You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us
February 8 2023 7.57am

Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 31 of 35 < 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >

 

View MrWhyNot's Profile MrWhyNot Flag 01 Jan 23 6.54pm Send a Private Message to MrWhyNot Add MrWhyNot as a friend

Originally posted by Mapletree

As a matter of interest, what is your view on the abortion amendment in the Public Order Bill? It was supported by the overwhelming number of MPs from all parties.

I wouldn't like to think we'd go the way of the US, with such an obsessive and polarised view of issues. Many of those very passionate about all but banning abortion there even in cases of rape, care not a jot post birth, or indeed about the Mother. It's easy to hold a 'principle' that costs you nothing. On the flipside, it's certainly possible to go too far in the other direction too and treat a serious matter like a nothing decision.

The only point of debate here should be the number of weeks at which an abortion can happen. I would tend to be conservative on that front, and base it on the science, as that largely cancels out the noise on both sides. That being the case, women should have the right to visit abortion clinics without feeling intimidated or harrassed for doing so. It's a personal decision within a family, not one that strangers you've never met get to decide.

Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 7.02pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 8.28pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Helmet46

Interesting case this one. The message they refused to put on the cake was ‘support gay marraige.’

If they were gay cake makers and refused to put a message on that said ‘don’t support gay marraige’ would that receive the same level of noise, do you think?

Or, would the same people that were so upset at the stance taken by the cake makers be so outraged that someone dare try to get the reverse message on a cake that you’d all be after the people that asked for the message rather than the cake maker?

Surely your concern should be with discrimination against any one not just minorities as I believe that the law should be there to protect us all shouldn’t it?


Edited by Helmet46 (01 Jan 2023 6.23pm)

I think your example would have provoked an identical response.

Whilst any kind of negative discrimination ought to be of concern certain minorities have suffered more than others. Hence the legislation.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 01 Jan 23 8.35pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There was guest house in Cornwall that tried to do just that. For religious reasons they. disapproved of homosexuality but knew they couldn’t openly ban it. So they refused double rooms to same sex couples.

That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business.

Not the same thing and they were wrong not to honour the booking.

As we have pointed out repeatedly the cake shop owners were happy to sell a cake but not with that message. The equivalent to the guest house would be the guests demanding that they be allowed to hang a banner from their bedroom window supporting gay rights, in which case I would support the owners right to say no.

You say a lawyer found a loophole (implying its a bad thing) well that's exactly what appeals are all about they nearly always turn on a specific point of law sometimes, you win sometimes you lose.

When the SC found against Boris you were all over here supporting them now you don't like what they did in the cake case.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Helmet46's Profile Helmet46 Flag Croydon 01 Jan 23 9.18pm Send a Private Message to Helmet46 Add Helmet46 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I think your example would have provoked an identical response.

Whilst any kind of negative discrimination ought to be of concern certain minorities have suffered more than others. Hence the legislation.

Sadly I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t. I accept I’m very cynical (but also a realist) about these things, believe that we are at risk of going too far the other way and balance is being lost. You’re response articulates that to a certain degree. That some have suffered more in the past does not mean that we have to turn the screw past centre and positively discriminate in an attempt to atone for that past. I completely agree, by the way, that many minorities have suffered and we absolutely do need to ensure that doesn’t happen, it’s just the way to do that is not to over-compensate and start behaving with prejudice towards others, in my opinion. What over-compensation can do is to start to turn the silent majority against whatever group it is that they feel are getting better treatment and that is of no benefit to anyone and has the potential to be a huge backward step. The law should be equal for all, regardless of the past.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 10.13pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Not the same thing and they were wrong not to honour the booking.

As we have pointed out repeatedly the cake shop owners were happy to sell a cake but not with that message. The equivalent to the guest house would be the guests demanding that they be allowed to hang a banner from their bedroom window supporting gay rights, in which case I would support the owners right to say no.

You say a lawyer found a loophole (implying its a bad thing) well that's exactly what appeals are all about they nearly always turn on a specific point of law sometimes, you win sometimes you lose.

When the SC found against Boris you were all over here supporting them now you don't like what they did in the cake case.

We know why the cake bakers refused to sell the cake. We also know that, on a point of law, the Supreme Court, agreed. I don't argue with the Supreme Court. They must find on the law that is, and not as it might have been intended to be. Many were disappointed and wanted Parliament to ensure that discrimination of this type was included in the legislation. Johnson was also upset at the ruling against him. The difference being that it would have been extremely unlikely for him to get what he wanted through Parliament, whilst amending the discrimination laws ought to sail through.

It is discriminatory. Just not, at the moment, unlawfully discriminatory. Your analogy doesn't work. The guest house is owned by the religious objectors, just as the bakery is. Any banner put on display there is on their premises, and would indicate their support or at least compliance. The cake was not going on display. They had no responsibility for, or any interest in, it. They were just carrying out a task they had been contracted to do.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 10.19pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Helmet46

Sadly I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t. I accept I’m very cynical (but also a realist) about these things, believe that we are at risk of going too far the other way and balance is being lost. You’re response articulates that to a certain degree. That some have suffered more in the past does not mean that we have to turn the screw past centre and positively discriminate in an attempt to atone for that past. I completely agree, by the way, that many minorities have suffered and we absolutely do need to ensure that doesn’t happen, it’s just the way to do that is not to over-compensate and start behaving with prejudice towards others, in my opinion. What over-compensation can do is to start to turn the silent majority against whatever group it is that they feel are getting better treatment and that is of no benefit to anyone and has the potential to be a huge backward step. The law should be equal for all, regardless of the past.

Of course. I am as against positive discrimination as I am against negative. A level playing field is the aim.

Your example would though still be seen as negative in the context you set it.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 01 Jan 23 10.21pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

We know why the cake bakers refused to sell the cake. We also know that, on a point of law, the Supreme Court, agreed. I don't argue with the Supreme Court. They must find on the law that is, and not as it might have been intended to be. Many were disappointed and wanted Parliament to ensure that discrimination of this type was included in the legislation. Johnson was also upset at the ruling against him. The difference being that it would have been extremely unlikely for him to get what he wanted through Parliament, whilst amending the discrimination laws ought to sail through.

It is discriminatory. Just not, at the moment, unlawfully discriminatory. Your analogy doesn't work. The guest house is owned by the religious objectors, just as the bakery is. Any banner put on display there is on their premises, and would indicate their support or at least compliance. The cake was not going on display. They had no responsibility for, or any interest in, it. They were just carrying out a task they had been contracted to do.

The only discrimination in these cases is in your fevered imagination.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 10.30pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

The only discrimination in these cases is in your fevered imagination.

Coming from someone who has demonstrated both a total lack of understanding, and the urge to constantly repeat claims that have been completely debunked, the idea that anyone else has a "fevered imagination" is quite amusing.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 10.38pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

I wouldn't like to think we'd go the way of the US, with such an obsessive and polarised view of issues. Many of those very passionate about all but banning abortion there even in cases of rape, care not a jot post birth, or indeed about the Mother. It's easy to hold a 'principle' that costs you nothing. On the flipside, it's certainly possible to go too far in the other direction too and treat a serious matter like a nothing decision.

The only point of debate here should be the number of weeks at which an abortion can happen. I would tend to be conservative on that front, and base it on the science, as that largely cancels out the noise on both sides. That being the case, women should have the right to visit abortion clinics without feeling intimidated or harrassed for doing so. It's a personal decision within a family, not one that strangers you've never met get to decide.

Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 7.02pm)

There is a general acceptance among those who feel that abortion must be available in certain circumstances that this should be set at the point of viability. This is the time when any foetus could not survive outside the womb no matter what level of support was made available. That time has been creeping down as science improves.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 01 Jan 23 11.00pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There is a general acceptance among those who feel that abortion must be available in certain circumstances that this should be set at the point of viability. This is the time when any foetus could not survive outside the womb no matter what level of support was made available. That time has been creeping down as science improves.

I have a child born at 27 weeks.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 01 Jan 23 11.01pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

I wouldn't like to think we'd go the way of the US, with such an obsessive and polarised view of issues. Many of those very passionate about all but banning abortion there even in cases of rape, care not a jot post birth, or indeed about the Mother. It's easy to hold a 'principle' that costs you nothing. On the flipside, it's certainly possible to go too far in the other direction too and treat a serious matter like a nothing decision.

The only point of debate here should be the number of weeks at which an abortion can happen. I would tend to be conservative on that front, and base it on the science, as that largely cancels out the noise on both sides. That being the case, women should have the right to visit abortion clinics without feeling intimidated or harrassed for doing so. It's a personal decision within a family, not one that strangers you've never met get to decide.

Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 7.02pm)

Presumably that means you agree with the amendment. Thanks

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 01 Jan 23 11.01pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There is a general acceptance among those who feel that abortion must be available in certain circumstances that this should be set at the point of viability. This is the time when any foetus could not survive outside the womb no matter what level of support was made available. That time has been creeping down as science improves.

Has this thread become three merged into one?

If not, is it about the nuisance's arrest, abortion or homosexual baking?

 


Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

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

 

Page 31 of 35 < 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us