Interesting Peter Tatchell article on freedom of speech and equality law

[Wanderabout]

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

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.

'S o employment law forces companies to employ women'

This is not true.

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.

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.

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

clicky link

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'

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.

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).

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

I think if the publisher had a policy of not publishing anything which is likely to be offensive to religious groups, they would be fine. I think the problem would be that if, for example, they had published (or were silly enough to admit that they would willingly publish) cartoons that were deeply offensive to Jewish people, then they would be in trouble.

I think it's fair enough. You can't have one rule for one set of beliefs and one for another if they are both lawful. It's like I would hope that venues which are happy to host trans events would also be willing to host the Women's Place events. I don't want to see minority viewpoints shut out as long as those viewpoints are legal.

I stand with the Ashers, sick of the bully boy techniques by Lee trying to get Christians to engage in compelled speech

Think coercive control people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"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."

This is still not true.

There is no law that says if you don't hire women (or any other sorts of people) in certain proprortions / at all then you have to justify it.

This is made up. I'm sure. Id be interested to see where this has come from.

There is no law that says if you don't hire women (or any other sorts of people) in certain proprortions / at all then you have to justify it.

I don't this that is what they were saying. I think that they meant you can't generally expressly turn down women for jobs just because they are women/advertise jobs as 'men only' (subject to incredibly limited exceptions). Equally, if the best applicant for the job was a woman and you didn't hire them then it is possible to be sued and you would need a good justification for choosing another applicant.

Well if that wasn;t what they were saying then they should have been clearer! Because that is what they wrote.

What you wrote makes more sense.

Some people do have funny ideas about stuff so who knows.

I agree with Peter Tatchell.

I also think it is absurd that the decision went against Ashers for refusing to ice a message in support of something which is not actually legal in N Ireland. Regardless of what your views on gay marriage it does not seem unreasonable to say I will be involved in creating something bearing a slogan in support of something which is illegal.

I wonder how much Lee's action has set gay marriage back ?

From the comments on the website

Although I agree with gay marriage, I also believe that this small bakery does have the right to refuse to make the cake. They were being asked to decorate a cake with a slogan for something they believe is completely wrong. Why didn't Gareth just ask a different bakery?

There is loads to admire in Tatchell’s tenacity but his views on self ID would seem to be that it should be legal given this guest blog: www.petertatchellfoundation.org/gender-recognition-act-time-for-reform/

I think if the publisher had a policy of not publishing anything which is likely to be offensive to religious groups, they would be fine.

but that's just not a workable policy. You can't base laws on what people might think is offensive because what's offensive is very subjective. They same message may or may not be offensive to two members of the same group. Some muslims may find Mohammed drawings non-offensive. Others may disagree. The writer (Thatchell) nailed it. The bakers, as far as I remember, didn't refuse to serve the gay person, but refused to make a pro gay marriage cake. That's very different. Should cake makers not be allowed to refuse to make a pro-UKIP cake?

Frankly, I think the LGBT person who went to the baker is acting like a bully. I can see bakers refusing to make all kinds of cakes: pro-UKIP cakes, S&M cakes, you name it.

I think if the publisher had a policy of not publishing anything which is likely to be offensive to religious groups, they would be fine.

This is how we end up with a blasphemy law through the back door. Similar debate was had in the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo - should we be able to publish words/images that offend religious sensibilities? (Yes. Next).

This is how we end up with a blasphemy law through the back door.

according to the thatchell article, free speech laws and rights are murky here, compared to the US.

I don't think that's the risk. But I think we live in a time where political correctness is blinding many of us.

Agreed. I do envy the Cousins their First Amendment.