This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Weatherspoons fined for banning p*****
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
derben  21 May 15 10.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TUX at 21 May 2015 10.09pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. Hopefully you never find yourself needing a cab..................with your four legged 'eyes'. How do these guys deal with the poo? Presumably they are excused pooper scoopers and associated bags etc?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
. | imbored UK 21 May 15 10.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. You have to say that now don't you else your argument is essentially non existent. Of course, if the thread had actually been about a Muslim taxi driver refusing the fare of a blind man to begin with you'd have been all over it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 21 May 15 10.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. You have to say that now don't you else your argument is essentially non existent. Of course, if the thread had actually been about a Muslim taxi driver refusing the fare of a blind man to begin with you'd have been all over it. No, I am merely consistent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 21 May 15 10.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.26pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. You have to say that now don't you else your argument is essentially non existent. Of course, if the thread had actually been about a Muslim taxi driver refusing the fare of a blind man to begin with you'd have been all over it. No, I am merely consistent. Then we're sliding back towards the days of the 'no blacks' signs I'm afraid, as that too squarely falls under the umbrella of what you've deemed acceptable. I'd rather not personally. A business is there to serve the public, not for taxi drivers to boot blind people out of taxis, or for cake designers to refuse to design 'gay' cakes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 21 May 15 10.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.19pm
Quote TUX at 21 May 2015 10.09pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. Hopefully you never find yourself needing a cab..................with your four legged 'eyes'. How do these guys deal with the poo? Presumably they are excused pooper scoopers and associated bags etc? Maybe you should help carry the bags to the bin before sending them on their long walk home?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 22 May 15 7.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.33pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.26pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.24pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. You have to say that now don't you else your argument is essentially non existent. Of course, if the thread had actually been about a Muslim taxi driver refusing the fare of a blind man to begin with you'd have been all over it. No, I am merely consistent. Then we're sliding back towards the days of the 'no blacks' signs I'm afraid, as that too squarely falls under the umbrella of what you've deemed acceptable. I'd rather not personally. A business is there to serve the public, not for taxi drivers to boot blind people out of taxis, or for cake designers to refuse to design 'gay' cakes.
It is about the freedom of individuals to conduct their lives and businesses with whom they choose.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 22 May 15 7.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 10.39pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.19pm
Quote TUX at 21 May 2015 10.09pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 10.00pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 7.08pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.59pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.54pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.48pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 6.11pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.57pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.53pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 5.33pm
Quote imbored at 21 May 2015 5.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.28pm
Quote derben at 21 May 2015 4.24pm
Just picking a town at random to try this out - how about Brighton? Or we could just be reasonable human beings and get along, follow the law, and maybe take more interest in what we do, rather than object to what other people choose to do. But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.
Of course we are not discussing 'No Blacks' signs. We are discussing Christians having to go against their beliefs to pander to a view of a minority (to have same sex marriage) in a province where the authorities there have repeatedly voted against such arrangements. Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable. Which religions in Northern Ireland are against hosting or serving black people? The bakery people did serve the gay activist (as they had done several times in the past). They merely declined to promote an arrangement that has no legality in Northern Ireland. Edited by derben (21 May 2015 5.58pm) By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course. Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality? Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm) I've no idea what you first paragraph is supposed to mean. I think the guest house case you quote was wrong in that the people had turned up after booking, so should not have been turned away. However, if they turned up on spec, I think the guest house should have the right to refuse anyone they like. It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter. Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm) I still don't know what you are on about with the 'racial' issue - what racial issue, we were discussing a gay cake and then guesthouses. As for "you have a problem with 'No Blacks' etc - what on earth are you going on about? Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.
According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle. Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".
