Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 23 May 15 10.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. 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 m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 23 May 15 10.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. 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 m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 23 May 15 10.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 8.01pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 6.44pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.17pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.58pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.46pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.41pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.12pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 4.14pm
They should move their business to Republican of Ireland. Lots of gay cakes to refuse to design today I suspect. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 4.42pm) Can't wait for the first Islamic country to approve it - or even make being gay legal, or perhaps dropping the death penalty and long imprisonment sentences that are meted out to gay people.
When have I mocked gay people? And are you suggesting I support Islamic persecution of gay people, or indeed any persecution of gay people? Anything I pointed out you would pass off as a 'joke' so there's no point. Suffice to say you have, and it certainly seems that you don't view gay people as equals, which is really why a judgement like this has annoyed you. There is a completely different tone in this thread regarding how people have talked about Christians to how you have talked about homosexuals.
The cake design comparisons you gave all related to horrendous and criminal acts, and certainly not groups protected in law so were intentionally inflammatory rather than illustrative. Of course your message about gay people all moving to their own town and writing their 'silly slogans' on cakes was intentionally mocking. What is your view of gay marriage? For a start you refered to that as 'marriage', so I take it you don't view it as being 'equal'. My whole point is that businesses gay or straight, christian or atheist should just get on with business. We see that in not doing so, it opens the door for people with an axe to grind at certain groups. Uniformity of service is good for society. As for what people believe outside of a business context, I move in the other direction. I think people getting arrested for stupid offensive twitter comments are just low hanging fruit rather than a public concern. Of course your comparisons were all valid and mild? My view of gay 'marriage': They can enter into any form of partnership they like as long as it is legal (same sex-marriage is not in Northern Ireland). I have no strong views about it, good luck to them. I personally do not think such unions are true marriages, as a marriage is between a man and a woman; but if it makes them happy to call it a marriage, fine. They can have all the legal benefits that arise from being married, but they should not expect everyone to consider them as married in the real sense of the word. Businesses should not be forced to get involved in political controversies and should not be prosecuted for discrimination when no discrimination took place. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 6.45pm) The only religious comment I made related to how Mormonism, specifically the church of LDS used to have an issue with black people. They were not allowed to be ordained as priests. It was said as a statement of fact. I made no jokes about religious people and didn't seek to mock religious people nor do I have any interest in doing so. A person's worth is not dictated by their faith or lack of. Of course once gay marriage does pass in NI, there will eventually be no 'gay marriage' or 'equal rights' cakes on account that concepts of gay marriage will no longer really exist, much in the same way that people don't go off and get an 'interacial marriage', or a 'black marriage' or 'white marriage'. Our children and grand children will all look back to this stuff and be utterly perplexed by our attitudes.
1)I fully accept that you have not mocked religion, I was thinking of one or two comments made by other posters. By the way, I am not religious myself. However, I do think there are double standards operating in society as Christian beliefs and standards are readily mocked and eroded whereas other religions are given every indulgence. Wouldn't hold your breath on Northern Ireland allowing it while the DUP holds sway there. 2) If not 'gay marriage' cakes, extreme gay rights activists will want 'gay positive discrimination' cakes or something similar, or perhaps 'homophobics should be imprisoned' cakes, and no doubt the likes of Isobel Brownlie will support them. 3)I agree that our children and grandchildren will look back on stuff and be perplexed with the likes of Carol Thatcher being sacked, the John Terry show trial by the FA, an eighty-five-year-old woman being handcuffed and arrested for saying 'go back to your own country' to some people, etc.
2) I've known thousands of people in my life, but I've never known a gay person who demanded the banning of straight marriage alongside legalisation of gay marriage. That seems to be the kind of scaenario being conjured up here. We can all create boogey men, but the reality is that gay issues being central at this time is due to discimination against this group not the favouring of. 3) As I stated in the other thread, I found the ejection of the old man for criticising Tony Blair under 'terror legislation' as sickening. I am very much against any person beliefs in a non business context being trampled on. Unfortunately in that same thread you had been taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims. That won't be the case, you're simply being manipulated into the exact kind of future you clearly do not want to see.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
.| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 May 15 11.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. 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 m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) Deflection, and accustatory, how is someone standing up for their legal rights a 'troublemaker'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 May 15 11.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 10.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 10.06pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 1.11pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 May 2015 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm
Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get. What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.
If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "
Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.
If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person.
