Diversity Schmeristy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
leggedstruggle  Croydon 12 Aug 15 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.43am
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 10.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am
Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am
Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm
Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal.
If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm) Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds). Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract). Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment). Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on. So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events). Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity). Here we go again. The bakery was not prosecuted under contract law. It was prosecuted for discriminating against the buyer because he batted for the other side. This obviously they were not guilty of as they would have refused to put wording on the cake whoever the buyer batted for, or indeed if he had been the umpire. Their appeal is pending - no doubt they will win it easily. Yes, and to prove discrimination, you have to show sufficient evidence, that you were denied service on the grounds of discrimination i.e. actual evidence. In fact the Judge dismissed their right as Christians to discriminate because their business did not operate as a Christian Business, but as an ordinary bakery. Had they solely functioned as 'Christian Bakery' they'd have been within their rights to discriminate - But they don't, they're a bakery that serves the general public and as such are covered by the same law as every one else. As before you are ignoring the central point. They did not discriminate as charged. They refused to put the wording on the cake because the wording called for a change in the cricketing rules, not because of which side the buyer batted for.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Aug 15 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 11.01am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.43am
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 10.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 10.22am
Quote johnfirewall at 11 Aug 2015 4.10pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Aug 2015 9.02am
Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.57pm
Quote A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal.
If you open a business you open it to everyone. Interesting how people who probably wouldn't dare come on expressing racist opinions are happy to express homophobic ones. Why is that? Unless you specifically state you're a religious or faith based business, catering to a specific, known and recognized religion. Do such things exist and would they legally be allowed to refuse everyone else? What about when it's a matter of race rather than religion? Can I demand my hair be cut at Afro-Caribbean barbers? Edited by johnfirewall (11 Aug 2015 4.11pm) Christian (and religious) Bookshops spring to mind, along with Churches (technically a charity business but they often rent out halls and property, and can discriminate based on religious grounds). Any business can refuse to do business with someone provided they don't enter into an agreement, such as an appointment or take a deposit on an order and provided they don't admit its on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. Once you enter into a contract, and they break contract, then you essentially have a case where you can demonstrate discrimination occurred (breach of contract). Whilst you could always sue someone for racial prejudice or sexual discrimination, you actually have to be able to win the case (ie show proof of discrimination on balance of evidence - so you need to show a breach of contract or evidence of prejudicial treatment). Typically groups that are allowed to discriminate usually are self selective discrimination. For example, when selecting a candidate for a rape counciller, you are allowed to discriminate on gender, because its in the best interests of the client (similarly if its for male rape cases, you could select a male), and so on. So discrimination must be reasonable, and for fair reasons (so a Church of England business cannot discriminate against gay people, as it accepts gay clergy but if it rejects gay marriage can refuse to allow premesis to be used for such events). Notably if your business is Christian only, you probably cannot offer services outside of that group (ie your Christian bookshop cannot sell the Koran etc and then refuse to sell books about Gay Christainity). Here we go again. The bakery was not prosecuted under contract law. It was prosecuted for discriminating against the buyer because he batted for the other side. This obviously they were not guilty of as they would have refused to put wording on the cake whoever the buyer batted for, or indeed if he had been the umpire. Their appeal is pending - no doubt they will win it easily. Yes, and to prove discrimination, you have to show sufficient evidence, that you were denied service on the grounds of discrimination i.e. actual evidence. In fact the Judge dismissed their right as Christians to discriminate because their business did not operate as a Christian Business, but as an ordinary bakery. Had they solely functioned as 'Christian Bakery' they'd have been within their rights to discriminate - But they don't, they're a bakery that serves the general public and as such are covered by the same law as every one else. As before you are ignoring the central point. They did not discriminate as charged. They refused to put the wording on the cake because the wording called for a change in the cricketing rules, not because of which side the buyer batted for. Which was then demonstrated to be discriminatory in a court of law, before a judge, according to the law of the land. Which is good enough for me. Now that judge could be wrong, which is why leave to appeal was granted to the respondent, allowing them to seek additional arbitration. We have an accusatory legal system, in which two sides present a case, and one side wins (either on balance of evidence or reasonable doubt). They lost They have the right to appeal the decision. Just like everyone else who ever goes to court.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 johnfirewall 12 Aug 15 11.38am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Jamie, was there a landmark ruling on businesses who decide to stick to their own, or is it already written in to business or discrimination law, or are you making it up? I can't see how they would be afforded any more protection than anyone else. Simply not selling anyone else's holy books should be sufficient. There's no law that tells them what to stock.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Aug 15 1.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 12 Aug 2015 11.38am
Jamie, was there a landmark ruling on businesses who decide to stick to their own, or is it already written in to business or discrimination law, or are you making it up? I can't see how they would be afforded any more protection than anyone else. Simply not selling anyone else's holy books should be sufficient. There's no law that tells them what to stock. No, but it would then fall under the protection of rights of the equal rights act. It doesn't give you special rights, but it entitles you to equal rights protection, but you would have to cater to a specific demographic (probably saying Christian would be too broad in most cases, but certainly if you are Catholic you don't have to employ female clergy etc). But it doesn't allow you to discriminate openly, it only would allow you to avoid aspects of trade requirements (and economically penalize yourself) - It wouldn't allow you to be racist, homophobic, misoygnst in general. In reality, its probably a poor idea, as you'd be restricted in terms of trade and income (such as a hotel that only caters to Catholics, or Ismalli Muslims). In terms of race, I think you'd be onto a lost cause, as there isn't really any reasonable basis (the BNP have to accept members irrespective of race, because they could show no reasonable grounds to exclude non-white members). In most cases 'reasonable discrimination' tends to favour the group (ie its reasonable to employ a woman over a man as a domestic violence counciller, if most of your victims are of male on female violence). Certainly the Black Police Federation, for example, cannot restrict membership on race (it has to accept white members).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Aug 15 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Are people still going on about the gay cake?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 12 Aug 15 1.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 1.47pm
Are people still going on about the gay cake?
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Aug 15 2.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Jimenez at 12 Aug 2015 1.57pm
Quote nickgusset at 12 Aug 2015 1.47pm
Are people still going on about the gay cake?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 12 Aug 15 2.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 1.20pm
Certainly the Black Police Federation, for example, cannot restrict membership on race (it has to accept white members).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Aug 15 3.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnfirewall at 12 Aug 2015 2.54pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 1.20pm
Certainly the Black Police Federation, for example, cannot restrict membership on race (it has to accept white members).
Its ok, Sting is not allowed in the room.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 12 Aug 15 4.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 12 Aug 15 5.43pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 4.40pm
Lots of the left on Hol have defended it.....They would much rather waffle on about Ukip being racist or wish that it didn't exist....It's the only minority group they feel ok with being unfair to. An advocacy group that exists within the Police force is a ridiculous entity for its management to support. The only advocacy the Police should support is the inpartial implementation of the bloody law. It's a tacit and pathetic acceptance of the 'institutionalized racism' conclusions. I don't respect the way our national Police force is run at all.....wishy washy load of old bollocks.
'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 |
|
| johnfirewall 06 Oct 15 7.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Daft Goldsmiths bird in court
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.