This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
derben  26 May 15 7.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 kenbarr  Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 26 May 15 7.50pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
The next domino to fall will be the US Supreme Court, which many observers believe will rule that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional, thus overturning such bans in roughly 12 states and making marriage equality the law of the land. Given that the US Constitution states that no religious test can be required as a qualification for a public trust (Article VI), the decision seems inevitable. Also, the Court already ruled for marriage equality three years ago when the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds it violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The reason why marriage is a public trust is that in order to get married in the US you must obtain a license from the appropriate state or territorial government. In that regard, marriage is similar to driving an auto on the public highways.
Divorced...And LOVING it! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
 |
| ZIGnZAG Stoke 26 May 15 8.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 7.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ZIGnZAG Stoke 26 May 15 8.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.31pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used...... They retain the right to refuse admission without giving a reason, which makes proving prejudice, very difficult. Also in terms of prejudice, in law, what is significant is that specific types of prejudice are highlighted as protected. Of course if they let you in with say trainers, and then throw you out because your wearing trainers, then they've broken the law (an apt analogy in this cake business). Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such. Yes, but in terms of the law it operates as a private members club, it simply cannot refuse you entry because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - which are prohibited under law. Having an entrance requirement that fulfils discriminatory law, and that is clearly displayed up front is where the significance and difference applies. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
The fact that the law operates a system where some businesses can have an excuse for prejudice does not change the focus. Actually the law pretty much says you don't have to accept anyone's business if your upfront about it and clearly state your reasons. You can ban people from your shop, you can refuse to take orders, serve people etc Its almost impossible to prove prejudice unless the statement by the owner is explicit, and even then its your word against theirs, if there are no witnesses Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island. But that isn't there case here, they entered into business, took money and backed out. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with. Unfortunately QC Martin Allen demonstrated an argument in court that they weren't promoting gay marriage and that its unreasonable to assume that people would assume that the message was 'their own', rather than that of the person placing the order. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Both involve a form of prejudice but one directly states that you are denied service because of your race or nationality but the other doesn't.....It's focused upon the message being promoted....The business has no doubt served many shade of sexuality. Indeed, but in this case you had one side build a case that demonstrated prejudice, whilst the other side produced a case based on hypotheticals about rights. The plantiff demonstrated that the rights of the defending party weren't violated, and that the bakery actions amounted to discrimination. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pmOn the disabled point:
Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life. Indeed, just like anything in law, you can't prevent it happening, but you can provide legal redress where it can be proven. And that's the key point in the Gay Cake case, the plantiff can prove reasonable grounds for discrimination from the case presented whilst also presenting an argument that the respondents defence of their action is flawed. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter, a business is responsible for its employees training. In this case, the individual who took the order, specifically states they knew they would have a problem with it, but accepted it anyhow because they 'didn't want to cause a fuss'.
Which makes it about the fact that its gay marriage. Couple that with the bakers own statements, the fact they accepted the order and took the money, that the organisation isn't promoted as a religious one, nor does it entertain any statement as to that effect The only conclusion you can reach is that the key issue was that the individual issue was that it was gay rather than straight marriage - and that the discrimination experienced by the plantiff was on the basis of sexual orientation. Person A, treated Person B, less favourably than a hyperthetical person, on a basis of sexual orientation. Now had they not entered into a contract on that basis, they couldn't have proven it. But they did, and they should have raised any issue prior to accepting payment. Doesn't matter about hypotheticals, because they didn't actually occur. A case is tried on the merits of evidence."
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ZIGnZAG at 26 May 2015 8.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 2.31pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Whether a business is licenced under alcohol laws or a private business or anything else prejudice or discrimation is being used...... They retain the right to refuse admission without giving a reason, which makes proving prejudice, very difficult. Also in terms of prejudice, in law, what is significant is that specific types of prejudice are highlighted as protected. Of course if they let you in with say trainers, and then throw you out because your wearing trainers, then they've broken the law (an apt analogy in this cake business). Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
In a sense the concept of MENSA is highly offensive and elitist and in another sense it just follows the reality of life....Like wish to be with like....However a spade is a spade and should be called as such. Yes, but in terms of the law it operates as a private members club, it simply cannot refuse you entry because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation - which are prohibited under law. Having an entrance requirement that fulfils discriminatory law, and that is clearly displayed up front is where the significance and difference applies. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
The fact that the law operates a system where some businesses can have an excuse for prejudice does not change the focus. Actually the law pretty much says you don't have to accept anyone's business if your upfront about it and clearly state your reasons. You can ban people from your shop, you can refuse to take orders, serve people etc Its almost impossible to prove prejudice unless the statement by the owner is explicit, and even then its your word against theirs, if there are no witnesses Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
I'm not really that against it......It just annoys me to see society focus its 'anti-prejudice' beam into very limited areas.....Usually depending upon 'worthy groups' who happen to be fashionable to the chattering classes who run this island. But that isn't there case here, they entered into business, took money and backed out. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Prejudice is a fact of life....I can see the sense in hotels and B&Bs not being allowed to have signs up stating 'no blacks or Irish' as they are providing rooms not actually being asked to create a product that promotes something they aren't comfortable with. Unfortunately QC Martin Allen demonstrated an argument in court that they weren't promoting gay marriage and that its unreasonable to assume that people would assume that the message was 'their own', rather than that of the person placing the order. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Both involve a form of prejudice but one directly states that you are denied service because of your race or nationality but the other doesn't.....It's focused upon the message being promoted....The business has no doubt served many shade of sexuality. Indeed, but in this case you had one side build a case that demonstrated prejudice, whilst the other side produced a case based on hypotheticals about rights. The plantiff demonstrated that the rights of the defending party weren't violated, and that the bakery actions amounted to discrimination. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pmOn the disabled point:
Whether the law doesn't allow discrimation against the disabled or not, it can't save them from its many guises....It's just another unwritten rule of life. Indeed, just like anything in law, you can't prevent it happening, but you can provide legal redress where it can be proven. And that's the key point in the Gay Cake case, the plantiff can prove reasonable grounds for discrimination from the case presented whilst also presenting an argument that the respondents defence of their action is flawed. Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2015 2.04pm
Also I suppose that rders and payment can be accepted for a business by workers instead of owners. So maybe that was the case here....A worker took the order and the owner then looks at it later....Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter, a business is responsible for its employees training. In this case, the individual who took the order, specifically states they knew they would have a problem with it, but accepted it anyhow because they 'didn't want to cause a fuss'.
Which makes it about the fact that its gay marriage. Couple that with the bakers own statements, the fact they accepted the order and took the money, that the organisation isn't promoted as a religious one, nor does it entertain any statement as to that effect The only conclusion you can reach is that the key issue was that the individual issue was that it was gay rather than straight marriage - and that the discrimination experienced by the plantiff was on the basis of sexual orientation. Person A, treated Person B, less favourably than a hyperthetical person, on a basis of sexual orientation. Now had they not entered into a contract on that basis, they couldn't have proven it. But they did, and they should have raised any issue prior to accepting payment. Doesn't matter about hypotheticals, because they didn't actually occur. A case is tried on the merits of evidence."
Actually the person in question, regarding the taking of the order, is one of the owners. Not legal technicalities, but evidence presented to support a case. Its not a technicality to say that actions displayed at the time, are a stronger case that what someone then says later at trial that they thought at the time, but can't be corroborated. There is nothing technical about strong evidence or a good case. If they were 'afraid of offending' then surely they wouldn't later have rejected the order, or would have responded to the Equality commissions initial findings?
"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 8.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote ZIGnZAG at 26 May 2015 8.11pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 7.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm)
Nothing vaguely homophobic about that.
"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 8.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 7.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm) Order was taken Karen McArthur, a director of Ashers bakery. The same person who objected later. Nice hyperbole by the way and deflection, apparently now the SWP, and its all the fault of the uppty gays who exercise their legal rights to equality. So far we've had thought-police and the inquisition / witch hunts thrown in for good old fashioned hyperbole. Why not play the Godwin card?
"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 9.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 8.58pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 7.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm) Order was taken Karen McArthur, a director of Ashers bakery. The same person who objected later. Nice hyperbole by the way and deflection, apparently now the SWP, and its all the fault of the uppty gays who exercise their legal rights to equality. So far we've had thought-police and the inquisition / witch hunts thrown in for good old fashioned hyperbole. Why not play the Godwin card? You know Jamie, you are becoming as pompous and up your own arse as legaleagle. Don't you think I might be merely mocking Ms. Lee and your good self? Equality - it is the victims of this injustice who require equality. Gareth Lee chooses to live in a province of the UK where same-sex marriage is not legal, he doesn't have to.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 10.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 8.58pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 7.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm) Order was taken Karen McArthur, a director of Ashers bakery. The same person who objected later. Nice hyperbole by the way and deflection, apparently now the SWP, and its all the fault of the uppty gays who exercise their legal rights to equality. So far we've had thought-police and the inquisition / witch hunts thrown in for good old fashioned hyperbole. Why not play the Godwin card? You know Jamie, you are becoming as pompous and up your own arse as legaleagle. Don't you think I might be merely mocking Ms. Lee and your good self? Equality - it is the victims of this injustice who require equality. Gareth Lee chooses to live in a province of the UK where same-sex marriage is not legal, he doesn't have to.
Crossed my mind, but then as it was a reply it didn't seem likely. Good to see the old classic 'if you don't like it go and live in x-land'. You seemed to want to know who took the order, so I filled you in.
"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 10.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 10.18pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 8.58pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 7.36pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 7.19pm
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 6.28pm
Certainly they discriminated the message; they would have allowed "Support Marriage in the sense that is has been recognised as a union between a man and a woman for millennia" (would need a large cake though). However, they did not treat Gareth Lee less favourably, they would have refused you or I had we asked for a slogan stating "Support a parody of marriage that is not even legal in Northern Ireland". If that truly is the case, then why would the accept the order and take the payment in the first place. What are you saying? That they knowingly took the order knowing they would later object to the wording? Why would they do that? Who took the order? An assistant who didn't take in the message or realise the repercussions perhaps. Who cares, the fact is they did not discriminate against Gareth Lee because he was gay, they discriminated because the message he wanted was not acceptable to them. If Lee had been reasonable, rather than a gay rights activist/troublemaker, he would have simply gone to another shop, and told all his friends to boycott Ashers as they were homophobic thought-criminals, (perhaps organised marches etc with placards supplied by the Socialst Workers Party, chanting "What do we want?", "Ashers bakery burnt to the ground and the heretics burned at the stake", "When do we want it?", "Now!". Instead he invokes the law to protect his 'right' to force them to assist in his campaign to make something illegal in Northern Ireland, legal - what a hero. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 7.37pm) Order was taken Karen McArthur, a director of Ashers bakery. The same person who objected later. Nice hyperbole by the way and deflection, apparently now the SWP, and its all the fault of the uppty gays who exercise their legal rights to equality. So far we've had thought-police and the inquisition / witch hunts thrown in for good old fashioned hyperbole. Why not play the Godwin card? You know Jamie, you are becoming as pompous and up your own arse as legaleagle. Don't you think I might be merely mocking Ms. Lee and your good self? Equality - it is the victims of this injustice who require equality. Gareth Lee chooses to live in a province of the UK where same-sex marriage is not legal, he doesn't have to.
Crossed my mind, but then as it was a reply it didn't seem likely. Good to see the old classic 'if you don't like it go and live in x-land'. You seemed to want to know who took the order, so I filled you in. It was a rhetorical question, as I said, who cares. Lee chooses to live in a province where same-sex marriage is not legal. He then targets a bakery where he knows his controversial cake message will embarrass the Christian owners. Then embarks on a ludicrous legal action to punish them for having the nerve to challenge him. As I said, what a hero, what a contribution he has made to making the general public more comfortable with the gay community. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 10.34pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 26 May 15 11.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 9.09pm
You know Jamie, you are becoming as pompous and up your own arse as legaleagle. Don't you think I might be merely mocking Ms. Lee and your good self? Equality - it is the victims of this injustice who require equality. Gareth Lee chooses to live in a province of the UK where same-sex marriage is not legal, he doesn't have to. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 9.50pm) ..................................................... Thanks for the gratuitous slag None so blind as those that will not see,indeed. You come across in this thread,with your various intermittent little puns/jokes, as nothing so much as the latent homophobe behind the supposedly reasoned argument.Sad but true. Speaking from the perspective of a single parent who has brought two kids up from the age of four,I think some of the stuff about marriage,feminine input and kids in the thread is pretty mind blowing too. What kids need more than anything IMO is love and care,security and stability.Better being brought up by a gay couple or single parent (of whatever sexuality) with those qualities than the more frequent then you might think completely dysfunctional traditional married couple staying together "for the kids". Happy slagging and cake making
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
.Still,no doubt it helps reassure your sense of being a "real man".| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 May 15 11.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 26 May 2015 10.34pm
It was a rhetorical question, as I said, who cares. Lee chooses to live in a province where same-sex marriage is not legal. He then targets a bakery where he knows his controversial cake message will embarrass the Christian owners. Then embarks on a ludicrous legal action to punish them for having the nerve to challenge him. As I said, what a hero, what a contribution he has made to making the general public more comfortable with the gay community. Edited by derben (26 May 2015 10.34pm) Clearly you care, you've spent several days arguing the toss over it. I care, so much so that I even went and read the judges summing up. I see you've shifted again here, now he deliberately targeted them, and now its all the plantiff's fault? Doesn't really matter either way, his rights were violated and he sought redress and won. What a terrible day it is, where Christians are bound by the same laws that apply to everyone (and that ironically protect them).
"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.