Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 3 Dec 2020
THE FINAL REPORT of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes will be published next month, Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman has confirmed.
Speaking in the Dáil this morning, O’Gorman said he will bring a memorandum to government that week seeking approval to publish the final report immediately. The sixth interim report will also be published, he added.
Former residents and their families have been contacted by his department to tell them about the plans, as well as what counselling services are available to them, O’Gorman said.
The commission was set up over five years ago and the submission of the long-awaited report, which is about 4,000 pages long, has been delayed a number of times.
The commission’s records – and whether or not they will be sealed for 30 years – have been the subject of much debate in recent months.
Survivors have previously been critical of a lack of engagement with them in relation to the report and the commission’s records.
O’Gorman today said he has had “significant engagement with survivors over the last number of weeks” and will “continue to do so”.
“It’s extremely useful for me to hear firsthand the absolutely shocking experiences that have been experienced (by survivors) … My department’s approach in the future will ensure that survivors are absolutely central in everything we do,” he said.
After Cabinet meeting on week of 11 January, O'Gorman and Taoiseach will hold a webinar to discuss report with survivors and their families, and answer any questions they have. They will have access to report before public.
— Órla Ryan (@orlaryan) December 3, 2020
Report will then be released and discussed in Dáil.
The minister again acknowledged his department’s “shortcomings” in terms of engagement with survivors and members of the collaborative forum set up to identify survivors’ concerns as the commission carried out its work, and said he is committed to having continued engagement with them.
Legal advice
Controversial legislation related to the commission’s records passed through the Oireachtas in October.
The Bill, which can be read in full here, allows the transfer of a database of 60,000 records compiled by the commission to Tusla.
Many survivors and legal experts expressed anger at the Bill, but the government said it was needed to safeguard the records after the dissolution of the commission.
Opposition TDs said the legislation was pushed through without proper scrutiny, and none of their amendments were accepted during a number of emotional debates where the powerful testimonies of survivors were read into the record.
The legislation debated in the Oireachtas recently did not specifically address the records being sealed for 30 years. However, campaigners said it was a missed opportunity to address the issue.
The government maintained it had to seal the records under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. However, a number of legal experts said that General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into law in 2018, supersedes the 2004 Act and would not allow for the records to be sealed.
The government later did a u-turn, saying the Department of Children, along with Túsla, would continue engaging with the Data Protection Commissioner to ensure peoples’ right to access their own personal information about themselves, under data protection legislation and the GDPR are “fully respected and implemented; additional resources will be provided where necessary”.
Speaking today, O’Gorman said the government “will provide the full allowable GDPR access” but added that “is not going to solve” all problems related to people’s right to information.
“The way we resolve the issue of information is the information and tracing legislation”, which is expected to be introduced next year, he added.
O’Gorman said he is continuing to engage with the Attorney General and experts in Ireland and abroad in relation to report.
The minister said the AG “has not indicated any concerns to me in relation to data privacy or data protection in respect of the publication of the report”.
“But as I’ve already indicated, I’m open to engaging with other experts on the data protection issues relating to matters connected with the report more widely as my work on dealing with access to records continues.
“And to that end, I’ve already reached out to a number of experts, national and international, and sought a meeting to hear their considered views on this matter.”
Tuam
The commission was established in 2015 to inquire into the treatment of women and children in 14 mother and baby homes and four county homes – a sample of the overall number of homes – between 1922 and 1998.
The commission was set up following claims that up to 800 babies were interred in an unmarked mass grave at a former Bon Secours home in Tuam, Co Galway – following on from extensive research carried out by amateur historian Catherine Corless.
Excavations carried out between November 2016 and February 2017 found a significant quantity of human remains, aged from 35 foetal weeks to two to three years, interred in a vault on the site.
The commission was initially due to submit its final report within three years, but a number of extensions were granted – with 30 October being the final deadline.
In February 2015, then-Minister for Children James Reilly announced that the commission’s terms of reference had been agreed at Cabinet.
The commission is chaired by Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy. The former judge also chaired the commission of investigation into the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin, publishing the Murphy Report in November 2009; and the commission of investigation into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne, with the Cloyne Report published in July 2011.
For the commission into mother and baby homes, Ms Justice Murphy worked alongside Dr Mary Daly, retired professor of Irish History at University College Dublin and former president of the Royal Irish Academy, and Dr William Duncan, retired professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.