All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case. As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions. If you're happy for a Christian business to refuse to decorate a 'gay cake' on religious grounds, you're happy for a Muslim business to say 'sorry boss, no guidedogs, it's against my religion'. This 'fiasco' doesn't exist in isolation and laws aren't so specific that they solely relate to 'gay cakes'. Hope this helps. Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 7.15pm) If the taxi driver kicked anyone, then he should be charged with assault. As for refusing a fare, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do that. Hopefully you never find yourself needing a cab..................with your four legged 'eyes'. How do these guys deal with the poo? Presumably they are excused pooper scoopers and associated bags etc? Maybe you should help carry the bags to the bin before sending them on their long walk home?
You would think that if they can train a dog to guide someone around, they could train it to defecate in specially designed designated areas, we could build one every 100 yards throughout the entire country. In fact I'm surprised that such a proposal was not in the Green manifesto.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 npn Crowborough 22 May 15 8.05am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 21 May 2015 4.25pm
You not forced to change your views, you are however required to adhere to laws governing the provision of paid services and goods, which stipulate you cannot discriminate or refuse people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Just like you can't refuse to sell or provided services to people because their black, female or Christian.
If the gay guy had asked for a cake which said "happy birthday Cecil" I'm sure it would have been happily provided. If a straight person had asked for a cake promoting gay marriage, they would also have been declined. If the straight and the gay are treated in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, then how can anyone have been discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality or anything else? Edited by npn (22 May 2015 8.05am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 9.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
I fail to see the difference between having " to follow the law" and being forced to do things against your moral compass or religion, as I stated before no one would force a Muslim or a Jew to eat Pork, so why should a devot Christian be made to make a cake that goes against his religious teachings. Because that's how society works. The law forces people to do things that they may not agree with. Having spent a large part of my life on the side of the law (as a drug user) I can confirm that its not fair. At least in this case the law exists in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. Its special snowflakes I'm afraid, people who can't handle the fact that other people have the same rights. You also can't break a constract because 'Christian Messages' go against your beliefs. Once you're engaged in a contract you are bound by that contract. Also Gay Marriage is not a Christian issue, as the law specifically allows the right of religious organizations to not be bound to conduct gay weddings and marriages, if they don't want to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Whether you agree with the religious aspect of it Jamie is immaterial. The fact remains The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Ah yes, the classic pick and choose. Well how comes that part of Leviticus is widely touted, but the rest of it largely rejected. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
So again whether you agree with it or not is not the question I'm asking, I'm asking why is it different to shops having to comply with Muslim and Jewish Laws on how meat is slaughtered ? They don't have to. Meat producers tend towards using Halal meat because its cheaper to produce one kind of product, than go to market with lots. Its an economy of scale, and lets face it people are unlikely to pay more for non-Halal meat. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Essentially the Koran says eating pork is wrong. So does the bible (Deuteronomy), and yet Christians everywhere are eat pork. Maybe they should get their own house in order, before demanding the right to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
The bible says (or strongly hints at) god disapproving of homosexuality, and yet when a follower of Christianity put his foot down, he gets legally and no doubt financially penalised. No, when they break the law of contract, they're penalized. They didn't have to enter into a contract, but you cannot break a contract based on the fact you don't like what you've committed to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
what’s the difference, one set of laws is upheld the other classed as being discriminatory. Their rights were not violated, you cannot break a contract because you change your mind, you are bound by it. You don't have to enter into a contract, but when you do you are bound by it. Even if you stupidly engage in a contract that violates your principles. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Hopefully you see my point. I do, and they aren't forced in any way to break their beliefs. What they cannot do is break that contract, their rights end at the point where a contract is engaged in. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
As to the tail wagging the dog, how’s this then. I was in the queue at MacDonald’s in Croydon, a young black girl was in front saying she was going to get loads of free food and “to watch and learn the white boys fear” immediately as she got to the front of the queue, she screamed out “you f***in racist give me my food just because I’m black you went to serve the whitebread women first,” que some poor sod getting a pasting of his manager and girl walking off with a free meal, while all the other laughed at her. People have to stand up for their rights, as exhibited in the actual case above. The manager is c**t, who failed his staff, for an easy option. Alternatively he could have called her bluff, and not served her. If you don't stand up for your rights, what do people expect. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
