This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 titlechance  26 May 15 12.30am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote ZIGnZAG at 26 May 2015 12.19am
Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 11.45pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 25 May 2015 11.21pm
Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 8.18pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 8.12pm
Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 4.12pm
Quote titlechance at 25 May 2015 3.14pm
Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 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.
It's out of touch with what most people now think, hence why it's legal.
You are free to hold your view and I am free to disagree with it.
It doesn't make it right or wrong just legal. You hold a minority view now. Whenever you're unlucky enough to meet someone as intolerant as yourself, you'll get treated just like the minorities you dislike have been. What goes around... Edited by titlechance (25 May 2015 7.03pm)
Still, all because you think I'm in the minority, should I not be allowed to have an opinion, or a view that is different to yours.
So now the vote doesn't count? lol Think it's wrong, nobody is stopping you. I said in the previous message "You are free to hold your view and I am free to disagree with it."
The point is that if you make these majority/minority points of argument then you're not really getting anywhere. Demonising others because of their opposing views is intolerant in and of itself. Some people (not necessarily you) think that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage has to be homophobic. That kind of stance makes someone like me feel uncomfortable and unacceptable to some others. You say I'm demonising when I've suggested that gay marriage being legal appears to reflect majority belief here - hence partly why it is legal. And that intolerance is a two way street. It's hardly outlandish and unfair to say so. At the same time you have no harsh words for someone who compares gay marriage to marriage with animals and pedophilia. You're waving your finger at the wrong person. Edited by titlechance (26 May 2015 12.01am) Dunno if he is ... I reckon if he waved his finger at you, you 'd jump right on it!!!!!! Sorry, but I asked you what makes you think I'm intolerant, what minorities I disliked, what did the whole "what goes around" comment mean. You have completely blanked this. My comparison between gay marriages and others is merely my (some might say"poor" I have gay friends, shock horror. I also have gay friends who do not believe in gay marriage, check that sh!t out. Pushing the boundaries is not always a good thing. But then who decides what is deemed good!? The church, should, most definitely not, have to accept this new "law", if it is not something they "preach". For a person with 'gay friends' you've come out with very out there comparisons. Imagine a young gay palace supporter wading through some of this on here... I'll leave this 'debate' to others I think.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
attempt to highlight how cheap and unworthy the term/legality of the word marriage has now become. And me asking, where exactly do we draw the line on who should get married?| Kiwi 26 May 15 5.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
I don't really care much about this gay marriage thing, but find society's fetishization of it a bit weird. Seems self-evident to me that the origins of marriage lie in benefiting society by: providing children with a secure environment, providing certainty about the paternity of children. None of that is very relevant to homosexuals. The earliest law code was written by Hamurappi, thousands of years ago in the Middle East. Despite Hamurappi being a practicing bisexual in law code marriage was a heterosexual institution. You have to wonder why, don't you? I think what's going on here is not society becoming increasingly 'enlightened'. It's that we've had technological changes (e.g. the pill, test tube babies, etc.), and ideological changes (e.g. third wave feminism). I'm all for homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals - i.e. freedom to practice their sexuality, have their relationships legally recognized, equal access to all social benefits, health services, etc. New Zealand recognized gay civil unions years before it recognized gay marriage, and personally I think the 'civil union' versus 'marriage' distinction makes some sense. At the end of the day, a gay marriage is not exactly what a marriage has traditionally been (i.e. the parties involved in a gay marriage aren't going to be producing new humans), so I'm not sure calling it a marriage makes complete sense. No question that this is a redefinition of marriage.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 26 May 15 8.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kiwi at 26 May 2015 5.43am
I don't really care much about this gay marriage thing, but find society's fetishization of it a bit weird. Seems self-evident to me that the origins of marriage lie in benefiting society by: providing children with a secure environment, providing certainty about the paternity of children. None of that is very relevant to homosexuals. The earliest law code was written by Hamurappi, thousands of years ago in the Middle East. Despite Hamurappi being a practicing bisexual in law code marriage was a heterosexual institution. You have to wonder why, don't you? I think what's going on here is not society becoming increasingly 'enlightened'. It's that we've had technological changes (e.g. the pill, test tube babies, etc.), and ideological changes (e.g. third wave feminism). I'm all for homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals - i.e. freedom to practice their sexuality, have their relationships legally recognized, equal access to all social benefits, health services, etc. New Zealand recognized gay civil unions years before it recognized gay marriage, and personally I think the 'civil union' versus 'marriage' distinction makes some sense. At the end of the day, a gay marriage is not exactly what a marriage has traditionally been (i.e. the parties involved in a gay marriage aren't going to be producing new humans), so I'm not sure calling it a marriage makes complete sense. No question that this is a redefinition of marriage.