Then-Minister Katherine Zappone set up a Collaborative Forum to “facilitate dialogue and action on issues of concern to former residents of Mother and Baby Homes” in 2018.
The forum was set up to “enable former residents to identify, discuss and prioritise the issues of concern to them”.
What did the commission look into?
The commission was tasked with examining a number of issues such as how women and children entered and left the homes; their treatment while in the homes; living conditions in the homes; burial practices; and the prevalence of abuse; forced labour; forced adoptions; forced participation in vaccine trials; and providing bodies of residents who died for medical research.
The terms of reference include the examination of the following:
For children who did not remain in the care of their parents, the commission was tasked with examining exit pathways on leaving these institutions, and to identify the following:
The full terms of reference can be read here.
The commission carried out its work through interviews with survivors and other relevant parties; written submissions; and documents and records provided by relevant authorities and religious orders.
What institutions were examined by the commission?
The following 14 Mother and Baby Homes:
The following four county homes:
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What is more interesting is that this article is posted AFTER the referendum. Too scared for the “yessers” inevitable aggressive lash back? Certainly there was very little tolerance for a no-voter to speak up with very little freedom of speech if you dared to raise an argument against the masses.
Great point
My thoughts exactly! I think this article is very well written, makes some excellent points but also highlights the ‘fear’ that was put out there for anyone even questioning the ‘yes’ voters.
I’ve been very frustrated at this notion that No voters were too scared to comment during the debate. Scared of what exactly? Have the courage of your convictions and speak up if you believe in something, whatever side you are on.
Debbie, I’ve been saying this for months, PC gone mad conform conform conform!!
Looks like this country is addicted to being offended……liberalism the new fascism?
Very well said.I think people are very touchy on the gay marriage referendum that they will “attack” the no voter.Everyone is entitled to their opinion but of course it can be frustrating when said no voter basis their vote on something that has nothing to do with the referendum.Personally I think both sides were vicious towards each other(I’m basing this on the comments over the weeks).I personally have not attacked anyone but rather debated which I think the yes voters (some) failed on doing.Both sides are at fault from lack of debating to lack of information.
Well said Patrick
I think is a very poor article , filled with mixed examples which completely missed the point of the judgement in the cake case from northern ireland. As the judge Brownlie said this was a ‘clear case of discrimination ‘ – the author is a businessman and should be aware that there are regulations and laws around the area of discrimination. As was explained in the judgement if the business owner had been gay and a customer wanted a cake made opposing their views they would be obliged to complete the order- the law works both ways – discrimination based on sexual orientation is not allowed in business and listing examples about petrol stations in the desert completely misses the point….
When you say people are addicted to being offended, are you referring to the baker?
I asked this question yesterday and no-one had an answer.
It was highlighted by the journal that a bishopstown bar had advertised that for breakfast they were offering one LESS sausage for NO voters. I would like to know when are legal proceedings are going to be issued against this bar?
Or is it only LGBT people that are allowed to feel discriminated against??
What a farce of a “judgment” this gay cake saga was. Arguably the most laughable in the history of the island of ireland.
Eh you do know the tweet from the bishopstown bar was the latest in a long line of publicity stunts?
It’s the point he’s making.
Hi John, congrats on managing to totally miss the point. Please read my question again.
@JackMc what annoyed me most about the No campaign was the very obvious and irresponsible tactic of muddying the waters and misrepresting the issue, Marriage Equality. It was an argument based on scaremongering and lies. We have a trait in this country of hiding away from issues and leaving to the next generation to resolve, I could see that happening here and it really annoyed me personally. It was an argument based on “people will end up marring Goats and Ireland will be swallowed by Volcanoes”. If you can’t face issues in a logical and adult manner, then you are leaving them for the next generation to resolve, for me thats irresponsible and cowardly.
Apologies, its early and I still have a head full of rebel red!
You can read what you want to into the sausage scenario. 1. Extra grub for yes voters. 2. Less grub for no voters to help them make healthier choices. So, something for everyone… it’s all a matter of perspective!
I know it’s a different jurisdiction. But some American preacher rang up a bakery run by a gay couple and ordered a cake with the message “We don’t support gay marriage” not only was he refused but he was reported to the FBI for hate crime. I totally support the right of the bakery not to make the cake for him and also support the right of a baker not to make a “We support gay marriage” cake. anything else is just hypocrisy
An interesting question I must say.The bishopstown bar did not deny any rights at all when a person walked into the business (although they said that there customers were all yes voters).This leads to the conclusion that it was more of a publicity stunt.Further examination will reveal that they are known for their publicity stunt thorough humour posts.In practice no customer entered the business and was denied a service .
However,for the bakery,a customer went in and ordered a cake from a religious bakery and was denied a service due to their “religious beliefs”.A business can not deny a service due to the basis of sexual orientation (Refer to the equality act)(They are a commercial business).However,the customer,from my perspective,intentionally ordered the cake from a religious bakery which the customer knew that the service would be denied.The legality of both instances are different hence the reason why nothing was done to the said bar.
Although,the equality commission did open up a can of worms per se as it can allow offensive material to be put on a cake (This is taken from a news report : “Let’s be a martyr for Islam?”.
By the way,I opened up all possible arguments and I am not being biased as I have looked at both sides.
I do know that the service was originally agreed but the courts found it was discrimination.The judgement was very odd however I must say.
Ronan, you mention the term …muddying the waters,,,one of the high priests of the no campaign was …John “muddy” waters, Google …muddy waters if your under 30′ lol
Roman, you used the term…muddying the waters, one of the high priests of the no campgain was John” muddy” waters…if your under 30 Google the name and lol
If you scroll down you’ll see your answer. To sum it up for you, bigots are not a defined group that it is possible to discriminate against. Surprised you couldn’t understand that basic concept…
Negativebird, thank you for your mature response – something the Gaystapo could learn from.
However you are not focused on the core issue here. The bishopstown bar (a registered business, not a private individual) publicly displayed their intention to discriminate their trade offering to people based on their political and moral beliefs.
To put it another way for you, say I was an impartial visitor from Germany who wasnt even aware of this referendum in Ireland. I would have approached the person at the till intending to pay the same price for the same product as everyone else. But the person at the till would have asked me “Are you voting yes or no sir? Yes will reduce the price by €1″ Would the bemused German not regard that this as blatant discrimination??
Following this laughable farce of a ruling on the bakery, any no voter can legally have a strong case against this bar.
My recommendation would be to have that judge impeached for bringing the law into farcical disrepute.
Name the bar.
No problem at all.I would rather have a mature debate with someone instead of running around in circles on a topic.
Good point about a visitor coming to the bar.However,bishopstown bar has not denied a service to anyone depending on their political/moral beliefs or stance as of yet.I am sure that they will be brought to court if a no voter was denied an extra sausage (or whatever the case may be) as this is a clear breach of political discrimination.At the current moment the bar has not discriminated against anyone who is a paying customer.
The ruling of the case is very odd.Considering the fact that the customer was an activist should have had some consideration in the case.
I personally do not agree with the case at all,I must make this evident.
Honestly thought it would and should have been breach of contract and nothing more. Which would have amounted to the sum decided upon anyway.
But it is a tough one. Where does freedom of expression stop and freedom of Conscience begin? Or, whose freedom of expression is more important
Francis – when you run any business there are laws around discrimination which apply – the business in a for profit business and can’t discriminate against customers based on race , religion , sexual orientation etc etc – the judge e was very clear -they broke the law on discrimination – you say you support his rights not to bake a cake but this is a business that offers the service of cake baking – they cant then randomly decide we wont bake for black people – or gay people etc etc as it is discrimination
Kieran, the nine grounds for discrimination are these:
Gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community.
So no, it is not only LGBT people who are allowed to feel discriminated against. The legislation is there to stop the “No blacks, no Irish, no gays” type of behaviour in the delivery of services to citizens.
If anybody offended by the sausage scenario could prove that they were discriminated against on one of these grounds, they could take a case.
The conservative versions are always ANTI a group of people I notice. So, for example being made to bake a cake that says Proud to be Irish – you may decide this goes against your beliefs if you don’t like Irish people, but it is a whole lot nastier to ring up an Irish bakery and ask them to bake a cake with a slogan that is anti-Irish. The writer of the article give examples where he compares ANTI-gay slogans at a petrol station with a car driving in with a rainbow flat, and he SERIOUSLY cannot see the difference – one is a display of pride; the other is a display of bigotry against somebody. How about the difference between a flag with a shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day, and an anti-Irish slogan – starting to see the difference?
What the LGBT have done with Ashers is to hold them up before the public and humililiate them. Aslo when you consider that up to 80 jobs could be lost if Ashers were to close down shows that the LGBT only care about themselves.. Hope that Garth lee is tormented for the rest of his life over this. H e is nothing but a glorified publicity seeker
The company and its owners deserve to be humiliated for being bad human beings.
They are Bible loving people who happen to employ 90 people in their buissness that Garth lee has tried to wreck. Hope he is happy with himself
No cormac, if you practice discrimination as part of your business you need to be held accountable. The 80 people need to blame their bigoted bosses for this. If they just kept their religious nonsense for church and stopped being horrible human beings the jobs would be ok.
You cannot blame the LGBT guys for this. If they had have just baked the damn cake they would ok.
The courts ruled they were homophobic bigots who discriminated. They can try and use Jesus as an excuse to why they discriminate against minorities, in America religion was the basis they used for making blacks sit on the back of the bus and kept them from marrying white people, but at the end of the day it all boils down to racism/bigotry/homophobia and using religion as a fig leaf to hide your horrid views does not make you a better person by any means. You still are a racist/bigot/homophobe if you openly discriminate and support discrimination for any reason, even if you think in your own warped logic that your God wants you to discriminate against minorities.
I missed the “homophobic bigots” part of the ruling! Can you provide a quote from the judgement where it says this?
Yeah thought so
Ah yes. Bible-loving. So this gives them the right to discrimate. Bible-loving. Disgusting bunch of bigots more likely.
No, I think you’ll find they broke the law. What if they had refused to bake a Zionist cake for a Jewish couple? The underlying legal principle of non discrimination stands irrespective of this particular case.
@Sternn – and it was William Wilberforce, motivated by his Christian faith that pioneered the abolition of slavery.
They were only found guilty because uniquely to Northern Ireland, politics is protected from discrimination due to a few political differences between communities that you may have noticed occurring up there these past few decades. If the same thing happened down here, that uppity publicity seeker would have been thrown out of court with costs awarded against him, and rightly so.
By the way, being a horrible person in your opinion is not, and never will be, a crime. Way to completely miss the point of the article.
The people who got this cake made are the ultimate trolls , they did it for the laugh to get a Rise out of the religious nuts, then some uppity CANT got wif of it and brought it to court because he’s a w@nker
This is an excellent article that everyone should read and give thought to. I have had this
discussion with many friends, including gay friends during the past number of weeks about the
fearsome attack on freedom of speech. The majority of people these days are afraid to voice
honest opinions for fear of being labeled, homophone, racist, pious dragons, accused of
hate speech etc., etc., the list goes on and on. Equality in every aspect of life is essential for
progress and the overall well being of humanity and freedom of speech is what the achievement
of equality in all aspects of life owes it’s success to. Freedom of speech in action from a Yes
voter.
Looking at Facebook last night and all the yessers were backslapping themselves for voting.
One fb friend of mine, a 30 yr old yummy mummy posted “I am just back from voting with my friend Mary. I am dissapounted she voted No. But there you go.” The amount of abuse Mary got was so shocking that she took her post down.
And how long have gay people been abused for? Not trying to justify it or anything just adding some perspective
Dave it certainly sounds like you are trying to justify it. Despicable comment, you should be ashamed of yourself.
We do have a big problem with freedom of speech in Ireland – for one thing we have just brought in a blasphemy law, while other modern democracies are jettisoning theirs.
We also have a serious lack of freedom of speech in many of our state-funded schools – if, for example, you are a non-Catholic forced to attend your Catholic state-funded school, as there is no other option (90% are run by the church despite a majority of parents not wanting this), then you may be subject first of all to being on the bottom of the admissions list, and secondly to not having the freedom to speak about your own true beliefs or learn about other belief systems, since this could compromise the ‘ethos’ of the school and it is legal for them not to admit or allow anybody in the school whose views could compromise their ethos. Ditto if you are LGBT, divorced, or ‘living in sin’ and you voice any opinions in these areas, you can be fired – in fact they don’t have to hire you in the first place – as it might threaten the ‘ethos’ and this would be perfectly legal.
How’s that for freedom of speech!
They should have made the cake but wanked into the mix first.
Good idea posting that Alex. It’s not like your account is directly linked to Facebook and people can see and read all about you. Lots of YES voters out there who might also be on the same juvenile level as yourself. Good luck eating out for the rest of your life wondering if some person who was offended by your comment online may have just did the same in your takeaway.
