Conscience Clauses

Purple

Registered User
Messages
13,957
Should there be a conscience clause that allows businesses to refuse to sell goods or services to a particular person or group or when the sale relates to a particular subject?
The question is topical in the context of the Marriage Equality referendum. Should a bakery have to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple? Should a venue be allowed to refuse to host a gay wedding.
When pondering that here’s another few scenarios;
Should an Islamic printer be allowed to refuse to print images that they consider deeply offensive, say ones showing images of the Prophet Mohamed?
I think many people would agree that they should be able to refuse but;
Should the bakery or venue be allowed to refuse to sell their goods or services to a black couple or a mixed race couple?
The more you think about it the more difficult scenarios you can come up with.
I would think the scenario with the printer could be covered under our blasphemy law (but should we have such a law?).
The other scenarios just look like bigotry to me but maybe I’m missing something.
 
Personally I think we can get too hung up on issues like this. For example there are plenty of places I wouldn't be happy to spend my money as I know I'm not the type of clientèle desired by the business. If I think a business doesn't want my money I simply spend it somewhere else. I would never dream of demanding the business accepts my money in exchange for the service provided - I'd be too afraid of what I might get back in return! :D
So whilst I'm not in favour of a conscience clause (which to be honest sounds like another way of saying we want to be allowed to discriminate freely), personally I won't be getting to hot under the collar about this one.
 
Last edited:
This is a very difficult item to legislate for and also to police.
The two cases that have come to light recently - as you mentioned - was the cake and also the printers in Dundalk/Drogheda - who refused to print the invitations for a civil partnership.

I think what was most irksome in both of these cases is that both business accepted the business - they took the clients money. But then later recanted and refused to provide the contracted services because it was to do with LGBT issues.

In the case of the printers - the company had been providing print services to the gay man for his business - knowing his sexuality - but willing to take the money - it was only the invitation they refused to print.

I can understand how people may have trouble providing services to a certain group - but whats the line between fairness and racism, sexism, religious discrimination.

Each business can choose to do business with customers as they see fit - but there are ways of accepting/rejecting a contract that does not have to imply discriminatory practices.
 
Should there be a conscience clause that allows businesses to refuse to sell goods or services to a particular person or group or when the sale relates to a particular subject?

Not if the clause is only to protect religious views or conscience. It would make no sense that certain aspects are identified as warranting protection against discrimination, but you're only held to them as long as you're not religious. A belief that is not accepted by society to the extent that it requires legislative intervention shouldn't come with the caveat that it's ok if its on the basis of a religion. It means that those people, institutions and businesses that are not aligned to a religion follow one set of rules and those that are another. You know, like is currently the case with property, banking, tax, employment, sexual assault laws, etc . So it probably would just be a continuence of the status quo...(I jest of course, or maybe that's what my conscience believes no matter how irrational or offensive a statement, suck it up and go somewhere else for an opinion.)


Again, the conscience clause is only ever going to be applied to homosexuals. Unless someone is allowed to refuse to give a woman driving lessons because of their religion? Is that likely to be allowed? Nope. Neither will race, gender, travellor community or any of the other grounds for discrimination aside from sexuality.

Would the same cake maker refuse to make a cake for a humanist celebration, a muslim or Jewish wedding? Would a venue refuse a Scientology event?

All would probably be a very large no. So let's call it what it is, as in the marriage thread, it is just an attempt to legally deny a service to homesexual people because of their sexuality.
 
Conscience Clause - An excuse to cloud the opinions and acts of somebody who does not want to bite the bullet.

1. We are all against the baker who refused to sell his cake to somebody for Gay Marriage. It is right and fashionable to condemn the baker.

2. But, we are all for the hotelier who refuses the wedding celebrations for an Itinerant couple and their family and friends. It is wrong, unchristian but fashionable.

In No. 1 the baker is an easy target and we are all heroes in the attack. But, in No. 2 the hotelier feels his hands are tied and most of us could not care a whit and if that wedding reception goes ahead our Christian customers will boycott the venue forever.

Therefore, it does not matter if something is right or wrong but if it is fashionable, it happens.
 
Should there be a conscience clause that allows businesses to refuse to sell goods or services to a particular person or group or when the sale relates to a particular subject? . . . I would think the scenario with the printer could be covered under our blasphemy law (but should we have such a law?).
I would support a conscience clause, not to refuse a person or group, but to refuse business. And we shouldn't have a blasphemy law, that's the change we should be making to our Constitution next month.
We are all against the baker who refused to sell his cake to somebody for Gay Marriage. It is right and fashionable to condemn the baker.
I wouldn't condemn the baker. He didn't refuse to do a "Congratulations Adam & Steve" cake but rather a "Support Gay Marriage" cake. I haven't followed the case closely but is it not the case the baker was targeted as it was expected that he would refuse and that in effect it was a publicity stunt? The North's equality authority is wasting taxpayers money perusing this in the courts, such pettiness is asking to be disbanded. It's a pity that the Children's Television Workshop didn't sue for misrepresentation of their trademarked characters Ernie & Bert.
Therefore, it does not matter if something is right or wrong but if it is fashionable, it happens.
That's all too often the case.
 
Last edited:
Conscience Clause - An excuse to cloud the opinions and acts of somebody who does not want to bite the bullet.

1. We are all against the baker who refused to sell his cake to somebody for Gay Marriage. It is right and fashionable to condemn the baker.

2. But, we are all for the hotelier who refuses the wedding celebrations for an Itinerant couple and their family and friends. It is wrong, unchristian but fashionable.

In No. 1 the baker is an easy target and we are all heroes in the attack. But, in No. 2 the hotelier feels his hands are tied and most of us could not care a whit and if that wedding reception goes ahead our Christian customers will boycott the venue forever.

Therefore, it does not matter if something is right or wrong but if it is fashionable, it happens.

You've made a big assumption there in that we're all for refusal of business to the travelling community. I see no fashion of supporting such business decisions. However, again, the two are not comparable.

Michealm is right, the baker was targeted (unfairly in my opinion) by a group safe in the knowledge he would refuse at some point. The political statement they wanted on a cake puts this case into a very unique circumstance. Would he have provide cake for any other political statement or do they deny that service to anyone?

The traveller issue is wholly different. I'm sure hotelliers would argue some justification for their refusal, whether perceived or factual. It doesn't mean it is supported. Let's say they know the particular couple or have had events for their family in the past and this has resulted in damage to their property, anti social behaviour, etc. Their refusal is a business decision, denying to make a cake for someone based on a political statement is ideological. One may have an actual demonstrable basis in fact, the other is because they don't believe in the message.

Still, it is a wild assumption to say we all support the hotelliers and therefore the policy is flawed.
 
Michealm is right, the baker was targeted (unfairly in my opinion) by a group safe in the knowledge he would refuse at some point. The political statement they wanted on a cake puts this case into a very unique circumstance. Would he have provide cake for any other political statement or do they deny that service to anyone?
What was the political statement?
 
In terms of the baker - they accepted the contract then later reneged on it. They decided after the fact that it was against their conscience.

The cake certainly had a political message- but no more so than saying 'Vote Fianna Fail'. The bakers could easily refuse the business on the basis that they were politically agnostic - and didnt make cakes supporting one or other ideology. But they accepted this contract - and then based on their religious beliefs decided not to complete the contracted work.
 
A Cork pastor has said that homosexuality is “a sexual sin, just like rape” in support of demands from religious leaders for a so–called ‘conscience clause’ to accompany the May 22nd equality referendum.
 
The cake certainly had a political message- but no more so than saying 'Vote Fianna Fail'. The bakers could easily refuse the business on the basis that they were politically agnostic - and didnt make cakes supporting one or other ideology. But they accepted this contract - and then based on their religious beliefs decided not to complete the contracted work.
I disagree; I don't see equality as a political issue.
 
I disagree; I don't see equality as a political issue.

It certainly is an equality issue, but the campaign to support gay marriage seeks to introduce a change in legislation, so naturally is engaging in politics and a political statement. As would be any message on a cake about an ongoing or proposed legislation change.

I don't support the baker's decision at all, but I think there is a distinction particuarly from Leper's post from the message that was being asked to be written.
 
It certainly is an equality issue, but the campaign to support gay marriage seeks to introduce a change in legislation, so naturally is engaging in politics and a political statement.

Latrade put it better than me!

As I have stated elsewhere - I am an out gay man - so obviously equality is something close to my heart. Equality per se is not political - but legislation changes are.
 
Latrade put it better than me!

As I have stated elsewhere - I am an out gay man - so obviously equality is something close to my heart. Equality per se is not political - but legislation changes are.
Legislation is done by politicians but the opposition to this legislation is not based on political views. That's why I don't consider this to be a political issue, just as other issues such as divorce and abortion are not political.
They may be used as political footballs but that's just politicians being politicians.
 
Legislation is done by politicians but the opposition to this legislation is not based on political views. That's why I don't consider this to be a political issue, just as other issues such as divorce and abortion are not political.

touche! But those statements are not mutually exclusive or contradictorary. The issue of gay marriage is one of equality, the campaign and movement to introduce equality is a political one. Not all politics and politicking is a bad thing...says the ex-lobbyist.

There are plenty of issues that shouldn't be political or are apolitical, but the organisation and (dirty word) lobbying that goes into effecting change means it becomes political. It's a fine line, but a message of support for a wider campaign to change legislation is politics with a small "p".
 
touche! But those statements are not mutually exclusive or contradictorary. The issue of gay marriage is one of equality, the campaign and movement to introduce equality is a political one. Not all politics and politicking is a bad thing...says the ex-lobbyist.

There are plenty of issues that shouldn't be political or are apolitical, but the organisation and (dirty word) lobbying that goes into effecting change means it becomes political. It's a fine line, but a message of support for a wider campaign to change legislation is politics with a small "p".
I agree with all of that but I still contend that a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan is not political. The issue itself is not political even if the campaign around the issue is.
 
I agree with all of that but I still contend that a cake with a pro gay marriage slogan is not political. The issue itself is not political even if the campaign around the issue is.

You say potato, I say....

We'll just agree I'm right and leave it there ;)
 
Back
Top