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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 12 of 16 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

derben 22 May 15 4.32pm
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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 4.32pm

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.
2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges.
3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent.

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.
___________________________________________________

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006.

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 22 May 15 4.39pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall foul of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.57pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 22 May 15 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall foul of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.57pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 4.57pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 22 May 15 4.59pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 22 May 15 4.59pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 22 May 15 5.13pm
Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm) You never know these days, it is hard to keep up with all these 'progressive' developments. But I am sure you are better placed to advise on such matters than I am. Not sure I would fancy it though - could put a whole new meaning on 'hen pecked', and Christmas dinner could be problematic.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

22 May 15 5.13pm

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

You never know these days, it is hard to keep up with all these 'progressive' developments. But I am sure you are better placed to advise on such matters than I am. Not sure I would fancy it though - could put a whole new meaning on 'hen pecked', and Christmas dinner could be problematic.

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 22 May 15 5.17pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm) There seem to be a mixture of arguments here. If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 22 May 15 5.17pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

There seem to be a mixture of arguments here.

If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery.

The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person.

They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect.

If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone"

Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 22 May 15 5.27pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm) There seem to be a mixture of arguments here. If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case. The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race. Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person. It was still deemed as discriminatory. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 22 May 15 5.27pm

Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

There seem to be a mixture of arguments here.

If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone"

Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.

The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances.

Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person. It was still deemed as discriminatory.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 22 May 15 5.51pm
I believe there was a similar case over here a while back with a Gay couple wanting a cake baked (Oregon I think) the gay couple were awarded $ 150,000. Legal expects said that what people should do in the future is politely say that they are willing to do the work If said couple wouldn't mind if all the proceeds were going to go to (I cant remember the exact name) a group/party supporting 'straight marriages'. that would cover them legally. Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 22 May 15 5.51pm

I believe there was a similar case over here a while back with a Gay couple wanting a cake baked (Oregon I think) the gay couple were awarded $ 150,000.
Legal expects said that what people should do in the future is politely say that they are willing to do the work If said couple wouldn't mind if all the proceeds were going to go to (I cant remember the exact name) a group/party supporting 'straight marriages'. that would cover them legally.

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 22 May 15 6.01pm
Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm) There seem to be a mixture of arguments here. If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case. The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race. Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.49pm) Because it is, again, a denial of service as opposed to a refusal to undertake a specific task. If you like, the difference between : "you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" and "I'm not going South of the river at this time of night" / "I'm not making a cake with that writing on". The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 22 May 15 6.01pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm

Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

There seem to be a mixture of arguments here.

If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone"

Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.

The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.49pm)

Because it is, again, a denial of service as opposed to a refusal to undertake a specific task. If you like, the difference between :

"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you"
and
"I'm not going South of the river at this time of night" / "I'm not making a cake with that writing on".

The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not.

Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake.

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 22 May 15 6.12pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm) There seem to be a mixture of arguments here. If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case. The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race. Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.49pm) Because it is, again, a denial of service as opposed to a refusal to undertake a specific task. If you like, the difference between : "you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" and "I'm not going South of the river at this time of night" / "I'm not making a cake with that writing on". The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. It's not a denial of service. Whether or not you are blind the muslim taxi driver does not want dogs in his cab. People however are still more than free to use his service without them. If you happen to be blind the taxi driver would say he's not specifically discriminating against you because it's a policy that applies to all people based on his religious beliefs. This demonstrates how the action in each case is deemed discriminatory despite it being said to apply to all. It's not a necessity that you use a particular 'against my religion' taxi firm unless there is only one in the area, in which case that handicap applies to everyone requiring a specific type of service when the business decides that their religious convictions override your needs. If there is only one printing company in town and they refuse to print a gay organisation themed letterhead, it doesn't much help if they will print something else. Better that businesses cater to the community that they are part of and do not allow their personal beliefs to detract from the service people receive. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 8.37pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 22 May 15 6.12pm

Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm

Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

There seem to be a mixture of arguments here.

If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone"

Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.

The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.49pm)

Because it is, again, a denial of service as opposed to a refusal to undertake a specific task. If you like, the difference between :

"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you"
and
"I'm not going South of the river at this time of night" / "I'm not making a cake with that writing on".

The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not.

Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake.

It's not a denial of service. Whether or not you are blind the muslim taxi driver does not want dogs in his cab. People however are still more than free to use his service without them. If you happen to be blind the taxi driver would say he's not specifically discriminating against you because it's a policy that applies to all people based on his religious beliefs. This demonstrates how the action in each case is deemed discriminatory despite it being said to apply to all.

It's not a necessity that you use a particular 'against my religion' taxi firm unless there is only one in the area, in which case that handicap applies to everyone requiring a specific type of service when the business decides that their religious convictions override your needs. If there is only one printing company in town and they refuse to print a gay organisation themed letterhead, it doesn't much help if they will print something else.

Better that businesses cater to the community that they are part of and do not allow their personal beliefs to detract from the service people receive.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 8.37pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 May 15 12.29pm
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? You keep arguing its about 'freedoms' and I keep pointing out that those freedoms apply right up until you enter into a contract. You do not have to engage in business with anyone until you enter a 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 23 May 15 12.29pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

You keep arguing its about 'freedoms' and I keep pointing out that those freedoms apply right up until you enter into a contract. You do not have to engage in business with anyone until you enter a 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 23 May 15 12.31pm
Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm 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. 2) Existing rulings mean she has no choice but to abide by the decisions of other judges. 3) Something you put in the public domain is not copyright, even if you're an ex-British Agent. 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. ___________________________________________________ What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps? Why do you keep insisting this is about contract law. The homosexual activist claimed he had been discriminated against contrary to the provisions of the Equality Act (sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006. Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm) If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law. Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior. " This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. " Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm) Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'? Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm) There seem to be a mixture of arguments here. If the contract was taken and later cancelled I can see there may be a case of violation of contract law (I don't know, but can see an argument). A violation of contract law is very different from a discrimination case. If it got to court at all, I suspect all that would happen is you would be forced to return the money together with any expenses the cancellation led to - in this case, likely to be next to nothing as you simply move the order to another bakery. The fine is for discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation - which I have demonstrated is clearly NOT the case, as they would have refused to bake the cake for a straight person in exactly the same way they did for a gay person. They may have provided shoddy customer service, they may possibly have even broken contract law, but they have not discrimninated against anyone, and, as such, the judgement is not so much flawed as just completely incorrect. If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone" Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case. The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race. Regardless of what anyone thinks, if a baker refused to bake a cake with a message supporting Christianity based on the fact that he was an atheist we'd be in the same situation. It would be reasonable to assume that the person ordering the cake was a Christian, though of course that's down to the particular circumstances. Out of interest why do you view the guide dog example is so far wide of the mark? After all the muslim taxi driver would've refused to allow all dogs in the car regardless of whether the passenger was blind. However he was not denying service to the person. Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.49pm) Because it is, again, a denial of service as opposed to a refusal to undertake a specific task. If you like, the difference between : "you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you" and "I'm not going South of the river at this time of night" / "I'm not making a cake with that writing on". The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not. Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake. Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract. Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 May 15 12.31pm

Quote npn at 22 May 2015 6.01pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 5.27pm

Quote npn at 22 May 2015 5.17pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.59pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.57pm

Quote imbored at 22 May 2015 4.39pm

Quote derben at 22 May 2015 4.32pm

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.

What instead of the prejudices of left wing politically correct twerps?

Edited by derben (22 May 2015 4.34pm)

If the baker was gay and refused to make a cake supporting marriage between heterosexual couples once he had accepted the order he too would fall fowl of the law.

Of course it's unlikely that such a scenario would come about since typically it wouldn't occur to a gay person to view a heterosexual relationship as inferior.

" This is not a law which is for one belief only but is equal to and for all. "

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 4.54pm)

Jamie keeps arguing it is about contracts and not that the gay activist is gay. (What have chickens got to do with it? Is there a 'we should be able to marry fowls lobby'?

Bok bok. A 'foul' on my part. I was using an example of how the law is fair regardless of whether it aligns with your or anyone elses prejudices.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.06pm)

There seem to be a mixture of arguments here.

If the guy had gone into the hsop and been told "we're not serving you, you're gay" then I'd back the case 100%. What they have said is "we're not making a cake with THAT slogan on, for anyone"

Any number opf straw man arguments are being thrown up (guide dogs, 'no blacks' etc) none of which are in any way relevant to this case.

The 'no blacks' example was aimed at derben since he also believes that it's acceptable to refuse accommodation to couples based on their sexuality. I simply extended it to race.

Edited by imbored (22 May 2015 5.49pm)

Because it is, again, a denial of service as opposed to a refusal to undertake a specific task. If you like, the difference between :

"you're not getting in my cab" / "I'm not serving you"
and
"I'm not going South of the river at this time of night" / "I'm not making a cake with that writing on".

The first item in both those cases is acceptable, the second, in my view, is not.

Additionally, the blind person is not taking a guide dog through choice, but necessity. The gay man may not have chosen to be gay, but he did choose the wording he wanted on his cake.

Actually the case is this. They agreed to make the cake, took money for it and then later decided they didn't want to honour that contract.

Which is the point. They had the right to not engage in business, choose to engage in business, and then think they should be able to breach that pre-paid agreement because 'they don't support gay marriage'.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 12 of 16 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors