Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 12 of 28 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

PalazioVecchio south pole 25 May 15 1.37pm
i predict the Catholic and ever intact Ann Widdicombe will continue to be single !! Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 25 May 15 1.37pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

i predict the Catholic and ever intact Ann Widdicombe will continue to be single !!

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 25 May 15 1.46pm
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples. There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter. What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm) They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law. You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court. Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor. As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly. Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine. I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive. You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence. Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs). Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 25 May 15 1.46pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples.

There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter.

What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm)

They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law.

You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court.

Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor.

As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly.

Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine.

I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive.

You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence.

Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs).

Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Seth On a pale blue dot 25 May 15 1.58pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 12.49pm For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing. For many people your views have a certain "yuk" thing too. "You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16
Alert a moderator to this post

Seth

On a pale blue dot 25 May 15 1.58pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 12.49pm

For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing.

For many people your views have a certain "yuk" thing too.

"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down"
FA Cup MOTD 24/4/16

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 25 May 15 1.59pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm There is nothing wrong with being gay. It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples. There is nothing wrong with gay people going through a form of marriage ceremony although a lot of people do not regard it as a true marriage as that term defines the union of a man and a woman, but I guess it is only a word so it does not really matter. What is wrong and does matter is when the likes of the Northern Ireland bakers are persecuted for declining to assist in supporting same sex marriage. People should have the right to disapprove of same sex marriage and indeed gayness itself if they want. Businesses should have the right to decline to become involved in political issues. Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm) They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law. You keep going on about Contract Law. The gay trouble maker did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. Clearly the bakers would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. Obviously not guilty, victims of a biased new establishment kangaroo court. Contract law is vital because the key factor is that they willingly accepted the order and money, but then specifically broke a contract on basis of their religious convictions: that is not a grounds for breaking a contract, and as such, given they were willing to accept the order, could only have objected to the sexuality factor. As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly. Violating a contract on the basis of sexuality is discrimination (because you willingly entered it in the first place, knowing what you were being asked). if they'd refused in the first place, they'd have been fine. I repeat: the Ashers Bakery people were not sued under Contract Law, they were sued under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the plaintiff claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. The 'judgement' was wrong and vindictive. You should read the judges review and the transcripts, you'd love the fact that the plantiff's lawyer used one of tactics commonly ascribed on here to demonstrate that it was a gay issue (albeit in reverse). Mr Allen QC is quite brilliant in his presentation of evidence. Also Mr Allen QC indeed bases his case around the fact that it was a breach of contract. He even produces a good argument that the assumption that the message of the cake could not be assumed to be that of Ashers bakery, but of the person ordering it (and that no one seeing it could presume it was theirs). Basically, he undermined every aspect of their defence. Firstly by demonstrating they'd willingly surrendered those rights, under contract law and then going onto prove that it was about the fact the fact it was a gay message. I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them.
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

25 May 15 1.59pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 1.46pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.50pm

Quote derben at 25 May 2015 12.44pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 May 2015 12.36pm

Quote derben at 24 May 2015 7.00pm

There is nothing wrong with being gay.

It is probably better on the whole if children are brought up by a man and a woman, although there are no doubt some gay couples who would do a better job than some straight couples.

Edited by derben (24 May 2015 7.01pm)

They broke a contract on the basis of their beliefs - And their ensuing defence led to their being identified as violating equal rights law.

As such, the rights of the customer were violated on the grounds of sexuality (not specifically his) not the message, because the order was taken willingly and knowingly.

I have read the judgement and as I say, yet again, Gareth Lee did not sue the bakers under contract law, he sued them under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)2006, claiming he had been discriminated against contrary to its provisions. It is a red herring that Contract law was brought into the argument. The Equality Act defines discrimination as 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons'. This is specifically what the Ashers Bakery people were charged with. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake. The were obviously not guilty of the charge made against them.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 May 15 2.42pm
Quote Seth at 25 May 2015 1.58pm Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 12.49pm For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing. For many people your views have a certain "yuk" thing too. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 May 15 2.42pm

Quote Seth at 25 May 2015 1.58pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 12.49pm

For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing.

