Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 16 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 10.35am
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm Surely the time has come for designated gay towns where gay people can 'marry', 'have' children, put silly slogans on cakes etc - and they could like refuse to give hetrosexuals a room, or censor their cake inscriptions and generally poke fun at them. Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? . Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm) Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) No, they broke a contract they'd accepted, he'd even paid up front. The woman taking the order knew what it was for and accepted the order. At that point, its not about what you think sky faeries, monkey gods or the old man in a desert says, its about contract law. You cannot break a contract, you have willingly, knowingly and lawfully entered into, because you don't like what you've signed up to. As the Equality Commission said, right back at the start of the action, they had broken contract law, and should pay a suitable compensation and apologise for taking the order and the inconvenience. Everything else followed on. Funny enough, if you base a defense, on gay marriage because its 'unchristian' even though the law in question specifically reserves the rights of religious groups to not conduct such marriages, then you're going to be fairly easy to paint as discriminatory. Especially if the people putting the case specialize in discriminatory cases. Remember its not reasonable doubt, its best case. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 May 15 10.35am

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm

Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm

Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm

Surely the time has come for designated gay towns where gay people can 'marry', 'have' children, put silly slogans on cakes etc - and they could like refuse to give hetrosexuals a room, or censor their cake inscriptions and generally poke fun at them.

Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton?

Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do.

But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? .

Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm)

Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements.

Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable.

Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland.

Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm)

No, they broke a contract they'd accepted, he'd even paid up front. The woman taking the order knew what it was for and accepted the order.

At that point, its not about what you think sky faeries, monkey gods or the old man in a desert says, its about contract law.

You cannot break a contract, you have willingly, knowingly and lawfully entered into, because you don't like what you've signed up to. As the Equality Commission said, right back at the start of the action, they had broken contract law, and should pay a suitable compensation and apologise for taking the order and the inconvenience.

Everything else followed on. Funny enough, if you base a defense, on gay marriage because its 'unchristian' even though the law in question specifically reserves the rights of religious groups to not conduct such marriages, then you're going to be fairly easy to paint as discriminatory. Especially if the people putting the case specialize in discriminatory cases.

Remember its not reasonable doubt, its best case.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 10.41am
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 7.34am It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose. No it isn't. Firstly, businesses are not conducted in accordance to individuals wishes, they are conducted in line with UK legal regulation on commercial practice and law. The right of individuals to conduct business with whom they choose ends once they accept the invitation to treat or engage in a contract, verbal or written, to provide services. Up until that point, you can do as you wish, provided you do not deny services to the public in violation of the equal opportunities act, without good reason. You cannot break a contract because you changed your mind. Even if you're Christian, the same rules of law apply to you as everyone else. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 May 15 10.41am

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 7.34am
It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose.

No it isn't. Firstly, businesses are not conducted in accordance to individuals wishes, they are conducted in line with UK legal regulation on commercial practice and law.

The right of individuals to conduct business with whom they choose ends once they accept the invitation to treat or engage in a contract, verbal or written, to provide services.

Up until that point, you can do as you wish, provided you do not deny services to the public in violation of the equal opportunities act, without good reason.

You cannot break a contract because you changed your mind. Even if you're Christian, the same rules of law apply to you as everyone else.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 22 May 15 10.55am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.35am Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm Surely the time has come for designated gay towns where gay people can 'marry', 'have' children, put silly slogans on cakes etc - and they could like refuse to give hetrosexuals a room, or censor their cake inscriptions and generally poke fun at them. Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? . Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm) Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) No, they broke a contract they'd accepted, he'd even paid up front. The woman taking the order knew what it was for and accepted the order. At that point, its not about what you think sky faeries, monkey gods or the old man in a desert says, its about contract law. You cannot break a contract, you have willingly, knowingly and lawfully entered into, because you don't like what you've signed up to. As the Equality Commission said, right back at the start of the action, they had broken contract law, and should pay a suitable compensation and apologise for taking the order and the inconvenience. Everything else followed on. Funny enough, if you base a defense, on gay marriage because its 'unchristian' even though the law in question specifically reserves the rights of religious groups to not conduct such marriages, then you're going to be fairly easy to paint as discriminatory. Especially if the people putting the case specialize in discriminatory cases. Remember its not reasonable doubt, its best case. Stop hiding behind contract law I'm talking about in an ethical and moral sense, you have not answerd my questions that I posed in relation to the various other religions that are made allowances for, and yet the christian faith is not. I shall give you another example. If you got stoped and searched as a Christian and you were carrying a dagger, it would be confiscated. If you are Sikh however you are allowed to carry one as part of the 5 K's (the dagger or knife being the Kirpan) so allowances involving a potentially deadly weapon are made for ones religion. Yet this part of a christians religion is considered wrong, yet worringly, carrying a potentially deadly weapon in public is not ? I await more bluff and bluster in the name of LGBT "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 22 May 15 10.55am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.35am

