You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.
October 30 2026 6.28am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 14 of 17 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >
derben Flag 28 May 15 9.00pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 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?


It's no surprise that you do not rate common sense.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 9.10pm)

 
legaleagle Flag 28 May 15 9.18pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 28 May 2015 5.53pm

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)

Interestingly,the person who took and accepted the order in the first place,as I understand it,was one of the owners,the one whose evidence I quoted earlier about living her life by her religious principles.

Its sad you slag judges (and yes I appreciate you were jesting a bit!)...basically they rule on the law as is...to say any judge who isn't up themselves wouldn't find against the bakery (its not a criminal conviction) is in my personal general experience of judges silly...if you have a problem,as I see you do,its perhaps more appropriately targeted at the politicians who pass laws you disagree with.

I'm interested where,if anywhere, you draw the line in terms of the state regulating discriminatory actions based on sexuality or race.

I get that you think a cake business should be free to decline to accept an order because of a pro-gay (or logically also an anti-racist) sentiment in the message wanted put on a cake.

But,should it be lawful to decline to take an order for a cake with no message on the basis the customer is black or gay?

Should it be lawful to refuse to take an order from a customer because (very politely) they remark while standing at the counter to someone accompanying them but in the hearing of the person taking the order, that they think gay people should have equality under the law?


Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.32pm)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 28 May 15 10.48pm

Quote legaleagle at 28 May 2015 9.18pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 28 May 2015 5.53pm

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)

Interestingly,the person who took and accepted the order in the first place,as I understand it,was one of the owners,the one whose evidence I quoted earlier about living her life by her religious principles.

Its sad you slag judges (and yes I appreciate you were jesting a bit!)...basically they rule on the law as is...to say any judge who isn't up themselves wouldn't find against the bakery (its not a criminal conviction) is in my personal general experience of judges silly...if you have a problem,as I see you do,its perhaps more appropriately targeted at the politicians who pass laws you disagree with.

I'm interested where,if anywhere, you draw the line in terms of the state regulating discriminatory actions based on sexuality or race.

I get that you think a cake business should be free to decline to accept an order because of a pro-gay (or logically also an anti-racist) sentiment in the message wanted put on a cake.

But,should it be lawful to decline to take an order for a cake with no message on the basis the customer is black or gay?

Should it be lawful to refuse to take an order from a customer because (very politely) they remark while standing at the counter to someone accompanying them but in the hearing of the person taking the order, that they think gay people should have equality under the law?


Edited by legaleagle (28 May 2015 9.32pm)

If you had read my posts in the thread (though to be fair to you I think you started posting after me) you would already know my position in relation to the questions you put.

The judge comments was in jest but obviously I think any judge or politician(s) who rules or makes laws against my own opinion has a different worldview to the one I'd like.....That's probably true for most of us.

Yes, I think any business should be reserved the right to refuse a job....Their reason is their business.

But a business to state that they will refuse business because someone is gay or black or whatever....Na, not for me.

Having the right to not be a part in pushing an ideology you don't agree with or like is one thing....Refusing to serve someone due to sexuality or gender is another.

One person's pound is as good as anyone else's.

Na, this is about the message for me......But once the owner took the order with the message and money they had a principle to fulfill the order in my book.

As I said, the right to refuse is valid but it has to be at the point of sale......Sitting on it and then knocking someone back is taking the piss.

For me this is about breach of contract.....I regard the whole sexuality and discrimination stuff as a whole lot of waffle about very little.


Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2015 10.51pm)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
legaleagle Flag 29 May 15 12.07am

.

Edited by legaleagle (29 May 2015 12.40am)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 29 May 15 12.28am

Quote legaleagle at 29 May 2015 12.07am

Ok, thanks for taking the trouble to clarify.Sorry If I missed what you had previously posted.As you said,I am a late comer...

