You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.
October 30 2026 6.27am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.


Page 13 of 17 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag 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

Did a straight man go in and ask for the same cake, prior to the case? The answer is no, which means its not evidence (because reasonable doubt doesn't apply) no matter how many times you say it. Hiding behind a possible hypothetical isn't a defence in law.



_____________________________________________

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.)


Edited by derben (27 May 2015 3.11pm)

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"
[Link]
derben Flag 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)

 
Kermit8 Flag 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.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am)


Ah, but to get that you would have to have state interference: An enabling law or a repeal of current ones.

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

[Link]
derben Flag 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.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am)


Ah, but to get that you would have to have state interference: An enabling law or a repeal of current ones.

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.


Edited by derben (28 May 2015 11.10am)

 
EaglesEaglesEagles Flag 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.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 10.37am)


Ah, but to get that you would have to have state interference: An enabling law or a repeal of current ones.

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.


Edited by derben (28 May 2015 11.10am)

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.
Some posters on here have written that there is no evidence to suggest that they weren't just discriminating against gay people. There is no evidence to suggest they wouldn't have made the cake for a straight customer.

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 is syphoning gay rights into a position where instances within business where agreement is not shown toward unverified legal proposals is illegal.

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.


Edited by EaglesEaglesEagles (28 May 2015 12.03pm)

 

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]
derben Flag 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'.

 
derben Flag 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.

[Link]

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 1.38pm)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 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)
Stirlingsays Flag 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.

[Link]

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 1.38pm)


The only real winners will be the blood sucking lawyers.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
derben Flag 28 May 15 2.39pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 10.17am

Quote jamiemartin721

Blah blah blah

Quote derban

wah wha wha

Edited by jamiemartin721 (28 May 2015 10.17am)

Fabricating my posts now I see.

 
derben Flag 28 May 15 2.40pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 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

Did a straight man go in and ask for the same cake, prior to the case? The answer is no, which means its not evidence (because reasonable doubt doesn't apply) no matter how many times you say it. Hiding behind a possible hypothetical isn't a defence in law.



_____________________________________________

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.)


Edited by derben (27 May 2015 3.11pm)

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?


___________________________________________
Gay rights hero Gareth Lee didn't order a wedding cake.


Edited by derben (28 May 2015 2.43pm)

 
derben Flag 28 May 15 2.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 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?

In general, it would be left to people to use their common sense.

 
derben Flag 28 May 15 2.46pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 28 May 2015 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)

But Ashers were charged with discrimination in that they treated a gay man differently than they would another (not they did of course), not for failing to complete a contract. Otherwise I agree, sue them under a Minor Breach of Contract prosecution not discrimination.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 2.52pm)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 28 May 15 5.53pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 2.46pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 28 May 2015 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)

But Ashers were charged with discrimination in that they treated a gay man differently than they would another (not they did of course), not for failing to complete a contract. Otherwise I agree, sue them under a Minor Breach of Contract prosecution not discrimination.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 2.52pm)


Yup, I don't agree with the whole....'this company must be punished because of discrimination' argument. While I agree that minor prejudice is in force here I think its ridiculous and harmful to uphold an action upon those lines.....Any judge who wasn't 'up his own arse'....wouldn't convict....But I'd imagine those are few and far between.

The whole 'anti gay or gay message' argument is a ridiculous play of words and for me depends entirely upon how you frame the argument.....Like I say, a play of words.

But I'd agree with a breach of contract.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2015 5.57pm)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 28 May 15 6.13pm

But who decides what is and isn't acceptable for a company. Ok, its easy if there are only one or two people and sole traders.

But what if there are say 20 different people, all with different views. The only option would be some people get to make the decision (presumably the most senior), which then means people are being forced to do things against their beliefs if they conflict with the managements and owners

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 28 May 15 6.14pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 28 May 2015 5.53pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 2.46pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 28 May 2015 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)

But Ashers were charged with discrimination in that they treated a gay man differently than they would another (not they did of course), not for failing to complete a contract. Otherwise I agree, sue them under a Minor Breach of Contract prosecution not discrimination.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 2.52pm)


Yup, I don't agree with the whole....'this company must be punished because of discrimination' argument. While I agree that minor prejudice is in force here I think its ridiculous and harmful to uphold an action upon those lines.....Any judge who wasn't 'up his own arse'....wouldn't convict....But I'd imagine those are few and far between.

The whole 'anti gay or gay message' argument is a ridiculous play of words and for me depends entirely upon how you frame the argument.....Like I say, a play of words.

But I'd agree with a breach of contract.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2015 5.57pm)

Quite, although in fairness to Mr Allen his presentation of a case is remarkably good, compared to the respondents. A judge in this matter isn't convicting - but making a ruling.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 28 May 15 6.17pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 2.41pm
In general, it would be left to people to use their common sense.

That's an unworkable system. should work much better?


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Page 13 of 17 < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

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