Do you support a conscience clause?

I give it about 2 pages before this descends into a binfest, but here goes.

Interesting article in the Telegraph regarding human rights lawyer trying to get a conscience clause introduced, this will stop people having to do things they disagree with on moral/religious grounds.

------------------
Muslim printers could be forced to produce cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed if the case against a Christian bakery which refused to make a Sesame Street gay marriage cake is upheld, a prominent human rights barrister has claimed.

Aidan O’Neill QC said a discrimination case against Ashers Baking Company – which cancelled an order to make a cake featuring the characters Bert and Ernie arm in arm under the slogan ‘support gay marriage’ – could undermine freedom of conscience.

Mr O’Neill was commissioned by the Christian Institute, which is supporting the bakery’s legal defence, to provide a legal opinion on the implications of the case, which is due to come before a court in Belfast later this month.

He said the arguments upon which the legal action is based could also justify forcing a T-shirt company with a lesbian owner to print tops denouncing same-sex marriage as an “abomination” or an atheist web designer to build a website claiming the world was made by God in six days.

The row over the Bert and Ernie cake has divided opinion sharply in Northern Ireland, where the bakery is based, and led to attempts to introduce a so-called “conscience clause” into law in the province.
The proposal, put forward by members of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), would give businesses an exclusion from discrimination law enabling them to refuse to provide services if they go against their religious convictions.

Supporters claim it is needed to protect freedom of belief but opponents say it would be nothing more than legalised discrimination against gay people. The row first arose in May of last year when Ashers cancelled a £36.50 order for the novelty cake from Gareth Lee, an LGBT rights activist. Daniel McArthur, general manager of the firm, said it would amount to endorsing the campaign for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland – the only part of the UK where it is not yet legal – and go against his traditionalist Christian beliefs.

But the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a Government-backed body, wrote to the firm to say the refusal amounted to discrimination against Mr Lee, who wanted the cake for an event to mark International Day Against Homophobia.

Mr Lee, supported by the Commission, is seeking a small amount of compensation and a declaration that his treatment amounted to discrimination, based on equality regulations and employment law.
But Mr O’Neill argued that the Commission’s case ignores human rights protections and said the bakery’s case was based on the same principles as Sir Thomas More’s refusal recognise Henry VIII to be the Supreme Head of the Church in England.

“Their refusal to endorse this opinion – to protect their negative freedom of expression – has resulted in the State, in the form of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, funding court action against them which seeks to stigmatise as unlawful and render unactionable the defendants’ religious beliefs and political opinions,” he wrote.

He added: “If the approach of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland … were correctly based in law (which I do not consider it to be) then on the basis that the law does not protect the fundamental right, within the commercial context of supplying services, to hold opinions nor guarantee any negative freedom of expression, there would be no defence to similar actions being taken against individuals or companies supplying services in any of the following scenarios which have been presented to me.”

He listed several scenarios including “a Muslim printer refusing a contract requiring the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed”.
Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “The strength and clarity of the advice from Mr O’Neill, who has a national reputation for his human rights expertise, should set off the alarm bells in this Government quango. “It spells out the very real dangers and far-reaching implications for freedom of speech.

“But the equality watchdog seems determined to force people to use their creative skills to promote a political cause they fundamentally disagree with.
“This family run bakers serve gay customers all the time but they didn’t want to promote gay marriage.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...o-print-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoons-lawyer.html

No I don't support the clause.

Firstly there is a distinction between the terms moral and religious which isn't accounted for.The proprietors should not be able to refuse paid work on religious grounds (in their personal lives of course they are free to avoid Gay Bert and Ernie cakes to their hearts' content) - doing so in a business context is explicitly discriminatory.

I reckon the analogous examples used are a deliberately sensationalist tactic on behalf of the QC to curry favour. And in all of those examples the same rule applies; to refuse the offer of a service based on religious grounds is discriminatory and should be illegal. No ifs, no buts.

Of course they are well with their rights to try and refuse the work if the job is deemed to harm other people. But none of the examples in the article do so.

So no.

The more realistic analogies are to what would be allowed if such a clause came in - which could be effectively anything. Such a clause would make the legislation completely and utterly worthless to begin with.

Simple answer - No but becasue I dont see a 'one size fits all' solution here. It isnt right (nor would it work) to force people to go against their beliefs and neither is it right for people to be able to discriminate based on beliefs.

Cant this and others like it just be dealt with on a case by case basis and then the rest of us carry on with our lives?

So if this was adopted, I could convert to become part of the Amish group and therefore refuse to undertake any work involving modern technology. I would therefore just sit at my desk all day doing nothing, as I would refuse on religious grounds to touch the computer, or phone, and would not be able to write anything down unless i had a quill pen and ink, while still being paid a full salary.

While this is an extreme example, I would see an upsurge in cases, for work that people don't fancy doing. If anyone is that committed to their beliefs then th eoption of resigning is available.

It's an interesting one. I work in advertising and have refused to work on certain jobs because I felt that they were unethical. One example - promoting a 24hr sponsored fast to teenage school girls. It was my personal opinion, not the agency's, that it was wrong to encourage teenage girls not to eat as it might encourage anorexic behaviour. I guess I could have been fired for 'refusing to work', but as it was, the agency let me work on something else instead.

If you worry about alcoholism, should you be forced to work on a drinks account? What about for betting firms? Or for payday loans?

Private business should be allowed to refuse any customer they please.

Should be no business of the Governments or the laws.

studio150 said:

So if this was adopted, I could convert to become part of the Amish group and therefore refuse to undertake any work involving modern technology. I would therefore just sit at my desk all day doing nothing, as I would refuse on religious grounds to touch the computer, or phone, and would not be able to write anything down unless i had a quill pen and ink, while still being paid a full salary.

While this is an extreme example, I would see an upsurge in cases, for work that people don't fancy doing. If anyone is that committed to their beliefs then th eoption of resigning is available.

Click to expand...

These things can backfire...I remember years ago, some Oxbridge student found an old university law that said he could get a free beer daily during exams. The college had to comply, but then found another law that students should carry a sword, and gave him a hefty fine :-D

Tyrone Biggums said:

Private business should be allowed to refuse any customer they please.

Should be no business of the Governments or the laws.

Click to expand...

They are though - until such time as they're stupid enough to admit they were doing it due to a prejudice/belief based reason against the customer and that reason is protected in law.

Each case to date has been somewhere who couldn't resist pontificating to the person they were refusing.

Cian said:

They are though - until such time as they're stupid enough to admit they were doing it due to a prejudice/belief based reason against the customer and that reason is protected in law.

Each case to date has been somewhere who couldn't resist pontificating to the person they were refusing.

Click to expand...

Who cares why they are doing it. It's their business. If a business wants to discriminate it's only hurting their reputation and bottom line in the end anyway.

Let the market dictate if their decision is a smart or stupid one. Not a Government or its laws.

Governments should govern, not dictate social policies.

Cian said:

They are though - until such time as they're stupid enough to admit they were doing it due to a prejudice/belief based reason against the customer and that reason is protected in law.

Each case to date has been somewhere who couldn't resist pontificating to the person they were refusing.

Click to expand...

Yes. Which is why you can't refuse when it's a form of discrimination that's against the law, EG

Bert and Ernie aren't gay or married, they are puppets on a children’s TV program and shouldn't be labeled either way, unless they are given a sexuality by the program producers.

Tyrone Biggums said:

Who cares why they are doing it. It's their business. If a business wants to discriminate it's only hurting their reputation and bottom line in the end anyway.

Let the market dictate if their decision is a smart or stupid one. Not a Government or its laws.

Governments should govern, not dictate social policies.

Click to expand...

Everyone should have the basic right to go about their life without suffering discrimination.
Now obviously that ain't gonna happen but there should be laws which at least try and protect this right.

If you want a sandwich, you shouldn't have to worry about whether you're going to be 'accepted' by the baker in his bakery. If there's a bakery there, you're hungry, you should be able to go in and get a sandwich. The baker might be a bigoted loon, but if you can at least go in and get your sandwich without having to find this out, you're not going to have your day slightly ruined by a ****.

I guess laws like the ones we have go some way to prevent societies misfits spouting their bile. Sure they aren't perfect but I think I'd rather have them.

removed by me.

It's a good question, which effectively means there are so many angles to look at it from it's hard to answer.

I do believe that a business should be allowed to request a denial of service to the customer, and give their reasons why. However, discrimination laws are important.

It's a bit of a wierd one this. If I'm selling a service and there is no binding contract for that service, I'd like to think I can withdraw it at any point for whatever reason I like. e.g I no longer want to bake your cake because I don't like your face, please make other arrangements etc etc

............but then you can't open the door to legalised racism and homophobia, which we're working as a society to get rid of. So I'm buggered if I know what the answer is

Lush said:

It's an interesting one. I work in advertising and have refused to work on certain jobs because I felt that they were unethical. One example - promoting a 24hr sponsored fast to teenage school girls. It was my personal opinion, not the agency's, that it was wrong to encourage teenage girls not to eat as it might encourage anorexic behaviour. I guess I could have been fired for 'refusing to work', but as it was, the agency let me work on something else instead.

If you worry about alcoholism, should you be forced to work on a drinks account? What about for betting firms? Or for payday loans?

Click to expand...

perfectly put. the examples in the article are deliberately controversial, but one could apply the principle involved to absolutely anything one feels deeply opposed to. morals and ethics are neither fixed or universally observed so conscience is on shaky grounds to start, and will inevitably involve discrimination.

Cian said:

They are though - until such time as they're stupid enough to admit they were doing it due to a prejudice/belief based reason against the customer and that reason is protected in law.

Each case to date has been somewhere who couldn't resist pontificating to the person they were refusing.

Click to expand...

and there's the solution - you just politely turn down the work/job on the grounds of being too busy, or its too tricky or price yourself out of the job. not perfect but works fro most.

studio150 said:

So if this was adopted, I could convert to become part of the Amish group and therefore refuse to undertake any work involving modern technology. I would therefore just sit at my desk all day doing nothing, as I would refuse on religious grounds to touch the computer, or phone, and would not be able to write anything down unless i had a quill pen and ink, while still being paid a full salary.

Click to expand...

Why do you think your employers would carry on paying you your full salary? If you took on a job, and if you subsequently refused to do it, that's grounds for dismissal. You'd no more get paid than the cake makers would get paid for not making a cake.

beorhthelm said:

and there's the solution - you just politely turn down the work/job on the grounds of being too busy, or its too tricky or price yourself out of the job. not perfect but works fro most.

Click to expand...

The cake shop missed an even easier one - "I'm sorry, we can't print Henson characters without permission, have you asked them?" - customer will just go somewhere else anyway.

Tyrone Biggums said:

Private business should be allowed to refuse any customer they please.

Should be no business of the Governments or the laws.

Click to expand...

So you want to bin ALL discrimination laws?

That's some viewpoint right there.