Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 30 of 35 < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 >

cryrst The garden of England 01 Jan 23 4.56pm
Originally posted by MrWhyNot Why should they not put signs in their window if that's what they believe and policies they intend to implement? Is the unacceptable part to you in telling people, of say, a certain race or nationality that they arbitrarily and unreasonably won't be accommodated, rather than actually deciding not to do so? Personally I think the 'general default' of businesses that are very much customer facing and frequently used is that people feel they too will be able to use them. Of course there are situations like this 'message on a cake' one that are more open to interpretation. My point though is that if taken too far, we go back to situations that are clearly unworkable and unreasonable. Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 4.39pm) Firstly I think it was correct about this woman being taken away but private renters can refuse dss. And state in the small print so it is possibly ok to legally discriminate. I mean the state and councils positively discriminate all the time for their ‘quotas’.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 01 Jan 23 4.56pm

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

Why should they not put signs in their window if that's what they believe and policies they intend to implement?

Is the unacceptable part to you in telling people, of say, a certain race or nationality that they arbitrarily and unreasonably won't be accommodated, rather than actually deciding not to do so?

Personally I think the 'general default' of businesses that are very much customer facing and frequently used is that people feel they too will be able to use them. Of course there are situations like this 'message on a cake' one that are more open to interpretation. My point though is that if taken too far, we go back to situations that are clearly unworkable and unreasonable.

Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 4.39pm)

Firstly I think it was correct about this woman being taken away but private renters can refuse dss. And state in the small print so it is possibly ok to legally discriminate. I mean the state and councils positively discriminate all the time for their ‘quotas’.

Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 01 Jan 23 5.18pm
Originally posted by cryrst Firstly I think it was correct about this woman being taken away but private renters can refuse dss. And state in the small print so it is possibly ok to legally discriminate. I mean the state and councils positively discriminate all the time for their ‘quotas’. Thanks for your thoughts. As for the woman, I'm in two minds as I definitely believe that the right to protest should be respected. Some appear to be suggesting it's more of a stunt though, refusing to move from an area and intentionally telling police that she was praying for the specific purpose of getting arrested. It makes sense for clinics to be able to run without constant issues so this may have been something of an intentional 'headline grabber'. As I say though, I do think its important for people to be able to protest as primarily it's only government who benefits from that being further clamped down on.
Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

01 Jan 23 5.18pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Thanks for your thoughts. As for the woman, I'm in two minds as I definitely believe that the right to protest should be respected. Some appear to be suggesting it's more of a stunt though, refusing to move from an area and intentionally telling police that she was praying for the specific purpose of getting arrested. It makes sense for clinics to be able to run without constant issues so this may have been something of an intentional 'headline grabber'. As I say though, I do think its important for people to be able to protest as primarily it's only government who benefits from that being further clamped down on.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 01 Jan 23 5.39pm
Originally posted by cryrst Firstly I think it was correct about this woman being taken away but private renters can refuse dss. And state in the small print so it is possibly ok to legally discriminate. I mean the state and councils positively discriminate all the time for their ‘quotas’. Nobody discriminates, whether positively or not, when that relates to a protected characteristic. Quotas can drive non-discriminatory activities such as placing adverts in media suitable to attract certain types of people or providing support networks for under-represented groups. If putting in place quotas is seen as necessary, almost by definition that is because the organisation historically wasn't welcoming to certain groups, often women. So they are trying to redress an inbalance. This, however, is a red herring. I have literally just written a diversity policy (half an hour ago) so would be happy to debate that if you wish to start a separate thread. As far as I know people looking for housing through the DSS do not have, by definition, a protected characteristic. It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate, just not on the basis of a protected characteristic. For example discrimination against smokers is common. Edited by Mapletree (01 Jan 2023 5.42pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 01 Jan 23 5.39pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Nobody discriminates, whether positively or not, when that relates to a protected characteristic. Quotas can drive non-discriminatory activities such as placing adverts in media suitable to attract certain types of people or providing support networks for under-represented groups. If putting in place quotas is seen as necessary, almost by definition that is because the organisation historically wasn't welcoming to certain groups, often women. So they are trying to redress an inbalance.

This, however, is a red herring. I have literally just written a diversity policy (half an hour ago) so would be happy to debate that if you wish to start a separate thread.

As far as I know people looking for housing through the DSS do not have, by definition, a protected characteristic. It is perfectly acceptable to discriminate, just not on the basis of a protected characteristic. For example discrimination against smokers is common.

Edited by Mapletree (01 Jan 2023 5.42pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 5.39pm
Originally posted by Eden Eagle I seem to remember WE that you suggested in the US Politics thread that Twitter, as a business, were within their rights to decide what content they allowed a nd what they can ban however in this instance you seem to be suggesting that companies cannot have a say in the content? Are you confused or hypocritical? There is no confusion or hypocrisy. The thing you are ignoring is the presence of a discriminatory intention that is unlawful. You are not allowed to discriminate by such as age, sex, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Discriminating by other matters is ok. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 5.39pm

Originally posted by Eden Eagle

I seem to remember WE that you suggested in the US Politics thread that Twitter, as a business, were within their rights to decide what content they allowed a nd what they can ban however in this instance you seem to be suggesting that companies cannot have a say in the content?

Are you confused or hypocritical?

There is no confusion or hypocrisy. The thing you are ignoring is the presence of a discriminatory intention that is unlawful. You are not allowed to discriminate by such as age, sex, colour, religion or sexual orientation. Discriminating by other matters is ok.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 01 Jan 23 5.40pm
Originally posted by MrWhyNot Thanks for your thoughts. As for the woman, I'm in two minds as I definitely believe that the right to protest should be respected. Some appear to be suggesting it's more of a stunt though, refusing to move from an area and intentionally telling police that she was praying for the specific purpose of getting arrested. It makes sense for clinics to be able to run without constant issues so this may have been something of an intentional 'headline grabber'. As I say though, I do think its important for people to be able to protest as primarily it's only government who benefits from that being further clamped down on. As a matter of interest, what is your view on the abortion amendment in the Public Order Bill? It was supported by the overwhelming number of MPs from all parties.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 01 Jan 23 5.40pm

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

As a matter of interest, what is your view on the abortion amendment in the Public Order Bill? It was supported by the overwhelming number of MPs from all parties.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 5.47pm
Originally posted by georgenorman No, they shouldn't put signs in their windows, that would put off trade. They should just turn down anyone they didn't want to do business with. There was guest house in Cornwall that tried to do just that. For religious reasons they. disapproved of homosexuality but knew they couldn’t openly ban it. So they refused double rooms to same sex couples. That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 5.47pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

No, they shouldn't put signs in their windows, that would put off trade. They should just turn down anyone they didn't want to do business with.

There was guest house in Cornwall that tried to do just that. For religious reasons they. disapproved of homosexuality but knew they couldn’t openly ban it. So they refused double rooms to same sex couples.

That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 5.57pm
Originally posted by georgenorman They were charged with discrimination against the gay agitator because he was gay. Clearly, they did not and the Supreme Court agreed that they did not. People and businesses should be able to turn down business whenever they want and, in practice, that is what they do - good job too. If a cleaners turned down washing my shirt I would go elsewhere. If they want to lose business, fine that's their choice. No they weren’t. They were charged with discrimination for refusing to ice a cake with a message they disapproved of. That’s why the law needs clarification. A clever lawyer slipped them through a loophole. It was still illegal discrimination. Discrimination against minorities used to be commonplace. Do you seriously want to go back there? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 5.57pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

They were charged with discrimination against the gay agitator because he was gay. Clearly, they did not and the Supreme Court agreed that they did not.
People and businesses should be able to turn down business whenever they want and, in practice, that is what they do - good job too.
If a cleaners turned down washing my shirt I would go elsewhere. If they want to lose business, fine that's their choice.

No they weren’t. They were charged with discrimination for refusing to ice a cake with a message they disapproved of. That’s why the law needs clarification. A clever lawyer slipped them through a loophole. It was still illegal discrimination.

