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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 18 of 28 < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

ZIGnZAG Stoke 27 May 15 7.08am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 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) Or, he could have opened his own bakery, making "gay friendly" cakes. Willy shaped cakes, bum shaped cakes, fairy cakes! Nothing vaguely homophobic about that. What.... Being "gay friendly".
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 27 May 15 7.08am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 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)

Or, he could have opened his own bakery, making "gay friendly" cakes. Willy shaped cakes, bum shaped cakes, fairy cakes!

Nothing vaguely homophobic about that.

What.... Being "gay friendly".

Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG Stoke 27 May 15 7.10am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 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 of course is win for the plaintiff solicitor once that's on record. Funny that spiel-burg. Nearly four hours later you go on to say "Except QC Allen Martin demonstrates that in fact they did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because they do produce cakes celebrating straight marriage. 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." So how could "they" have raised this issue, if somebody else took the order. Somebody who knew "they" would have a problem with it. Sounds to me like it was more a fear not to offend, that has resulted in others being punished for having a certain belief/stance on things. And before you blurt out a load more spiel about how certain legal technicalities put the case in favour of a man who was told somebody wouldn't wright a message on a cake for him. Just think about that. They are now being punished, for not writing a message, on a cake. Unbelievable jeff! 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? Yawn ZZzzzz
Alert a moderator to this post

ZIGnZAG

Stoke 27 May 15 7.10am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 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 of course is win for the plaintiff solicitor once that's on record.

Funny that spiel-burg.
Nearly four hours later you go on to say "Except QC Allen Martin demonstrates that in fact they did discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because they do produce cakes celebrating straight marriage.

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."

So how could "they" have raised this issue, if somebody else took the order. Somebody who knew "they" would have a problem with it. Sounds to me like it was more a fear not to offend, that has resulted in others being punished for having a certain belief/stance on things.
And before you blurt out a load more spiel about how certain legal technicalities put the case in favour of a man who was told somebody wouldn't wright a message on a cake for him. Just think about that. They are now being punished, for not writing a message, on a cake. Unbelievable jeff!

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?

Yawn ZZzzzz

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 27 May 15 7.25am
Quote legaleagle at 26 May 2015 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.Still,no doubt it helps reassure your sense of being a "real man". 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 Edited by legaleagle (27 May 2015 12.45am) What are the first words that kids brought up by same-sex couples say, are they "what do we want?", "when do we want it?" and "NOW!" As for being a 'latent homophobe'. I don't hate them or fear them, I find them amusing. Edited by derben (27 May 2015 7.44am)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

27 May 15 7.25am

Quote legaleagle at 26 May 2015 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.Still,no doubt it helps reassure your sense of being a "real man".

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

Edited by legaleagle (27 May 2015 12.45am)

What are the first words that kids brought up by same-sex couples say, are they "what do we want?", "when do we want it?" and "NOW!"

As for being a 'latent homophobe'. I don't hate them or fear them, I find them amusing.

Edited by derben (27 May 2015 7.44am)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 27 May 15 7.34am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 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). Who cares who took the order, not who cares about the case - of course you know this. You are merely trying to deflect away from the clear and obvious injustice of the case. Yes, it is all the plaintiff's fault, his 'rights' were not violated, he tried it on and found a judge biased in his favour. As said before, she also dishes out money to travellers merely because a pub landlord knew them to be trouble. She also allowed a British agent's life to be put at risk by IRA criminals. The Christian's rights were certainly regarded by her as inferior to those of the gay warrior. After targeting a Christian bakers for his scam,the 'Sunday Life' are now doing the same: [Link] and it looks like Tesco will now be damaging Asher's business [Link] the witch-hunts continue in our brave new world. 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. 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. Brownlie’s reasoning is flawed, as she links support for same-sex marriage with a homosexual orientation when they are clearly different things. Many people who are not gay (including the Prime Minister) support same-sex marriage. Some people who are gay (including Rupert Everett and Dolce and Gabbana) oppose same-sex marriage. Edited by derben (27 May 2015 8.09am)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

27 May 15 7.34am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 May 2015 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).

Who cares who took the order, not who cares about the case - of course you know this. You are merely trying to deflect away from the clear and obvious injustice of the case. Yes, it is all the plaintiff's fault, his 'rights' were not violated, he tried it on and found a judge biased in his favour. As said before, she also dishes out money to travellers merely because a pub landlord knew them to be trouble. She also allowed a British agent's life to be put at risk by IRA criminals. The Christian's rights were certainly regarded by her as inferior to those of the gay warrior.

After targeting a Christian bakers for his scam,the 'Sunday Life' are now doing the same: [Link] and it looks like Tesco will now be damaging Asher's business [Link] the witch-hunts continue in our brave new world.

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. 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.

Brownlie’s reasoning is flawed, as she links support for same-sex marriage with a homosexual orientation when they are clearly different things. Many people who are not gay (including the Prime Minister) support same-sex marriage. Some people who are gay (including Rupert Everett and Dolce and Gabbana) oppose same-sex marriage.

Edited by derben (27 May 2015 8.09am)

Alert a moderator to this post

derben 27 May 15 8.02am
(duplicate removed) Edited by derben (27 May 2015 8.08am)
Alert a moderator to this post

derben

27 May 15 8.02am

(duplicate removed)

Edited by derben (27 May 2015 8.08am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 May 15 8.29am
David Starkey opposes same sex marriage as well. He's one of my favourite people.....So he must be right! '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

27 May 15 8.29am

David Starkey opposes same sex marriage as well.
He's one of my favourite people.....So he must be right!

'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

throwaway 27 May 15 8.44am
Throwaway cus I'm not the straighest but ain't on HOL to talk about it. Lots said here don't help anyone. [Link] Lesbian & Gay Switchboard 0300 330 0630 They were there when I desprately needed to talk thats all. Well done ppl of Ireland.
Alert a moderator to this post

throwaway

27 May 15 8.44am

Throwaway cus I'm not the straighest but ain't on HOL to talk about it. Lots said here don't help anyone.

[Link] Lesbian & Gay Switchboard 0300 330 0630

They were there when I desprately needed to talk thats all. Well done ppl of Ireland.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 May 15 9.06am
Apparently you should only say things that help people. Do the bakers get a help line as well? The equality commission spent thirty three grand on bringing that case against the bakery.....The verdict cost the bakery £500. Oh how I wish that only the supporters of nonsense like this were the only ones who paid for it through their taxes....Because like the 'anti war' protesters said, 'not in my name'. '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

27 May 15 9.06am

Apparently you should only say things that help people.
Do the bakers get a help line as well?

The equality commission spent thirty three grand on bringing that case against the bakery.....The verdict cost the bakery £500.

Oh how I wish that only the supporters of nonsense like this were the only ones who paid for it through their taxes....Because like the 'anti war' protesters said, 'not in my name'.

'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

throwaway 27 May 15 9.14am
Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2015 9.06am Apparently you should only say things that help people. Do the bakers get a help line as well? I aint posting to argue the toss m8.. i said it on account that these people helped me when I felt basically suicidal n knowing those challenges i thought it might help others. So sorry if that offends you. You're just proving my point really bye.
Alert a moderator to this post

throwaway

27 May 15 9.14am

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2015 9.06am

Apparently you should only say things that help people.
Do the bakers get a help line as well?

I aint posting to argue the toss m8.. i said it on account that these people helped me when I felt basically suicidal n knowing those challenges i thought it might help others. So sorry if that offends you. You're just proving my point really bye.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 May 15 9.47am
Quote throwaway at 27 May 2015 9.14am Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2015 9.06am Apparently you should only say things that help people. Do the bakers get a help line as well? I aint posting to argue the toss m8.. i said it on account that these people helped me when I felt basically suicidal n knowing those challenges i thought it might help others. So sorry if that offends you. You're just proving my point really bye. That's fine. I'm not here to help you....This is an opinion forum, not a help desk. However, I will say that if people are gay and feeling negative concerning that then obviously seeking help is the right thing to do. Other people's opinions, who don't even know you, should not factor into your personal self esteem. There are plenty of examples of successful and happy gay people. While the majority of gay people obviously support gay 'marriage' there are a minorty who don't. Opposing this part of our legal system isn't a commentary upon a gay or lesbian person's worth. Not in my eyes anyway. This is about tradition and the ideals of family units for me.....Though I accept the will of the majority to view this otherwise.......No one really gets the society they want...Unless you're a dictator. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2015 10.39am) '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

27 May 15 9.47am

Quote throwaway at 27 May 2015 9.14am

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2015 9.06am

Apparently you should only say things that help people.
Do the bakers get a help line as well?

That's fine.
I'm not here to help you....This is an opinion forum, not a help desk.
However, I will say that if people are gay and feeling negative concerning that then obviously seeking help is the right thing to do. Other people's opinions, who don't even know you, should not factor into your personal self esteem.

There are plenty of examples of successful and happy gay people.

While the majority of gay people obviously support gay 'marriage' there are a minorty who don't. Opposing this part of our legal system isn't a commentary upon a gay or lesbian person's worth.

Not in my eyes anyway.

This is about tradition and the ideals of family units for me.....Though I accept the will of the majority to view this otherwise.......No one really gets the society they want...Unless you're a dictator.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2015 10.39am)

'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

Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 27 May 15 10.07am
Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2015 9.47am This is about tradition and the ideals of family units for me.....Though I accept the will of the majority to view this otherwise.......No one really gets the society they want...Unless you're a ditator. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2015 9.48am) I think it's Dic you're searching for Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre London Oratory School SW6 1RX with Superfly in the chorus [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Superfly

The sun always shines in Catford 27 May 15 10.07am

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 May 2015 9.47am

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 May 2015 9.48am)

I think it's Dic you're searching for

Lend me a Tenor

31 May to 3 June 2017

John McIntosh Arts Centre
London Oratory School
SW6 1RX

with Superfly in the chorus
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 May 15 10.40am
Quote Superfly at 27 May 2015 10.07am I think it's Dic you're searching for Another message for another baker perhaps. '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

27 May 15 10.40am

Quote Superfly at 27 May 2015 10.07am

I think it's Dic you're searching for

Another message for another baker perhaps.

'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

Page 18 of 28 < 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Ireland Vote For Gay Marriage.

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors