Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 15 of 28 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

derben 26 May 15 11.07am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 11.05am Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.59pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples. There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter. What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm) They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law. You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court. Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor. As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly. Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine. I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive. You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence. Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs). Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay. If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?" Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am) If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show. Actually Mr Allen QC demonstrated it, rather than hypothesised it, which goes further in a court of law. By showing they would, and did, produce material that supported marriage, he could then show prejudice - specifically the fact they'd formally rejected the order through contractual breach. Then he demonstrated that it is an absurd point to assume that a message of support could be considered that of the manufacturer rather than the contracting party. What he did was actually build a case, and a very good one, which demonstrated that they were wrong to suggest that their religious rights were violated, and that in fact their defence of their actions was unfounded, at every turn. On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

26 May 15 11.07am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 11.05am

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.59pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples.

There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter.

What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm)

They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law.

You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court.

Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor.

As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly.

Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine.

I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive.

You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence.

Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs).

Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message.

I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them.

Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes.

Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake

This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay.

If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?"

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am)

If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show.

Actually Mr Allen QC demonstrated it, rather than hypothesised it, which goes further in a court of law. By showing they would, and did, produce material that supported marriage, he could then show prejudice - specifically the fact they'd formally rejected the order through contractual breach.

Then he demonstrated that it is an absurd point to assume that a message of support could be considered that of the manufacturer rather than the contracting party.

What he did was actually build a case, and a very good one, which demonstrated that they were wrong to suggest that their religious rights were violated, and that in fact their defence of their actions was unfounded, at every turn.

On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal.

I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 26 May 15 12.10pm
I don't agree that any business should be forced via law to produce products that support causes they don't agree with. The point about the cake being rejected if it were ordered by a straight one is a valid one. What it proves is that they don't wish to support 'gay' causes in a product that they make. The sexual nature of the person ordering it is immaterial to the rejection.....It's prejudice but the argument to my mind is a pretty weak and annoying one. The fact that a big play is made over prejudice is amusing. Business operate 'prejudice' every single day over different groups of people and no one bats an eyelid. No one has a go at MENSA for its 'prejudice' against less intelligent people....Something that like homosexuality has at least a basis in genetics for the majority. No one stops Nightclubs from deciding upon the basis of who enters their clubs. I could go on about the world of fashion, disabled people and many other jobs and services. The difference is that different 'causes' have far more support than others. But these are prejudices all the same......If you're gay your support group just shouts louder than others...It's hypocrisy for many people to complain about one and then ignore another. Prejudice is fact of life....And I regard this case as a bloody annoying example of a state interference too far. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.14pm) '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

26 May 15 12.10pm

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.14pm)

'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

derben 26 May 15 12.14pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm I don't agree that any business should be forced via law to produce products that support causes they don't agree with. The point about the cake being rejected if it were ordered by a straight one is a valid one. What it proves is that they don't wish to support 'gay' causes in a product that they make. The sexual nature of the person ordering it is immaterial to the rejection.....It's prejudice but the argument to my mind is a pretty weak and annoying one. The fact that a big play is made over prejudice is amusing. Business operate 'prejudice' every single day over different groups of people and no one bats an eyelid. No one has a go at MENSA for its 'prejudice' against less intelligent people....Something that like homosexuality has at least a basis in genetics for the majority. No one stops Nightclubs from deciding upon the basis of who enters they clubs. I could go on about the world of fashion, disabled people and many other jobs and services. The difference is that different 'causes' have far more support than others. But these are prejudices all the same......If you're gay your support group just shouts louder than others...It's hypocrisy for many people to complain about one and then ignore another. Prejudice is fact of life....And I regard this case as a bloody annoying example of a state interference too far. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm) Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

26 May 15 12.14pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm

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

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

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

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm)

Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 12.57pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm I don't agree that any business should be forced via law to produce products that support causes they don't agree with. The point about the cake being rejected if it were ordered by a straight one is a valid one. What it proves is that they don't wish to support 'gay' causes in a product that they make. The sexual nature of the person ordering it is immaterial to the rejection.....It's prejudice but the argument to my mind is a pretty weak and annoying one. The fact that a big play is made over prejudice is amusing. Business operate 'prejudice' every single day over different groups of people and no one bats an eyelid. No one has a go at MENSA for its 'prejudice' against less intelligent people....Something that like homosexuality has at least a basis in genetics for the majority. No one stops Nightclubs from deciding upon the basis of who enters their clubs. I could go on about the world of fashion, disabled people and many other jobs and services. The difference is that different 'causes' have far more support than others. But these are prejudices all the same......If you're gay your support group just shouts louder than others...It's hypocrisy for many people to complain about one and then ignore another. Prejudice is fact of life....And I regard this case as a bloody annoying example of a state interference too far. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.14pm) Do you think a business should be allowed to breach contracts based on the belief of some of its owners, even if it entered into it willingly? "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 May 15 12.57pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm

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

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

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.14pm)

Do you think a business should be allowed to breach contracts based on the belief of some of its owners, even if it entered into it willingly?