Discrimination against minorities used to be commonplace. Do you seriously want to go back there?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46 Croydon 01 Jan 23 6.13pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle . That was what they claimed and was the technicality that got them off. They did though refuse to bake a cake because they objected to the message that was requested to be put on it, saying they would have refused to do so whoever requested it. That though is still discriminatory. They bake cakes. Only if they bake their own cake and offer it for sale can they decide what, and what not, can be iced on top. This was not theirs. It was a subcontracted arrangement and as it was only the message they objected to, and neither their clients nor too heavy a work load, they were, in my and many others opinion, breaking the law. That the Supreme Court decided otherwise means that the law now needs clarification. Interesting case this one. The message they refused to put on the cake was ‘support gay marraige.’ If they were gay cake makers and refused to put a message on that said ‘don’t support gay marraige’ would that receive the same level of noise, do you think? Or, would the same people that were so upset at the stance taken by the cake makers be so outraged that someone dare try to get the reverse message on a cake that you’d all be after the people that asked for the message rather than the cake maker? Surely your concern should be with discrimination against any one not just minorities as I believe that the law should be there to protect us all shouldn’t it? Edited by Helmet46 (01 Jan 2023 6.23pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 01 Jan 23 6.13pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That was what they claimed and was the technicality that got them off.

They did though refuse to bake a cake because they objected to the message that was requested to be put on it, saying they would have refused to do so whoever requested it.

That though is still discriminatory. They bake cakes. Only if they bake their own cake and offer it for sale can they decide what, and what not, can be iced on top. This was not theirs. It was a subcontracted arrangement and as it was only the message they objected to, and neither their clients nor too heavy a work load, they were, in my and many others opinion, breaking the law. That the Supreme Court decided otherwise means that the law now needs clarification.

Interesting case this one. The message they refused to put on the cake was ‘support gay marraige.’

If they were gay cake makers and refused to put a message on that said ‘don’t support gay marraige’ would that receive the same level of noise, do you think?

Or, would the same people that were so upset at the stance taken by the cake makers be so outraged that someone dare try to get the reverse message on a cake that you’d all be after the people that asked for the message rather than the cake maker?

Surely your concern should be with discrimination against any one not just minorities as I believe that the law should be there to protect us all shouldn’t it?

Edited by Helmet46 (01 Jan 2023 6.23pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Jan 23 6.17pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There was guest house in Cornwall that tried to do just that. For religious reasons they. disapproved of homosexuality but knew they couldn’t openly ban it. So they refused double rooms to same sex couples. That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business. I remember the case. I don't think that they closed their business, they turned their house into a religious respite centre allowing them to insist that guests abide by their beliefs.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Jan 23 6.17pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business.

I remember the case. I don't think that they closed their business,
they turned their house into a religious respite centre allowing them to insist that guests abide by their beliefs.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Jan 23 6.21pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No they weren’t. They were charged with discrimination for refusing to ice a cake with a message they disapproved of. That’s why the law needs clarification. A clever lawyer slipped them through a loophole. It was still illegal discrimination. Discrimination against minorities used to be commonplace. Do you seriously want to go back there? No they weren't. The gay agitator complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland that he had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation, and the Equality Commission supported him in filing a discrimination lawsuit - which they eventually lost - hurrah.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Jan 23 6.21pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Discrimination against minorities used to be commonplace. Do you seriously want to go back there?

No they weren't.
The gay agitator complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland that he had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation, and the Equality Commission supported him in filing a discrimination lawsuit - which they eventually lost - hurrah.

Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 01 Jan 23 6.30pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There was guest house in Cornwall that tried to do just that. For religious reasons they. disapproved of homosexuality but knew they couldn’t openly ban it. So they refused double rooms to same sex couples. That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business. They were clearly incapable of understanding how to run a business. People should be able to book hotel rooms without detailing their entire life story, race, sexuality, politics, whatever. If you then arrive and they arbitrary refuse to honour the booking made or demand to know the relationship of those sharing a room that is unworkable. Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 6.31pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

01 Jan 23 6.30pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That ended in a Court case which they lost. They refused to change so had to close their business.

They were clearly incapable of understanding how to run a business. People should be able to book hotel rooms without detailing their entire life story, race, sexuality, politics, whatever. If you then arrive and they arbitrary refuse to honour the booking made or demand to know the relationship of those sharing a room that is unworkable.

Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 6.31pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Jan 23 6.37pm
Originally posted by georgenorman No they weren't. The gay agitator complained to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland that he had been directly discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation, and the Equality Commission supported him in filing a discrimination lawsuit - which they eventually lost - hurrah. Indeed, it was activism from the very start. They tried to ruin people of conscience, awful people. '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

01 Jan 23 6.37pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

Indeed, it was activism from the very start.

They tried to ruin people of conscience, awful people.

'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 30 of 35 < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors