You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > GB News, the irony of Sky
May 20 2024 6.52am

GB News, the irony of Sky

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 28 of 32 < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

 

View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 10 Mar 23 9.36am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

Clearly the Ashers did not refuse to make the cake because Lee was a homosexual and political activist. They had served him before and would have refused the order whoever made it. On the wider point, my view is that any business or individual should have the right to refuse their services to anyone for whatever reason they choose. (If I was an MP I would be bringing in a Private Members bill to do so.)

So one’s views or judgements are only valid if you have personally experienced the thing being judged? I’ve never burgled a house or been burgled, but I disapprove of burglary. You seem to have strong views on practically everything under the sun – have you experienced everything under the sun?

I’m not surprised that you ignore the story. What are your views on an autistic 14-year-old being terrified, receiving death threats and being forced to leave his home, while the police nod along to some mullah tacitly approving of this. (Or perhaps you don’t have a view, as you have not personally experienced such things?)

Edited by georgenorman (10 Mar 2023 8.16am)

I recognise that there is another opinion on whether businesses have the right to refuse commissions because of personal beliefs. Which goes much wider than just the "gay-cake" case. As a humanist I think we are on a slippery slope if we allow such a principle to become established. Something all those who are concerned about the way religious views, of many kinds, have the potential to impact society and our way of life, ought to take seriously. I hope it is sorted out.

No-one has experienced everything, but some cannot experience some things. Men can never be pregnant, so have no possibility of ever experiencing the distress felt through an unwanted pregnancy, or even beginning to imagine what it must be like. I offer sympathy and compassion for circumstances I cannot truly comprehend. You just condemn.

Anyone being terrified of anything deserves the utmost support. That's the whole point.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (10 Mar 2023 9.38am)

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 10 Mar 23 12.43pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I recognise that there is another opinion on whether businesses have the right to refuse commissions because of personal beliefs. Which goes much wider than just the "gay-cake" case. As a humanist I think we are on a slippery slope if we allow such a principle to become established. Something all those who are concerned about the way religious views, of many kinds, have the potential to impact society and our way of life, ought to take seriously. I hope it is sorted out.

No-one has experienced everything, but some cannot experience some things. Men can never be pregnant, so have no possibility of ever experiencing the distress felt through an unwanted pregnancy, or even beginning to imagine what it must be like. I offer sympathy and compassion for circumstances I cannot truly comprehend. You just condemn.

Anyone being terrified of anything deserves the utmost support. That's the whole point.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (10 Mar 2023 9.38am)

I think we are broadly in agreement in what you say here.

I would just say that I am not condemning pregnant women seeking abortions, I am critical of the police treating standing silently in a street an offence.

By the way you earlier said that a builder cannot refuse to build a building because of what it will be called as it would be an offence to common sense. Should the builder be obliged to build a wall around a concentration camp?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 10 Mar 23 10.13pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

I think we are broadly in agreement in what you say here.

I would just say that I am not condemning pregnant women seeking abortions, I am critical of the police treating standing silently in a street an offence.

By the way you earlier said that a builder cannot refuse to build a building because of what it will be called as it would be an offence to common sense. Should the builder be obliged to build a wall around a concentration camp?

I am grateful for the agreement, thank you.

The police don't decide what is an offence, and what not. They just administer the law. Governments make it. Local authorities interpret it.

I would hope in a civilised western democracy it would always be illegal to build a concentration camp. Refusing to do illegal work is a duty. If our country ever descended to the use of such places, then all my previous views would be reversed. Such appalling things should be resisted at all times.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 11 Mar 23 8.17am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am grateful for the agreement, thank you.

The police don't decide what is an offence, and what not. They just administer the law. Governments make it. Local authorities interpret it.

I would hope in a civilised western democracy it would always be illegal to build a concentration camp. Refusing to do illegal work is a duty. If our country ever descended to the use of such places, then all my previous views would be reversed. Such appalling things should be resisted at all times.

The police interpreted standing silently in a street, and possibly silently praying, as a demonstration. If that is the case then nobody is safe from arrest in any circumstances.

Should Gary Lineker (a little known builder} be obliged to build a wall around an Immigration Removal Centre?

Edited by georgenorman (11 Mar 2023 2.17pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Mar 23 11.41pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

The police interpreted standing silently in a street, and possibly silently praying, as a demonstration. If that is the case then nobody is safe from arrest in any circumstances.

Should Gary Lineker (a little known builder} be obliged to build a wall around an Immigration Removal Centre?

Edited by georgenorman (11 Mar 2023 2.17pm)

The lady concerned had previous. She is well known to the Police and had been warned many times. She is a tool of an American religious anti-abortion movement trying to spread their activities over here. She wanted to be arrested for the publicity. Doing what she did, where she did it, was a demonstration. Move a street or two away, it wasn't, so no arrest would follow. Nobody stopped her praying. They stopped her demonstrating.

If your Mr Lineker bid for the work, won the contract, then yes he must meet his obligations.

The cake bakers were not asked to quote. They offer to make cakes for everyone, but refused a customer only because they objected, on personal grounds, to the wording the customer wanted on top.

They had nothing to do with those words and no interest in them, beyond the ingredients. Just as builder Lineker's only interest would be the building materials.

Builder Lineker can decide not to quote. A cake maker can decide not to offer to make cakes for others, and market only their own, icing them in whatever way they choose. Including, "don't support gay marriage" if that's their desire. Those are their cakes. Baked for a client, they aren't.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 12 Mar 23 7.08am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The lady concerned had previous. She is well known to the Police and had been warned many times. She is a tool of an American religious anti-abortion movement trying to spread their activities over here. She wanted to be arrested for the publicity. Doing what she did, where she did it, was a demonstration. Move a street or two away, it wasn't, so no arrest would follow. Nobody stopped her praying. They stopped her demonstrating.

If your Mr Lineker bid for the work, won the contract, then yes he must meet his obligations.

The cake bakers were not asked to quote. They offer to make cakes for everyone, but refused a customer only because they objected, on personal grounds, to the wording the customer wanted on top.

They had nothing to do with those words and no interest in them, beyond the ingredients. Just as builder Lineker's only interest would be the building materials.

Builder Lineker can decide not to quote. A cake maker can decide not to offer to make cakes for others, and market only their own, icing them in whatever way they choose. Including, "don't support gay marriage" if that's their desire. Those are their cakes. Baked for a client, they aren't.

Previous for standing still and silently praying – wow I bet people cross to the other side of the road when they see her, like when you see a group of young men coming towards you in hoodies jabbering in some sort of patois? If temporal existence on a public street that you are not banned from is ‘demonstrating’, then we are all under threat.

What a draconian state you want us to live in, muslim bakeries having to put “the Koran is wrong” on cakes they make and then having a death sentence fatwa imposed on them by the local friendly mullah. Jewish bakeries obliged to put “the holocaust did not happen” on cakes they make (perhaps for the friendly mullah).

Then just to refresh your memory yet again, they were not charged with any sort of contractual offence, they were charged with refusing to carry out the order because the activist was homosexual. This of course they did not do, as is clear to anyone who is capable of looking beyond a woke mindset, and the charges against the Ashers were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

You say the woman arrested for standing still, silently in a street could “move a street or two away”, Lee could have gone to another bakery or two.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 12 Mar 23 8.34am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

Previous for standing still and silently praying – wow I bet people cross to the other side of the road when they see her, like when you see a group of young men coming towards you in hoodies jabbering in some sort of patois? If temporal existence on a public street that you are not banned from is ‘demonstrating’, then we are all under threat.

What a draconian state you want us to live in, muslim bakeries having to put “the Koran is wrong” on cakes they make and then having a death sentence fatwa imposed on them by the local friendly mullah. Jewish bakeries obliged to put “the holocaust did not happen” on cakes they make (perhaps for the friendly mullah).

