You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.
June 16 2024 8.54am

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 16 of 28 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

 

View DanH's Profile DanH Flag SW2 26 May 15 2.36pm Send a Private Message to DanH Add DanH as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.10pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 12.14pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm

I don't agree that any business should be forced via law to produce products that support causes they don't agree with.

The point about the cake being rejected if it were ordered by a straight one is a valid one. What it proves is that they don't wish to support 'gay' causes in a product that they make. The sexual nature of the person ordering it is immaterial to the rejection.....It's prejudice but the argument to my mind is a pretty weak and annoying one.

The fact that a big play is made over prejudice is amusing. Business operate 'prejudice' every single day over different groups of people and no one bats an eyelid. No one has a go at MENSA for its 'prejudice' against less intelligent people....Something that like homosexuality has at least a basis in genetics for the majority. No one stops Nightclubs from deciding upon the basis of who enters they clubs. I could go on about the world of fashion, disabled people and many other jobs and services.

The difference is that different 'causes' have far more support than others. But these are prejudices all the same......If you're gay your support group just shouts louder than others...It's hypocrisy for many people to complain about one and then ignore another.

Prejudice is fact of life....And I regard this case as a bloody annoying example of a state interference too far.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm)

Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more.

Nightclubs are licenced under alcohol laws, and exempt, MENSA is a private organisation that clearly displays upfront its entry requirements. Its against the law to discriminate against the disabled, by the bye.

In this case, there is no clear up front reality that the bakery is a Christian organisation, but instead provides cakes, to order, customised.

It accepted the order, willingly and knowingly, took payment and then rejected. So it was something they knew about, when they took the money. This is what confuses me. How could an 'anti-gay' Christian organisation, accept the order and money one day, then decide at a much later date, that in fact actually they don't agree.

Of course if you stand up for your rights, and make a noise, you'll get more done, than sitting meekly and quietly hoping something changes. That's how society has always operated.

Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used......In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such.

The fact that the law operates a system where some businesses can have an excuse for prejudice does not change the focus.

I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island.

Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with.

Both involve a form of prejudice but one directly states that you are denied service because of your race or nationality but the other doesn't.....It's focused upon the message being promoted....The business has no doubt served many shade of sexuality.

For me, this just goes too far and once again I'm alienated just a little bit more from this increasingly feminised society.....Whilst knowing that for a different section of people they feel less alienated...Depending upon the time and place you live in I guess that's just how it is......I think a society where businessnss are forced to trade with those they don't wish isn't a particularly good state of affairs.....But hey ho.

On the disabled point:
Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life.

Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not.



Why should that just be accepted to be the case?


1. An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.


2. Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.


3. Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

Why should we not challenge every prejudice and actually get people to rationalise the judgements that they make?

This 'fear of difference' is something that far too many politicians play on to garner attention and votes and it's very depressing in such an otherwise liberal Western country.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 May 15 2.48pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote DanH at 26 May 2015 2.36pm

Why should that just be accepted to be the case?


1. An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.


2. Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.


3. Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.

Why should we not challenge every prejudice and actually get people to rationalise the judgements that they make?

This 'fear of difference' is something that far too many politicians play on to garner attention and votes and it's very depressing in such an otherwise liberal Western country.

I'd certainly be less bothered if society was more consistent in its application on prejudice.

There are so many areas....From the 'excuse' provisions that Jamie refers to with nightclubs and Mensa to father's rights and equal pay.....But what gets the court case....Some bloke moaning that he can't get a promotional message on a cake....And winning for gawd's sake.

I accept prejudice as an unavoidable fact of life myself.....It's how a human being works....Obviously many people focus on aspects like sexuality or race but it influences every area of our lives....The guy who gives you a job from the bird who passes you over or gets with you or vice versa.....Even in how we view our football club when compared to others.....That's just 'accepted prejudice'.