"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. 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 m'lud. Actually it was the Equality Commission who took them to court. Interested in Contract Law are they? The plaintiff was gay activist trouble maker Gareth Lee (admitted the court papers simply describe him as Gareth Lee). He was 'supported' by the Equality Commission. This quango cost the UK £51.6 million in 2008/09, probably much more now - just so it can 'support' this sort of nonsense. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 10.27pm) 51.6m spent on a body overseeing that citizens are treated equally seems money well spent, and is f**k all in terms of government spending. Not sure the idea of equality for citizens is nonsense, its a basic tennet of democracy.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 23 May 15 11.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 10.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 8.01pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 6.44pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.17pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.58pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.46pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.41pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.12pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 4.14pm
They should move their business to Republican of Ireland. Lots of gay cakes to refuse to design today I suspect. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 4.42pm) Can't wait for the first Islamic country to approve it - or even make being gay legal, or perhaps dropping the death penalty and long imprisonment sentences that are meted out to gay people.
When have I mocked gay people? And are you suggesting I support Islamic persecution of gay people, or indeed any persecution of gay people? Anything I pointed out you would pass off as a 'joke' so there's no point. Suffice to say you have, and it certainly seems that you don't view gay people as equals, which is really why a judgement like this has annoyed you. There is a completely different tone in this thread regarding how people have talked about Christians to how you have talked about homosexuals.
The cake design comparisons you gave all related to horrendous and criminal acts, and certainly not groups protected in law so were intentionally inflammatory rather than illustrative. Of course your message about gay people all moving to their own town and writing their 'silly slogans' on cakes was intentionally mocking. What is your view of gay marriage? For a start you refered to that as 'marriage', so I take it you don't view it as being 'equal'. My whole point is that businesses gay or straight, christian or atheist should just get on with business. We see that in not doing so, it opens the door for people with an axe to grind at certain groups. Uniformity of service is good for society. As for what people believe outside of a business context, I move in the other direction. I think people getting arrested for stupid offensive twitter comments are just low hanging fruit rather than a public concern. Of course your comparisons were all valid and mild? My view of gay 'marriage': They can enter into any form of partnership they like as long as it is legal (same sex-marriage is not in Northern Ireland). I have no strong views about it, good luck to them. I personally do not think such unions are true marriages, as a marriage is between a man and a woman; but if it makes them happy to call it a marriage, fine. They can have all the legal benefits that arise from being married, but they should not expect everyone to consider them as married in the real sense of the word. Businesses should not be forced to get involved in political controversies and should not be prosecuted for discrimination when no discrimination took place. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 6.45pm) The only religious comment I made related to how Mormonism, specifically the church of LDS used to have an issue with black people. They were not allowed to be ordained as priests. It was said as a statement of fact. I made no jokes about religious people and didn't seek to mock religious people nor do I have any interest in doing so. A person's worth is not dictated by their faith or lack of. Of course once gay marriage does pass in NI, there will eventually be no 'gay marriage' or 'equal rights' cakes on account that concepts of gay marriage will no longer really exist, much in the same way that people don't go off and get an 'interacial marriage', or a 'black marriage' or 'white marriage'. Our children and grand children will all look back to this stuff and be utterly perplexed by our attitudes.
1)I fully accept that you have not mocked religion, I was thinking of one or two comments made by other posters. By the way, I am not religious myself. However, I do think there are double standards operating in society as Christian beliefs and standards are readily mocked and eroded whereas other religions are given every indulgence. Wouldn't hold your breath on Northern Ireland allowing it while the DUP holds sway there. 2) If not 'gay marriage' cakes, extreme gay rights activists will want 'gay positive discrimination' cakes or something similar, or perhaps 'homophobics should be imprisoned' cakes, and no doubt the likes of Isobel Brownlie will support them. 3)I agree that our children and grandchildren will look back on stuff and be perplexed with the likes of Carol Thatcher being sacked, the John Terry show trial by the FA, an eighty-five-year-old woman being handcuffed and arrested for saying 'go back to your own country' to some people, etc.
2) I've known thousands of people in my life, but I've never known a gay person who demanded the banning of straight marriage alongside legalisation of gay marriage. That seems to be the kind of scaenario being conjured up here. We can all create boogey men, but the reality is that gay issues being central at this time is due to discimination against this group not the favouring of. 3) As I stated in the other thread, I found the ejection of the old man for criticising Tony Blair under 'terror legislation' as sickening. I am very much against any person beliefs in a non business context being trampled on. Unfortunately in that same thread you had been taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims. That won't be the case, you're simply being manipulated into the exact kind of future you clearly do not want to see.