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 1.01pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 11.07am Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 11.05am Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.59pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples. There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter. What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm) They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law. You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court. Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor. As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly. Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine. I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive. You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence. Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs). Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay. If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?" Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am) If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show. Actually Mr Allen QC demonstrated it, rather than hypothesised it, which goes further in a court of law. By showing they would, and did, produce material that supported marriage, he could then show prejudice - specifically the fact they'd formally rejected the order through contractual breach. Then he demonstrated that it is an absurd point to assume that a message of support could be considered that of the manufacturer rather than the contracting party. What he did was actually build a case, and a very good one, which demonstrated that they were wrong to suggest that their religious rights were violated, and that in fact their defence of their actions was unfounded, at every turn. On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them. No it isn't a red herring, as its the basis of the cases capacity to dismiss the defence. Its not about contract law, but contract law forms the basis of the Plantiffs case in demonstrating prejudice and valid cause for damages. The plantiff demonstrates that the discrimination proves that a party was treated less favourably, and in violation of the law, and demonstrates clear prejudice. Guilty or not guilty are irrelivent, as its a civil matter, there is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but on balance of evidence. Yours is a 'reasonable doubt' defence which is civil court suicide. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 May 15 1.01pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 11.07am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 11.05am

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.59pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm)

They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law.

As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly.

Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am)

If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show.

Then he demonstrated that it is an absurd point to assume that a message of support could be considered that of the manufacturer rather than the contracting party.

On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal.

No it isn't a red herring, as its the basis of the cases capacity to dismiss the defence. Its not about contract law, but contract law forms the basis of the Plantiffs case in demonstrating prejudice and valid cause for damages.

The plantiff demonstrates that the discrimination proves that a party was treated less favourably, and in violation of the law, and demonstrates clear prejudice.

Guilty or not guilty are irrelivent, as its a civil matter, there is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but on balance of evidence. Yours is a 'reasonable doubt' defence which is civil court suicide.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 26 May 15 1.05pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.01pm Quote derben at 26 May 2015 11.07am Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 11.05am Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.59pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples. There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter. What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm) They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law. You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court. Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor. As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly. Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine. I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive. You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence. Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs). Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay. If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?" Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am) If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show. Actually Mr Allen QC demonstrated it, rather than hypothesised it, which goes further in a court of law. By showing they would, and did, produce material that supported marriage, he could then show prejudice - specifically the fact they'd formally rejected the order through contractual breach. Then he demonstrated that it is an absurd point to assume that a message of support could be considered that of the manufacturer rather than the contracting party. What he did was actually build a case, and a very good one, which demonstrated that they were wrong to suggest that their religious rights were violated, and that in fact their defence of their actions was unfounded, at every turn. On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them. No it isn't a red herring, as its the basis of the cases capacity to dismiss the defence. Its not about contract law, but contract law forms the basis of the Plantiffs case in demonstrating prejudice and valid cause for damages. The plantiff demonstrates that the discrimination proves that a party was treated less favourably, and in violation of the law, and demonstrates clear prejudice. Guilty or not guilty are irrelivent, as its a civil matter, there is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but on balance of evidence. Yours is a 'reasonable doubt' defence which is civil court suicide. LOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect. Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then? Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

26 May 15 1.05pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.01pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 11.07am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 11.05am

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 1.59pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm)

They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law.

As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly.

Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am)

If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show.

Then he demonstrated that it is an absurd point to assume that a message of support could be considered that of the manufacturer rather than the contracting party.

On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal.

The plantiff demonstrates that the discrimination proves that a party was treated less favourably, and in violation of the law, and demonstrates clear prejudice.

Guilty or not guilty are irrelivent, as its a civil matter, there is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but on balance of evidence. Yours is a 'reasonable doubt' defence which is civil court suicide.

LOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect.

