I recall that the cake dispute posting I made several years ago, caused some discussion, but I have to confess that I had to revisit it to recall what my stance was .....
.... which was with the idea that freedom of conscience, should weigh over legal rights, in general.
That being forced to advocate a cause with which you profoundly disagreed, was I felt, a higher crime, than the rights of someone who wants to make you promote that cause. The Asher company in Northern Ireland, had refused to decorate a cake supporting gay marriage, on the grounds that the order request was "at odds" with its Christian beliefs.
My primary concerns were related to other questions:
Q: If we say that 'equality rights', always supersede and override the rights of those people who claim that an action is against their own beliefs, where is the balance?
Q: Can you be forced by law to propagandise for practices that are against your own beliefs?
Q: Do homosexual rights trump all other rights, such as freedom of religion?
Q: Why are other groups, some of whom openly preach against homosexuality, not subject to the same pressures as Christian groups?
I also said that although I was bothered by several issues, it was not the the legal rights and wrongs of the arguments .... I felt that whether either side has the law supporting their cause, was for the courts to determine.
The battle was taken up by The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland on behalf of the homosexual customer, and for whom they (aka the taxpayer) were footing the bills, while a charity and lobby group, The Christian Institute, took up arms for the Asher's bakery, and footed their bill.
Well five years and £450,000 of lawyers fees later, the courts have decided unanimously (all five justices on the Supreme Court agreed) ..... that that Asher's bakery's refusal to decorate a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
The court summary statement was that the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the customers order because of his sexual orientation. "They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee. Accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee."
"This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case."
Of course, this sort of ruling opens almost as many questions as it closes (not least who foots the legal costs), but it has now set down the benchmark, that you can't make someone provide a service or promote a cause, that's against their own personal beliefs ..... now watch the gates to more litigation open widely, as other religious groups object to same sex schooling, sex education etc etc etc.
Only the lawyers win ..... but ain't that always the way.
 |
| Legal Rights Over Freedom Of Conscience? |
.... which was with the idea that freedom of conscience, should weigh over legal rights, in general.
That being forced to advocate a cause with which you profoundly disagreed, was I felt, a higher crime, than the rights of someone who wants to make you promote that cause. The Asher company in Northern Ireland, had refused to decorate a cake supporting gay marriage, on the grounds that the order request was "at odds" with its Christian beliefs.
My primary concerns were related to other questions:
Q: If we say that 'equality rights', always supersede and override the rights of those people who claim that an action is against their own beliefs, where is the balance?
Q: Can you be forced by law to propagandise for practices that are against your own beliefs?
Q: Do homosexual rights trump all other rights, such as freedom of religion?
Q: Why are other groups, some of whom openly preach against homosexuality, not subject to the same pressures as Christian groups?
I also said that although I was bothered by several issues, it was not the the legal rights and wrongs of the arguments .... I felt that whether either side has the law supporting their cause, was for the courts to determine.
The battle was taken up by The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland on behalf of the homosexual customer, and for whom they (aka the taxpayer) were footing the bills, while a charity and lobby group, The Christian Institute, took up arms for the Asher's bakery, and footed their bill.
Well five years and £450,000 of lawyers fees later, the courts have decided unanimously (all five justices on the Supreme Court agreed) ..... that that Asher's bakery's refusal to decorate a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
The court summary statement was that the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the customers order because of his sexual orientation. "They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee. Accordingly, this court holds that there was no discrimination on the ground of the sexual orientation of Mr Lee."
"This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case."
Of course, this sort of ruling opens almost as many questions as it closes (not least who foots the legal costs), but it has now set down the benchmark, that you can't make someone provide a service or promote a cause, that's against their own personal beliefs ..... now watch the gates to more litigation open widely, as other religious groups object to same sex schooling, sex education etc etc etc.
Only the lawyers win ..... but ain't that always the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.