This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 22 May 15 3.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. Its perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change. The debate was going through the political legislature. Its an entitlement free speech to support legal political campaigns. And it didn't advertise something, it endorsed a political message.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 3.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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. 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 Man is penalised for his religious beliefs
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 3.31pm) Would be illegal for the taxi driver to refuse service, its illegal to refuse service to people on the basis that they're disabled. Guide dogs are exempted from laws prohibiting animals. Personally, I think its generally a truism that the only time the knickerwetters get on the side of freedom of speech and expression, is in defense of prejudicial treatment. As soon as its something that offends their sensibilities they're up in arms.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 22 May 15 3.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 7.34am
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.33pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.26pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
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? 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.
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) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. You have to say that now don't you else your argument is essentially non existent. Of course, if the thread had actually been about a Muslim taxi driver refusing the fare of a blind man to begin with you'd have been all over it. No, I am merely consistent. Then we're sliding back towards the days of the 'no blacks' signs I'm afraid, as that too squarely falls under the umbrella of what you've deemed acceptable. I'd rather not personally. A business is there to serve the public, not for taxi drivers to boot blind people out of taxis, or for cake designers to refuse to design 'gay' cakes.
It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose. Okay, then since you're not against the potential return of 'no blacks' signs, if that's your stance it is at least consistent if nothing else.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
. | derben 22 May 15 3.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.35pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. Its perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change. The debate was going through the political legislature. Its an entitlement free speech to support legal political campaigns. And it didn't advertise something, it endorsed a political message. So the bakery should be forced to decorate a cake with say, "legalise paedophilia"? Edited by derben (22 May 2015 3.46pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 22 May 15 3.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.41pm
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. 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 Man is penalised for his religious beliefs
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 3.31pm) Would be illegal for the taxi driver to refuse service, its illegal to refuse service to people on the basis that they're disabled. Guide dogs are exempted from laws prohibiting animals. Personally, I think its generally a truism that the only time the knickerwetters get on the side of freedom of speech and expression, is in defense of prejudicial treatment. As soon as its something that offends their sensibilities they're up in arms. It actually happened and did indeed break the law. I'm just pointing out some similarities between the two cases and using it as an eample of what those displaying such 'passion' here also have to defend if they're going to be consistent in their beliefs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 22 May 15 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Then we're sliding back towards the days of the 'no blacks' signs I'm afraid, as that too squarely falls under the umbrella of what you've deemed acceptable. I'd rather not personally. A business is there to serve the public, not for taxi drivers to boot blind people out of taxis, or for cake designers to refuse to design 'gay' cakes.
It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose. Okay, then since you're not against the potential return of 'no blacks' signs, if that's your stance it is at least consistent if nothing else.
A 'no blacks' sign would be problematic. How black would a person have to be? To cover all bases, the sign should just say "nobody that I don't like the look of", or, in the case of your guy with the guide-dog (in case he opens a guest house) "nobody that I don't like the sound of".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 3.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. 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 Man is penalised for his religious beliefs
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. Don't really know the instances of these two cases. I certainly understand the landlords reluctance to serve travelers. However if you google the instance you'll find a number of cases where Travellers have sued pubs for discrimination. As such, she is bound by existing case law. I presume the second case is the one involving Peter Keelley - from what I can gather the photograph had been published and he was seeking damages - he dropped his appeal as he would have to lodge costs. The case against him was that the picture printed was in the public domain, and as such did not breach his copyright and easily available online (they found it via a google search). It was also a picture he'd taken off himself and put online it appears.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 3.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.35pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. Its perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change. The debate was going through the political legislature. Its an entitlement free speech to support legal political campaigns. And it didn't advertise something, it endorsed a political message. So the bakery should be forced to decorate a cake with say, "legalise paedophilia"? Edited by derben (22 May 2015 3.46pm) Pedophilia is of course an criminal offence and falls under criminal law, rather than civil law. Also, there is no basis for pedophiles under the Equal Opportunities and Discrimination laws. They weren't forced to do anything, they willingly entered into a contract with a third party, who paid up front. In doing so, they were legally required to fulfill the contract. They could have subcontracted out.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 22 May 15 4.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.54pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. 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 Man is penalised for his religious beliefs
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. Don't really know the instances of these two cases. I certainly understand the landlords reluctance to serve travelers. However if you google the instance you'll find a number of cases where Travellers have sued pubs for discrimination. As such, she is bound by existing case law. I presume the second case is the one involving Peter Keelley - from what I can gather the photograph had been published and he was seeking damages - he dropped his appeal as he would have to lodge costs. The case against him was that the picture printed was in the public domain, and as such did not breach his copyright and easily available online (they found it via a google search). It was also a picture he'd taken off himself and put online it appears. Brownlie should join the European Court of Bizarre Judgements, she is just right (or perhaps left) for them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 22 May 15 4.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 4.01pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 3.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.35pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. Its perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change. The debate was going through the political legislature. Its an entitlement free speech to support legal political campaigns. And it didn't advertise something, it endorsed a political message. So the bakery should be forced to decorate a cake with say, "legalise paedophilia"? Edited by derben (22 May 2015 3.46pm) Pedophilia is of course an criminal offence and falls under criminal law, rather than civil law. Also, there is no basis for pedophiles under the Equal Opportunities and Discrimination laws. They weren't forced to do anything, they willingly entered into a contract with a third party, who paid up front. In doing so, they were legally required to fulfill the contract. They could have subcontracted out. You said "It's perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change." Indeed the likes of the paedophile exchange did exactly that in the 1970s (aided and abetted by the likes of Harriet Harman and other elements of the 'progressive' left - you know, the time when the left started to become the shambles it is now.) Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.06pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 4.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.02pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.54pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. 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 Man is penalised for his religious beliefs
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. Don't really know the instances of these two cases. I certainly understand the landlords reluctance to serve travelers. However if you google the instance you'll find a number of cases where Travellers have sued pubs for discrimination. As such, she is bound by existing case law. I presume the second case is the one involving Peter Keelley - from what I can gather the photograph had been published and he was seeking damages - he dropped his appeal as he would have to lodge costs. The case against him was that the picture printed was in the public domain, and as such did not breach his copyright and easily available online (they found it via a google search). It was also a picture he'd taken off himself and put online it appears. Brownlie should join the European Court of Bizarre Judgements, she is just right (or perhaps left) for them. Apart from being correct in all three cases, you're right. 1) Violation of contract law is grounds for damages. But other than that, yes, she's crazy to actually uphold the law, and should indeed base her judgements on how uptight right wing knickerwetters can get.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 4.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.05pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 4.01pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 3.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 3.35pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 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. Its perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change. The debate was going through the political legislature. Its an entitlement free speech to support legal political campaigns. And it didn't advertise something, it endorsed a political message. So the bakery should be forced to decorate a cake with say, "legalise paedophilia"? Edited by derben (22 May 2015 3.46pm) Pedophilia is of course an criminal offence and falls under criminal law, rather than civil law. Also, there is no basis for pedophiles under the Equal Opportunities and Discrimination laws. They weren't forced to do anything, they willingly entered into a contract with a third party, who paid up front. In doing so, they were legally required to fulfill the contract. They could have subcontracted out. You said "It's perfectly legal to campaign and support any political movement for change." Indeed the likes of the paedophile exchange did exactly that in the 1970s (aided and abetted by the likes of Harriet Harman and other elements of the 'progressive' left - you know, the time when the left started to become the shambles it is now.) Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.06pm) I'm glad to see its more about winning than being right. I don't think its actually illegal to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent. However, legalization of pedophilia would be promotion of a criminal act, which is a crime (in law). Technically speaking pedophilia also isn't a crime, acting on it is. A pedophile is someone sexually attracted to children. The term has come to mean something different in a lazy tabloid age, but in a strict sense pedophilia is not a crime, pederestry is the act of sexual activity with children. Of course its entirely irrelivent as pedophiles are not covered by the discrimination and equal rights acts. They also prefer Pie to cake.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.