150 years ago, if a man happened to see a lady with a sore leg on the street, she would be offended if he asked “is your leg ok”? He had to ask “is your lower limb ok” so as to not risk improper conversation. But it was Society that dictated this, as ridiculous as it sounds. What’s offensive today may not be offensive tomorrow but that doesn’t mean the offendee isn’t just as uncomfortable now. I’m with the bakers here, rightly or wrongly they find gay marriage offensive, they’re being made do something they don’t want to do in making the cake. Leave them at it if they don’t want to make the cake. They have a right to be offended and not make the cake if they don’t want to. No judge ruling about the cake is going to make them any less uncomfortable.
Any more so than 150 years ago you asked an injured lady on the street how her leg was if she was hurt.
This whole country is descending down a slippery slope God help us all
Right wing – like how he helps all the starving black children in Africa? No, he is too busy fighting the gays of Ireland from throwing us on a slippery slope.
@Paul Fahey – What’s your point?
The problem now that SF have in the North is that a lot of Catholics would agree with Ashers not baking the cake and the Unionists have supported Ashers all the way. SF stood behind Garth lee on this and i think it could come back and bite them
Oh it won’t be the bakery debacle that will bite sf in the north. It’s their crayon filled in economic policies that have failed in nearly every facet. Lost so many seats in last election because of it. Their political machine is in its infancy still filled with ex militia who are not proper politicians with professional backgrounds. It will need to go through many iterations of clear outs to put proper people in proper positions (economists in finance etc). Until then, ashers is the least of their worries on that front. They’re being found on the real issues.
While you are correct about the right to be offended and of course the right to offend, at the end of the day if someone is in business they cannot decide not to supply a service based on what religion they subscribe to. Passive acceptance of such actions is condoning them and yes if it means the Muslim baker is forced to print a Charlie hebdo cartoon on a cake so be it. Every customer should be supplied an equivalent service. Hate speech is still covered by different legislation so no one will be forced to bake swastika cakes or the like!
You are so wrong. They are aprivate company who refused to print a political satement on top of a cake.
It was an equality statement. It’s was not about politics you sack.
Well why not just get printed on the cake the very word you usr Equality and leave it at that. No he had to include Ernie and Bert as well
Cormac – no, the court and the judge have ruled you and they were wrong.
If they asked for “support marriage” the bakers wouldn’t have a problem but “support gay marriage” is justification for refusing service in their eyes. The North like many other countries have equality legislation that states you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. They broke the law it’s as simple as that.
Cormac the customer should have got what they wanted on the cake. The religious beliefs of the bakers should not determine what service/product a paying customer gets.
They either provide a service to all or not at all. You cannot choose who you provide a service to unless it is breaking the law.
This was a proxy war. A war between the insidious bigotry that is tolerated too easily and a minority that has been oppressed, sometimes brutally for centuries. A war between those who wield religion to excuse their extremism and those who say ENOUGH.
Yes it was over something as trivial as a cake, and the shop owners are NOT the epitome of evil, but the fundamental principles are huge and, Aaron, sometimes it’s right to wage a war.
Yeah. Bang on Maria. Go on into that cake shop demand a gay slogan cake against the opinions of the baker and threaten court action if you dont get your way. Im sure he will wash his hands after using the toilet taking out the bins and picking his nose right before getting to that cake of yours. Go equality go go go.
I do not think the issue was about ‘choosing who you provide a service to’ at all. In fact the bakery took the order in the first instance. This demonstrates that a persons sexuality is not a factor in their daily operations. What was a factor is the slogan, which was a political slogan. And the business owner, in my opinion, have every right not to be lending support to any political activity if they so desire. The slogan could have read ‘support abortion’, or ‘euthanasia’ or ‘support a United Ireland’. In each case the bakery would be entitled not to provide such a service if they wished.
You cannot discriminate against a cake, you can only discriminate against a person. The bakery was still willing to bake a cake for the person. It was not willing to engage or support a political agenda with the cake.
The bakery’s argument was they shouldn’t have to apply their artistic skills to support a cause they don’t believe in… Which I can kinda see their point in.
However – the whole case seemed to be a fight over who had more of a right to be offended. The victim that couldn’t get the political cause he supports inscribed on his cake, or the offence felt by the cake maker at having to create something to support a cause he disagrees with.
