this, given his views as expressed on free expression. But as he's not agreeing with you 100%, he must be told he's an enemy, right?

Not what I said. I simply said he won't care. "Indifference" is not "enemy" status.

(and there we see just how tolerant people who demand we tolerate their intolerance can be )

Ho, ho, ho.

This is "tolerance": treating others the way you want to be treated. I have no issue at all with someone not believing as I believe. Furthermore, if they perform a service for me and don't agree with my social opinion, I won't ask for my money back as long as I'm satisfied with the product. So, I guess I'm more tolerant than the Canadian lesbians in question.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Based on your definition, a gay baker would be discriminating if he/she refused to bake a cake and deliver it to a party for a group that was explicitly endorsing traditional marriage. So, the cake would say something like "(Matt. 19:4-5) Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

What if they refused on the grounds that that is a ridiculously long message on a cake?

It's a big cake.

Maybe they have a small oven.

Surely you, as you keep insisting Republicans are more prone to, would wait until the facts are in before judging?

Sass has made his position clear enough to judge.

Indeed he has, but I fear you have misjudged, based on what he's written before and since you declared what he would think...

Indeed, I suspect that Sass would care to some degree if the law was invoked in a case like this, given his views as expressed on free expression. But as he's not agreeing with you 100%, he must be told he's an enemy, right?

Not what I said. I simply said he won't care. "Indifference" is not "enemy" status.

We can both hyperbolize...

It was the presumption that Sass would "not care", based on what seems to be that he doesn't care much about it when the law is not involved, and what is that based on? He's not really a big government supporter, and is opposed to restrictions on free expression imposed by law - more so than I.

(and there we see just how tolerant people who demand we tolerate their intolerance can be )

Ho, ho, ho.

This is "tolerance": treating others the way you want to be treated. I have no issue at all with someone not believing as I believe. Furthermore, if they perform a service for me and don't agree with my social opinion, I won't ask for my money back as long as I'm satisfied with the product. So, I guess I'm more tolerant than the Canadian lesbians in question.

I do love this race for moral superiority you and bbauska are running, to see who is more tolerant and even-handed than the horrid lefty gay-rights Canadians. It's a great spectator sport...

Moral superiority? Not me, Bub. I do not think I am morally superior.

"All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God".

I am just as morally wicked as everyone else.

bbauska wrote:Moral superiority? Not me, Bub. I do not think I am morally superior.

"All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God".

I am just as morally wicked as everyone else.

So what is it that drives you to seek out and point out "double standards" in others? Why is it so important to you? I am curious.

And why is it more important than what the actual standards are (because that's what the debate should be about.

Another wonderful question. You are two for two!

I hate when people expect to have freedom of speech and thought, but do not want others to have it. It is just a matter of truth. Hypocrisy just bugs the daylights out of me.

If the actual standards were followed, I would have been fine. EXAMPLE: Lesbian couple buys rings and find out jeweler doesn't agree with them. Rather than get upset, they are happy with a fine quality ring, and just decide to let the jeweler have their opinion. No law is broken, no discrimination occurred, but the couple expects to have money refunded. Why? What act did the jeweler commit the warrants a refund?

It should not ever get to this point where someone cannot have their own opinion, especially when they want to have their opinions respected, as well. The jeweler is not expecting the couple to support his view any more than the couple should expect the jeweler to support their view. If they choose to not support his business for this that is fine. Just like the jeweler should be allowed to not purchase anything at a shop that supports gay marriage if that is the desire.

Neither the couple or the jeweler should be prohibited from shopping where they want anymore than they should be forced to shop where someone else wants.

It was the presumption that Sass would "not care", based on what seems to be that he doesn't care much about it when the law is not involved, and what is that based on? He's not really a big government supporter, and is opposed to restrictions on free expression imposed by law - more so than I.

I've long since gotten used to the idea that being a moderate conservative by British standards makes me one of the 'extreme left' here at Redscape. It's also quite interesting to note that my posts rarely attract any replies at all in these threads (Hacker threads notwithstanding), and when they do it's usually responding to something I never said. I'm sanguine about it all, but it can be frustrating at times.

bbauska wrote:Another wonderful question. You are two for two!

I hate when people expect to have freedom of speech and thought, but do not want others to have it. It is just a matter of truth. Hypocrisy just bugs the daylights out of me.

I don't see that you actually have demonstrated that this is what is going on here. I'll explain under your latest attempts...

If the actual standards were followed, I would have been fine. EXAMPLE: Lesbian couple buys rings and find out jeweler doesn't agree with them. Rather than get upset, they are happy with a fine quality ring, and just decide to let the jeweler have their opinion.

So should the real couple not think/feel as they wish to? Should they not express their feelings?

No law is broken, no discrimination occurred, but the couple expects to have money refunded. Why? What act did the jeweler commit the warrants a refund?

They have "asked" for a refund. That doesn't mean they necessarily "expect" one.

I don't know what the interactions were between the couple and the jewellers (any more than you do), but perhaps they feel betrayed - perhaps the jewellers expressed an interest in their upcoming ceremony and suggested support to their faces. Perhaps they - like you - dislike hypocrisy.

It should not ever get to this point where someone cannot have their own opinion, especially when they want to have their opinions respected, as well. The jeweler is not expecting the couple to support his view any more than the couple should expect the jeweler to support their view. If they choose to not support his business for this that is fine. Just like the jeweler should be allowed to not purchase anything at a shop that supports gay marriage if that is the desire.

And they want to retroactively do that, now that they know the jeweller's opinion. They want to be able to undo their support for the shop.

And there's nothing to force you, or the jewellers to shop in a place that displays the rainbow flag, if that's what you want. Please demonstrate how this lesbian couple are forcing the jewellers, or anyone else, to buy from a shop that supports gay marriage. Otherwise, don't use that as part of the argument - it's irrelevant.

But what you seem to be saying is that they should not express their opinion - they should be "happy" with the jewellery, and not express how they feel about the message in the counter window. They should not even ask for a refund, as that is apparently the same as removing the rights of the jewellers to express themselves, and no-one should express their opinions about it if they disagree with the jewellers - I would agree that people who respond rudely or aggressively should not do so, but polite disagreement should be fine on all sides, right?

Otherwise, here's what I see:

Some of society has an idea. They support gay marriage. They express that opinion, and go as far as to lobby to change the law to allow it. All legal, and within their rights.

Jewellers dislike that idea. They believe gay marriage undermines "traditional" marriage and is against the will of their deity. Jewellers express opinion. All legal, and within their rights

Lesbian couple support gay marriage, and dislike the ideas of those who oppose it. They believe expressing that idea in the business environment is an attack on them, as a gay couple who are patrons, and they want a refund. Lesbian couple express opinion.

Now, here's the thing. You think the lesbians are being hypocritical. Why? because in your opinion they should not do what they have done as it impinges on the rights of the jeweller. But does it? All they have done is to have their own thoughts and beliefs, and express them. They have not brought the law in. They have not stopped the jewellers from expressing any opinion. They have expressed it fairly publicly, and others have also expressed opinions.

And here's the thing: You are doing just what they are doing!

You are saying that the lesbians should:

1) not think as they do - they should not feel hurt, or think they deserve a refund.
2) not speak as they do - they should not react to the jewellers' disagreement with them, even though the jeweller is apparently perfectly entitled to express their disagreement.

Indeed, just as they are using labels that are negative - "discrimination", so are you - "hypocrisy".

The problem I have, is that this means you are being a tad hypocritical yourself:

You want them to not do something that you yourself are doing when you say that they should not do it.

Ah, you say, but you are not using the force of law to impose on them, you are just expressing disagreement.

Well, snap.

Neither the couple or the jeweler should be prohibited from shopping where they want anymore than they should be forced to shop where someone else wants.

Who is doing the prohibiting?

Again, either show what the relevance of this is (being prohibited from, or forced into, shopping from a place) to the actual situation, or accept my freely expressed opinion that it is a ridiculous angle to bring up.

In summary:

They are not the hypocrites.