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm

Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm

Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm

Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton?

Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do.

But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? .

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm)

Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm)

No, they broke a contract they'd accepted, he'd even paid up front. The woman taking the order knew what it was for and accepted the order.

At that point, its not about what you think sky faeries, monkey gods or the old man in a desert says, its about contract law.

Remember its not reasonable doubt, its best case.

Stop hiding behind contract law I'm talking about in an ethical and moral sense, you have not answerd my questions that I posed in relation to the various other religions that are made allowances for, and yet the christian faith is not.

I shall give you another example. If you got stoped and searched as a Christian and you were carrying a dagger, it would be confiscated.

If you are Sikh however you are allowed to carry one as part of the 5 K's (the dagger or knife being the Kirpan) so allowances involving a potentially deadly weapon are made for ones religion.

Yet this part of a christians religion is considered wrong, yet worringly, carrying a potentially deadly weapon in public is not ?

I await more bluff and bluster in the name of LGBT

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 22 May 15 11.38am
Indeed, there seems to be religious conflict in law. A cold winters morning, in the 1970's, I was prevented by the headmaster from wearing a balaclava to school, in England, due to IRA activity Imagine if I was to do that in NI in the 1970's, . . Now , 40 years later, it is acceptable for some religious groups to wear similar face-concealing garments , not just in public, but also at heightened areas of security, such as airports. Law has lost its reason I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 22 May 15 11.38am

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

Indeed, there seems to be religious conflict in law.

A cold winters morning, in the 1970's, I was prevented by the headmaster from wearing a balaclava to school, in England, due to IRA activity
Imagine if I was to do that in NI in the 1970's, . .

Now , 40 years later, it is acceptable for some religious groups to wear similar face-concealing garments , not just in public, but also at heightened areas of security, such as airports.

Law has lost its reason

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 12.00pm
The UK law on offensive weapons requires that you have a reason for carrying such a weapon, which being a Sikh you are entiled to. It doesn't permit you to use the weapon, and in some cases entry to places with the weapon. You also are permitted to carry a bladed weapon for cultural reasons and for work reasons. But the law as it exist, allows you to not make a gay marriage cake. Its always been the case that 'invitation to treat' is reserved by the seller. Once you engage in business, that right no longer applies. You are not obliged to enter into a contract or a sale with anyone. You can't refuse someone on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality or religion though (due to equal rights legislation) but you could just say 'we do not promote political causes'. Its clear that sexuality wasn't the issue, as they'd served the guy for years. They would then go on to pursue a case that increasingly painted them as discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation (which is what happens when you turn to political groups for legal support, rather than a solicitor, who would have told them to give a business reason for breaking contract). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 May 15 12.00pm

The UK law on offensive weapons requires that you have a reason for carrying such a weapon, which being a Sikh you are entiled to. It doesn't permit you to use the weapon, and in some cases entry to places with the weapon. You also are permitted to carry a bladed weapon for cultural reasons and for work reasons.

But the law as it exist, allows you to not make a gay marriage cake. Its always been the case that 'invitation to treat' is reserved by the seller. Once you engage in business, that right no longer applies.

You are not obliged to enter into a contract or a sale with anyone. You can't refuse someone on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality or religion though (due to equal rights legislation) but you could just say 'we do not promote political causes'. Its clear that sexuality wasn't the issue, as they'd served the guy for years.

They would then go on to pursue a case that increasingly painted them as discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation (which is what happens when you turn to political groups for legal support, rather than a solicitor, who would have told them to give a business reason for breaking contract).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 12.04pm
Quote Forest Hillbilly at 22 May 2015 11.38am Indeed, there seems to be religious conflict in law. A cold winters morning, in the 1970's, I was prevented by the headmaster from wearing a balaclava to school, in England, due to IRA activity Imagine if I was to do that in NI in the 1970's, . . Now , 40 years later, it is acceptable for some religious groups to wear similar face-concealing garments , not just in public, but also at heightened areas of security, such as airports. Law has lost its reason Now you could claim the right to wear a balaclava in public for work reasons, as a prolific sex offender. Of course women in habibs don't have a history of sectarian violence, armed robbery etc in the UK. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 May 15 12.04pm

Quote Forest Hillbilly at 22 May 2015 11.38am

Indeed, there seems to be religious conflict in law.

A cold winters morning, in the 1970's, I was prevented by the headmaster from wearing a balaclava to school, in England, due to IRA activity
Imagine if I was to do that in NI in the 1970's, . .

Now , 40 years later, it is acceptable for some religious groups to wear similar face-concealing garments , not just in public, but also at heightened areas of security, such as airports.

Law has lost its reason

Now you could claim the right to wear a balaclava in public for work reasons, as a prolific sex offender.

Of course women in habibs don't have a history of sectarian violence, armed robbery etc in the UK.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 12.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.25am Quote derben at 22 May 2015 10.15am Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 9.43am Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm I fail to see the difference between having " to follow the law" and being forced to do things against your moral compass or religion, as I stated before no one would force a Muslim or a Jew to eat Pork, so why should a devot Christian be made to make a cake that goes against his religious teachings. Because that's how society works. The law forces people to do things that they may not agree with. Having spent a large part of my life on the side of the law (as a drug user) I can confirm that its not fair. At least in this case the law exists in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. Its special snowflakes I'm afraid, people who can't handle the fact that other people have the same rights. You also can't break a constract because 'Christian Messages' go against your beliefs. Once you're engaged in a contract you are bound by that contract. Also Gay Marriage is not a Christian issue, as the law specifically allows the right of religious organizations to not be bound to conduct gay weddings and marriages, if they don't want to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm Whether you agree with the religious aspect of it Jamie is immaterial. The fact remains The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Ah yes, the classic pick and choose. Well how comes that part of Leviticus is widely touted, but the rest of it largely rejected. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm So again whether you agree with it or not is not the question I'm asking, I'm asking why is it different to shops having to comply with Muslim and Jewish Laws on how meat is slaughtered ? They don't have to. Meat producers tend towards using Halal meat because its cheaper to produce one kind of product, than go to market with lots. Its an economy of scale, and lets face it people are unlikely to pay more for non-Halal meat. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm Essentially the Koran says eating pork is wrong. So does the bible (Deuteronomy), and yet Christians everywhere are eat pork. Maybe they should get their own house in order, before demanding the right to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm The bible says (or strongly hints at) god disapproving of homosexuality, and yet when a follower of Christianity put his foot down, he gets legally and no doubt financially penalised. No, when they break the law of contract, they're penalized. They didn't have to enter into a contract, but you cannot break a contract based on the fact you don't like what you've committed to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm what’s the difference, one set of laws is upheld the other classed as being discriminatory. Their rights were not violated, you cannot break a contract because you change your mind, you are bound by it. You don't have to enter into a contract, but when you do you are bound by it. Even if you stupidly engage in a contract that violates your principles. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm Hopefully you see my point. I do, and they aren't forced in any way to break their beliefs. What they cannot do is break that contract, their rights end at the point where a contract is engaged in. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm As to the tail wagging the dog, how’s this then. I was in the queue at MacDonald’s in Croydon, a young black girl was in front saying she was going to get loads of free food and “to watch and learn the white boys fear” immediately as she got to the front of the queue, she screamed out “you f*in racist give me my food just because I’m black you went to serve the whitebread women first,” que some poor sod getting a pasting of his manager and girl walking off with a free meal, while all the other laughed at her. People have to stand up for their rights, as exhibited in the actual case above. The manager is ct, who failed his staff, for an easy option. Alternatively he could have called her bluff, and not served her. If you don't stand up for your rights, what do people expect. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm That IS tail wagging the dog, I said to the manager after the bloke who served her said nothing of the sort, …his reply ….it’s just not worth the hassle. That's not the tail wagging the dog, that's just someone being callow and weak. I've managed stores before, never would have accepted that. She'd have been ejected and banned, regardless of whether she was black. Fk the hassle, no way she would have sued, and if she had, I'd have counter-sued for the effects of her accusations on my staff and business. Wouldn't fancy your chances in front of Judge Isobel Brownlie. I would - I'd have my staff and customers like Dannyh as a witness. Evidence is still what wins court cases, no matter what the right wing knicker wetters** like to think. Especially when it comes to an appeal. Incorrect on all counts - bit like the wonderfully named Judge Brownlie's 'judgements'. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 12.28pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 12.28pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.25am

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 10.15am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 9.43am

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm

I fail to see the difference between having " to follow the law" and being forced to do things against your moral compass or religion, as I stated before no one would force a Muslim or a Jew to eat Pork, so why should a devot Christian be made to make a cake that goes against his religious teachings.

Because that's how society works. The law forces people to do things that they may not agree with. Having spent a large part of my life on the side of the law (as a drug user) I can confirm that its not fair. At least in this case the law exists in a manner that protects the rights of both parties.

Its special snowflakes I'm afraid, people who can't handle the fact that other people have the same rights. You also can't break a constract because 'Christian Messages' go against your beliefs.

Once you're engaged in a contract you are bound by that contract.

Also Gay Marriage is not a Christian issue, as the law specifically allows the right of religious organizations to not be bound to conduct gay weddings and marriages, if they don't want to.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Whether you agree with the religious aspect of it Jamie is immaterial. The fact remains The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.

Ah yes, the classic pick and choose. Well how comes that part of Leviticus is widely touted, but the rest of it largely rejected.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
So again whether you agree with it or not is not the question I'm asking, I'm asking why is it different to shops having to comply with Muslim and Jewish Laws on how meat is slaughtered ?

They don't have to. Meat producers tend towards using Halal meat because its cheaper to produce one kind of product, than go to market with lots. Its an economy of scale, and lets face it people are unlikely to pay more for non-Halal meat.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm

Essentially the Koran says eating pork is wrong.

So does the bible (Deuteronomy), and yet Christians everywhere are eat pork. Maybe they should get their own house in order, before demanding the right to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
The bible says (or strongly hints at) god disapproving of homosexuality, and yet when a follower of Christianity put his foot down, he gets legally and no doubt financially penalised.

No, when they break the law of contract, they're penalized. They didn't have to enter into a contract, but you cannot break a contract based on the fact you don't like what you've committed to.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm

what’s the difference, one set of laws is upheld the other classed as being discriminatory.

Their rights were not violated, you cannot break a contract because you change your mind, you are bound by it. You don't have to enter into a contract, but when you do you are bound by it. Even if you stupidly engage in a contract that violates your principles.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Hopefully you see my point.

I do, and they aren't forced in any way to break their beliefs. What they cannot do is break that contract, their rights end at the point where a contract is engaged in.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
As to the tail wagging the dog, how’s this then. I was in the queue at MacDonald’s in Croydon, a young black girl was in front saying she was going to get loads of free food and “to watch and learn the white boys fear” immediately as she got to the front of the queue, she screamed out “you f***in racist give me my food just because I’m black you went to serve the whitebread women first,” que some poor sod getting a pasting of his manager and girl walking off with a free meal, while all the other laughed at her.

People have to stand up for their rights, as exhibited in the actual case above. The manager is c**t, who failed his staff, for an easy option.

Alternatively he could have called her bluff, and not served her. If you don't stand up for your rights, what do people expect.

Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
That IS tail wagging the dog, I said to the manager after the bloke who served her said nothing of the sort, …his reply ….it’s just not worth the hassle.

That's not the tail wagging the dog, that's just someone being callow and weak. I've managed stores before, never would have accepted that. She'd have been ejected and banned, regardless of whether she was black. F**k the hassle, no way she would have sued, and if she had, I'd have counter-sued for the effects of her accusations on my staff and business.

Wouldn't fancy your chances in front of Judge Isobel Brownlie.

I would - I'd have my staff and customers like Dannyh as a witness. Evidence is still what wins court cases, no matter what the right wing knicker wetters like to think. Especially when it comes to an appeal.

Incorrect on all counts - bit like the wonderfully named Judge Brownlie's 'judgements'.

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 12.28pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 12.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.35am Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm Surely the time has come for designated gay towns where gay people can 'marry', 'have' children, put silly slogans on cakes etc - and they could like refuse to give hetrosexuals a room, or censor their cake inscriptions and generally poke fun at them. Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? . Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm) Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) No, they broke a contract they'd accepted, he'd even paid up front. The woman taking the order knew what it was for and accepted the order. At that point, its not about what you think sky faeries, monkey gods or the old man in a desert says, its about contract law. You cannot break a contract, you have willingly, knowingly and lawfully entered into, because you don't like what you've signed up to. As the Equality Commission said, right back at the start of the action, they had broken contract law, and should pay a suitable compensation and apologise for taking the order and the inconvenience. Everything else followed on. Funny enough, if you base a defense, on gay marriage because its 'unchristian' even though the law in question specifically reserves the rights of religious groups to not conduct such marriages, then you're going to be fairly easy to paint as discriminatory. Especially if the people putting the case specialize in discriminatory cases. Remember its not reasonable doubt, its best case. The contract they accepted did not include having to advertise something that is not legal in Northern Ireland.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 12.31pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.35am

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm

Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm

Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm

Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm

Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton?

Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do.

But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? .

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm)

Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm)

No, they broke a contract they'd accepted, he'd even paid up front. The woman taking the order knew what it was for and accepted the order.

At that point, its not about what you think sky faeries, monkey gods or the old man in a desert says, its about contract law.

Remember its not reasonable doubt, its best case.

The contract they accepted did not include having to advertise something that is not legal in Northern Ireland.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 12.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.41am Quote derben at 22 May 2015 7.34am It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose. No it isn't. Firstly, businesses are not conducted in accordance to individuals wishes, they are conducted in line with UK legal regulation on commercial practice and law. The right of individuals to conduct business with whom they choose ends once they accept the invitation to treat or engage in a contract, verbal or written, to provide services. Up until that point, you can do as you wish, provided you do not deny services to the public in violation of the equal opportunities act, without good reason. You cannot break a contract because you changed your mind. Even if you're Christian, the same rules of law apply to you as everyone else. The contract they entered into did not include advertising something that is not legal in Northern Ireland.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 12.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 10.41am

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 7.34am
It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose.

No it isn't. Firstly, businesses are not conducted in accordance to individuals wishes, they are conducted in line with UK legal regulation on commercial practice and law.

The right of individuals to conduct business with whom they choose ends once they accept the invitation to treat or engage in a contract, verbal or written, to provide services.

Up until that point, you can do as you wish, provided you do not deny services to the public in violation of the equal opportunities act, without good reason.

You cannot break a contract because you changed your mind. Even if you're Christian, the same rules of law apply to you as everyone else.

The contract they entered into did not include advertising something that is not legal in Northern Ireland.

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 12.34pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 12.00pm The UK law on offensive weapons requires that you have a reason for carrying such a weapon, which being a Sikh you are entiled to. It doesn't permit you to use the weapon, and in some cases entry to places with the weapon. You also are permitted to carry a bladed weapon for cultural reasons and for work reasons. But the law as it exist, allows you to not make a gay marriage cake. Its always been the case that 'invitation to treat' is reserved by the seller. Once you engage in business, that right no longer applies. You are not obliged to enter into a contract or a sale with anyone. You can't refuse someone on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality or religion though (due to equal rights legislation) but you could just say 'we do not promote political causes'. Its clear that sexuality wasn't the issue, as they'd served the guy for years. They would then go on to pursue a case that increasingly painted them as discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation (which is what happens when you turn to political groups for legal support, rather than a solicitor, who would have told them to give a business reason for breaking contract). The contract they entered into did not include advertising a practice that has no legality in Northern Ireland.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 12.34pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 12.00pm

The contract they entered into did not include advertising a practice that has no legality in Northern Ireland.

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 22 May 15 3.23pm
Quote dannyh at 22 May 2015 10.31am jamie you are hiding behind law and business contracts. The fact of the case are this. Man ownes cake shop. Gay man asks shop OWNER to make a gay wedding cake. Owner says no as Gay marriage is against my religious beliefs. Man is penalised for his religious beliefs. No matter what way you try and spin it Jamie "Alistair Campbell" Martin that picture is wrong and hypocritical Muslim man owns taxi Blind man wishes to take guide dog with him on taxi journey Owner says 'no as dogs are dirty in my religion, you will have to travel without your dog or not at all' Man is penalised for his religious beliefs Are you as passionate about defending that action all of a sudden too, because something tells me I'm not going to find any posts where you've done so. Is that 'wrong' too? Should the blind man 'man the f*** up' too, after all the business man is simply following his religious convictions? Or perhaps should businesses in the community actually cater for it. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 3.29pm) Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 3.31pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 22 May 15 3.23pm

Quote dannyh at 22 May 2015 10.31am

jamie you are hiding behind law and business contracts. The fact of the case are this.

Man ownes cake shop.
Gay man asks shop OWNER to make a gay wedding cake.
Owner says no as Gay marriage is against my religious beliefs.

Man is penalised for his religious beliefs.

No matter what way you try and spin it Jamie "Alistair Campbell" Martin that picture is wrong and hypocritical

Muslim man owns taxi
Blind man wishes to take guide dog with him on taxi journey
Owner says 'no as dogs are dirty in my religion, you will have to travel without your dog or not at all'

Man is penalised for his religious beliefs

Are you as passionate about defending that action all of a sudden too, because something tells me I'm not going to find any posts where you've done so.

Is that 'wrong' too? Should the blind man 'man the f*** up' too, after all the business man is simply following his religious convictions?

Or perhaps should businesses in the community actually cater for it.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 3.29pm)

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 3.31pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 3.31pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 3.23pm Quote dannyh at 22 May 2015 10.31am jamie you are hiding behind law and business contracts. The fact of the case are this. Man ownes cake shop. Gay man asks shop OWNER to make a gay wedding cake. Owner says no as Gay marriage is against my religious beliefs. Man is penalised for his religious beliefs. No matter what way you try and spin it Jamie "Alistair Campbell" Martin that picture is wrong and hypocritical Muslim man owns taxi Blind man wishes to take guide dog with him on taxi journey Owner says 'no as dogs are dirty in my religion, you will have to travel without'. your dog Man is penalised for his religious beliefs Are you as passionate about defending that action all of a sudden too, because something tells me I'm not going to find any posts where you've said it. Is that 'wrong' too? Should the blind man 'man the f*** up' too? Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 3.24pm) I know you want to keep deflecting from 'cakegate'. Understandable given the clear injustice of the case. However, perhaps we could widen the discussion to include Judge Brownlie's other 'judgements': awarded £5,000 to four 'travellers' refused service in a pub, and her dismissing a claim from a British agent, who infiltrated the IRA, that his life was endangered by a newspaper publishing his photograph and exposing his clandestine activities.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 3.31pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 3.23pm

Quote dannyh at 22 May 2015 10.31am

jamie you are hiding behind law and business contracts. The fact of the case are this.

Man ownes cake shop.
Gay man asks shop OWNER to make a gay wedding cake.
Owner says no as Gay marriage is against my religious beliefs.

Man is penalised for his religious beliefs.

No matter what way you try and spin it Jamie "Alistair Campbell" Martin that picture is wrong and hypocritical

Muslim man owns taxi
Blind man wishes to take guide dog with him on taxi journey
Owner says 'no as dogs are dirty in my religion, you will have to travel without'. your dog

Man is penalised for his religious beliefs

Are you as passionate about defending that action all of a sudden too, because something tells me I'm not going to find any posts where you've said it.

Is that 'wrong' too? Should the blind man 'man the f*** up' too?

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 3.24pm)

I know you want to keep deflecting from 'cakegate'. Understandable given the clear injustice of the case. However, perhaps we could widen the discussion to include Judge Brownlie's other 'judgements': awarded £5,000 to four 'travellers' refused service in a pub, and her dismissing a claim from a British agent, who infiltrated the IRA, that his life was endangered by a newspaper publishing his photograph and exposing his clandestine activities.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 10 of 16 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors