Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Interesting Peter Tatchell article on freedom of speech and equality law

62 replies

Wanderabout · 02/05/2018 16:43

Using the law to force Ashers and others to aid the dissemination of ideas that conflict with their conscience sets a dangerous, authoritarian precedent.

The equality laws invoked in this case are intended to protect people – not ideas – against discrimination.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/6182820/ashers-christian-bakery-gay-cake/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

OP posts:
Original poster
Wanderabout · 02/05/2018 19:18

It's interesting.

There's no suggestion that they shouldn't or wouldn't have made the cake itself I don't think?

If they lose where would you draw the line? This is part of Tatchell's concerns, e.g.:

Likewise, Muslim publishers (who believe that the Islamic prophet must never be depicted in art or drawings) could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that Muslims find deeply offensive.

OP posts:
Freespeecher · 02/05/2018 19:12

Ally

The extra wrinkle for the Belfast bakery was that they were being asked to bake a cake for something that, rightly or wrongly, is still illegal in NI.

Had it been in, say, Southampton, then who knows? (Though I suspect a whole new can of worms would have then been opened by making similar requests from bakeries in Bradford and Birmingham).

I do admire Tatchell for his free speech stance though.

AllyMcBeagle · 02/05/2018 18:45

The argument he is making as I understand it is that he believes people shouldn't be forced under the law and against their will to create content that goes against their beliefs (whether or not these are beliefs he agrees with).

The lower courts have all said that the bakery would have been fine if they had said that they don't do any political cakes.

The problem was that they would have been happy to do an anti-gay marriage cake but didn't want to do a pro gay-marriage one.

I think, on that basis, the lower courts' decisions have been fair. If they let the bakery refuse this cake where would you draw the line? Would it be OK if they refused to do gay wedding cakes because that goes against their beliefs?

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 02/05/2018 18:44

This is why I have always thought Peter would be able to see the arguments around self id. Because he's capable of seeing the philosophical underpinnings of ideas and laws and he doesn't have a knee jerk reaction or think tribally.

So far i have been disappointed but i'm giving him time...

Original poster
Wanderabout · 02/05/2018 18:23

Tatchell is saying you should still have to make the cake for anyone if you sell cakes. I am sure he believes you should promote the best person for the job regardless of sex, sexual orientation etc. The argument he is making as I understand it is that he believes people shouldn't be forced under the law and against their will to create content that goes against their beliefs (whether or not these are beliefs he agrees with).

OP posts:
MIdgebabe · 02/05/2018 17:57

they were not spreading the idea, they were making a cake so someone else could spread the idea. They didn't have to sign the cake

They remain free to hold their ideas and to promote their ideas.

Equality laws are about spreading ideas and changing ideas such that people are not discriminated against. By enacting the law you are spreading the idea that you agree with it. You are making "no discrimination" the normal behaviour and hence changing ideas.

That's why all women shsortlists work. Because once women are better represented at higher levels it becomes the norm to think that women belong there. And you can then remove the aws and the proportion of women doesn't not drop. Ideas are changed.

Melamin · 02/05/2018 17:47

But in a democracy, it’s vital that people should be free to say “no” when asked to spread an idea they don’t agree with.

If they can’t, the implications are frankly terrifying.

I would go further and say that in a democracy people should be free to talk about an idea that other people do not agree with. Not just say 'no'

MIdgebabe · 02/05/2018 17:35

did I over simplify? The interaction of law and society.

The effect of the law is that companies are forced to employ women or have a damn good explanation why not. A good reason might be, there are only 2 of us working in the company. A bad reason would be women are useless and I can't find any good enough for my roles.

Original poster
Wanderabout · 02/05/2018 17:26

This the blurb on the tweet from the Peter Tatchell Foundation tweet on the article:

Belfast ‘gay cake’ row goes to Supreme Court. It is about freedom of expression. The law should not compel businesses to aid messages for - or against - same-sex marriage.

His view seems to be you should have to make the cake for anyone but not be forced to promote a belief that goes against your own.

Worth reading the article as to why, really thought-provoking.

OP posts:
lalalalee · 02/05/2018 17:14

'S o employment law forces companies to employ women'

This is not true.

MIdgebabe · 02/05/2018 17:12

But that is essentially what equality laws do. They say that no matter what you might believe, you must act in a certain way. And that way Aims to get Us treating all people the same regardless of your and their beliefs.

S o employment law forces companies to employ women...even if the boss hates women. By the act of employing a woman the boss is indicating to society at large that women are competent workers, even if he doesn't believe that women are good for anything. He is promoting an idea that he doesn't agree with.