Society can't in reality deal with prejudice....It's too wide spread but it can draw a line.....But for me the line isn't where I'd like it.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 May 15 2.53pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

I was under the impression Jamie that a business can't put up a message saying, 'no homosexual promotional messages allowed'.

The fact that MENSA has an entry requirement doesn't change the fact that its discriminating against those born less intelligent.......It's just 'accepted prejudice'......Pwople born less intelligent had no choice just like the majority born gay...Does society allow private groups to set up clubs which specifically say 'no gay people' allowed?

I'm not particularly against MENSA I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of society.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 26 May 15 4.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.12pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect.

Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then?


Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument.

Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred.


That's because no discrimination occurred.

So clearly you're view is that the plantiff's case doesn't show discrimination, and the judge clearly doesn't understand the law.

Well then, lets hope they exercise their legal rights and appeal the decision.


Yes for the former, no for the later, she chose to misinterpret the law and would have found for the plaintiff whatever the 'evidence'. I hope they do appeal the decision.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 4.20pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 26 May 15 4.35pm

Has anyone been to a same-sex 'marriage' charade? Do difficulties arise? When the hapless official asks "do you take this man to be your husband?", does the more assertive of the couple say, "How dare you. Why shouldn't I take a man as my husband - are you homophobic? I'll take you to the European Court of Crimes Against Humanity. We have been fighting for hundreds of years for our rights; Ms. Carta raised the issue in 1215 - she was no doubt gay with a butch name like Magna - were her efforts in vain? We want our rights; when do we want them? Now! So get on with it and don't ask any more impertinent questions".

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 26 May 15 5.20pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

There's definitely a whiff of latency coming from some of you via this thread. You absolutely love talking about gays

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 May 15 5.30pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.53pm

I was under the impression Jamie that a business can't put up a message saying, 'no homosexual promotional messages allowed'.

The fact that MENSA has an entry requirement doesn't change the fact that its discriminating against those born less intelligent.......It's just 'accepted prejudice'......Pwople born less intelligent had no choice just like the majority born gay...Does society allow private groups to set up clubs which specifically say 'no gay people' allowed?

I'm not particularly against MENSA I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of society.

I don't think it can, but it can do so with some degree of subtilty, such as a sign stating that only messages approved of by the management will be accepted or something to the extent that permits refusal on a non-specific basis (such as messages of a political or manner deemed controversial to the owners etc).

Its true that people discriminate all the time, every time anyone makes a choice. However the criteria of why we discriminate can be reasonable (MENSA is reasonable in its discrimination and up front about it and the decision is based on a reasonable criteria - performance in IQ testing).

Which is a bit different from discrimination on the basis of the colour of skin, choice of sexual partner, gender etc.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 May 2015 5.37pm)

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 May 15 5.34pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 4.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.12pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect.

Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then?


Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument.

Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred.


That's because no discrimination occurred.

So clearly you're view is that the plantiff's case doesn't show discrimination, and the judge clearly doesn't understand the law.

Well then, lets hope they exercise their legal rights and appeal the decision.


Yes for the former, no for the later, she chose to misinterpret the law and would have found for the plaintiff whatever the 'evidence'. I hope they do appeal the decision.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 4.20pm)

So can you point to specific instances of bias from the Judges ruling, that are unreasonable and unlawful or mistakes?

Hmm I'd expect a judicial review then of the case, if its based not on the evidence, you should lodge an official complaint, highlighting the errors in the justices interpretation of evidence etc.

Stand up for your straight rights and all that.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 May 2015 5.38pm)

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 26 May 15 5.49pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 5.34pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 4.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.12pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect.

Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then?


Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument.

Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred.


That's because no discrimination occurred.

So clearly you're view is that the plantiff's case doesn't show discrimination, and the judge clearly doesn't understand the law.

Well then, lets hope they exercise their legal rights and appeal the decision.


Yes for the former, no for the later, she chose to misinterpret the law and would have found for the plaintiff whatever the 'evidence'. I hope they do appeal the decision.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 4.20pm)

So can you point to specific instances of bias from the Judges ruling, that are unreasonable and unlawful or mistakes?

Hmm I'd expect a judicial review then of the case, if its based not on the evidence, you should lodge an official complaint, highlighting the errors in the justices interpretation of evidence etc.

Stand up for your straight rights and all that.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 May 2015 5.38pm)

Yes, the bakers were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously an incorrect ruling by Brownlie.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 May 15 6.00pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 5.49pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 5.34pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 4.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.12pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect.

Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then?


Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument.

Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred.


That's because no discrimination occurred.

So clearly you're view is that the plantiff's case doesn't show discrimination, and the judge clearly doesn't understand the law.

Well then, lets hope they exercise their legal rights and appeal the decision.


Yes for the former, no for the later, she chose to misinterpret the law and would have found for the plaintiff whatever the 'evidence'. I hope they do appeal the decision.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 4.20pm)

So can you point to specific instances of bias from the Judges ruling, that are unreasonable and unlawful or mistakes?

Hmm I'd expect a judicial review then of the case, if its based not on the evidence, you should lodge an official complaint, highlighting the errors in the justices interpretation of evidence etc.

Stand up for your straight rights and all that.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 May 2015 5.38pm)

Yes, the bakers were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously an incorrect ruling by Brownlie.

Except QC Allen Martin demonstrates that in fact they did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because they do produce cakes celebrating straight marriage.

Which makes it about the fact that its gay marriage. Couple that with the bakers own statements, the fact they accepted the order and took the money, that the organisation isn't promoted as a religious one, nor does it entertain any statement as to that effect

The only conclusion you can reach is that the key issue was that the individual issue was that it was gay rather than straight marriage - and that the discrimination experienced by the plantiff was on the basis of sexual orientation.

Person A, treated Person B, less favourably than a hyperthetical person, on a basis of sexual orientation.

Now had they not entered into a contract on that basis, they couldn't have proven it. But they did, and they should have raised any issue prior to accepting payment.

Doesn't matter about hypotheticals, because they didn't actually occur. A case is tried on the merits of evidence.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 26 May 15 6.28pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 6.00pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 5.49pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 5.34pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 4.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.12pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect.

Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then?


Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument.

Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred.


That's because no discrimination occurred.

So clearly you're view is that the plantiff's case doesn't show discrimination, and the judge clearly doesn't understand the law.

Well then, lets hope they exercise their legal rights and appeal the decision.


Yes for the former, no for the later, she chose to misinterpret the law and would have found for the plaintiff whatever the 'evidence'. I hope they do appeal the decision.

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 4.20pm)

So can you point to specific instances of bias from the Judges ruling, that are unreasonable and unlawful or mistakes?

Hmm I'd expect a judicial review then of the case, if its based not on the evidence, you should lodge an official complaint, highlighting the errors in the justices interpretation of evidence etc.

Stand up for your straight rights and all that.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 May 2015 5.38pm)

Yes, the bakers were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously an incorrect ruling by Brownlie.

Except QC Allen Martin demonstrates that in fact they did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because they do produce cakes celebrating straight marriage.

Which makes it about the fact that its gay marriage. Couple that with the bakers own statements, the fact they accepted the order and took the money, that the organisation isn't promoted as a religious one, nor does it entertain any statement as to that effect

The only conclusion you can reach is that the key issue was that the individual issue was that it was gay rather than straight marriage - and that the discrimination experienced by the plantiff was on the basis of sexual orientation.

Person A, treated Person B, less favourably than a hyperthetical person, on a basis of sexual orientation.

Now had they not entered into a contract on that basis, they couldn't have proven it. But they did, and they should have raised any issue prior to accepting payment.

Doesn't matter about hypotheticals, because they didn't actually occur. A case is tried on the merits of evidence.

Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland".

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 May 15 7.19pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm

Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland".

If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 16 of 28 < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.