Heterosexual couples with no desire to have children can get married. As can older people, infertile couples and those adopting. We could argue this is an offshoot of traditional marriage that is unavoidable, but really there's nothing stopping us calling these unions something other than marriage too. I'm not sure though that we would say a couple who adopt are less entitled to be married than two parents able to produce children, so is both parents producing their own child, not raising one, the only group we should award the title to? Wouldn't we be making these other unions less secure by differentiating, defeating the point.. and isn't that true here too? Openly gay couples are more of a feature of today's society. We either make it illegal for them to raise children together, or we accept that they are increasingly likely to do so and provide the model most likely to provide stability. You may think that's a civil union, some may think marriage. We could argue that it's inevitable that countries will view this issue in different ways, since the legality of gay marriage very often aligns with the treatment of gay people in general. Edited by imbored (26 May 2015 8.42am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 26 May 15 8.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Marriage is a man made concept so it's only fair it should only involve men. In fact, think of all the housing stock that would be freed up if women were banned from it totally. We should hold a referendum.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 26 May 15 8.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
I think a key feature of gay couples bringing up children, should be them teaching the kids to bake cakes, with an emphasis on how to embellish said cakes with decorative inscriptions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 8.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 8.53am
I think a key feature of gay couples bringing up children, should be them teaching the kids to bake cakes, with an emphasis on how to embellish said cakes with decorative inscriptions.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 9.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 25 May 2015 11.21pm
The majority of the world's population is intolerant then? The point is that if you make these majority/minority points of argument then you're not really getting anywhere. Demonising others because of their opposing views is intolerant in and of itself. Some people (not necessarily you) think that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage has to be homophobic. That kind of stance makes someone like me feel uncomfortable and unacceptable to some others. I suspect they probably do, maybe presented as a 'religious basis', but I would suspect it to be irrational and illogical founded, and unsustainable as an argument.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 9.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 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.
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. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 9.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ZIGnZAG at 25 May 2015 3.13pm
There's a marryyourpet.com. Says it all really. That maybe there is someone for you after all?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 26 May 15 9.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 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.
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. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay. If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?" Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 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.
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. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay. If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?" Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am) If's and butts(hehheh) don't matter, its what you can show and demonstrate. A hypothetical doesn't carry the same weight as something you can evidence and show. Actually Mr Allen QC demonstrated it, rather than hypothesised it, which goes further in a court of law. By showing they would, and did, produce material that supported marriage, he could then show prejudice - specifically the fact they'd formally rejected the order through contractual breach.
What he did was actually build a case, and a very good one, which demonstrated that they were wrong to suggest that their religious rights were violated, and that in fact their defence of their actions was unfounded, at every turn. On balance of evidence, presented, the judge had little option, go with the best case, grant leave to appeal.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 11.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 9.06am
Quote derben at 25 May 2015 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.
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. Well except for the fact his representation entirely dismiss the basis of the religious defence on the fact of contractual obligation and contract law then yes. So apart from the fact that the basis of the case presents contract law to reject the basis of religious rights, then yes. Clearly they would have treated a straight man in exactly the same way if he had asked for the same wording on the cake This actually forms the basis of the plantiffs councils case for discrimination, but that if it had been for a straight wedding they would not objected - so the central fact, as presented by the council is that its entirely about being 'gay' and the word gay. If the same gay man, Gareth Lee, had ordered a cake for a straight wedding with "support gay marriage" on it they still would have objected, as they would have done if a straight man had ordered it. Anyway, the cake was not for a wedding, same-sex or otherwise, it was to 'celebrate' "International Day Against Homophobia" (a day when no doubt millions of the oppressed masses took to the streets asking "when do we want it?" Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.22am) Except of course the plantiff proved in court that they didn't object, at the time. They took the order, and took payment.
"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.