Rizlable is very very good, even more so as you may be unaware but I smoke roll ups.

I’m not comparing this woman’s arrest with racism in the United States just to be clear, merely an ambiguous application of the law - the practice. I thought that was already quite clear and I’d appreciate the avoidance of obfuscating my point and provoking hysteria by suggesting I am. You have stated that ‘praying in the head was not thought of’ which is fair enough on the law makers behalf but the enforcers can’t just then change, adapt or make up the law to suit aims, which is inferred. That is unless of course the ideology to which they are subservient requires them to achieve aims by whatever means.

You don’t have to ‘keep on saying this’ as I have grasped your point, you have not grasped mine. ‘Tis I who has to ‘keep saying’, I’ve repeated myself several times now. The irony of being arrested for not doing something ‘voluntarily’ is of course hilarious. Your argument is still contingent on what is technically legal and why it is justified, subjectively. Mine is that whilst it may be the case, I do not believe this is an appropriate application of the law, or even appropriate legislation (banning prayer has to be ‘WTF’), very different things. Please grasp that. I could provide a ridiculous yet helpful example if necessary?

I am seeing this as you unwilling to accept anything other than my bowing to your every word and thought. I’m not actually arguing against much you’ve said really, but you have failed to address my particular focus and I am inclined to believe this is due to your emotional connection to the abortion issue, which I have not even commented on yet (methinks).

I’ll therefore leave it at that and even if this has irked me, and if you seek to claim some sort of victory over this exchange, I’ll wish you nothing but a joyous celebration of the new year, joyous revelry in a much needed Palace win and all the best going forward.

Oh ffs, she was breaking the law, she knew she was breaking the law,that was the whole point of what she was doing and has been doing for the last 20 years. How difficult is it to grasp this simple fact?

It was a ridiculous manufactured case despite all the misinformation that activists put out, it actually came down to one simple thing.

Does a member of the public have a right to demand that a place of business put out a slogan supporting a political POV that they disagreed with. The shop owners were quite happy to make a cake with the usual slogans e.g. Happy birthday... and to sell it knowingly to a gay man.

If that decision had stood then a Nazi would have been entitled to go into a black or Jewish owned shop and order god knows what.

The whole thing was a setup from the start the activist targetted that shop knowing the Christian views of the owners.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Jan 2023 8.22am)

It was a ridiculous manufactured case despite all the misinformation that activists put out, it actually came down to one simple thing.

Does a member of the public have a right to demand that a place of business put out a slogan supporting a political POV that they disagreed with. The shop owners were quite happy to make a cake with the usual slogans e.g. Happy birthday... and to sell it knowingly to a gay man.

If that decision had stood then a Nazi would have been entitled to go into a black or Jewish owned shop and order god knows what.

The whole thing was a setup from the start the activist targetted that shop knowing the Christian views of the owners.

Edited by Badger11 (01 Jan 2023 8.22am)

She was a known protestor protesting in a place she knew she was banned from protesting in. The form the protest takes is immaterial, doesn't matter if it was praying or interpretive dance, she knew as soon as she was within 100mtrs of the place she ran the risk of being arrested, that was the whole point of this sorry little charade.