Conscience Clauses

Whilst I may not agree myself with the Baker... there's a part of me that wonders if we have a right to force a private business to manufacture an item they don't want to produce?
 
My position on this:- If I am a professional baker, I bake any kind of cakes for profit. If I need a conscience I take the money first and protest later.
 
Leper said:
My position on this:- If I am a professional baker, I bake any kind of cakes for profit. If I need a conscience I take the money first and protest later.
Click to expand...
Should a Muslim Baker be forced to produce a cake which shows an image of the Prophet?
 
Purple said:
Should a Muslim Baker be forced to produce a cake which shows an image of the Prophet?
Click to expand...

No. But then there is a problem with that analogy and that the person requesting the cake be made wouldn't be protected under equality legislation under the 9 grounds for discrimination. The gay support group are protected and their argument was the denial of service was because of their sexuality, the baker's defence is it was because of the message rather than who was requesting the cake. That is the crux of the court case.

In my opinion a baker or any can refuse to produce a cake based upon the message, whether an equality/political message, or they generally find it distasteful or offencive for whatever reason. However, you can't deny a service to anyone on the basis of who they are as dictated by the 9 grounds for discrimination.

If I were to be refused a cake that supported gay marriage, I would have no grounds for a case, same for as if I went to a Muslim baker and asked for a cake with the Prophet holding a sign supporting gay marriage while sitting in the back of a car being driven by a woman and was refused. It would be clear that the denial was because I am an odious tool just trying to be offensive. Thankfully, odious tools aren't protected. If I was refused a cake that celebrated a humanist wedding, then maybe as that is relating to who I am based on non-religion, which is protected.

Discussions on "conscience clause" have to get it right. The message isn't protected and you can refuse to print any message you wish...so long as you're consistent, but denial of service just because of someone's sexuality (seeing as supporters of this only seem to want to let their conscience run their business when it comes to homosexuality) is wrong and should always be wrong irrespective of what your conscience states.
 
Just saw a moan (on another forum) from a couple who "were appalled" whose images were used on a "No" Marriage Equality Referendum poster. It appears to me that they were paid for the "photoshoot" and the picture was paid for by some of the "No" campaigner representatives. As far as I am concerned (and I'll be voting 'Yes' in the referendum) the couple sold their "image" to anybody who was buying such an image and now they are complaining. They had something to sell and they sold it and then complained as to who bought it. Something wrong somewhere!
 
Leper said:
Just saw a moan (on another forum) from a couple who "were appalled" whose images were used on a "No" Marriage Equality Referendum poster. It appears to me that they were paid for the "photoshoot" and the picture was paid for by some of the "No" campaigner representatives. As far as I am concerned (and I'll be voting 'Yes' in the referendum) the couple sold their "image" to anybody who was buying such an image and now they are complaining. They had something to sell and they sold it and then complained as to who bought it. Something wrong somewhere!
Click to expand...

Seems a flaw in the business model - the image can be used by anyone for anything.

It could be used to document white supremacy, to advocate a vote for a facist political party, to advertise any drug. Either the couple get approval rights for every time their image is used, or they sell all rights to their image and ultimalty cannot have any comeback if used against their wishes. They have obviously chosen to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
 
Leper said:
Just saw a moan (on another forum) from a couple who "were appalled" whose images were used on a "No" Marriage Equality Referendum poster. It appears to me that they were paid for the "photoshoot" and the picture was paid for by some of the "No" campaigner representatives. As far as I am concerned (and I'll be voting 'Yes' in the referendum) the couple sold their "image" to anybody who was buying such an image and now they are complaining. They had something to sell and they sold it and then complained as to who bought it. Something wrong somewhere!
Click to expand...

Less a moan and a genuine issue. Most stock photo companies have conditions on the use of the images and one is political campaigns. The couple would have been under the impression that their picture would not be used as part of any political campaign.

The no campaign got around it with a very small disclaimer in the poster which cannot be read unless on top of the poster.

The couple are right to be upset as they would have been under the impression that their image wouldn't be used to support any political campaign, however the stock photo company obviously made it too easy to put in place a hidden disclaimer.
 
Sol28 said:
Seems a flaw in the business model - the image can be used by anyone for anything.

It could be used to document white supremacy, to advocate a vote for a facist political party, to advertise any drug. Either the couple get approval rights for every time their image is used, or they sell all rights to their image and ultimalty cannot have any comeback if used against their wishes. They have obviously chosen to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

"They have obviously chosen to sell themselves to the highest bidder" Well said, Sol, I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Does the Equal Status Act not cover most of what could be classed as 'conscience' when used in this context? It outlines 9 grounds for discrimination when providing goods and sevices and sexual orientation is one.
 
Sol28 said:
They have obviously chosen to sell themselves to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

I seem to have been hasty - The couple were more naive than greedy. They received no money for that image - they posed for a friend, a photographer, to help build his portfolio. They have since discussed the fact that they are in favour of same sex marriage.
 
Now that the Baker has been found guilty of discrimination for declining to supply a cake with a 'support gay marriage' slogan, in this arguably targeted and overzealous case, what impact might that have on the marriage referendum?
 
michaelm said:
Now that the Baker has been found guilty of discrimination for declining to supply a cake with a 'support gay marriage' slogan, in this arguably targeted and overzealous case, what impact might that have on the marriage referendum?
Click to expand...

It's civil case, so the media reports of guilt is misleading. What impact would it have though? If it cemented greater support for the No vote, then that would tend to confirm suspicions that their motivations are based on homophobia rather than anything to do with marriage or children. This case has nothing to do with baking or gay marriage. It is whether the defence of religious conscience can be used to refuse a commerical transaction. It can't. Anything else to be read into this is a matter for personal biases.
 
Latrade said:
If it cemented greater support for the No vote, then that would tend to confirm suspicions that their motivations are based on homophobia rather than anything to do with marriage or children.
Click to expand...
So is it fair to say that you expect the decision to cement support for the No vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top