Then just to refresh your memory yet again, they were not charged with any sort of contractual offence, they were charged with refusing to carry out the order because the activist was homosexual. This of course they did not do, as is clear to anyone who is capable of looking beyond a woke mindset, and the charges against the Ashers were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

You say the woman arrested for standing still, silently in a street could “move a street or two away”, Lee could have gone to another bakery or two.

She had previous for disrupting the ability of those wishing to exercise their rights and refusing to move on when requested to by the police. She is a well known activist whose very presence there could have been enough to intimidate. Praying had nothing to do with it. It was who she was, and where she was, that did. We aren't under threat unless we did anything remotely similar. Maybe standing by a gantry over the M25, carrying ladders and "stop-oil" signs, silently praying?

As I said I recognise there are two opinions and that this needs sorting out. If your "Muslim" bakers fear upsetting their mullah more than abiding by the law then they don't offer to bake cakes for others. Their free choice. In many countries your Jewish bakers would tell the police what their client had requested as holocaust denial is illegal. It isn't, yet, in the UK so telling the newspapers and then subcontracting the work to a none Jewish baker might work. There would be ways to stay lawful, but make your point.

I know they won on a point of law, which is why the law needs revising if justice is under threat.

Lee is an activist making a point. He is though allowed to make his point. He did nothing illegal.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 12 Mar 23 9.13am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

She had previous for disrupting the ability of those wishing to exercise their rights and refusing to move on when requested to by the police. She is a well known activist whose very presence there could have been enough to intimidate. Praying had nothing to do with it. It was who she was, and where she was, that did. We aren't under threat unless we did anything remotely similar. Maybe standing by a gantry over the M25, carrying ladders and "stop-oil" signs, silently praying?

As I said I recognise there are two opinions and that this needs sorting out. If your "Muslim" bakers fear upsetting their mullah more than abiding by the law then they don't offer to bake cakes for others. Their free choice. In many countries your Jewish bakers would tell the police what their client had requested as holocaust denial is illegal. It isn't, yet, in the UK so telling the newspapers and then subcontracting the work to a none Jewish baker might work. There would be ways to stay lawful, but make your point.

I know they won on a point of law, which is why the law needs revising if justice is under threat.

Lee is an activist making a point. He is though allowed to make his point. He did nothing illegal.

She was not banned from the street; she was banned from protesting. The police interpreted her being in the street as protesting. Anyone who values their freedom should be worried by that.

So bakers must go out of business, or not set up in the first place, in case they are obliged to engage in association with something that is anathema to them!

You keep talking about a point of law. If being cleared of not discriminating against Lee because he was a homosexual is merely a point of law, then any conviction or acquittal is just a point of law – Ian Brady and Moira Hindley were convicted on a point of law?

Another well-known gay rights activist, Peter Tatchell, said: “Asher’s did not refuse to serve Gareth and did not discriminate against him because of his sexual orientation. They refused to decorate his cake with a political message in support of marriage equality. In a free society, and under UK equality laws, no one can be compelled to facilitate political views with which they disagree. If the judgement had gone the other way, a gay baker could have been forced by law to accede to requests to decorate cakes with messages opposing LGBT+ equality. Discrimination against people is always wrong but discrimination against political messages is legitimate freedom of expression and valid conscientious objection.”

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 12 Mar 23 11.10pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

She was not banned from the street; she was banned from protesting. The police interpreted her being in the street as protesting. Anyone who values their freedom should be worried by that.

So bakers must go out of business, or not set up in the first place, in case they are obliged to engage in association with something that is anathema to them!

You keep talking about a point of law. If being cleared of not discriminating against Lee because he was a homosexual is merely a point of law, then any conviction or acquittal is just a point of law – Ian Brady and Moira Hindley were convicted on a point of law?

Another well-known gay rights activist, Peter Tatchell, said: “Asher’s did not refuse to serve Gareth and did not discriminate against him because of his sexual orientation. They refused to decorate his cake with a political message in support of marriage equality. In a free society, and under UK equality laws, no one can be compelled to facilitate political views with which they disagree. If the judgement had gone the other way, a gay baker could have been forced by law to accede to requests to decorate cakes with messages opposing LGBT+ equality. Discrimination against people is always wrong but discrimination against political messages is legitimate freedom of expression and valid conscientious objection.”

The street was under restrictions which prohibited people doing anything that could intimidate others. You and I might not be intimidated, but we aren't trying to seek advice from an abortion clinic. Some ladies were. It has no implications for anyone else, anywhere, unless they deliberately decide to flout a law.

Yes, it was a point of law. It wasn't justice. The Ashers, no doubt on lawyer's advice, chose to frame their objections in a clever way. Remember they were heavily funded by "The Christian Institute". If you don't know who they are, do find out. They are a fundamentalist Christian group who campaign against homosexuality and gay rights, among other things such as abortion. They have been censored in the past by the Charity Commission.

There was no "point of law" get out available to Brady and Hindley. They murdered.

Tatchell was simply repeating the point of law. I am sure he didn't think it was justice either.

Of course no-one should be compelled to facilitate messages they disagree with, any more than do anything else other than obey the law. They weren't compelled though. They offered to bake a cake. Once it left their premises that was the end of any involvement. The message was just part of the cake. It wasn't published by them, or shared with anyone. It belonged to its owner, who was merely their customer. Cannot accept that? Don't offer to bake cakes for third parties. If the judgement had gone the other way that was their way out if it really was so important, and not just a political stunt.

They can bake as many cakes as they like that have whatever message they like on them, provided they are lawful, and cover their shops in posters. Their freedom of speech is not in any way impacted. What they cannot do is object to other people's lawful messages on other people's possessions.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 12 Mar 23 11.19pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The street was under restrictions which prohibited people doing anything that could intimidate others. You and I might not be intimidated, but we aren't trying to seek advice from an abortion clinic. Some ladies were. It has no implications for anyone else, anywhere, unless they deliberately decide to flout a law.

Yes, it was a point of law. It wasn't justice. The Ashers, no doubt on lawyer's advice, chose to frame their objections in a clever way. Remember they were heavily funded by "The Christian Institute". If you don't know who they are, do find out. They are a fundamentalist Christian group who campaign against homosexuality and gay rights, among other things such as abortion. They have been censored in the past by the Charity Commission.

There was no "point of law" get out available to Brady and Hindley. They murdered.

Tatchell was simply repeating the point of law. I am sure he didn't think it was justice either.

Of course no-one should be compelled to facilitate messages they disagree with, any more than do anything else other than obey the law. They weren't compelled though. They offered to bake a cake. Once it left their premises that was the end of any involvement. The message was just part of the cake. It wasn't published by them, or shared with anyone. It belonged to its owner, who was merely their customer. Cannot accept that? Don't offer to bake cakes for third parties. If the judgement had gone the other way that was their way out if it really was so important, and not just a political stunt.

They can bake as many cakes as they like that have whatever message they like on them, provided they are lawful, and cover their shops in posters. Their freedom of speech is not in any way impacted. What they cannot do is object to other people's lawful messages on other people's possessions.

A court in Belfast, the Appeals court, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights all disagreed with this logic.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 13 Mar 23 12.01am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

A court in Belfast, the Appeals court, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights all disagreed with this logic.

We don't know that! It was not tested.

What we do know is that the County Court in Belfast found against the Ashers and fined them £500, they appealed and lost. They, or rather their backers, got it referred to the Supreme Court who, to the surprise of many, overturned the Appeal Court judgement on a point of law. The ECHR dismissed Lees's application for them to review it as "inadmissible", due to a process matter. So they never got to consider it. Who knows what would have happened had they done so.

Hopefully the next time a similar case comes before the SC the law will have been updated and justice done. Equality law needs clarification.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 13 Mar 23 2.11am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend


That's how the law works.
Firstly, why didn't the complainant go to another bakers after being refused?
Secondly he didn't sue them just because they wouldn't put a certain message on his cake, albeit one endorsing something which was illegal at the time, but because he imputed their reason as homophobia which would be very difficult to prove.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 28 of 32 < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > GB News, the irony of Sky