That IS tail wagging the dog, I said to the manager after the bloke who served her said nothing of the sort, …his reply ….it’s just not worth the hassle. That's not the tail wagging the dog, that's just someone being callow and weak. I've managed stores before, never would have accepted that. She'd have been ejected and banned, regardless of whether she was black. F**k the hassle, no way she would have sued, and if she had, I'd have counter-sued for the effects of her accusations on my staff and business.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 22 May 15 10.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 9.43am
Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
I fail to see the difference between having " to follow the law" and being forced to do things against your moral compass or religion, as I stated before no one would force a Muslim or a Jew to eat Pork, so why should a devot Christian be made to make a cake that goes against his religious teachings. Because that's how society works. The law forces people to do things that they may not agree with. Having spent a large part of my life on the side of the law (as a drug user) I can confirm that its not fair. At least in this case the law exists in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. Its special snowflakes I'm afraid, people who can't handle the fact that other people have the same rights. You also can't break a constract because 'Christian Messages' go against your beliefs. Once you're engaged in a contract you are bound by that contract. Also Gay Marriage is not a Christian issue, as the law specifically allows the right of religious organizations to not be bound to conduct gay weddings and marriages, if they don't want to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Whether you agree with the religious aspect of it Jamie is immaterial. The fact remains The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Ah yes, the classic pick and choose. Well how comes that part of Leviticus is widely touted, but the rest of it largely rejected. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
So again whether you agree with it or not is not the question I'm asking, I'm asking why is it different to shops having to comply with Muslim and Jewish Laws on how meat is slaughtered ? They don't have to. Meat producers tend towards using Halal meat because its cheaper to produce one kind of product, than go to market with lots. Its an economy of scale, and lets face it people are unlikely to pay more for non-Halal meat. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Essentially the Koran says eating pork is wrong. So does the bible (Deuteronomy), and yet Christians everywhere are eat pork. Maybe they should get their own house in order, before demanding the right to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
The bible says (or strongly hints at) god disapproving of homosexuality, and yet when a follower of Christianity put his foot down, he gets legally and no doubt financially penalised. No, when they break the law of contract, they're penalized. They didn't have to enter into a contract, but you cannot break a contract based on the fact you don't like what you've committed to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
what’s the difference, one set of laws is upheld the other classed as being discriminatory. Their rights were not violated, you cannot break a contract because you change your mind, you are bound by it. You don't have to enter into a contract, but when you do you are bound by it. Even if you stupidly engage in a contract that violates your principles. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Hopefully you see my point. I do, and they aren't forced in any way to break their beliefs. What they cannot do is break that contract, their rights end at the point where a contract is engaged in. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
As to the tail wagging the dog, how’s this then. I was in the queue at MacDonald’s in Croydon, a young black girl was in front saying she was going to get loads of free food and “to watch and learn the white boys fear” immediately as she got to the front of the queue, she screamed out “you f***in racist give me my food just because I’m black you went to serve the whitebread women first,” que some poor sod getting a pasting of his manager and girl walking off with a free meal, while all the other laughed at her. People have to stand up for their rights, as exhibited in the actual case above. The manager is c**t, who failed his staff, for an easy option. Alternatively he could have called her bluff, and not served her. If you don't stand up for your rights, what do people expect. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
That IS tail wagging the dog, I said to the manager after the bloke who served her said nothing of the sort, …his reply ….it’s just not worth the hassle. That's not the tail wagging the dog, that's just someone being callow and weak. I've managed stores before, never would have accepted that. She'd have been ejected and banned, regardless of whether she was black. F**k the hassle, no way she would have sued, and if she had, I'd have counter-sued for the effects of her accusations on my staff and business.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 15 10.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 22 May 2015 10.15am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 May 2015 9.43am
Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