I think the case should have been thrown out
Muslims are forbidden to print Allah end off, so you are advocating a right to offend the baker!!! Ridiculous concept. Anway I’d like to see that case tested under our laws, Judge would most likely chuck it out.
As proved time and time again you can not just pick and choose which clientele you want or more importantly don’t want. It is discrimination pure and simple? Just because someone is in a minority doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be the prefect clients and therefore they should be treated the same as everyone else untill they present themselves in poor form only then should they be refused business.
I respect someones religious beliefs mean they cant part take in particular services put this should be clear from the get go in a business and therefore put into their policies and expressed to their staff to inform clientele of this.
NO. The matter that would concern people here is that if the Gays want to get Married after today in a Church what is to say that the if a priest refuses them that they will not go to the Equality authority and seek the same as for Ahers .
You mean like when the state forced the church to marry people who have been divorced? Oh wait, that never happened.
Religious organisations get an exemption from discrimination legislation in their churches and to a significant degree in places they run like schools and hospitals. So no, a priest would not be required to marry a gay couple.
Ashers however is not a religious organisation. As the judge pointed out, they are a business, in operation to make a profit. Therefore discrimination legislation applies to them, and they cannot claim a conscience reason for discriminatory behaviour.
Cormac – is there any country that the Catholic church has been forced to marry homosexuals by the courts?
They didn’t refuse service to individuals, they refused to print a specific message. But the bigger point is that “it’s the law” is an absurd argument to use if you want to get a cake made with a message saying that the law can and should be changed.
Denmark
Cormac – no, as usual you are wrong. The state affiliated/funded Lutheran church lost a case, Catholic Church is not forced to in Denmark.
Cormac – and I should further point out the court ruled that individual clergy could refuse, but the state sponsored/affiliated church could not enforce a blanket ban. Not quite the enforcement the religious right like to portray. Those darned facts really do get in the way
You are dead right Aaron. People just like to be offended for the sake of being offended and its worse of the people who go around looking to get offended on behalf of others.
I agree it is a big issue in our schools, where opinions or lifestyles contrary to the Catholic viewpoint are not allowed to be expressed as they might offend the ‘ethos’ of the school.
Go down through all comments & compare red to green thumbs. Too easy for “the offended” to run to court over something so trivial. The case should never have been entertained. If you get that upset over a comment you want on a cake, YOU have a problem, not the baker.
God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
No their parents created them, God only likes virgins allegedly, ask Mary.
@twooggy:
Yeah and Santa Claus comes down your chimney!
Well written, analyzed and provocative the reactive comments only cement your truth
That’s right Aaron, we’ve all had a nice little conscience detox and heard quite enough from all those queers and weirdies – let’s get back to the real world and the endless narrative of the rich white male and his struggle with his oppressors. Help help my freedom is being infringed, they’re saying I can’t be a total dick anymore!
The case actually turned on a point of contract law – a clear order had been placed, paid for in full and a receipt provided. That’s a contract for the provision of goods which was then broken on the grounds of religious conviction, which is not a valid basis under contract law. To avoid this the bakers would clearly need to state that they do not provide wedding cakes at all (they would be in breach of legislation by only refusing to provide gay wedding cakes), which is what they are doing. Regarding the examples in this piece on not providing services in other instances, these could be refused under incitement of hatred legislation or promoting a terrorist cause. Deeply held religious beliefs are not an excuse to refuse to provide services to some people and not to others (imagine a staunch Muslim in Ireland refusing to serve a woman because she is not in hijab?). It is simply not tenable to allow businesses which operate in our society and profit from that operation to discriminate against people gay, straight or otherwise and for whatever reason. It’s not so long ago that businesses in NI had ‘No Catholics’ signs. Ashers would do well to remember that and how far we have come.
The judge conflated a refusal to support “Gay Marriage” with discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
I don’t think that will stand up if appealed.
I think that the judge in the Cornish B&B, although ruling against the couple in the case later expressed some regret about the outcome and the sustainability of the UK law.
Judge Baroness Hale said “I may have been wrong to condemn Christian B&B owners for banning gay couple because people with religious beliefs have rights too.”
And this is the problem with creating protected groups, it ends up with competing rights and becomes a game of top trumps.
I believe that in the Asher’s cake case that the customers acted maliciously, that they actively sought out the bakery, knowing full well what the response was going to be and pursued the matter for political reasons. This should have been considered in the case.
It is refreshing, however, to see an article on the homocentric Journal about freedom of speech and conscience.
You like all the other bigots and homophobes Aaron seem to be missing a very important point. When you ask ‘would a Muslim have to bake a Mohammed cake’ – we have laws against hate speech AND blasphemy in this country so no they would not because that scenario would be illegal under both pieces of legislation. Also, it is very condescending to the gay community when a straight person writes an article telling them why they should not be offended by what has now been deemed by the courts as DISCRIMINATION. Why not write an article on why blacks should not be offended when white people use racial slurs like the ‘N’ word? Nothing comes off like an out of touch WASP than when a white Christian male attempts to tell a minority why they should not be offended by their obviously racist/bigoted/homophobic behaviour. You and your article are a shining example of exactly why they SHOULD be offended – because people like yourself are still trying to champion what has been deemed legal discrimination and are completely oblivious to how the minority which was discriminated against actual feel.
Gay pride is the most offensive parade that Ireland holds every year. For kids and tourists in Dublin to be subjected to that is wrong and they should hold it in the Aviva next time
I know you would rather see a Klan rally, but this is 2015 and we have all moved on. You should join us here in the future instead of clinging on to antiquated, offensive bigotry and homophobia.
Cormac – to many the most fife side parade is the stations of the cross. Teaching children all over the country that nailing a man to a cross, spitting on him, throwing stones at him, forcing him to wear a crown of thorns and then sticking a spear in his side is a nice story. Now that’s an offensive parade and a danger to our children.
Offensive.
You’re totally missing the point. People can be as offended as they want to be. It doesn’t mean their butthurt should attract legal protection.
Sternn, you really are a bigoted autocrat, perhaps beyond redemtion.
Sternn, you really are a bigoted autocrat, perhaps beyond redemtion.
You hate speech laws, laws are man made and lawmakers are susceptible to error and lapses in judgement as much as any other. The problem is, when they make a mistake everyone has to live with the consequences.
So called hate speech is free speech, speech that everyone agrees with doesn’t need defending, so called hate speech does.There are too few that will take their example from Voltaire.
Or as John S. Mill said ” If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Sorry, don’t know what happened with original post, only first line appeared.
So, it’s not ok to tell a minority they shouldn’t be offended but it is ok to tell them they should? I see.
Incidentally, it isn’t blasphemous to make a cake with Mohammed on it so why would that law apply? I would like to see such a case brought to court although I suspect it won’t be – precisely because no sane person would bother their arse trying it but also because they’d just go to another bakery down the street to one that’d happily comply with the request.
Great article
Watch any business in that line now protect them selves from such attacks by amending their terms and conditions to read “we do not print/publish/create any political slogans .
That would be OK I think. Better than being against one group.
Shamefull stunt.
I would love to see some devote Muslim Iman go to a shop owned by a gay couple and order something with an anti gay quote from the koran or what ever.
Would they refuse ?
Regardless the bakery was targeted when they would have listed the service of any other company.
Gay saturation? When are we going to reach Blacks saturation? Traveller saturation? Disabled people saturation? Are you trying to be the next John Waters?
The conflation of racial issues with moral issues displays libertarian illiteracy Ian.
Look at it this way. In 2015 a logo saying “support gay marriage” on a cake is a political position – and so this man argues he shouldn’t have to make it based on his religious beliefs.
But in the segregated US South, desegregation was also a “political position”. Polls at the time indicated 70-80% of Americans were opposed. Yet today if someone put “White only bus” on a bus today, they would probably be charged with incitement to hatred.
My point is that todays “political positions” become tomorrow’s acceptable opinions.
The article above deploys false analogies and is poorly reasoned.
Retail outlets are not and should not be self appointed moral or political censors.
Freedom of expression and a liberal outlook would favour the making of the cake as it was ordered and allow the bakery also to bake and to supply cakes arguing for opposition to gay equality as long as not homophobic in nature.
I can’t see what harm the baking and supply of the bake would have done. The bakery was not being asked to endorse the message.
Well I presume that the box that the cake came in had the company’s name on it. Which could be seen as endorsing
They felt it was endorsing the message and it would cause them to actively participate in the campaign.
Which it wouldn’t, but they have a right to disagree and believe that it would.
I’m offended that I agree with Aaron.
It all boils down to who intends to actively give offence to someone and the latter’s propensity to receive/perceive something as offensive.
“Being offended isn’t a right” … having recourse to the law is. Regardless of the number of red or green ticks bloviations attrack.
I’m so bored of this short-sighted ‘argument’.
Pseudo-intellectuals rambling on about the freedom of personal beliefs, but completely missing the most basic point.
I’ll freely admit I got bored a few paragraphs in to this article – I’ve heard it all before. So I’ll concentrate on the way I’ve heard it put so many times already (it’s probably something that’s in this article too – the author doesn’t seem to have come up with anything original)
“If the – presumably gay – man who ordered the cake and then took the bakery to court, owned his OWN bakery, should he agree to make an “Anti gay marriage” cake? And should he expect to be taken to court if he refused?”
Of course he wouldn’t make it. Of course he shouldn’t have to make it. And under what legislation do you possibly think he could be taken to court for that decision!?
YOU CANT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BIGOTS.
Homophobes, racists, fascists of all shapes and sizes, are not some “group” that you can discriminate against.
It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
And before you shut me down as a militant “with us or against us” Yes voter, my views are actually somewhat unpopular – even controversial for a Yes supporter – as I do firmly believe that a straight couple has a (slight) advantage over a gay couple when it comes to raising a child. A view which, when seen with that black-and-white logic, has seen me labelled more in the “against us” than “with us” group by other Yes-voters.
Alex the maby short of wa**ers you could have given them a dig out
I take it then that you would like to see the repeal of our arcane blasphemy law, introduced recently at a time that every other modern democracy was jettisoning theirs?
You say: “In the past, we had the odious authoritarian right. Christian, socially conservative and willing to foist its views on anyone and everyone with the utmost cruelty, it led to some of the most shameful episodes in the short history of this country as nation state. Thankfully, that is now receding into the rear view mirror of history.”
Not so, in my view. In Ireland we have a situation where, despite a majority wanting non-religious patrons, 90% of our schools are run by the Catholic church in line with its ethos, which is more than willing to “foist its views on anyone and everyone” under the guise of the ‘formation of the faith’. There is even a get-out of the equality law of the land that everybody else has to conform to – both in recruitment, admissions policies and service-delivery. A large number of families are not able to access their so-called ‘right’ to a state education without subjecting their children to this indoctrination (supposing they can get into the school in the first place without a christening certificate). If you are, as you say, a true “social libertarian”, then you should be up in arms about what amounts to a banning of free speech in our state-funded schools, where one view is foisted onto our tender children and nobody dare mention opposing views, for fear of “offending’ the religious ethos.
When you talk about bakers being asked to bake a Charlie Hebdo cake or a cake celebrating Israel, in conflict with their beliefs, you forget that neither of these are one of the nine grounds under which discrimination is not allowed in our equality law – gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community. You will see that religion is one of them, so theoretically a baker that was known to have something against Catholics and refused to bake a cake with a slogan perceived to be in favour of Catholicism could also be done under the legislation! Perhaps you would like to see a repeal of our equality legislation – in which case how would you feel about services with a sign in their window saying: “No Catholics served here.”?
Very revealing that you equate “anti-gay slogans” with “flying a rainbow flag”. You do not even realise that one is an expression of pride and joy, and the other is more like incitement to hatred since it is actually speaking AGAINST a group of people. Another example of that would be equating an anti-Irish slogan with somebody flying a little tricolour on their car – see a difference? What you fail to admit is that an anti-gay agenda is anti a group of people just for who they are.
What is most unfortunate is that the ruling was completely in line with UK anti-discrimination law. The judge made reference to a hypothetical ‘reverse’ scenario where a gay baker would have to provide service to an evangelical customer (rather missing the point, I thought), but where the scandal lies is that none of the parties seemed to have a problem with this – did it seem reasonable even to the plaintiff that his rights (of conscience) could also be violated by the same ruling he was himself seeking?
It seemed more a case of trying to erase the rights of others even at the expense of one’s own rights, which is highly troubling. If not a little self-serving : it’s easier to imagine a case being brought to court one way but not the other and so it’s easier to accept having to give up one’s own rights in order to stick it to someone we don’t like because we don;t really think it’ll happen to us. And everyone is ok with this ???!
Well it was the Bishop’s town!!!! It must have been targeted by the Yes side…..!
*could
If they had refused to ice the cake for a black wedding, nobody would ever shop there again. Maybe it’s time to stop the double standards.
have your say