Gay cake
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 chris123  hove actually 10 Oct 18 9.14pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Poor tekkers in the original judgement and the appeal??
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
PalazioVecchio  south pole 10 Oct 18 9.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Cake ? talk about trying to ram political correctness down the throats of the unbelievers in this new religion of the mass media.
Same as 30 years of troubles in Ulster. Everybody loses.
Eze Peasy at Anfield.... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 10 Oct 18 9.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Chill out snowflake. You've tried reporting people for less. What?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 10 Oct 18 10.44pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
I think it’s stupid not to bake a cake for a gay, a Jew, Muslim, black, Asian etc – but the bakers are entitled to their freedom of speech. The main point is the government should have no role in telling private business owners who they can serve. And as mentioned, the £250k legal cost to the tax payer is a total disgrace. The free market will decide if the business gets affected by the decisions owners make. Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Oct 2018 10.50pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 10 Oct 18 11.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
I think it’s stupid not to bake a cake for a gay, a Jew, Muslim, black, Asian etc – but the bakers are entitled to their freedom of speech. The main point is the government should have no role in telling private business owners who they can serve. And as mentioned, the £250k legal cost to the tax payer is a total disgrace. The free market will decide if the business gets affected by the decisions owners make. Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Oct 2018 10.50pm) No. This is wrong. It’s like when windows used to say no Irish, no blacks, no dogs. This case was not about who you would serve. It was about a statement that the request maker possibly knew would be unacceptable to the service provider. I wonder if the Equalities Commission supported Mr Lee only because he made it impossible for them not to. It may have been useful to them to work out if religion trumps sexuality in the Courts. It also has to be remembered this is Norn Oirland. Clearly a man on a mission who doesn’t care about other people and their honestly held views. Simply collateral damage in his Crusade. But of course he ‘feels like a second class citizen’ now having not had his own way. Like the Court said, it didn’t matter who he was, just what he wanted writing Edited by Mapletree (10 Oct 2018 11.15pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 10 Oct 18 11.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
No. This is wrong. It’s like when windows used to say no Irish, no blacks, no dogs. This case was not about who you would serve. It was about a statement that the request maker possibly knew would be unacceptable to the service provider. I wonder if the Equalities Commission supported Mr Lee only because he made it impossible for them not to. It may have been useful to them to work out if religion trumps sexuality in the Courts. It also has to be remembered this is Norn Oirland. Clearly a man on a mission who doesn’t care about other people and their honestly held views. Simply collateral damage in his Crusade. But of course he ‘feels like a second class citizen’ now having not had his own way. Like the Court said, it didn’t matter who he was, just what he wanted writing Edited by Mapletree (10 Oct 2018 11.15pm) No surprise from a leftie. You want the state to control your life and let it trump the rights of a free individual. Edited by Penge Eagle (11 Oct 2018 12.16am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 11 Oct 18 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
The gay rights activist Peter Thatcell was against this case being brought for the reasons previously stated that it was not about the customer but about the customer wanting a political slogan that the owners did not agree. If the Supreme Court had upheld the original decision the logical extension of that is that I could walk into an Afro Caribbean bakery and demand a cake with a slogan supporting the KKK. As other have suggested this was not a Brown versus the Board of Education moment it was a waste of taxpayers money and the Equalities Commission needs to think about this. For the record I have no problem with gay marriage why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 11 Oct 18 8.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Penge Eagle
I think it’s stupid not to bake a cake for a gay, a Jew, Muslim, black, Asian etc – but the bakers are entitled to their freedom of speech. The main point is the government should have no role in telling private business owners who they can serve. And as mentioned, the £250k legal cost to the tax payer is a total disgrace. The free market will decide if the business gets affected by the decisions owners make. Edited by Penge Eagle (10 Oct 2018 10.50pm) The point you make about government intervention is correct.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 11 Oct 18 10.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
The point you make about government intervention is correct. Is it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PhuketEagle  Phuket 11 Oct 18 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Apparently the baker offered the gays some nice buns in compensation. (You're fired - Ed.)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 11 Oct 18 11.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
When have you been asked for your papers in the street,or been forced to do anything outside of the norm for any of us.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 11 Oct 18 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
No. This is wrong. It’s like when windows used to say no Irish, no blacks, no dogs. This case was not about who you would serve. It was about a statement that the request maker possibly knew would be unacceptable to the service provider. I wonder if the Equalities Commission supported Mr Lee only because he made it impossible for them not to. It may have been useful to them to work out if religion trumps sexuality in the Courts. It also has to be remembered this is Norn Oirland. Clearly a man on a mission who doesn’t care about other people and their honestly held views. Simply collateral damage in his Crusade. But of course he ‘feels like a second class citizen’ now having not had his own way. Like the Court said, it didn’t matter who he was, just what he wanted writing Edited by Mapletree (10 Oct 2018 11.15pm) I will never defend religious loons but you cannot force someone to provide a service against their will.
|
|
| 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.