Do pub landlords still have the right to not serve someone and not have to give a reason?
You've literally read my mind by posting that.
Wetherspoons have been fined £24,000 for a group of Irish Travellers who got barred from one of their North London venues, Evening Standard. Now from reading commentary on this, Wetherspoons only screwed up by telling the individuals in question that they weren't allowed in because they were Travellers.
In theory at least, Wetherspoons could've acted within the law by simply refusing them entry with no given reason. As the management/owner of the premises have the right to refuse entry without a requirement for a reason, but giving a discriminatory reason is in fact where the legal trouble stemmed from.
With this in mind, surely the owners of the bakery - as the proprietors - had the right to simply refuse service without stating a reason? It's their business after all, and it's no different than a pub turning you away or a soho club being selective in the individuals it gives membership too - i.e the people it conducts business with.
Personally I'm against discrimination of any form, but I do think the proprietors of a business should still be allowed to select what kinds of business they partake and the people they do that business with. In my mind the owners should've just politely declined to do business with those customers and, if requested a reason, declined to comment any further; by acting in any other way they were bound to cause offence and that's where it becomes unacceptable.
After all, as mentioned previously, you wouldn't go in to Zabardast at Waterloo (Halal wraps) and demand a bacon sarnie?
This ruling, like the preceding one about the Christian B&B, is a tragedy because it's weighing two 'discriminations' against each other. The owners of the cake shop are being discriminated against because insisting on the request's fulfilment would contravene their religious freedom. The gay guys are discriminated against because the response of the baker was driven by the matter of their sexuality (or at least the associated issue). Both are protected in law, but the law doesn't allow for a conscience of faith and therefore - even though this is in my view opportunistic - those that are acting in accordance with that will lose on the black and white of the regulations.
The wording of the message on the cake is a red herring in terms of its legality. It's not illegal to express a view, even if it's opposite to the prevailing law - although some messages might be considered incitement I guess.
It's my personal view that in both cases the religious owners are entitled to work out their faith in their business, provided that is appropriately publicised at the point of an order being place. It's a free market, and if the precise services you want aren't available to you then you go somewhere else. In fact in both cases the owners were willing to provide the service, but on varied terms due to the nature of the request. And in both cases comparable alternatives were available to the customers.
EDIT: Wonder if they'd have been found guilty if a straight guy asked for the same message and was refused...
You're perfectly entitled to this view, which I think is pretty reasonable. However, the law is in place and the judgement is absolutely clear.
I cannot agree, however, with your definition of this being a "tragedy". The judgement has sent out an unambiguous message that discrimination - on certain grounds - is unlawful. That, in my view, is far from a tragedy.
It is a tragedy.
You are, in essence, asking someone who has a particular faith to partake in business which is explicitly intended to convey a message which is incongruent with that faith. How is this not discrimination, and court-sanctioned discrimination at that?
As a nation we're fragmented and have the potential to benefit from a truly multi-cultural society - that is brilliant. However, in our quest for equality and ensuring that no man (or woman) is treated lesser than another, we are going to have to confront situations like this.
Unfortunately one group has clearly had it's needs put before the other group. There is no winner in an argument of sexuality vs religion - these are two things which are core to a persons believes and values. I can't agree that in this scenario sexuality should've trumped religion, nor would I have been overjoyed had religion trumped sexuality.
There needs to be respect for both parties here, and I can't help but feel that this case sets a precedent which is quite worrying and perhaps more far-reaching than simply 'You have to cook gay cakes if you own a bakery' - where do you draw the line? Preparation of food deemed Haram by restaurants with Muslim ownership?
Do pub landlords still have the right to not serve someone and not have to give a reason?
You've literally read my mind by posting that.
Wetherspoons have been fined £24,000 for a group of Irish Travellers who got barred from one of their North London venues, Evening Standard. Now from reading commentary on this, Wetherspoons only screwed up by telling the individuals in question that they weren't allowed in because they were Travellers.
In theory at least, Wetherspoons could've acted within the law by simply refusing them entry with no given reason. As the management/owner of the premises have the right to refuse entry without a requirement for a reason, but giving a discriminatory reason is in fact where the legal trouble stemmed from.
With this in mind, surely the owners of the bakery - as the proprietors - had the right to simply refuse service without stating a reason? It's their business after all, and it's no different than a pub turning you away or a soho club being selective in the individuals it gives membership too - i.e the people it conducts business with.
Personally I'm against discrimination of any form, but I do think the proprietors of a business should still be allowed to select what kinds of business they partake and the people they do that business with. In my mind the owners should've just politely declined to do business with those customers and, if requested a reason, declined to comment any further; by acting in any other way they were bound to cause offence and that's where it becomes unacceptable.
After all, as mentioned previously, you wouldn't go in to Zabardast at Waterloo (Halal wraps) and demand a bacon sarnie?
Well done that was the point I was trying to find out, so if they kept schtum then no offence could have been given/taken.
The judgment seems confused to me. IMO the law requiring businesses not to discriminate against customers on the basis of their race, sexuality or religion is entirely reasonable. But this business did not do that. Instead it refused to deliver the service it offered in a particular way.
This ruling, like the preceding one about the Christian B&B, is a tragedy because it's weighing two 'discriminations' against each other. The owners of the cake shop are being discriminated against because insisting on the request's fulfilment would contravene their religious freedom. The gay guys are discriminated against because the response of the baker was driven by the matter of their sexuality (or at least the associated issue). Both are protected in law, but the law doesn't allow for a conscience of faith and therefore - even though this is in my view opportunistic - those that are acting in accordance with that will lose on the black and white of the regulations.
The wording of the message on the cake is a red herring in terms of its legality. It's not illegal to express a view, even if it's opposite to the prevailing law - although some messages might be considered incitement I guess.
It's my personal view that in both cases the religious owners are entitled to work out their faith in their business, provided that is appropriately publicised at the point of an order being place. It's a free market, and if the precise services you want aren't available to you then you go somewhere else. In fact in both cases the owners were willing to provide the service, but on varied terms due to the nature of the request. And in both cases comparable alternatives were available to the customers.
EDIT: Wonder if they'd have been found guilty if a straight guy asked for the same message and was refused...
You're perfectly entitled to this view, which I think is pretty reasonable. However, the law is in place and the judgement is absolutely clear.
I cannot agree, however, with your definition of this being a "tragedy". The judgement has sent out an unambiguous message that discrimination - on certain grounds - is unlawful. That, in my view, is far from a tragedy.
It is a tragedy.
You are, in essence, asking someone who has a particular faith to partake in business which is explicitly intended to convey a message which is incongruent with that faith. How is this not discrimination, and court-sanctioned discrimination at that?
As a nation we're fragmented and have the potential to benefit from a truly multi-cultural society - that is brilliant. However, in our quest for equality and ensuring that no man (or woman) is treated lesser than another, we are going to have to confront situations like this.
Unfortunately one group has clearly had it's needs put before the other group. There is no winner in an argument of sexuality vs religion - these are two things which are core to a persons believes and values. I can't agree that in this scenario sexuality should've trumped religion, nor would I have been overjoyed had religion trumped sexuality.
There needs to be respect for both parties here, and I can't help but feel that this case sets a precedent which is quite worrying and perhaps more far-reaching than simply 'You have to cook gay cakes if you own a bakery' - where do you draw the line? Preparation of food deemed Haram by restaurants with Muslim ownership?
Nailed it.
Here's the thing. In a civilised society we often talk about our liberties and our rights, but all too rarely our responsibilities. To maintain each other's liberties we have to be prepared to lay aside our demands if they would otherwise compromise someone else's liberties.
That works both ways, of course, but we all need to understand that moving contrary to a conscience of faith is a considerably bigger compromise than taking your business elsewhere, or accepting the alternatives offered.
I believe in both these cases the Christians were respecting the people concerned, and were wrestling with their own conscience of faith. The hotel owners offered a second rooms at no greater cost to work round the issue so as to provide the service within what their conscience could acccept. And to offer a cake with no message or a different message is the same thing.
If we all treated people with respect first and didn't demand it to be earned, our society would be a very different place. Sadly, we'll see more of these, because it's all about personal rights and never about societal responsibilities.
The judgment seems confused to me. IMO the law requiring businesses not to discriminate against customers on the basis of their race, sexuality or religion is entirely reasonable. But this business did not do that. Instead it refused to deliver the service it offered in a particular way.
Would you concede though, that you hadn't heard all of the evidence, over the three days of the case (neither have I!); that the judge *has* heard all the evidence; and the judge gave her ruling, in full, unambiguously?
I expect we'll keep seeing cases like this over the next decade or so. This reminds me of the one where a Christian couple running a B&B refused to let two gay men stay in the same bedroom. That was a clear case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
This case was found guilty on both counts of discrimination both on sexual orientation and political beliefs. I disagree with the first one - they were happy to serve the customer, they just did not want to fulfil the order that was given. Political beliefs - again, I find this troubling that this is actually law - surely a lot of things are a political belief, such as supporting apartheid? What if someone asked the same bakery to make a cake with that 'Hang Nelson Mandela' sign on it? Would that be political discrimination if they refused?
What if I hired a church choir then asked them to sing pro-gay songs? Or hired Billy Bragg then requested he sing songs I've personally written over how Thatcher and the Tories are the best things to happen to this country?
I'd say this has opened a tin of worms but it is unlikely it has, no one is actually going to do these things, but on the precedent set by this case, at least in Northern Ireland it seems pretty inconsistent, especially when the N. Ireland Executive is itself against gay marriage.
Great news, decision overturned by the Supreme Court.
Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation."
"The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed."
If they'd have refused to bake a cake stating "equal rights for black people" or something along those lines then there would have been an outcry. Never thought I'd type that sentance...
Pretty sure you can put whatever you want on a cake (or any other pud for that matter) without it being illegal, unless it's actual coke.
The haven't refused to bake the cake - they refused to include a slogan promoting something which is against the law.
Quite honestly I'm not sure this ruling benefits anyone and I highly doubt it will do much for equality in Northern Ireland.
It benefits anyone who doesn't want to be discriminated against, by businesses, on the grounds of their sexuality or political beliefs.
How ? The refusal wasn't to bake a cake for a gay person - that would have been discrimination.
The refusal was to print a slogan which promotes something illegal in that country.
I'm a supporter of marriage equality but I don't see how this advances it at all, just because we consider ourselves liberal doesn't mean we shouldn't question decisions that are made.
Comments
Wetherspoons have been fined £24,000 for a group of Irish Travellers who got barred from one of their North London venues, Evening Standard. Now from reading commentary on this, Wetherspoons only screwed up by telling the individuals in question that they weren't allowed in because they were Travellers.
In theory at least, Wetherspoons could've acted within the law by simply refusing them entry with no given reason. As the management/owner of the premises have the right to refuse entry without a requirement for a reason, but giving a discriminatory reason is in fact where the legal trouble stemmed from.
With this in mind, surely the owners of the bakery - as the proprietors - had the right to simply refuse service without stating a reason? It's their business after all, and it's no different than a pub turning you away or a soho club being selective in the individuals it gives membership too - i.e the people it conducts business with.
Personally I'm against discrimination of any form, but I do think the proprietors of a business should still be allowed to select what kinds of business they partake and the people they do that business with. In my mind the owners should've just politely declined to do business with those customers and, if requested a reason, declined to comment any further; by acting in any other way they were bound to cause offence and that's where it becomes unacceptable.
After all, as mentioned previously, you wouldn't go in to Zabardast at Waterloo (Halal wraps) and demand a bacon sarnie?
You are, in essence, asking someone who has a particular faith to partake in business which is explicitly intended to convey a message which is incongruent with that faith. How is this not discrimination, and court-sanctioned discrimination at that?
As a nation we're fragmented and have the potential to benefit from a truly multi-cultural society - that is brilliant. However, in our quest for equality and ensuring that no man (or woman) is treated lesser than another, we are going to have to confront situations like this.
Unfortunately one group has clearly had it's needs put before the other group. There is no winner in an argument of sexuality vs religion - these are two things which are core to a persons believes and values. I can't agree that in this scenario sexuality should've trumped religion, nor would I have been overjoyed had religion trumped sexuality.
There needs to be respect for both parties here, and I can't help but feel that this case sets a precedent which is quite worrying and perhaps more far-reaching than simply 'You have to cook gay cakes if you own a bakery' - where do you draw the line? Preparation of food deemed Haram by restaurants with Muslim ownership?
sign makercake makerHere's the thing. In a civilised society we often talk about our liberties and our rights, but all too rarely our responsibilities. To maintain each other's liberties we have to be prepared to lay aside our demands if they would otherwise compromise someone else's liberties.
That works both ways, of course, but we all need to understand that moving contrary to a conscience of faith is a considerably bigger compromise than taking your business elsewhere, or accepting the alternatives offered.
I believe in both these cases the Christians were respecting the people concerned, and were wrestling with their own conscience of faith. The hotel owners offered a second rooms at no greater cost to work round the issue so as to provide the service within what their conscience could acccept. And to offer a cake with no message or a different message is the same thing.
If we all treated people with respect first and didn't demand it to be earned, our society would be a very different place. Sadly, we'll see more of these, because it's all about personal rights and never about societal responsibilities.
You should always dot your i's.
This case was found guilty on both counts of discrimination both on sexual orientation and political beliefs. I disagree with the first one - they were happy to serve the customer, they just did not want to fulfil the order that was given. Political beliefs - again, I find this troubling that this is actually law - surely a lot of things are a political belief, such as supporting apartheid? What if someone asked the same bakery to make a cake with that 'Hang Nelson Mandela' sign on it? Would that be political discrimination if they refused?
What if I hired a church choir then asked them to sing pro-gay songs? Or hired Billy Bragg then requested he sing songs I've personally written over how Thatcher and the Tories are the best things to happen to this country?
I'd say this has opened a tin of worms but it is unlikely it has, no one is actually going to do these things, but on the precedent set by this case, at least in Northern Ireland it seems pretty inconsistent, especially when the N. Ireland Executive is itself against gay marriage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
Mr Lee's claim based on sexual discrimination, the bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation."
"The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/10/christian-owners-bakery-win-appeal-discrimination-ruling-refusing/