3) No idea what you mean by I have been "taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims". I certainly do not consider myself to be manipulated - on the contrary, I think what passes for the left these days is manipulated into not seeing what is in front of their noses, they merely churn out the accepted politically correct claptrap.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 23 May 15 11.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 11.09pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 10.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 8.01pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 6.44pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.17pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.58pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.46pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.41pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.12pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 4.14pm
They should move their business to Republican of Ireland. Lots of gay cakes to refuse to design today I suspect. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 4.42pm) Can't wait for the first Islamic country to approve it - or even make being gay legal, or perhaps dropping the death penalty and long imprisonment sentences that are meted out to gay people.
When have I mocked gay people? And are you suggesting I support Islamic persecution of gay people, or indeed any persecution of gay people? Anything I pointed out you would pass off as a 'joke' so there's no point. Suffice to say you have, and it certainly seems that you don't view gay people as equals, which is really why a judgement like this has annoyed you. There is a completely different tone in this thread regarding how people have talked about Christians to how you have talked about homosexuals.
The cake design comparisons you gave all related to horrendous and criminal acts, and certainly not groups protected in law so were intentionally inflammatory rather than illustrative. Of course your message about gay people all moving to their own town and writing their 'silly slogans' on cakes was intentionally mocking. What is your view of gay marriage? For a start you refered to that as 'marriage', so I take it you don't view it as being 'equal'. My whole point is that businesses gay or straight, christian or atheist should just get on with business. We see that in not doing so, it opens the door for people with an axe to grind at certain groups. Uniformity of service is good for society. As for what people believe outside of a business context, I move in the other direction. I think people getting arrested for stupid offensive twitter comments are just low hanging fruit rather than a public concern. Of course your comparisons were all valid and mild? My view of gay 'marriage': They can enter into any form of partnership they like as long as it is legal (same sex-marriage is not in Northern Ireland). I have no strong views about it, good luck to them. I personally do not think such unions are true marriages, as a marriage is between a man and a woman; but if it makes them happy to call it a marriage, fine. They can have all the legal benefits that arise from being married, but they should not expect everyone to consider them as married in the real sense of the word. Businesses should not be forced to get involved in political controversies and should not be prosecuted for discrimination when no discrimination took place. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 6.45pm) The only religious comment I made related to how Mormonism, specifically the church of LDS used to have an issue with black people. They were not allowed to be ordained as priests. It was said as a statement of fact. I made no jokes about religious people and didn't seek to mock religious people nor do I have any interest in doing so. A person's worth is not dictated by their faith or lack of. Of course once gay marriage does pass in NI, there will eventually be no 'gay marriage' or 'equal rights' cakes on account that concepts of gay marriage will no longer really exist, much in the same way that people don't go off and get an 'interacial marriage', or a 'black marriage' or 'white marriage'. Our children and grand children will all look back to this stuff and be utterly perplexed by our attitudes.
1)I fully accept that you have not mocked religion, I was thinking of one or two comments made by other posters. By the way, I am not religious myself. However, I do think there are double standards operating in society as Christian beliefs and standards are readily mocked and eroded whereas other religions are given every indulgence. Wouldn't hold your breath on Northern Ireland allowing it while the DUP holds sway there. 2) If not 'gay marriage' cakes, extreme gay rights activists will want 'gay positive discrimination' cakes or something similar, or perhaps 'homophobics should be imprisoned' cakes, and no doubt the likes of Isobel Brownlie will support them. 3)I agree that our children and grandchildren will look back on stuff and be perplexed with the likes of Carol Thatcher being sacked, the John Terry show trial by the FA, an eighty-five-year-old woman being handcuffed and arrested for saying 'go back to your own country' to some people, etc.
2) I've known thousands of people in my life, but I've never known a gay person who demanded the banning of straight marriage alongside legalisation of gay marriage. That seems to be the kind of scaenario being conjured up here. We can all create boogey men, but the reality is that gay issues being central at this time is due to discimination against this group not the favouring of. 3) As I stated in the other thread, I found the ejection of the old man for criticising Tony Blair under 'terror legislation' as sickening. I am very much against any person beliefs in a non business context being trampled on. Unfortunately in that same thread you had been taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims. That won't be the case, you're simply being manipulated into the exact kind of future you clearly do not want to see.
3) No idea what you mean by I have been "taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims". I certainly do not consider myself to be manipulated - on the contrary, I think what passes for the left these days is manipulated into not seeing what is in front of their noses, they merely churn out the accepted politically correct claptrap. How can someone be both manipulated whilst also recognising that they are. That is both the problem and the reality. You need other people to shake you awake. With new laws, watch who they end up being used against. Though of course it's a bit too late after the fact. All of this 'left' vs 'right' stuff is the same guff that holds us back. Individual rights, outside of business obligations are very important, yes, outside of our personal beliefs and feelings. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 11.22pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 24 May 15 8.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 11.22pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 11.09pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 10.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 8.01pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 6.44pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.17pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.58pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.46pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.41pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.12pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 4.14pm
They should move their business to Republican of Ireland. Lots of gay cakes to refuse to design today I suspect. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 4.42pm) Can't wait for the first Islamic country to approve it - or even make being gay legal, or perhaps dropping the death penalty and long imprisonment sentences that are meted out to gay people.
When have I mocked gay people? And are you suggesting I support Islamic persecution of gay people, or indeed any persecution of gay people? Anything I pointed out you would pass off as a 'joke' so there's no point. Suffice to say you have, and it certainly seems that you don't view gay people as equals, which is really why a judgement like this has annoyed you. There is a completely different tone in this thread regarding how people have talked about Christians to how you have talked about homosexuals.
The cake design comparisons you gave all related to horrendous and criminal acts, and certainly not groups protected in law so were intentionally inflammatory rather than illustrative. Of course your message about gay people all moving to their own town and writing their 'silly slogans' on cakes was intentionally mocking. What is your view of gay marriage? For a start you refered to that as 'marriage', so I take it you don't view it as being 'equal'. My whole point is that businesses gay or straight, christian or atheist should just get on with business. We see that in not doing so, it opens the door for people with an axe to grind at certain groups. Uniformity of service is good for society. As for what people believe outside of a business context, I move in the other direction. I think people getting arrested for stupid offensive twitter comments are just low hanging fruit rather than a public concern. Of course your comparisons were all valid and mild? My view of gay 'marriage': They can enter into any form of partnership they like as long as it is legal (same sex-marriage is not in Northern Ireland). I have no strong views about it, good luck to them. I personally do not think such unions are true marriages, as a marriage is between a man and a woman; but if it makes them happy to call it a marriage, fine. They can have all the legal benefits that arise from being married, but they should not expect everyone to consider them as married in the real sense of the word. Businesses should not be forced to get involved in political controversies and should not be prosecuted for discrimination when no discrimination took place. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 6.45pm) The only religious comment I made related to how Mormonism, specifically the church of LDS used to have an issue with black people. They were not allowed to be ordained as priests. It was said as a statement of fact. I made no jokes about religious people and didn't seek to mock religious people nor do I have any interest in doing so. A person's worth is not dictated by their faith or lack of. Of course once gay marriage does pass in NI, there will eventually be no 'gay marriage' or 'equal rights' cakes on account that concepts of gay marriage will no longer really exist, much in the same way that people don't go off and get an 'interacial marriage', or a 'black marriage' or 'white marriage'. Our children and grand children will all look back to this stuff and be utterly perplexed by our attitudes.
1)I fully accept that you have not mocked religion, I was thinking of one or two comments made by other posters. By the way, I am not religious myself. However, I do think there are double standards operating in society as Christian beliefs and standards are readily mocked and eroded whereas other religions are given every indulgence. Wouldn't hold your breath on Northern Ireland allowing it while the DUP holds sway there. 2) If not 'gay marriage' cakes, extreme gay rights activists will want 'gay positive discrimination' cakes or something similar, or perhaps 'homophobics should be imprisoned' cakes, and no doubt the likes of Isobel Brownlie will support them. 3)I agree that our children and grandchildren will look back on stuff and be perplexed with the likes of Carol Thatcher being sacked, the John Terry show trial by the FA, an eighty-five-year-old woman being handcuffed and arrested for saying 'go back to your own country' to some people, etc.
2) I've known thousands of people in my life, but I've never known a gay person who demanded the banning of straight marriage alongside legalisation of gay marriage. That seems to be the kind of scaenario being conjured up here. We can all create boogey men, but the reality is that gay issues being central at this time is due to discimination against this group not the favouring of. 3) As I stated in the other thread, I found the ejection of the old man for criticising Tony Blair under 'terror legislation' as sickening. I am very much against any person beliefs in a non business context being trampled on. Unfortunately in that same thread you had been taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims. That won't be the case, you're simply being manipulated into the exact kind of future you clearly do not want to see.
3) No idea what you mean by I have been "taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims". I certainly do not consider myself to be manipulated - on the contrary, I think what passes for the left these days is manipulated into not seeing what is in front of their noses, they merely churn out the accepted politically correct claptrap. How can someone be both manipulated whilst also recognising that they are. That is both the problem and the reality. You need other people to shake you awake. With new laws, watch who they end up being used against. Though of course it's a bit too late after the fact. All of this 'left' vs 'right' stuff is the same guff that holds us back. Individual rights, outside of business obligations are very important, yes, outside of our personal beliefs and feelings. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 11.22pm) LOL, clearly you had a few drinks last night. Perhaps celebrating the establishment of Sodom & Gomorrah/Begorrah in Eire, or the victory of the Swedish musical masterpiece and the return of the bearded guy in a dress?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 24 May 15 8.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 24 May 2015 8.14am
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 11.22pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 11.09pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 10.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 8.01pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.58pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 6.44pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 6.17pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.58pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.52pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.46pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 5.41pm
Quote derben at 23 May 2015 5.12pm
Quote imbored at 23 May 2015 4.14pm
They should move their business to Republican of Ireland. Lots of gay cakes to refuse to design today I suspect. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 4.42pm) Can't wait for the first Islamic country to approve it - or even make being gay legal, or perhaps dropping the death penalty and long imprisonment sentences that are meted out to gay people.
When have I mocked gay people? And are you suggesting I support Islamic persecution of gay people, or indeed any persecution of gay people? Anything I pointed out you would pass off as a 'joke' so there's no point. Suffice to say you have, and it certainly seems that you don't view gay people as equals, which is really why a judgement like this has annoyed you. There is a completely different tone in this thread regarding how people have talked about Christians to how you have talked about homosexuals.
The cake design comparisons you gave all related to horrendous and criminal acts, and certainly not groups protected in law so were intentionally inflammatory rather than illustrative. Of course your message about gay people all moving to their own town and writing their 'silly slogans' on cakes was intentionally mocking. What is your view of gay marriage? For a start you refered to that as 'marriage', so I take it you don't view it as being 'equal'. My whole point is that businesses gay or straight, christian or atheist should just get on with business. We see that in not doing so, it opens the door for people with an axe to grind at certain groups. Uniformity of service is good for society. As for what people believe outside of a business context, I move in the other direction. I think people getting arrested for stupid offensive twitter comments are just low hanging fruit rather than a public concern. Of course your comparisons were all valid and mild? My view of gay 'marriage': They can enter into any form of partnership they like as long as it is legal (same sex-marriage is not in Northern Ireland). I have no strong views about it, good luck to them. I personally do not think such unions are true marriages, as a marriage is between a man and a woman; but if it makes them happy to call it a marriage, fine. They can have all the legal benefits that arise from being married, but they should not expect everyone to consider them as married in the real sense of the word. Businesses should not be forced to get involved in political controversies and should not be prosecuted for discrimination when no discrimination took place. Edited by derben (23 May 2015 6.45pm) The only religious comment I made related to how Mormonism, specifically the church of LDS used to have an issue with black people. They were not allowed to be ordained as priests. It was said as a statement of fact. I made no jokes about religious people and didn't seek to mock religious people nor do I have any interest in doing so. A person's worth is not dictated by their faith or lack of. Of course once gay marriage does pass in NI, there will eventually be no 'gay marriage' or 'equal rights' cakes on account that concepts of gay marriage will no longer really exist, much in the same way that people don't go off and get an 'interacial marriage', or a 'black marriage' or 'white marriage'. Our children and grand children will all look back to this stuff and be utterly perplexed by our attitudes.
1)I fully accept that you have not mocked religion, I was thinking of one or two comments made by other posters. By the way, I am not religious myself. However, I do think there are double standards operating in society as Christian beliefs and standards are readily mocked and eroded whereas other religions are given every indulgence. Wouldn't hold your breath on Northern Ireland allowing it while the DUP holds sway there. 2) If not 'gay marriage' cakes, extreme gay rights activists will want 'gay positive discrimination' cakes or something similar, or perhaps 'homophobics should be imprisoned' cakes, and no doubt the likes of Isobel Brownlie will support them. 3)I agree that our children and grandchildren will look back on stuff and be perplexed with the likes of Carol Thatcher being sacked, the John Terry show trial by the FA, an eighty-five-year-old woman being handcuffed and arrested for saying 'go back to your own country' to some people, etc.
2) I've known thousands of people in my life, but I've never known a gay person who demanded the banning of straight marriage alongside legalisation of gay marriage. That seems to be the kind of scaenario being conjured up here. We can all create boogey men, but the reality is that gay issues being central at this time is due to discimination against this group not the favouring of. 3) As I stated in the other thread, I found the ejection of the old man for criticising Tony Blair under 'terror legislation' as sickening. I am very much against any person beliefs in a non business context being trampled on. Unfortunately in that same thread you had been taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims. That won't be the case, you're simply being manipulated into the exact kind of future you clearly do not want to see.
3) No idea what you mean by I have been "taken in by this idea that 'extremism' is a term that will only ever be applied to Muslims". I certainly do not consider myself to be manipulated - on the contrary, I think what passes for the left these days is manipulated into not seeing what is in front of their noses, they merely churn out the accepted politically correct claptrap. How can someone be both manipulated whilst also recognising that they are. That is both the problem and the reality. You need other people to shake you awake. With new laws, watch who they end up being used against. Though of course it's a bit too late after the fact. All of this 'left' vs 'right' stuff is the same guff that holds us back. Individual rights, outside of business obligations are very important, yes, outside of our personal beliefs and feelings. Edited by imbored (23 May 2015 11.22pm) LOL, clearly you had a few drinks last night. Perhaps celebrating the establishment of Sodom & Gomorrah/Begorrah in Eire, or the victory of the Swedish musical masterpiece and the return of the bearded guy in a dress?
I'm saying that the whole idea of being 'taken in' by something, means you don't realise you have been. Anyway, that's enough from me. Enjoy your cake!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 ilovejo Croydon 24 May 15 8.53am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 20 May 2015 8.30pm
Quote ilovejo at 20 May 2015 8.13pm
I've worked at a Gypsy wedding once (didn't know they were travellers until they turned up), absolute fcking nightmare. It was running ok until they decided to have a fight in the middle of the dance floor... blood everywhere, and we found part of someone's ear!!!
They also think dropping potentially dangerous rubbish anywhere they feel like is absolutely fine. Can't see there is much to celebrate in a culture like that and I really don't know how they get away with as much as they do. When they turn up they are a mobile crimewave. Why on earth would anyone want them around, especially as you will get a fistful if you complain.
"Dream as if you will live forever, live as if you will die today." James Dean, Legend. RIP. PSN username: olzzy999 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 24 May 15 6.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ilovejo at 24 May 2015 8.53am
Quote Mapletree at 20 May 2015 8.30pm
Quote ilovejo at 20 May 2015 8.13pm
I've worked at a Gypsy wedding once (didn't know they were travellers until they turned up), absolute fcking nightmare. It was running ok until they decided to have a fight in the middle of the dance floor... blood everywhere, and we found part of someone's ear!!!
They also think dropping potentially dangerous rubbish anywhere they feel like is absolutely fine. Can't see there is much to celebrate in a culture like that and I really don't know how they get away with as much as they do. When they turn up they are a mobile crimewave. Why on earth would anyone want them around, especially as you will get a fistful if you complain.
There is. Travellers as a 'racial group' refers to Irish Travellers, Gypsy refers to those of Romani descent.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 24 May 15 7.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 24 May 2015 6.37pm
Quote ilovejo at 24 May 2015 8.53am
Quote Mapletree at 20 May 2015 8.30pm
Quote ilovejo at 20 May 2015 8.13pm
I've worked at a Gypsy wedding once (didn't know they were travellers until they turned up), absolute fcking nightmare. It was running ok until they decided to have a fight in the middle of the dance floor... blood everywhere, and we found part of someone's ear!!!
They also think dropping potentially dangerous rubbish anywhere they feel like is absolutely fine. Can't see there is much to celebrate in a culture like that and I really don't know how they get away with as much as they do. When they turn up they are a mobile crimewave. Why on earth would anyone want them around, especially as you will get a fistful if you complain.
There is. Travellers as a 'racial group' refers to Irish Travellers, Gypsy refers to those of Romani descent. Well, I dislike Travellers and I dislike Gypsies. But which is worse? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT!
|
|
| 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.