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

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 1.10pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 12.14pm Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm I don't agree that any business should be forced via law to produce products that support causes they don't agree with. The point about the cake being rejected if it were ordered by a straight one is a valid one. What it proves is that they don't wish to support 'gay' causes in a product that they make. The sexual nature of the person ordering it is immaterial to the rejection.....It's prejudice but the argument to my mind is a pretty weak and annoying one. The fact that a big play is made over prejudice is amusing. Business operate 'prejudice' every single day over different groups of people and no one bats an eyelid. No one has a go at MENSA for its 'prejudice' against less intelligent people....Something that like homosexuality has at least a basis in genetics for the majority. No one stops Nightclubs from deciding upon the basis of who enters they clubs. I could go on about the world of fashion, disabled people and many other jobs and services. The difference is that different 'causes' have far more support than others. But these are prejudices all the same......If you're gay your support group just shouts louder than others...It's hypocrisy for many people to complain about one and then ignore another. Prejudice is fact of life....And I regard this case as a bloody annoying example of a state interference too far. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm) Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more. Nightclubs are licenced under alcohol laws, and exempt, MENSA is a private organisation that clearly displays upfront its entry requirements. Its against the law to discriminate against the disabled, by the bye. In this case, there is no clear up front reality that the bakery is a Christian organisation, but instead provides cakes, to order, customised. It accepted the order, willingly and knowingly, took payment and then rejected. So it was something they knew about, when they took the money. This is what confuses me. How could an 'anti-gay' Christian organisation, accept the order and money one day, then decide at a much later date, that in fact actually they don't agree. Of course if you stand up for your rights, and make a noise, you'll get more done, than sitting meekly and quietly hoping something changes. That's how society has always operated. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 May 15 1.10pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 12.14pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm

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

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

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

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm)

Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more.

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

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

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

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

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 1.14pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect. Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then? Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm) In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument. Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 May 15 1.14pm

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

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

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

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

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

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

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 26 May 15 1.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect. Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then? Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm) In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument. Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred. That's because no discrimination occurred.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

26 May 15 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

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

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

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

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

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

That's because no discrimination occurred.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 26 May 15 2.04pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.10pm Quote derben at 26 May 2015 12.14pm Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm I don't agree that any business should be forced via law to produce products that support causes they don't agree with. The point about the cake being rejected if it were ordered by a straight one is a valid one. What it proves is that they don't wish to support 'gay' causes in a product that they make. The sexual nature of the person ordering it is immaterial to the rejection.....It's prejudice but the argument to my mind is a pretty weak and annoying one. The fact that a big play is made over prejudice is amusing. Business operate 'prejudice' every single day over different groups of people and no one bats an eyelid. No one has a go at MENSA for its 'prejudice' against less intelligent people....Something that like homosexuality has at least a basis in genetics for the majority. No one stops Nightclubs from deciding upon the basis of who enters they clubs. I could go on about the world of fashion, disabled people and many other jobs and services. The difference is that different 'causes' have far more support than others. But these are prejudices all the same......If you're gay your support group just shouts louder than others...It's hypocrisy for many people to complain about one and then ignore another. Prejudice is fact of life....And I regard this case as a bloody annoying example of a state interference too far. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm) Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more. Nightclubs are licenced under alcohol laws, and exempt, MENSA is a private organisation that clearly displays upfront its entry requirements. Its against the law to discriminate against the disabled, by the bye. In this case, there is no clear up front reality that the bakery is a Christian organisation, but instead provides cakes, to order, customised. It accepted the order, willingly and knowingly, took payment and then rejected. So it was something they knew about, when they took the money. This is what confuses me. How could an 'anti-gay' Christian organisation, accept the order and money one day, then decide at a much later date, that in fact actually they don't agree. Of course if you stand up for your rights, and make a noise, you'll get more done, than sitting meekly and quietly hoping something changes. That's how society has always operated. Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used......In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such. The fact that the law operates a system where some businesses can have an excuse for prejudice does not change the focus. I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island. Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with. Both involve a form of prejudice but one directly states that you are denied service because of your race or nationality but the other doesn't.....It's focused upon the message being promoted....The business has no doubt served many shade of sexuality. For me, this just goes too far and once again I'm alienated just a little bit more from this increasingly feminised society.....Whilst knowing that for a different section of people they feel less alienated...Depending upon the time and place you live in I guess that's just how it is......I think a society where businessnss are forced to trade with those they don't wish isn't a particularly good state of affairs.....But hey ho. On the disabled point: Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life. Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not. '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

26 May 15 2.04pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.10pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 12.14pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 12.10pm

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

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

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

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 May 2015 12.13pm)

Well said Stirling, couldn't agree more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 2.12pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.05pmLOL - I'm sure in your world it is irrelevant - it is enough that someone is politically incorrect. Also glad you admit that it is not about contract law - what is it about then? Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm) In a civil case, its irrelivent, because reasonable doubt is not applied. Its about balance of evidence and best argument. Its about discrimination. Contract law is vital to the case, brought under discrimination law, because it shows a breach of contract, which has to have occurred in order to make a claim of discrimination. Without a breach of contract, you cannot demonstrate the discrimination occurred. That's because no discrimination occurred. So clearly you're view is that the plantiff's case doesn't show discrimination, and the judge clearly doesn't understand the law. Well then, lets hope they exercise their legal rights and appeal the decision. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 May 15 2.12pm

Quote derben at 26 May 2015 1.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 1.14pm

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

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

Edited by derben (26 May 2015 1.06pm)

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

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

That's because no discrimination occurred.

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

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

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

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 2.31pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used...... They retain the right to refuse admission without giving a reason, which makes proving prejudice, very difficult. Also in terms of prejudice, in law, what is significant is that specific types of prejudice are highlighted as protected. Of course if they let you in with say trainers, and then throw you out because your wearing trainers, then they've broken the law (an apt analogy in this cake business). Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such. Yes, but in terms of the law it operates as a private members club, it simply cannot refuse you entry because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - which are prohibited under law. Having an entrance requirement that fulfils discriminatory law, and that is clearly displayed up front is where the significance and difference applies. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm The fact that the law operates a system where some businesses can have an excuse for prejudice does not change the focus. Actually the law pretty much says you don't have to accept anyone's business if your upfront about it and clearly state your reasons. You can ban people from your shop, you can refuse to take orders, serve people etc Its almost impossible to prove prejudice unless the statement by the owner is explicit, and even then its your word against theirs, if there are no witnesses Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island. But that isn't there case here, they entered into business, took money and backed out. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with. Unfortunately QC Martin Allen demonstrated an argument in court that they weren't promoting gay marriage and that its unreasonable to assume that people would assume that the message was 'their own', rather than that of the person placing the order. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm Both involve a form of prejudice but one directly states that you are denied service because of your race or nationality but the other doesn't.....It's focused upon the message being promoted....The business has no doubt served many shade of sexuality. Indeed, but in this case you had one side build a case that demonstrated prejudice, whilst the other side produced a case based on hypotheticals about rights. The plantiff demonstrated that the rights of the defending party weren't violated, and that the bakery actions amounted to discrimination. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pmOn the disabled point: Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life. Indeed, just like anything in law, you can't prevent it happening, but you can provide legal redress where it can be proven. And that's the key point in the Gay Cake case, the plantiff can prove reasonable grounds for discrimination from the case presented whilst also presenting an argument that the respondents defence of their action is flawed. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter, a business is responsible for its employees training. In this case, the individual who took the order, specifically states they knew they would have a problem with it, but accepted it anyhow because they 'didn't want to cause a fuss'. Which of course is win for the plaintiff solicitor once that's on record. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 26 May 15 2.31pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm

Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used......

They retain the right to refuse admission without giving a reason, which makes proving prejudice, very difficult.

Also in terms of prejudice, in law, what is significant is that specific types of prejudice are highlighted as protected.

Of course if they let you in with say trainers, and then throw you out because your wearing trainers, then they've broken the law (an apt analogy in this cake business).

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm

In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such.

Yes, but in terms of the law it operates as a private members club, it simply cannot refuse you entry because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - which are prohibited under law. Having an entrance requirement that fulfils discriminatory law, and that is clearly displayed up front is where the significance and difference applies.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm

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

Actually the law pretty much says you don't have to accept anyone's business if your upfront about it and clearly state your reasons. You can ban people from your shop, you can refuse to take orders, serve people etc Its almost impossible to prove prejudice unless the statement by the owner is explicit, and even then its your word against theirs, if there are no witnesses

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island.

But that isn't there case here, they entered into business, took money and backed out.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with.

Unfortunately QC Martin Allen demonstrated an argument in court that they weren't promoting gay marriage and that its unreasonable to assume that people would assume that the message was 'their own', rather than that of the person placing the order.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm

Indeed, but in this case you had one side build a case that demonstrated prejudice, whilst the other side produced a case based on hypotheticals about rights. The plantiff demonstrated that the rights of the defending party weren't violated, and that the bakery actions amounted to discrimination.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pmOn the disabled point:
Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life.

Indeed, just like anything in law, you can't prevent it happening, but you can provide legal redress where it can be proven. And that's the key point in the Gay Cake case, the plantiff can prove reasonable grounds for discrimination from the case presented whilst also presenting an argument that the respondents defence of their action is flawed.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not.

Doesn't matter, a business is responsible for its employees training. In this case, the individual who took the order, specifically states they knew they would have a problem with it, but accepted it anyhow because they 'didn't want to cause a fuss'.

Which of course is win for the plaintiff solicitor once that's on record.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 15 of 28 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Site Map

Sponsors