US Supreme Court sides with Christian graphic designer who refused to create same-sex wedding website

Except, I suppose, insofar as if you sell a guitar to a trendy vicar you are "forced to contribute" to Shine, Jesus, Shine. Or if you rent a flat to a Catholic couple you are "forced to contribute" to them indoctrinating their children under your roof.

Again, not sure what you are arguing here.

But in the first example you likely wouldn't even know what the trendy vicar wanted it for, and the second example I don't think anyone would attribute responsibility in that situation. And probably we don't want discrimination in housing and that's an overriding concern.

I don't think it's equivalent to something like (1) printing propaganda for an organisation, or (2) providing a meeting space for an organisation.

That's far more directly connected to political or religious activism, and you could maybe be considered responsible at least sometimes for being involved.

So you could be seen as blameworthy for printing off questionable religious propaganda, in a way that you wouldn't be for merely renting a flat to a religious couple with kids.

In discussions like these it's worth remembering that often, the answers the law settles on aren't perfect - there is no perfect answer.

What there should be is an attempt to balance interests.

You can make a good argument that private business owners should be able to rent premises or do work, or not do those things, for anyone they choose. And for the most part that's true, it's part of their free choice.

Where we restrict that in regards to protected characteristics, we are restricting their use of their own property and skills, absolutely, the state is doing that. The justification is that allowing certain kinds of discrimination is so socially harmful that it is worth the state stepping in.

It's not even just about harm to individuals. If I won't hire my hall out to someone because of his bad fashion sense, that might be just as bad for him as me refusing some other guy because he is black, and might reflect me being an asshat in both cases. But the social harms of the latter are wider and more impactful (arguably, for now.)

On the other hand, that kind of law potentially impacts some groups freedom of belief, freedom of speech, or mission in terms of intellectual or religious or political activism. So the law allows certain kind of exceptions, because the larger harms to democracy would be severe.

There could be other ways to balance it. The loss and gains on all sides are not easy to weigh. And needs might change over time, what was working 100 years ago might not work now.

I do think where we run into trouble can be where protected characteristics are brought in that are around really socially controversial ideas. Gender identity is interesting in that light because no one really seems to know what the heck it is supposed to mean very clearly. (So in a certain sense, they only work smoothly where they are largely socially accepted already. )

And the more of protected categories there are, the more we are restricting what people can do in line with their belief systems, which is a good argument for being very conservative about defining them.

@PorcelinaV
To refuse to sell an off the shelf cake ( with no requested messages ) based on protected characteristic of the buyer is discrimination. Because you are refusing a service open to everyone else and thus discriminating. The act of selling a standard cake is not considered speech. Selling a cake is not considered supporting their cause/beliefs or an infraction of your own. Just sell them the cake and take the money.

Refusing to put a message you disagree with on that same cake is a different thing because it is compelled speech. The act of writing the message on the cake that you object to is what makes this different.

Just sell the the cake and tell them to put their own message on it.

So no, you are not allowed to discriminate on the ground of a protected characteristic while providing a service, unless what they are asking you to do is in some way visibly (audibly) to align yourself with their values or beliefs.

Your argument isn't clear to me, but with the cake message example, I don't think it does involve to "visibly align yourself with their values". No one would reasonably think that the baker is speaking for themselves rather than just fulfilling an order.

Maybe you can spell out a certain meaning for "visibly align" that you think is relevant here.

@IWillNoLie
I think you mis read sorry.
If the printer Bikechic mentioned above refuses to print all religious material irrespective of religion thats not discrimination because it's applied equally.

From what Bikechic said the printer didn't want to print "anything that promotes religion". But the printer would print other material from the same people as long as it didn't "promote religion". In this case it's not the customers but the type of material that the printer appears to reject. As long as they apply this policy to all religions equally I assume it's fine.

With lots of small companies in printing they probably aren't all going to go against religion.

Also there are enough Christian churches to be able to team up and do their own printing if it really became necessary.

It costs you more?

Well you can argue that there is a balance that, at least sometimes, private companies may be able to ethically object to being involved in certain activities, even if they are tied up with protected characteristics.

I find it fascinating how difficult some people find it to get their heads round the provisions in the Equality Act as applicable to religion and belief. Since it's actually not that complicated, I wonder whether it comes from some kind of unacknowledged cognitive dissonance, along the lines of "Equality Act good, wongthink bad"...

The sense in which I would agree it would be "forced speech" is that you are being forced to contribute to spreading a certain message. But that also applies to hiring a venue.

The sense in which it is "forced speech" is that someone would be forced to say something they don't want to say. HTH.

And that argument doesn't hold water. Except, I suppose, insofar as if you sell a guitar to a trendy vicar you are "forced to contribute" to Shine, Jesus, Shine. Or if you rent a flat to a Catholic couple you are "forced to contribute" to them indoctrinating their children under your roof. Or if you sell cough sweets to TRAs you are "forced to contribute" to their retained ability to shout slogans. So no, you are not allowed to discriminate on the ground of a protected characteristic while providing a service, unless what they are asking you to do is in some way visibly (audibly) to align yourself with their values or beliefs.

Anyway, that's the law. However, I'm not sure whether your argument is that the Equality Act is bad legislation - if it is, forgive me for missing the point and please give us your reasoning for why religion etc should not be a protected characteristic.

But I am not sure where a printing business falls in terms of the Ashers judgement.

”I don't get where It is not about comparing Christians to Jews. came from?”

You said ”If they print for some religions not others”* *so I just picked two. I could equally have said Muslims and Sikhs. My point is it is not about treating different religions differently, it is about treating someone who has a particular religion or belief differently from those without that religion or belief. So refusing a service for a Zoroastrian but providing it for people who are not Zoroastrians, which includes those who do not follow any religion, would be discrimination.

”My point is apply a rule equally to everyone = OK”

If they didn’t provide a service for anyone then they would be ok in terms of discrimination but they wouldn’t be a very successful business!

@IWillNoLie
I don't get where It is not about comparing Christians to Jews. came from?

My point is apply a rule equally to everyone = OK
Apply rules depending upon a protected characteristic = discrimination

If the printer Bikechic mentioned above refuses to print all religious material irrespective of religion thats not discrimination because it's applied equally. If they print for some religions not others then that is religious discrimination.

If you treat a Christian organisation different from one that is not Christian that is religious discrimination. It is not about comparing Christians to Jews. Remember that ’belief’ includes ‘absence of belief’ too.

I think for the cake you have to separate the raw cake from the decoration of the cake. When I google undecorated cake I get tons of examples of mostly white undecorated cakes of various shapes. They are iced with plenty of space to write a message, or put decorations on top/around. To refuse to sell anyone one of these undecorated cakes because of a protected characteristic would be discrimination under the law.
If buyer wants to write stuff on the cake that's nothing to do with the seller.
However if the buyer wants the seller to write a message on the cake that goes against the values of the seller that that's a different thing entirely.

Imagine if a pedophile wanted a cake decorated with pro pedophile messages. Should a baker be forced to comply with that request?

The simplest way to avoid the issue seems to be not to offer the service at all. If the printer Bikechic mentioned above refuses to print all religious material irrespective of religion thats not discrimination because it's applied equally. If they print for some religions not others then that is religious discrimination.

What if everyone refused to print your leaflets, or provide you with services? What they are the only printer/baker/whatever in your town and your cohort of people of forced to travel further and pay more for services?

I think the website design issue is different to e.g. baking a cake though because there is more content and the designer is using their creative skills. I wouldn't be happy to make a website for a hardcore porn company but I would sell a pornstar a cake.

My church sometimes gets things printed. One local printer refuses to print anything that promotes religion. Fair enough, we go elsewhere. That's not discrimination. It's their policy. They don't refuse to serve our members when they want wedding invites. That would be out of order.

Economically left wing maybe, but certainly not politically liberal. Find me an evangelical in the UK that approves of gay marriage or abortion.

I am always mildly amused (which is preferable to feeling frustrated) to watch on here the reactions of someone who made an incorrect assertion

Could you quote what incorrect assertion you mean?

I am always mildly amused (which is preferable to feeling frustrated) to watch on here the reactions of someone who made an incorrect assertion and is presented with the actual, incontrovertible evidence of why they are wrong - such as being provided with a link to the current law, or a court judgement.

By pure chance, on this thread there are two reactions to compare and contrast. One’s response on being corrected was “ah yes, you’re right, my example was poor”.

The other continues to argue against it, tries to cast doubt on it (from a position of no legal expertise), comes up with a false equivalence…

Interesting to see who is willing to accept evidence and learn from it and who is not, wouldn’t you say?

"rather than making up excuses to discriminate against people"

Why would it be a big deal if a venue like a pub could refuse to hire out a room for certain events on personal ethics grounds?

So pub A refuses a GC meeting / speech because they see it as unethical.

Pub B refuses a trans-activist meeting / speech because they see it as unethical.

Sure it's "discrimination" in some sort of way. Why is it discrimination of an unacceptable kind?

On the use of religious buildings. There's a really great example of religious building use from 2016 that had conform to the religious principals of the building owners but it was by mutual agreement and not enforced through adversarial legal argument.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3726924/MPs-face-six-year-booze-ban-Parliament-Sharia-owned-office-block-2020-Palace-Westminster-refurbished.html

Here is the summary of the judgement so you can read what the law actually decides rather than making up excuses to discriminate against people; https://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2018/Lee-Ashers-SupremeCourtJudgement-Summary.pdf

So if the centre was run by a Muslim business man they couldn’t stop a church group hiring it for an Easter service. If it was run by a mosque they could.

Ah, yes there are restrictions for religious groups - you are right, they can restrict who can use their premises. It was a bad example. If the centre was run by the council then it could not restrict who hired it. For charities it is much more limited though.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/religious-organisations-and-charities-when-discrimination-is-allowed-in-the-provision-of-goods-or-services/

Forgive us if we're not convinced more by your vague assertions than the judgement produced by the Supreme Court. But at least you didn't say "imho", I guess...

I explained why I thought it was doubtful in a previous post.

The sense in which I would agree it would be "forced speech" is that you are being forced to contribute to spreading a certain message. But that also applies to hiring a venue.

If that's "forced speech", (which is doubtful imo)

Forgive us if we're not convinced more by your vague assertions than the judgement produced by the Supreme Court. But at least you didn't say "imho", I guess...

I think you should listen to the posters above, who do in fact know what they're talking about. To sum up, again: the Equality Act forbids discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic (or the perception, true or not, of such), including religion or belief (which also includes lack of religion or belief). That means that you cannot treat someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than someone without it, in otherwise identical circumstances.

(There is a slight caveat, I think, to the example @IWillNoLie uses about Muslim groups, which is that the Equality Act only applies to businesses. I have a hunch that if you are, for example, a charity, you can limit your services to people whose aims roughly correspond with yours. I am part of a Quaker Meeting which rents the space to other groups and I think we actually have a responsibility to make sure we do this.)

Compelled speech - which does, yes, in fact include writing words, saying words, singing words, etc etc. - is a different issue. Not discriminating against people who disagree with you does not require you to pretend that you agree with them.