This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
jamiemartin721  Reading 27 May 15 1.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 7.34am
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. The injustice of having to obey the same laws as everyone else. Quote derben at 27 May 2015 7.34am
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. Clearly, its his fault they discriminated against him. Quote derben at 27 May 2015 7.34am
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. You mean she applied set precendent from other cases. The picture in question was found by the newspaper by googling the agents name, which he'd placed on line himself. The Christians rights were protected, as Martin Allen QC demonstrated in his case - It is unreasonable to assume that any message produced by a third party under contract presents their opinion or view, as established in law in case history. Quote derben at 27 May 2015 7.34am
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. Did a straight man go in and ask for the same cake, prior to the case? The answer is no, which means its not evidence (because reasonable doubt doesn't apply) no matter how many times you say it. Hiding behind a possible hypothetical isn't a defence in law. Quote derben at 27 May 2015 7.34am
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. Actually Martin Allen QC sums up why its a gay thing, not about marriage, by demonstrating evidence that the company in question has produced cakes celebrating marriage. Its an excellent argument, in which he also demonstrates that in no way could the message be construed as being that of the maker. Its a sound and reasonable case. The business in question acted unlawfully, and unreasonably, by accepting payment and then rejecting the order. Had they not accepted the order in the first place, then there would be no case. However by breaking contract law, they established that agreement had taken place, and that laws regarding invitation to treat had been met etc. If it was a Christian business, it should have turned the business down in the first place, or if the person was exercising their rights under Equality Law, they should not enter into a contract willingly. Once you enter into business, business and commercial laws apply and you surrender indvidual rights by consent of your actions (i.e. never enter into a contract to do something you don't want to do).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 npn Crowborough 27 May 15 2.11pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I suspect they could (and in fact should) have turned down the order on the grounds of copyright infringement, since I doubt the bloke had permission to reproduce an image of Bert and Ernie (even Tesco do that on their cakes - they won't reproduce an image you don't own the copyright to). If they hear about it, I wonder if the Jim Henson Company will come and sue.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 27 May 15 2.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
jamiemartin721
No, a straight man did not go in and ask for the same cake. That being the case, how does the court judge that they treated Person B (gay rights agitator Gareth Lee) exactly the same as Person A? If, as you say, hypothetical people won't do? If a straight man had gone in and ordered a cake with the same wording,and Ashers made it, gay rights fanatic Lee might have a case. (Personally I would allow a business to serve whom they choose whatever the circumstances.)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 27 May 15 2.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
It is ludicrous to suggest that this not about same-sex marriage.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 27 May 15 2.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
Its a sound and reasonable case. The business in question acted unlawfully, and unreasonably, by accepting payment and then rejecting the order. Had they not accepted the order in the first place, then there would be no case. However by breaking contract law, they established that agreement had taken place, and that laws regarding invitation to treat had been met etc. Yawn - once 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. 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.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 May 15 5.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.26pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
Its a sound and reasonable case. The business in question acted unlawfully, and unreasonably, by accepting payment and then rejecting the order. Had they not accepted the order in the first place, then there would be no case. However by breaking contract law, they established that agreement had taken place, and that laws regarding invitation to treat had been met etc. Yawn - once 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. 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. I'm not saying that he sued them under contract law either, but that contract law is applicable in establishing the basis on a clear violation of his rights. Its essential to the case. 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons Which they did. They clearly violated the basis of sexual equality, by refusing to honour a contract on the basis of its relationship to gay marriage, whilst they admitted they would have produced one for straight marriage without question. The contract element is essential for proving they entered into business and then broke a contract on the basis of the gay content.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 May 15 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.24pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
It is ludicrous to suggest that this not about same-sex marriage. The case presented by Mr Allen QC demonstrates why its about gay marriage and straight marriage, and how both are treated differently by Ashers.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 27 May 15 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 5.04pm
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.24pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
It is ludicrous to suggest that this not about same-sex marriage. The case presented by Mr Allen QC demonstrates why its about gay marriage and straight marriage, and how both are treated differently by Ashers.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 27 May 15 5.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 5.03pm
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.26pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
Its a sound and reasonable case. The business in question acted unlawfully, and unreasonably, by accepting payment and then rejecting the order. Had they not accepted the order in the first place, then there would be no case. However by breaking contract law, they established that agreement had taken place, and that laws regarding invitation to treat had been met etc. Yawn - once 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. 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. I'm not saying that he sued them under contract law either, but that contract law is applicable in establishing the basis on a clear violation of his rights. Its essential to the case. 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons Which they did. They clearly violated the basis of sexual equality, by refusing to honour a contract on the basis of its relationship to gay marriage, whilst they admitted they would have produced one for straight marriage without question. The contract element is essential for proving they entered into business and then broke a contract on the basis of the gay content. Yes, but they did not discriminate because the anti-Christ Gareth Lee was gay, they discriminated because of the message he wanted on the cake. They would have discriminated against anyone who wanted that message regardless of their sexual tastes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
blind eagle  Covington.Tennessee 27 May 15 5.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pdemeagle at 23 May 2015 10.36pm
Actually the truth is it just shows the enormous difference here between our younger generations and the ones who were so heavily influenced by the Catholic Church ! The Irish under 40 are a much more open minded group than our elders, most of us have little faith in the Church after all the child abuse scandals, the result of this vote is the strong proof of that among other things !
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 May 15 7.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.20pm
jamiemartin721
No, a straight man did not go in and ask for the same cake. That being the case, how does the court judge that they treated Person B (gay rights agitator Gareth Lee) exactly the same as Person A? If, as you say, hypothetical people won't do? If a straight man had gone in and ordered a cake with the same wording,and Ashers made it, gay rights fanatic Lee might have a case. (Personally I would allow a business to serve whom they choose whatever the circumstances.)
By actual examples.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 27 May 15 7.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 5.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 5.03pm
Quote derben at 27 May 2015 2.26pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 May 2015 1.44pm
Its a sound and reasonable case. The business in question acted unlawfully, and unreasonably, by accepting payment and then rejecting the order. Had they not accepted the order in the first place, then there would be no case. However by breaking contract law, they established that agreement had taken place, and that laws regarding invitation to treat had been met etc. Yawn - once 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. 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. I'm not saying that he sued them under contract law either, but that contract law is applicable in establishing the basis on a clear violation of his rights. Its essential to the case. 'on grounds of sexual orientation, person A treats person B less favourably than he treats other persons Which they did. They clearly violated the basis of sexual equality, by refusing to honour a contract on the basis of its relationship to gay marriage, whilst they admitted they would have produced one for straight marriage without question. The contract element is essential for proving they entered into business and then broke a contract on the basis of the gay content. Yes, but they did not discriminate because the anti-Christ Gareth Lee was gay, they discriminated because of the message he wanted on the cake. They would have discriminated against anyone who wanted that message regardless of their sexual tastes. See Martin Allen QC dismissal of the idea that the case is about a person being gay.
"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.