Bakery found NOT to have discriminated against a gay couple

[SnailyBoy 10]

Let me answer this. Yes, I think it's essentially the same. Bare statistical under representation of specific groups shouldn't be a free pass for these groups. Such and approach introduces inequality - if one person is given opportunity (not based on skills) the other (maybe more qualified) person is robbed of this opportunity.

 

No, it isn't the same.

 

PS, your post is so full of assumptions it becomes irrelevant.

 

Read guidance on the Equality Act 2010 for more information.

[Branyy 10]

No, it isn't the same.

 

PS, your post is so full of assumptions it becomes irrelevant.

 

Read guidance on the Equality Act 2010 for more information.

 

I'm aware of Equality Act 2010. Anything specific you have in mind?

[Waldo 96]

Let me answer this. Yes, I think it's essentially the same. Bare statistical under representation of specific groups shouldn't be a free pass for these groups. Such and approach introduces inequality - if one person is given opportunity (not based on skills) the other (maybe more qualified) person is robbed of this opportunity.

 

I tend to agree. To my mind, people should be given opportunities purely based on their ability and attitudue.

[26b-6 16]

OK, I see you are really struggling now!

 

I will ask you one more time, if you believe that people should not be told what they can or cannot believe, what is your view on the Paedophile Information Exchange?

 

The best defence you have for a fascist state is that my liberal one must be paedo-tolerant. It’s clear you’re the one who’s struggling, you avoid answering any points then try to subterfuge the debate around paedophilia.

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2018 at 11:06 ----------

 

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 21:25 ----------

 

 

 

You can't force a business to sell something it doesn't provide

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 21:27 ----------

 

Exactly! We can’t force all caterers to cater for everyone. We shouldn’t force people to sell goods and provide services they don’t want to. In this case a Christian owned bakery didn’t provide cakes with pro-gay marriage messages. And I doubt any Jewish owned bakeries would provide cakes decorated with swastikas. Now when you start fining or imprisoning people for refusing custom, or doing absolutely nothing, you’ve created a fascist state.

 

---------- Post added 19-10-2018 at 11:12 ----------

 

Are you trying to avoid answering a question by instead asking me one... Rather transparent.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 21:25 ----------

 

What a weird argument.

If a business can't discriminate then how can it be a racist or homophobic business.

You actually want to enable such behaviour, with the argument that it will somehow stop such behaviour.

Islamic caterers forced to serve pork? You can't force a business to sell something it doesn't provide, so Islamic caterers are no more likely to have to serve pork than bakers are to provide fencing services.

I think you'll find that it's your fascist argument.

You also failed to answer any of the points I made, instead just making up bizarre examples about caterers. Why not address the points about freedom?

 

If you think that it's liberalism to enable discrimination then I'm afraid that you've seriously misunderstood the tenets of it.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 21:27 ----------

 

For reference, you failed to address pretty much all of this

 

Businesses can still discriminate without been open about it. Unlike you though I’d rather see them exposed and loose trade, than to hide it and prosper, but unlike you I’m no advocate of fascism either..

 

Any business should be allowed to deny any service to anyone. In this case the bakery didn’t support the message sothey refused his custom. No business should be forced to make something they don’t want to.

Edited October 19, 2018 by 26b-6

[Halibut 12]

but unlike you I’m no advocate of fascism either..

 

 

Can you point to, or highlight, anything Cyclone has ever posted which suggest that he advocates fascism?

 

I suspect not, and await your response with interest.

[the_bloke 17]

Positive discrimination... are you saying that should be illegal?

 

Positive discrimination is illegal. It creates a level playing field in recruitment for example.

[leviathan13 350]

See below, you should really take note of what you post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is semantics, you latch onto a word, using the definition as a fit all rather than focusing on the usage of the word. Do you seriously think that the usage of 'discrimation' is the same when someone is refused service because of their race and when someone is given an opportunity because of their race is under represented?

 

As for your other point, is that the best you can do?

 

Someone is gaining an advantage due to their characteristics - sex/colour/religion etc.

 

Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' discrimination, it doesn't matter, it's still discrimination. One person will see it one way, and another will see it a different way - that's not a very stable basis for law.

 

WOW! I didn't realise I'd have to spell absolutely everything out for you. I want us to be able to have choice, but due to human nature we do need to have some things in place to protect us from certain people.

 

Children/animals/vulnerable people need protecting and we have laws in place. The taking of life is, for the most part, illegal as that is one of the most extreme things you can do to someone and there should be consequences, as there are.

 

However, it's finding that line between everything you disagree with being illegal and keeping us safe whilst retaining some level of 'freedom'. We're now in a world where South Yorkshire Police have an initiative trying to tackle 'hate speech' and the like. Is someone being called a name more serious than a burglary/rape/murder? If I called the police everytime I was bullied at school, or had names thrown at me on the street for my appearance, there'd be a fair few more police hours being wasted. Since when did sticks and stones stop being relevant?

 

So, I recognize the need for some level of authority, but the more people call for the banning of things, no matter how small, the further it takes us in to a fascist state where saying or doing anything that can be construed as offensive or discrimination is punishable, before finally having the word banished altogether. Like in '1984' - words will be removed from our vocabulary for being negative and replaced with other, more positive, words. Eventually, no one will know what discrimination is and if it does happen, there'll be no words to explain it.

[Mister M 1,627]

Someone is gaining an advantage due to their characteristics - sex/colour/religion etc.

 

Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' discrimination, it doesn't matter, it's still discrimination. One person will see it one way, and another will see it a different way - that's not a very stable basis for law.

 

WOW! I didn't realise I'd have to spell absolutely everything out for you. I want us to be able to have choice, but due to human nature we do need to have some things in place to protect us from certain people.

 

Children/animals/vulnerable people need protecting and we have laws in place. The taking of life is, for the most part, illegal as that is one of the most extreme things you can do to someone and there should be consequences, as there are.

 

However, it's finding that line between everything you disagree with being illegal and keeping us safe whilst retaining some level of 'freedom'. We're now in a world where South Yorkshire Police have an initiative trying to tackle 'hate speech' and the like. Is someone being called a name more serious than a burglary/rape/murder? If I called the police everytime I was bullied at school, or had names thrown at me on the street for my appearance, there'd be a fair few more police hours being wasted. Since when did sticks and stones stop being relevant?

 

So, I recognize the need for some level of authority, but the more people call for the banning of things, no matter how small, the further it takes us in to a fascist state where saying or doing anything that can be construed as offensive or discrimination is punishable, before finally having the word banished altogether. Like in '1984' - words will be removed from our vocabulary for being negative and replaced with other, more positive, words. Eventually, no one will know what discrimination is and if it does happen, there'll be no words to explain it.

 

Positive discrimination is more about clients of a service being able to access a service rather than potential emloyees gain an advantage over others.

For example many years ago, the service I used to work at advertised for a male support worker as a genuine occupational qualification. This is because some male clients prefer male workers to perform certain personal care duties.

It used to be the case that some professions, such as social work, wouldn't allow people under a certain age study to to be a social worker, due to the nature of the work.

There are very practical reasons sometimes for choosing one group over another. In my opinion this is not the same as discriminating because you don't like one particular group.

[Waldo 96]

Positive discrimination is illegal. It creates a level playing field in recruitment for example.

 

Positive discrimination is just another word for discrimination.

[SnailyBoy 10]

Someone is gaining an advantage due to their characteristics - sex/colour/religion etc.

 

Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' discrimination, it doesn't matter, it's still discrimination. One person will see it one way, and another will see it a different way - that's not a very stable basis for law.

 

Word semantics again, look at the usage of words, not simply their meaning/definition.

 

 

WOW! I didn't realise I'd have to spell absolutely everything out for you. I want us to be able to have choice, but due to human nature we do need to have some things in place to protect us from certain people.

 

 

Children/animals/vulnerable people need protecting and we have laws in place. The taking of life is, for the most part, illegal as that is one of the most extreme things you can do to someone and there should be consequences, as there are.

 

However, it's finding that line between everything you disagree with being illegal and keeping us safe whilst retaining some level of 'freedom'. We're now in a world where South Yorkshire Police have an initiative trying to tackle 'hate speech' and the like. Is someone being called a name more serious than a burglary/rape/murder? If I called the police everytime I was bullied at school, or had names thrown at me on the street for my appearance, there'd be a fair few more police hours being wasted. Since when did sticks and stones stop being relevant?

 

So, I recognize the need for some level of authority, but the more people call for the banning of things, no matter how small, the further it takes us in to a fascist state where saying or doing anything that can be construed as offensive or discrimination is punishable, before finally having the word banished altogether. Like in '1984' - words will be removed from our vocabulary for being negative and replaced with other, more positive, words. Eventually, no one will know what discrimination is and if it does happen, there'll be no words to explain it.

 

Wow, this is from someone who posted that they didn't care if there was refusal of service based on protected characteristics or not.

[Halibut 12]

Positive discrimination is just another word for discrimination.

 

Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance.

[Flanker7 20]

Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance.

 

Right. Its called discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance.

 

Spot the difference. Is there one?