For many people your views have a certain "yuk" thing too.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

peterg Anerley 25 May 15 2.47pm
Well done the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland, which is dominated by hard-line and evangelical Protestants, is now the only country in western Europe which does not allow gay marriage. Impressive that Protestant country can show itself as more bigoted than a Catholic one. The right place at the right time
Alert a moderator to this post

peterg

Anerley 25 May 15 2.47pm

Well done the Republic of Ireland.
Northern Ireland, which is dominated by hard-line and evangelical Protestants, is now the only country in western Europe which does not allow gay marriage. Impressive that Protestant country can show itself as more bigoted than a Catholic one.

The right place at the right time

Alert a moderator to this post

titlechance 25 May 15 3.01pm
It never made sense that a homosexual is free to marry a woman he doesn't love but not a man he does. From the out of touch replies here you'd think gay marriage had been made mandatory. Let people enjoy a moment of happiness ffs.
Alert a moderator to this post

titlechance

25 May 15 3.01pm

It never made sense that a homosexual is free to marry a woman he doesn't love but not a man he does. From the out of touch replies here you'd think gay marriage had been made mandatory. Let people enjoy a moment of happiness ffs.

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 25 May 15 3.02pm
Quote Seth at 25 May 2015 1.58pm Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 12.49pm For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing. For many people your views have a certain "yuk" thing too. Haha, gotta love some off you bell. Ends. On here. The "yuk" term was originally used by not one, but two other posters, to describe something else. I new if I used it, in reference to homos I'd get grief. You seem to be forgetting the fact, that, no matter how ridiculous or frowned upon it may be, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Or is it only gays who can have an opinion. Is it only gays that have rights. Is it only gays that can be offended. Is it only gays who can question the views of others, without causing offence. Is it only gays who are allowed to think something is "yuk".
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 25 May 15 3.02pm

Quote Seth at 25 May 2015 1.58pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 12.49pm

For many though homosexuality does have a certain "yuk" thing.

For many people your views have a certain "yuk" thing too.

Haha, gotta love some off you bell. Ends. On here. The "yuk" term was originally used by not one, but two other posters, to describe something else.
I new if I used it, in reference to homos I'd get grief.
You seem to be forgetting the fact, that, no matter how ridiculous or frowned upon it may be, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
Or is it only gays who can have an opinion.
Is it only gays that have rights.
Is it only gays that can be offended.
Is it only gays who can question the views of others, without causing offence.
Is it only gays who are allowed to think something is "yuk".

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 25 May 15 3.05pm
Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.01pm It never made sense that a homosexual is free to marry a woman he doesn't love but not a man he does. From the out of touch replies here you'd think gay marriage had been made mandatory. Let people enjoy a moment of happiness ffs. Why on earth are any anti gay marriage views out of touch?
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 25 May 15 3.05pm

Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.01pm

Why on earth are any anti gay marriage views out of touch?

Alert a moderator to this post

titlechance 25 May 15 3.07pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 3.05pm Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.01pm It never made sense that a homosexual is free to marry a woman he doesn't love but not a man he does. From the out of touch replies here you'd think gay marriage had been made mandatory. Let people enjoy a moment of happiness ffs. Why on earth are any anti gay marriage views out of touch? It's out of touch with what most people now think in ROI, hence why it's legal. Edited by titlechance (25 May 2015 3.20pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

titlechance

25 May 15 3.07pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 3.05pm

Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.01pm

Why on earth are any anti gay marriage views out of touch?

It's out of touch with what most people now think in ROI, hence why it's legal.

Edited by titlechance (25 May 2015 3.20pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 25 May 15 3.11pm
Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.07pm Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 3.05pm Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.01pm It never made sense that a homosexual is free to marry a woman he doesn't love but not a man he does. From the out of touch replies here you'd think gay marriage had been made mandatory. Let people enjoy a moment of happiness ffs. Why on earth are any anti gay marriage views out of touch? It's out of touch with what most people now think, hence why it's legal. So I must think the same as everybody else now. Down with the kids n all that sh!t.
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 25 May 15 3.11pm

Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.07pm

Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 3.05pm

Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.01pm

Why on earth are any anti gay marriage views out of touch?

It's out of touch with what most people now think, hence why it's legal.

So I must think the same as everybody else now. Down with the kids n all that sh!t.

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 25 May 15 3.13pm
There's a marryyourpet.com. Says it all really.
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 25 May 15 3.13pm

There's a marryyourpet.com. Says it all really.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 12 of 28 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors