Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 28 May 15 10.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721
Blah blah blah Quote derban
wah wha wha Edited by jamiemartin721 (28 May 2015 10.17am)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 May 15 10.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 8.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 7.39pm
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.20pm
jamiemartin721
No, a straight man did not go in and ask for the same cake. That being the case, how does the court judge that they treated Person B (gay rights agitator Gareth Lee) exactly the same as Person A? If, as you say, hypothetical people won't do? If a straight man had gone in and ordered a cake with the same wording,and Ashers made it, gay rights fanatic Lee might have a case. (Personally I would allow a business to serve whom they choose whatever the circumstances.)
By actual examples. What actual examples? Which person or people were treated differently than malcontent Gareth Lee when asking for "Support Same-Sex Marriage" on a cake? Edited by derben (27 May 2015 8.44pm) Presumably the people buying wedding cakes for straight hetro marriages?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 28 May 15 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference. Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Kermit8  Hevon 28 May 15 10.43am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.36am
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference.
A bit like Apartheid in SA. I think what you are saying is that people should be free to discriminate willy-nilly? Germany 1930's ring a bell? That liberal attitude doesn't work out well. Ever.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 28 May 15 11.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 28 May 2015 10.43am
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.36am
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference.
A bit like Apartheid in SA. I think what you are saying is that people should be free to discriminate willy-nilly? Germany 1930's ring a bell? That liberal attitude doesn't work out well. Ever. As I said, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like,without state interference. That certainly was not the case in 1930s Germany, or in Apartheid South Africa.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
EaglesEaglesEagles  28 May 15 12.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 11.08am
Quote Kermit8 at 28 May 2015 10.43am
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.36am
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference.
A bit like Apartheid in SA. I think what you are saying is that people should be free to discriminate willy-nilly? Germany 1930's ring a bell? That liberal attitude doesn't work out well. Ever. As I said, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like,without state interference. That certainly was not the case in 1930s Germany, or in Apartheid South Africa.
I've been reading back some of the comments and replies etc. I can't help but sympathise with the bakery. Obviously the cake that was ordered was not obscene in any way or prejudiced. But the bakery maintain that they refused to make the cake on the basis of its message. They said it was contrary to their religious beliefs and lost business by refusing to make it. This line of argument (though I suppose legally based) is pathetic and a non-starter. The law isn't as crystal clear as all that either. If someone proposed an FGM cake then people would support whoever rejected making it. The outcome upheld is that the bakery discriminated against people because they were gay pretty much. It could be classed as stereotyping to suggest that the entire gay community is for gay marriage, although by suggesting this I am being a bit pedantic I admit. Why not just trust the bakery's statement that they did not discriminate on the basis of sexuality. After all, gay people look like anyone don't they, it's not a clear ethnicity or anything!? All the courts care about is instances of suspicion where good conduct can't be proved. I wouldn't trust our legal system in a million years, it's full of corruption.
I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 May 15 12.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.36am
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference. Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am) Individuals generally do, but who decides for a business, which director, or should managers decide individually, or employees individually? How do you marry the rights of individuals within a business?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 28 May 15 12.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.36am
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference. Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am) Paedophiles aren't a protected group under equality and discrimination legislation. Actions of paedophiles are criminal by definition. As Mr Allen QC, who isn't called martin, points out, there is no basis for anyone to assume a message is that of the company, rather than the subcontractor (which is established in business law and case precedent). Its important as well to note that they didn't reject it, the accepted it, took payment and then decided it reject it (and as such subjected themselves to legal recourse). Even if its not about contract law, that established as basis on which discrimination could be established.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 28 May 15 12.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 12.45pm
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 10.36am
Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.52am
Forgive me,but I get the impression for some reason that you are not amongst the most open minded people on this issue... The law of the land in N Ireland is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal.The law of the land in N Ireland is that gay marriage is illegal.The law of the land is that you cannot be discriminated against on basis of sexual orientation because you call for a change to the law of the land on gay marriage.People (including you) are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing.In your eyes,double think.In the eyes of others, not. On a separate note,below is an interesting commentary from a legal perspective by one of Robin Allen's colleagues at Cloisters Chambers,Olivia Dobbie: "There have been numerous cases in recent years of gay rights colliding with religious rights and the tension between the two protected groups. However, in a liberal democratic society there can be no exceptions to the prohibition on discrimination. No one is denying Christians a right to believe that homosexuality is contrary to their religion, but the law must step in to prevent such persons from discriminating in their actions towards others. The law recognises a distinction between holding a particular belief and actions taken in furtherance of that belief, which could undermine the rights of others. The principle becomes clear when you swap homosexuality for nationality. For example, if a person held a genuine religious belief that people of a particular nationality were inferior and refused to serve them in their bakery, or refused to make a cake celebrating their national holiday, on the basis that it infringed their religious belief, no one would suggest that this was acceptable. There should be no difference for homosexuality.” Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.53am) I couldn't care less if you have the impression for some reason that I am not amongst the most open minded people on this issue. Of course you don't take sides do you. People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation So a paedophile could demand that Ashers bakery make a cake with the slogan "Support Child Marriage" on it, otherwise they would be discriminating on the basis of his sexual orientation? By the way, I think businesses and individuals should have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they like. without state interference. Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am) Paedophiles aren't a protected group under equality and discrimination legislation. Actions of paedophiles are criminal by definition. As Mr Allen QC, who isn't called martin, points out, there is no basis for anyone to assume a message is that of the company, rather than the subcontractor (which is established in business law and case precedent). Its important as well to note that they didn't reject it, the accepted it, took payment and then decided it reject it (and as such subjected themselves to legal recourse). Even if its not about contract law, that established as basis on which discrimination could be established. The law in question says you must not discriminate on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation. In my example, the paedophile is campaigning for a change in the law, (as legaleagle helpfully points out "People are allowed freedom of expression for calling for changes to the current law of the land and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or sexual orientation for so doing). The paedophile in my example is not committing a criminal offence. I agree that contract law has nothing to do with it as Ashers were prosecuted under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming they had discriminated contrary to its provisions. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 28 May 15 1.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Ashers Bakery have announced they are to appeal. No doubt gay rights rabble-rouser Gareth Lee will be relishing his fifteen minutes of fame. Edited by derben (28 May 2015 1.38pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 May 15 2.24pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
This is a great thread with some great forth and back. I'm obviously on the side of the bakery being allowed to refuse to create a product if they wish. However, having thought about it after finding out that payment was received by the owner.....It puts another shade upon the deal. The time is refuse was at the point of sale.....I'd support the bakery having a message up about 'reserving the right to refuse a message'....But perhaps once you have taken the order with the message and the money with it you should then see through the order as a point of principle. If someone takes my money for something I don't take kindly to being told at a later date, 'no thanks'.....That's mucking me about.....The time for that is at the point of sale.....Like the bouncer who refuses you or allows you entry to the club. So in summary I support the right of a business such as bakeries to filter which messages they produce on products.....Whether that's their prejudice or not.....A customer can always choose another shop. However, I think for fairness of business practice....If the owner has taken the order with payment.....tough titty....Fulfill your part of the exchange. People shouldn't be forced into things against their conscience but by the same token....If you take the man/women's money as the owner....Produce the service/product. Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2015 2.25pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 28 May 15 2.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 28 May 2015 1.38pm
Ashers Bakery have announced they are to appeal. No doubt gay rights rabble-rouser Gareth Lee will be relishing his fifteen minutes of fame. Edited by derben (28 May 2015 1.38pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| 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.