hibs.net Messageboard

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 117
  1. #31
    @hibs.net private member CapitalGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    4,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think your analogy works.

    Why would the Muslim shopkeeper stock bacon in the first place if he wasn't going to sell ut?

    If he stocked something, butvrefused to sell ut to a customer because they were, say Catholic, that could be an offence.
    You have read shopkeeper where he has written shop worker.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #32
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by CapitalGreen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have read shopkeeper where he has written shop worker.
    Ah, yes I did.

    There have been incidents like that, but I can't remember the outcones.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  4. #33
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ah, yes I did.

    There have been incidents like that, but I can't remember the outcones.
    The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think

  5. #34
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think
    Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  6. #35
    @hibs.net private member Bishop Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Leith Links
    Age
    51
    Posts
    6,256
    Peter Tatchell disagrees with the ruling and so do I http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7377916.html
    "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.' - Paulo Freire

  7. #36
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.
    Hypothetically there could be a day where all staff on duty are Muslim.

  8. #37
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by easty View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is it about their beliefs though? A cake making business doesn't automatically support/believe the messages they put on their cakes. They could easily have made the cake, but held on to their belief that gay marriage is wrong. Making the cake wouldn't have automatically signed them up to a LGBT support association.
    They could have made the cake but that may have put them in a moral quandary. (I don't know, you'd need to ask them)

    It seems very strange that it is deemed illegal to refuse to provide a cake promoting gay marriage in a country in which gay marriage isn't legal.

  9. #38
    @hibs.net private member Mr White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    8,852
    Quote Originally Posted by MB Crunch View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    It seems very strange that it is deemed illegal to refuse to provide a cake promoting gay marriage in a country in which gay marriage isn't legal.
    Indeed. But then it's a very strange place.

  10. #39
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by MB Crunch View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hypothetically there could be a day where all staff on duty are Muslim.
    That would be very poor management, but it wouldn't be discrimunstory.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  11. #40
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    8,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, but the customers will still get their bacon from another employee. The customer is not being discriminated against.
    Yeah that was what I was trying to say

  12. #41
    Testimonial Due Colr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    London
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Peter Tatchell disagrees with the ruling and so do I http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7377916.html
    If they didn't taken themselves so seriously, they could use the publicity to make this a product line!!

  13. #42
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by SiMar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The point still stands though, the shop worker is allowed not to serve bacon because of their religious beliefs, the person not receiving the bacon doesn't have any standing in law to demand they receive the bacon from that person. I think
    The fact a provision is in place to refuse to sell bacon implies that it is accepted that there is a conflict with their religious beliefs.

    And I know bacon isn't a protected characteristic but the argument against the bakery was that by making the cake they are not endorsing the message. By selling bacon you are not endorsing the eating of pork yet it is deemed a conflict.

    If I was the defence lawyer, I'd be asking is it a conflict or is it not?

  14. #43
    Testimonial Due NYHibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Glasgow; formerly NY
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by MB Crunch View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's not quite as simple as that though.

    This is a case of religious beliefs (which are protected) conflicting with sexual orientation (also protected). It's an interesting case.
    For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

    The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.

  15. #44
    Testimonial Due NYHibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Glasgow; formerly NY
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by MB Crunch View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The fact a provision is in place to refuse to sell bacon implies that it is accepted that there is a conflict with their religious beliefs.

    And I know bacon isn't a protected characteristic but the argument against the bakery was that by making the cake they are not endorsing the message. By selling bacon you are not endorsing the eating of pork yet it is deemed a conflict.

    If I was the defence lawyer, I'd be asking is it a conflict or is it not?
    Your bacon example is not analogous to this case. A shop owner/shop employee relationship also involves other areas of the law not relevant to this case. A better analogy would be if the shop only sold bacon to people of certain religions and refused to sell it to people of other religions.

    A business refusing to sell a product or service to everyone is fine. The Justices covered that in this cake case as well. "The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation"

  16. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by NYHibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

    The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.
    Just out of interest do you think the ruling would/could/should have been different had the person asking for the message on the cake been hetrosexual?
    PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

  17. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That would be very poor management, but it wouldn't be discrimunstory.
    What if all the best candidates for the job were Muslim? Should he pick his 2nd choice cos they're Christian?

  18. #47
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by NYHibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

    The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.
    The fact it is getting so much discussion suggests it is indeed interesting.

  19. #48
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by NYHibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Your bacon example is not analogous to this case. A shop owner/shop employee relationship also involves other areas of the law not relevant to this case. A better analogy would be if the shop only sold bacon to people of certain religions and refused to sell it to people of other religions.

    A business refusing to sell a product or service to everyone is fine. The Justices covered that in this cake case as well. "The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service. Thus the supplier may provide the particular service to all or to none but not to a selection of customers based on prohibited grounds. In the present case the appellants might elect not to provide a service that involves any religious or political message. What they may not do is provide a service that only reflects their own political or religious message in relation to sexual orientation"
    I wasn't comparing entire cases. The point is that one suggests that providing certain products can conflict with religious belief, the other doesn't. Which is it?

  20. #49
    Testimonial Due NYHibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Glasgow; formerly NY
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by MB Crunch View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wasn't comparing entire cases. The point is that one suggests that providing certain products can conflict with religious belief, the other doesn't. Which is it?
    Ugh, if you're not comparing cases, what is your second sentence doing?

    As I said in my posts, this cases doesn't "suggest" what you are implying that it does. Your question is based on a couple of logical fallacies.

  21. #50
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Danderhall Hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What if all the best candidates for the job were Muslim? Should he pick his 2nd choice cos they're Christian?
    They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

    If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

  22. #51
    @hibs.net private member Speedy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by NYHibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ugh, if you're not comparing cases, what is your second sentence doing?

    As I said in my posts, this cases doesn't "suggest" what you are implying that it does. Your question is based on a couple of logical fallacies.
    "Entire"

  23. #52
    Testimonial Due NYHibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Glasgow; formerly NY
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Pretty Boy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just out of interest do you think the ruling would/could/should have been different had the person asking for the message on the cake been hetrosexual?
    From the summary of the lower court's decision:
    "The judge said that even if she had been persuaded that the appellants had not been aware of the respondentís religious belief and/or political opinion, she would have found that the appellants discriminated against him by treating him less favourably on the grounds of their own religious beliefs and political opinion."

    I would say that the judgement is not dependent on the sexuality of the person ordering the cake.

  24. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

    If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.

  25. #54
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Danderhall Hibs View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What's funny?
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  26. #55
    Coaching Staff Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    34
    Posts
    5,360
    Quote Originally Posted by NYHibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For anyone else reading this, this cases is not about a clash of protected beliefs and is thus not particularly interesting. It is about a for profit limited company discriminating. The lower court judge clearly explained this point. The "appellant conducted a business for profit and was not a religious organization. She held that it could not therefore avail of the specific exemption for such organisations in Regulation 16 of the 2006 Regulations."

    The business provided less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected personal characteristic and thus was in breach of the relevant legislation. A pretty straight forward case.
    The case is about a clash of beliefs, as is the majority of the related publicity; it is just the Judgment that is not.

    Judges shouldn't be making the law; they should be interpreting it and, to an extent, enforcing it (for want of a better word). That's what has happened here and is what happens in the vast majority of civil cases. Often disputes which appear to be finely balanced morally (or in the application of "common sense") are decided based on how the law is written and interpreted. This is why we rely so heavily on civil servants and, to a lesser extent, their political masters.

  27. #56
    @hibs.net private member Scouse Hibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Age
    51
    Posts
    16,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

    If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.
    What if they converted after you had employed them? :-)
    "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain
    an advantage, then he should be."

  28. #57
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    35,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What if they converted after you had employed them? :-)


    Wasn't there a ruling that said employers should try to make reasonable steps to respect employees' religious beliefs, but if there was no alternatives, the employee would have to comply?

    If a doctor in an abortion clinic conveted to a faith which was pro-life, the doctor would need to leave or be dismissed.

    I'm home sick today hence why I'm entertaining all these hypothetical and highly unlikely scenarios. 😷
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  29. #58
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    Wasn't there a ruling that said employers should try to make reasonable steps to respect employees' religious beliefs, but if there was no alternatives, the employee would have to comply?

    If a doctor in an abortion clinic conveted to a faith which was pro-life, the doctor would need to leave or be dismissed.

    I'm home sick today hence why I'm entertaining all these hypothetical and highly unlikely scenarios. 😷
    When I was still in Edinburgh, we had a guy who worked with us who was a born again christian. He was a great wee guy but was really into the God thing, to the extent that he refused to tell a lie.

    At times it was a real pest- eg. if he answered a call that you didn't want to take, he wouldn't palm the caller off with even the whitest of lies (on another line, in a meeting, etc.).

    It obviously wouldn't have been a valid reason for dismissal though.

  30. #59
    @hibs.net private member steakbake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Gate 38
    Posts
    7,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They couldn't be the best because they couldn't do what I needed them to do.

    If I wanted someone to sell bacon, that would be made clear in the job description.
    I'm pretty sure you'd find a Muslim or Jewish person who would sell bacon or alcohol. Certainly in the case of the former, there's plenty of examples I can think of where the business owner is unlikely to use the ingredients for his own consumption, but will sell it.

  31. #60
    Hypothetically speaking, should the situation arise where a Christian organisation approached a 'gay bar' to display a pro same sex marriage poster or leaflets etc, would they have any grounds to refuse to display said poster along side their other posters/leaflets? If they refused to display it due to disagreeing with the message, would they be guilty of discrimination?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved