Gay cake

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Mapletree Croydon 11 Oct 18 12.41pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I will never defend religious loons but you cannot force someone to provide a service against their will. That in itself would constitute a serious restriction of personal freedom. Your comparison is inaccurate. No one put any signs up saying no gays. That would be illegal. This is about freedom of choice for a private business. Why do you have to argue with me even when you are agreeing? Penge's original point was people shouldn't have to serve those they don't want to serve. I said that isn't correct or you would end up with how it used to be. But they should not have to provide a service that runs contrary to their beliefs.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Oct 18 12.41pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I will never defend religious loons but you cannot force someone to provide a service against their will.
That in itself would constitute a serious restriction of personal freedom.
Your comparison is inaccurate. No one put any signs up saying no gays. That would be illegal. This is about freedom of choice for a private business.

Why do you have to argue with me even when you are agreeing?

Penge's original point was people shouldn't have to serve those they don't want to serve. I said that isn't correct or you would end up with how it used to be. But they should not have to provide a service that runs contrary to their beliefs.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 11 Oct 18 12.41pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I will never defend religious loons but you cannot force someone to provide a service against their will. That in itself would constitute a serious restriction of personal freedom. Your comparison is inaccurate. No one put any signs up saying no gays. That would be illegal. This is about freedom of choice for a private business. Hrolf, I�ve read Mapletree�s post a number of times, and I�m sure that you are both saying the same thing ie you are in agreement. Edited to say - oops Mapletree beat me to it. Edited by YT (11 Oct 2018 12.43pm) Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 11 Oct 18 12.41pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Hrolf, I�ve read Mapletree�s post a number of times, and I�m sure that you are both saying the same thing ie you are in agreement.

Edited to say - oops Mapletree beat me to it.

Edited by YT (11 Oct 2018 12.43pm)

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 11 Oct 18 2.10pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Why do you have to argue with me even when you are agreeing? Penge's original point was people shouldn't have to serve those they don't want to serve. I said that isn't correct or you would end up with how it used to be. But they should not have to provide a service that runs contrary to their beliefs. You are incorrect. The law says that you can't discriminate, but that requires proof of discrimination. Since no court can read minds, if a person wishes to deny another a service then he should be perfectly entitled to do so providing they don't break the law. Their reasons do not have to be qualified. Any other ruling would be unenforceable and totally impractical. To be clear. What I'm saying is that unless you put up a sign or are heard saying you won't serve someone because they are Gay or whatever, then you reasons are for you to know. As a private business, you must reserve that right even if you are a closet bigot. Anything else is the territory of the thought police. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2018 2.20pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

11 Oct 18 2.10pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Mapletree

Why do you have to argue with me even when you are agreeing?

You are incorrect. The law says that you can't discriminate, but that requires proof of discrimination.
Since no court can read minds, if a person wishes to deny another a service then he should be perfectly entitled to do so providing they don't break the law. Their reasons do not have to be qualified.
Any other ruling would be unenforceable and totally impractical.

To be clear. What I'm saying is that unless you put up a sign or are heard saying you won't serve someone because they are Gay or whatever, then you reasons are for you to know. As a private business, you must reserve that right even if you are a closet bigot. Anything else is the territory of the thought police.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2018 2.20pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 11 Oct 18 2.24pm
Originally posted by YT Hrolf, I�ve read Mapletree�s post a number of times, and I�m sure that you are both saying the same thing ie you are in agreement. Edited to say - oops Mapletree beat me to it. Edited by YT (11 Oct 2018 12.43pm) It's would be hard to agree with someone who has such a warped view of everything. It would make me wonder if I might be wrong.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

11 Oct 18 2.24pm

Originally posted by YT

Hrolf, I�ve read Mapletree�s post a number of times, and I�m sure that you are both saying the same thing ie you are in agreement.

Edited to say - oops Mapletree beat me to it.

Edited by YT (11 Oct 2018 12.43pm)

It's would be hard to agree with someone who has such a warped view of everything. It would make me wonder if I might be wrong.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 11 Oct 18 2.24pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger You are incorrect. The law says that you can't discriminate, but that requires proof of discrimination. Since no court can read minds, if a person wishes to deny another a service then he should be perfectly entitled to do so providing they don't break the law. Their reasons do not have to be qualified. Any other ruling would be unenforceable and totally impractical. To be clear. What I'm saying is that unless you put up a sign or are heard saying you won't serve someone because they are Gay or whatever, then you reasons are for you to know. As a private business, you must reserve that right even if you are a closet bigot. Anything else is the territory of the thought police. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2018 2.20pm) WTF are you on about? Believe me, I know discrimination law. I have been to Tribunal multiple times on such cases. I said that you can't discriminate against someone due to their 'protected characteristic' and as such Penge was wrong to say you should allow people to choose to serve whomsoever they wish. The Court, however, found that you can refuse to undertake a service that you find runs counter to your religion. I think that is a suitable outcome. As far as I can see, as also pointed out by YT, so are you.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Oct 18 2.24pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2018 2.20pm)

WTF are you on about? Believe me, I know discrimination law. I have been to Tribunal multiple times on such cases.

I said that you can't discriminate against someone due to their 'protected characteristic' and as such Penge was wrong to say you should allow people to choose to serve whomsoever they wish.

The Court, however, found that you can refuse to undertake a service that you find runs counter to your religion. I think that is a suitable outcome.

As far as I can see, as also pointed out by YT, so are you.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 11 Oct 18 2.28pm
Originally posted by Mapletree WTF are you on about? Believe me, I know discrimination law. I have been to Tribunal multiple times on such cases. I said that you can't discriminate against someone due to their 'protected characteristic' and as such Penge was wrong to say you should allow people to choose to serve whomsoever they wish. The Court, however, found that you can refuse to undertake a service that you find runs counter to your religion. I think that is a suitable outcome. As far as I can see, as also pointed out by YT, so are you. So how can you prove that someone is discriminating? If I own a hotel and you turn up and I say that I have no rooms available then how can you prove that it was because I didn't like your religion?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

11 Oct 18 2.28pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

WTF are you on about? Believe me, I know discrimination law. I have been to Tribunal multiple times on such cases.

I said that you can't discriminate against someone due to their 'protected characteristic' and as such Penge was wrong to say you should allow people to choose to serve whomsoever they wish.

The Court, however, found that you can refuse to undertake a service that you find runs counter to your religion. I think that is a suitable outcome.

As far as I can see, as also pointed out by YT, so are you.

So how can you prove that someone is discriminating?

If I own a hotel and you turn up and I say that I have no rooms available then how can you prove that it was because I didn't like your religion?

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 11 Oct 18 2.33pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So how can you prove that someone is discriminating? If I own a hotel and you turn up and I say that I have no rooms available then how can you prove that it was because I didn't like your religion? Welcome to my world In this case, the order was accepted so there was no discrimination at the point of entry into the shop. I have not read the case in detail but I expect Lee tried arguing the service was not provided as it was for someone with a protected status. Clearly the Court decided the service was refused due to the nature of the service, not the nature of the customer himself. And by the way, in employment the onus of proof is not on the claimant.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Oct 18 2.33pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So how can you prove that someone is discriminating?

If I own a hotel and you turn up and I say that I have no rooms available then how can you prove that it was because I didn't like your religion?

Welcome to my world

In this case, the order was accepted so there was no discrimination at the point of entry into the shop.

I have not read the case in detail but I expect Lee tried arguing the service was not provided as it was for someone with a protected status. Clearly the Court decided the service was refused due to the nature of the service, not the nature of the customer himself.

And by the way, in employment the onus of proof is not on the claimant.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 11 Oct 18 2.39pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Welcome to my world In this case, the order was accepted so there was no discrimination at the point of entry into the shop. I have not read the case in detail but I expect Lee tried arguing the service was not provided as it was for someone with a protected status. Clearly the Court decided the service was refused due to the nature of the service, not the nature of the customer himself. And by the way, in employment the onus of proof is not on the claimant. Yes I know. But in a court of law, it is different. The fact is that you can't prove discrimination sufficiently unless there is clear evidence. Therefore it is unenforceable unless there is a clear intention to discriminate. Anyone with a brain would not leave themselves open to a charge.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

11 Oct 18 2.39pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Welcome to my world

In this case, the order was accepted so there was no discrimination at the point of entry into the shop.

And by the way, in employment the onus of proof is not on the claimant.

Yes I know. But in a court of law, it is different.

The fact is that you can't prove discrimination sufficiently unless there is clear evidence. Therefore it is unenforceable unless there is a clear intention to discriminate. Anyone with a brain would not leave themselves open to a charge.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 11 Oct 18 2.53pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Yes I know. But in a court of law, it is different. The fact is that you can't prove discrimination sufficiently unless there is clear evidence. Therefore it is unenforceable unless there is a clear intention to discriminate. Anyone with a brain would not leave themselves open to a charge. Are you saying Employment Tribunals are different from other courts then? Can you provide examples?
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 11 Oct 18 2.53pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Yes I know. But in a court of law, it is different.

Are you saying Employment Tribunals are different from other courts then? Can you provide examples?

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 11 Oct 18 3.55pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Are you saying Employment Tribunals are different from other courts then? Can you provide examples? As you have suggested. The burden of proof is different. Also, an employer needs less evidence to discipline you than the CPS would to charge you. Therefore in such a case, the circumstances in which you go to a tribunal would be very different. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2018 3.55pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

11 Oct 18 3.55pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Are you saying Employment Tribunals are different from other courts then? Can you provide examples?

As you have suggested. The burden of proof is different.
Also, an employer needs less evidence to discipline you than the CPS would to charge you. Therefore in such a case, the circumstances in which you go to a tribunal would be very different.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Oct 2018 3.55pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle Croydon 11 Oct 18 4.18pm
Why does every subject on here have to end in an argument? Normally between the same protagonists. "It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit
Alert a moderator to this post

Tom-the-eagle

Croydon 11 Oct 18 4.18pm

Why does every subject on here have to end in an argument?

Normally between the same protagonists.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 11 Oct 18 5.34pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Welcome to my world In this case, the order was accepted so there was no discrimination at the point of entry into the shop. I have not read the case in detail but I expect Lee tried arguing the service was not provided as it was for someone with a protected status. Clearly the Court decided the service was refused due to the nature of the service, not the nature of the customer himself. And by the way, in employment the onus of proof is not on the claimant. Indeed, it was proved that it was not against the nature of the customer by the fact that they had served him in the shop on previous occasions. A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 11 Oct 18 5.34pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Welcome to my world

In this case, the order was accepted so there was no discrimination at the point of entry into the shop.

And by the way, in employment the onus of proof is not on the claimant.

Indeed, it was proved that it was not against the nature of the customer by the fact that they had served him in the shop on previous occasions.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Gay cake

Site Map

Sponsors