I fail to see the difference between having " to follow the law" and being forced to do things against your moral compass or religion, as I stated before no one would force a Muslim or a Jew to eat Pork, so why should a devot Christian be made to make a cake that goes against his religious teachings. Because that's how society works. The law forces people to do things that they may not agree with. Having spent a large part of my life on the side of the law (as a drug user) I can confirm that its not fair. At least in this case the law exists in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. Its special snowflakes I'm afraid, people who can't handle the fact that other people have the same rights. You also can't break a constract because 'Christian Messages' go against your beliefs. Once you're engaged in a contract you are bound by that contract. Also Gay Marriage is not a Christian issue, as the law specifically allows the right of religious organizations to not be bound to conduct gay weddings and marriages, if they don't want to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Whether you agree with the religious aspect of it Jamie is immaterial. The fact remains The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often; but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look. Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Ah yes, the classic pick and choose. Well how comes that part of Leviticus is widely touted, but the rest of it largely rejected. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
So again whether you agree with it or not is not the question I'm asking, I'm asking why is it different to shops having to comply with Muslim and Jewish Laws on how meat is slaughtered ? They don't have to. Meat producers tend towards using Halal meat because its cheaper to produce one kind of product, than go to market with lots. Its an economy of scale, and lets face it people are unlikely to pay more for non-Halal meat. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Essentially the Koran says eating pork is wrong. So does the bible (Deuteronomy), and yet Christians everywhere are eat pork. Maybe they should get their own house in order, before demanding the right to dictate what non-Christians can and cannot do. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
The bible says (or strongly hints at) god disapproving of homosexuality, and yet when a follower of Christianity put his foot down, he gets legally and no doubt financially penalised. No, when they break the law of contract, they're penalized. They didn't have to enter into a contract, but you cannot break a contract based on the fact you don't like what you've committed to. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
what’s the difference, one set of laws is upheld the other classed as being discriminatory. Their rights were not violated, you cannot break a contract because you change your mind, you are bound by it. You don't have to enter into a contract, but when you do you are bound by it. Even if you stupidly engage in a contract that violates your principles. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
Hopefully you see my point. I do, and they aren't forced in any way to break their beliefs. What they cannot do is break that contract, their rights end at the point where a contract is engaged in. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
As to the tail wagging the dog, how’s this then. I was in the queue at MacDonald’s in Croydon, a young black girl was in front saying she was going to get loads of free food and “to watch and learn the white boys fear” immediately as she got to the front of the queue, she screamed out “you f***in racist give me my food just because I’m black you went to serve the whitebread women first,” que some poor sod getting a pasting of his manager and girl walking off with a free meal, while all the other laughed at her. People have to stand up for their rights, as exhibited in the actual case above. The manager is c**t, who failed his staff, for an easy option. Alternatively he could have called her bluff, and not served her. If you don't stand up for your rights, what do people expect. Quote dannyh at 21 May 2015 3.51pm
That IS tail wagging the dog, I said to the manager after the bloke who served her said nothing of the sort, …his reply ….it’s just not worth the hassle. That's not the tail wagging the dog, that's just someone being callow and weak. I've managed stores before, never would have accepted that. She'd have been ejected and banned, regardless of whether she was black. F**k the hassle, no way she would have sued, and if she had, I'd have counter-sued for the effects of her accusations on my staff and business.
I would - I'd have my staff and customers like Dannyh as a witness. Evidence is still what wins court cases, no matter what the right wing knicker wetters like to think. Especially when it comes to an appeal.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 22 May 15 10.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
jamie you are hiding behind law and business contracts. The fact of the case are this. Man ownes cake shop. Man is penalised for his religious beliefs. No matter what way you try and spin it Jamie "Alistair Campbell" Martin that picture is wrong and hypocritical, look at this way, one of the July 7th bombers escaped through airport security dressed in a Burqa. he wasnt made to remove it to be indentified for fear of upsetting the apple cart. That was a matter of national security FFS. And this guy wouldnt bake a cake, sweet Jesus how can you possibley defend the action of prosicuting the shop owner. And what about the Gay guy ? just use another shop you attention seeking queen, why has every minority feel the righht to walk around with this massive persicution complex. Man the f*** up and stop moaning.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| 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.