Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 25 May 15 9.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 11.09pm
I think there is a real possibility that activists will push for the current dispensation given to churches to be able to decline to perform same sex 'marriage' ceremonies to be removed. They can't, those rights are constitutionally protected. Similarly in the UK, they're enshrined in Equal rights legislation as being purely the choice of the religion. To do so would violate the Human Rights Act. Quote derben at 23 May 2015 11.09pm
3) No idea what you mean by I have been "taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims". I certainly do not consider myself to be manipulated - on the contrary, I think what passes for the left these days is manipulated into not seeing what is in front of their noses, they merely churn out the accepted politically correct claptrap. Extremist politics generally require the use on violence, or threat of violence, to be considered extremist, not just extreme views as has become the want of a weak tabloid mentality.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 9.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 May 2015 6.37pm
Quote ilovejo at 24 May 2015 8.53am
Quote Mapletree at 20 May 2015 8.30pm
Quote ilovejo at 20 May 2015 8.13pm
I've worked at a Gypsy wedding once (didn't know they were travellers until they turned up), absolute fcking nightmare. It was running ok until they decided to have a fight in the middle of the dance floor... blood everywhere, and we found part of someone's ear!!!
They also think dropping potentially dangerous rubbish anywhere they feel like is absolutely fine. Can't see there is much to celebrate in a culture like that and I really don't know how they get away with as much as they do. When they turn up they are a mobile crimewave. Why on earth would anyone want them around, especially as you will get a fistful if you complain.
There is. Travellers as a 'racial group' refers to Irish Travellers, Gypsy refers to those of Romani descent. Well, I dislike Travellers and I dislike Gypsies. But which is worse? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT! Not to be mistaken for New Age Travellers. I'm part gypsy, but as I only really know people of gypsy decent who've settled into mainstream society it only manifests in my ability to have an 'innate capacity for tarmac'
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 9.37am
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 May 2015 6.37pm
Quote ilovejo at 24 May 2015 8.53am
Quote Mapletree at 20 May 2015 8.30pm
Quote ilovejo at 20 May 2015 8.13pm
I've worked at a Gypsy wedding once (didn't know they were travellers until they turned up), absolute fcking nightmare. It was running ok until they decided to have a fight in the middle of the dance floor... blood everywhere, and we found part of someone's ear!!!
They also think dropping potentially dangerous rubbish anywhere they feel like is absolutely fine. Can't see there is much to celebrate in a culture like that and I really don't know how they get away with as much as they do. When they turn up they are a mobile crimewave. Why on earth would anyone want them around, especially as you will get a fistful if you complain.
There is. Travellers as a 'racial group' refers to Irish Travellers, Gypsy refers to those of Romani descent. Well, I dislike Travellers and I dislike Gypsies. But which is worse? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT! Not to be mistaken for New Age Travellers. I'm part gypsy, but as I only really know people of gypsy decent who've settled into mainstream society it only manifests in my ability to have an 'innate capacity for tarmac' We need some new clothes pegs - any tips?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 25 May 15 10.14am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 10.04am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 9.37am
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.07pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 May 2015 6.37pm
Quote ilovejo at 24 May 2015 8.53am
Quote Mapletree at 20 May 2015 8.30pm
Quote ilovejo at 20 May 2015 8.13pm
I've worked at a Gypsy wedding once (didn't know they were travellers until they turned up), absolute fcking nightmare. It was running ok until they decided to have a fight in the middle of the dance floor... blood everywhere, and we found part of someone's ear!!!
They also think dropping potentially dangerous rubbish anywhere they feel like is absolutely fine. Can't see there is much to celebrate in a culture like that and I really don't know how they get away with as much as they do. When they turn up they are a mobile crimewave. Why on earth would anyone want them around, especially as you will get a fistful if you complain.
There is. Travellers as a 'racial group' refers to Irish Travellers, Gypsy refers to those of Romani descent. Well, I dislike Travellers and I dislike Gypsies. But which is worse? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT! Not to be mistaken for New Age Travellers. I'm part gypsy, but as I only really know people of gypsy decent who've settled into mainstream society it only manifests in my ability to have an 'innate capacity for tarmac' We need some new clothes pegs - any tips?
Oh and if you ever fancy dinner round mine, we have some rather plump hedehogs round salisbury way.
Edited by dannyh (25 May 2015 10.17am)
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 25 May 15 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 11.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, 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 not guilty m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) Deflection, and accustatory, how is someone standing up for their legal rights a 'troublemaker'. Shylock, demanding his pound of flesh, was standing up for his "rights".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 11.08pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, 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 not guilty m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) 51.6m spent on a body overseeing that citizens are treated equally seems money well spent, and is f**k all in terms of government spending. Not sure the idea of equality for citizens is nonsense, its a basic tennet of democracy. The problem is it is a body that is biased in putting fashionable minority groups rights above the rights of less fashionable groups. The thought-police of your Lib/Left new establishment - anything but democratic. Edited by derben (25 May 2015 12.14pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 12.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 11.08pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, 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 not guilty m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) 51.6m spent on a body overseeing that citizens are treated equally seems money well spent, and is f**k all in terms of government spending. Not sure the idea of equality for citizens is nonsense, its a basic tennet of democracy. The problem is it is a body that is biased in putting fashionable minority groups rights above the rights of less fashionable groups. The thought-police of your Lib/Left new establishment - anything but democratic. Edited by derben (25 May 2015 12.14pm) Except of course it isn't - The rights of Christians everywhere were unaffected.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 12.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.14pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 11.08pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, 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 not guilty m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) 51.6m spent on a body overseeing that citizens are treated equally seems money well spent, and is f**k all in terms of government spending. Not sure the idea of equality for citizens is nonsense, its a basic tennet of democracy. The problem is it is a body that is biased in putting fashionable minority groups rights above the rights of less fashionable groups. The thought-police of your Lib/Left new establishment - anything but democratic. Edited by derben (25 May 2015 12.14pm) Except of course it isn't - The rights of Christians everywhere were unaffected. The Christian owners of Ashers Bakery were clearly affected, as will be any other cake shop owners who decline to put slogans on their products that promote a minority cause (those causes deemed to be politically correct that is). Edited by derben (25 May 2015 12.30pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 12.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
They were affected how, by being bound to the same laws of contractual obligation as other people. Being Christian doesn't get a pass in contractual obligations. They could have declined, they didn't, they accepted, took money and then refused. Breach of contract led to the case. They defended on 'religious grounds', which ultimately failed because a) its irrelivent to breach of contract b) they're not a Christian insitutions c) prior events such as accepting the contract meant they clearly didn't present this as a operational instruction shared to their staff or advertising. But sure, their rights were infringed.... Edited by jamiemartin721 (25 May 2015 12.43pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 12.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 11.08pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, 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 not guilty m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) 51.6m spent on a body overseeing that citizens are treated equally seems money well spent, and is f**k all in terms of government spending. Not sure the idea of equality for citizens is nonsense, its a basic tennet of democracy. The problem is it is a body that is biased in putting fashionable minority groups rights above the rights of less fashionable groups. The thought-police of your Lib/Left new establishment - anything but democratic. Edited by derben (25 May 2015 12.14pm) Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 25 May 15 12.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.44pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 11.08pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, 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 not guilty m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) 51.6m spent on a body overseeing that citizens are treated equally seems money well spent, and is f**k all in terms of government spending. Not sure the idea of equality for citizens is nonsense, its a basic tennet of democracy. The problem is it is a body that is biased in putting fashionable minority groups rights above the rights of less fashionable groups. The thought-police of your Lib/Left new establishment - anything but democratic. Edited by derben (25 May 2015 12.14pm) Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 12.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.45pm
Hysterical hyperbole isn't a case. You should re-read what the Thought Police actually did in 1984 and show some sense of proportion. LOL - you just refuse to see what is in front of your nose. No drawing parallels to a totalitarian system of murder and control is hyperbole when referring to what amounts to a 500 fine for infrigements of someones civil rights (that was upheld by a court and on appeal). I don't remember Winston Smith getting away with a fine, and being given right to appeal the decisions.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.