I think you may overstate the extent to which a judge's world view overrides simply making a ruling in accordance with whatever the law is.It is not as if,so far as I am aware from my limited knowledge of "discrimination law",that the law has some threshold of level of discrimination before the law bites,as opposed to defamation where there is now a test of the defamatory statement made needing to cause "serious harm".That would be ,as it was in the case of the relatively recently introduced new defamation legislation,a matter for politicians,though Judges do determine what is "serious harm" or not.

I understand the point about contract law.But,I was focusing on discrimination law.

So,it seems your position is that its right that its unlawful to refuse service based on sexuality of the customer and I understand you explaining that a business should legally be able to refuse business because of the content of a message they are asked to put on a cake.

Forgive me,if you answered this and I didn't understand,but what about where they refuse service purely because someone (not necessarily gay) remarks to a friend at the counter they are in favour of gay equality and as a result are refused service?Should that be unlawful or should discrimination only be unlawful where its based on the sexuality of the customer as opposed to discrimination based on repugnance towards what is stated by a customer in passing to a friend (even though irrelevant to the order in question)?The shop is not being asked to "promote" any point of view they disagree with.

I know it may sound pernickety but I think the question of at what precise point the state should intervene where some form of discrimination based on sex/race or sexual orientation takes place is an interesting and important one.


A judge takes a judgement. Not all judges come to the same decisions. I don't regard this case to be clear cut....So the judgement reflects upon the judge.....Also I also mentioned politicians. If a law exists to allow this bakery to be punished on 'sexual discrimination' simply because they don't wish to create a cake that promotes a cause then I think the law's an arse....And politicians arses for designing it.

As for your question.....I've already said, the sexuality or whatever of the individual making the order should not matter.

If a person, whatever person, makes comments that the business owner doesn't like then of course they have the right to ask them to leave the premises.....It's their shop.

But to state outright that they won't trade with this group or that group would be wrong and hopefully illegal....For example, 'no black, no Irish' on B&Bs is obviously wrong.

However, it is important that a right exists for a business to refuse a job.......But again, only at the point of sale.....They took the order with the money and message and hence they should fulfill the order.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 May 2015 12.31am)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
legaleagle Flag 29 May 15 12.51am

Taking a different example,to illustrate a point.You feel that it would be wrong for a customer not to be served because of discrimination by the server relating to sexual orientation based on something said by the customer (as opposed to knowing a customer was gay).

The same principles apply across to discrimination based on race. As an example, if someone went in a shop and ordered a plain cake but happened to mention in passing they were married to a black person and were refused service because of this, I don't agree that would be fine and discrimination law should stay out of it.They have been discriminated against for reasons of racial prejudice; your example of b&B's saying no blacks being extended also to no whites who are married to blacks.

The law doesn't ban people having a belief or expressing it.Rather,discriminating against others for certain"protected" reasons such as relating to race/sex/being disabled/sexuality in certain areas including employment and business where the discrimination is put into effect purely because of those beliefs re sex/race/being disabled/gay/religion etc.


Edited by legaleagle (29 May 2015 1.00am)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 29 May 15 1.12am

Quote legaleagle at 29 May 2015 12.51am

Taking a different example,to illustrate a point.You feel that it would be wrong for a customer not to be served because of discrimination by the server relating to sexual orientation based on something said by the customer (as opposed to knowing a customer was gay).

The same principles apply across to discrimination based on race. As an example, if someone went in a shop and ordered a plain cake but happened to mention in passing they were married to a black person and were refused service because of this, I don't agree that would be fine and discrimination law should stay out of it.They have been discriminated against for reasons of racial prejudice; your example of b&B's saying no blacks being extended also to no whites who are married to blacks.


A business has the right to refuse trade. They have the right to ask anyone to leave their shop. What they don't have a right to do is to refuse to serve a person based upon sexuality or race.

If they state they are asking you to leave because they won't serve you because you're black/white/Asian or like engaging in mixed race relationships or whatever and they won't serve you....Then that person has a case against the store.

If you as an individual ask the store to produce a product that promotes a cause they don't agree with then they should be allowed to refuse the trade at the point of sale.

I'm pretty sure that if this individual had order a cake celebrating his Mum's birthday then he would have been served regardless.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
derben Flag 29 May 15 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 7.35am)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 29 May 15 8.12am

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 7.35am)

I completely concur with the sentiment.....Seconded.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
beagle Flag pom tiddly om pom pom 29 May 15 9.24am

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.


 

When the time comes, I want die just like my Dad - at peace and asleep.
Not screaming and terrified.
Like his passengers.
legaleagle Flag 29 May 15 10.08am

Quote Stirlingsays at 29 May 2015 8.12am

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 7.35am)

I completely concur with the sentiment.....Seconded.


On what basis is Lee a bigot?

He went to a shop.They refused to honour their agreement to make a cake with a certain message calling for something many people believe is reasonable.The message wasn't abusive in any way.He was discriminated against because of the owners' attitudes on sexuality.There's no suggestion he ordered the cake knowing of the owners' particular attitudes.

Whether or not you think the law of the land is right or wrong or whether you think he was wrong to go to lawyers,what precisely did he do in your view to qualify him as being a bigot?

He did nothing that was intolerant of other people's opinions.He wasn't refusing to serve anyone because of their beliefs or to use a shop because of the owners' beliefs.So,regardless of what you think of the law and whatever else you might want to say about Lee,the only bigots (going on the definition of the word) in the situation were the owners.

Amazing how some twist things so the person on the receiving end of the discriminatory act becomes the bigot! That can sometimes say more about the attitudes of the name callers than about Lee.

 
derben Flag 29 May 15 11.07am

Quote legaleagle at 29 May 2015 10.08am

Quote Stirlingsays at 29 May 2015 8.12am

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 7.35am)

I completely concur with the sentiment.....Seconded.


On what basis is Lee a bigot?

He went to a shop.They refused to honour their agreement to make a cake with a certain message calling for something many people believe is reasonable.The message wasn't abusive in any way.He was discriminated against because of the owners' attitudes on sexuality.There's no suggestion he ordered the cake knowing of the owners' particular attitudes.

Whether or not you think the law of the land is right or wrong or whether you think he was wrong to go to lawyers,what precisely did he do in your view to qualify him as being a bigot?

He did nothing that was intolerant of other people's opinions.He wasn't refusing to serve anyone because of their beliefs or to use a shop because of the owners' beliefs.So,regardless of what you think of the law and whatever else you might want to say about Lee,the only bigots (going on the definition of the word) in the situation were the owners.

Amazing how some twist things so the person on the receiving end of the discriminatory act becomes the bigot! That can sometimes say more about the attitudes of the name callers than about Lee.

bigot: "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

 
legaleagle Flag 29 May 15 2.25pm

Yes.I agree.My point precisely.

 
Stirlingsays Flag 29 May 15 2.34pm

Quote legaleagle at 29 May 2015 2.25pm

Yes.I agree.My point precisely.

Legal, apart from being almost continually wrong, you really know how to firm up the opposition.

You should have been a buffer.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 29 May 15 4.13pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 9.00pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 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?


It's no surprise that you do not rate common sense.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 9.10pm)

Because it doesn't exist, as clearly we've established probably having spent several actual hours of time arguing on an internet forum, about cakes.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 29 May 15 4.13pm

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 11.07am

Quote legaleagle at 29 May 2015 10.08am

Quote Stirlingsays at 29 May 2015 8.12am

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 7.35am)

I completely concur with the sentiment.....Seconded.


On what basis is Lee a bigot?

He went to a shop.They refused to honour their agreement to make a cake with a certain message calling for something many people believe is reasonable.The message wasn't abusive in any way.He was discriminated against because of the owners' attitudes on sexuality.There's no suggestion he ordered the cake knowing of the owners' particular attitudes.

Whether or not you think the law of the land is right or wrong or whether you think he was wrong to go to lawyers,what precisely did he do in your view to qualify him as being a bigot?

He did nothing that was intolerant of other people's opinions.He wasn't refusing to serve anyone because of their beliefs or to use a shop because of the owners' beliefs.So,regardless of what you think of the law and whatever else you might want to say about Lee,the only bigots (going on the definition of the word) in the situation were the owners.

Amazing how some twist things so the person on the receiving end of the discriminatory act becomes the bigot! That can sometimes say more about the attitudes of the name callers than about Lee.

bigot: "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

So in your case, they're all bigots (the judge, the plantiff and the defendant, along with their council)


Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 May 2015 4.14pm)

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
derben Flag 29 May 15 4.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 May 2015 4.13pm

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 11.07am

Quote legaleagle at 29 May 2015 10.08am

Quote Stirlingsays at 29 May 2015 8.12am

Quote derben at 29 May 2015 7.00am

It must be frustrating for our law makers and enforcers that they cannot know or control the thoughts of the hypothetical people in the shop. Surely, as a progressive measure, they should be spending large amounts of our taxes on researching into the means of reading people's thoughts so that they can prosecute people for actual thought-crimes rather than perceived ones.

I wouldn't serve Gareth Lee in my Northern Ireland cake shop; not because of his gayness (I presume he is gay) but because he is a bigoted troublemaker. Similarly, I would not serve Gerry Adams (I presume he is not gay), although I realise the latter might not be good for my knees.

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 7.35am)

I completely concur with the sentiment.....Seconded.


On what basis is Lee a bigot?

He went to a shop.They refused to honour their agreement to make a cake with a certain message calling for something many people believe is reasonable.The message wasn't abusive in any way.He was discriminated against because of the owners' attitudes on sexuality.There's no suggestion he ordered the cake knowing of the owners' particular attitudes.

Whether or not you think the law of the land is right or wrong or whether you think he was wrong to go to lawyers,what precisely did he do in your view to qualify him as being a bigot?

He did nothing that was intolerant of other people's opinions.He wasn't refusing to serve anyone because of their beliefs or to use a shop because of the owners' beliefs.So,regardless of what you think of the law and whatever else you might want to say about Lee,the only bigots (going on the definition of the word) in the situation were the owners.

Amazing how some twist things so the person on the receiving end of the discriminatory act becomes the bigot! That can sometimes say more about the attitudes of the name callers than about Lee.

bigot: "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions."

So in your case, they're all bigots (the judge, the plantiff and the defendant, along with their council)


Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 May 2015 4.14pm)

Yes, pretty much!

 
derben Flag 29 May 15 4.17pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 May 2015 4.13pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 9.00pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 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?


It's no surprise that you do not rate common sense.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 9.10pm)

Because it doesn't exist, as clearly we've established probably having spent several actual hours of time arguing on an internet forum, about cakes.

I have to agree with you there Jamie, perhaps we should call it a day - enjoyed it though!

Edited by derben (29 May 2015 4.49pm)

 
ZIGnZAG Flag Stoke 29 May 15 4.21pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 May 2015 4.13pm

Quote derben at 28 May 2015 9.00pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 May 2015 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?


It's no surprise that you do not rate common sense.

Edited by derben (28 May 2015 9.10pm)

Because it doesn't exist, as clearly we've established probably having spent several actual hours of time arguing on an internet forum, about cakes.


Holy sh!t, your the bigot that has been writing essays about why this case is so right. Not one, but numerous loads of tripe about it. A cake. You fool!
Probably a world record amount of spiel.

Edited by ZIGnZAG (29 May 2015 4.22pm)

 
ZIGnZAG Flag Stoke 29 May 15 4.23pm

NO to gay marriage.
And No to gay cakes.

 
Page 14 of 17 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >

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