I've just seen that the Christian B&B owners in Cornwall who turned away a gay couple have had their case at the Supreme Court turned down. BBC report here.
Is anyone bothered about this? I'm a Christian - evangelical-ish but not sure where I stand personally on what God things about same-sex, um, sex; but strongly liberal in that I think the state shouldn't treat people differently based upon the gender of their partner. So I think it's absolutely right that this the B&B owners lost their case, and I rather liked what Stonewall said in their statement:
'Some might suggest that, rather than pursuing this case, a far more Christian thing to do would be to fight the evils of poverty and disease worldwide.'
The majority judgment given by Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC is absolutely bonkers for the reasons given by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC in his dissent. The case was clearly one of indirect rather than direct discrimination. The approach of the Court of Appeal and the majority of the Supreme Court is deeply flawed.
I've just seen that the Christian B&B owners in Cornwall who turned away a gay couple have had their case at the Supreme Court turned down. BBC report here.
Is anyone bothered about this? I'm a Christian - evangelical-ish but not sure where I stand personally on what God things about same-sex, um, sex; but strongly liberal in that I think the state shouldn't treat people differently based upon the gender of their partner. So I think it's absolutely right that this the B&B owners lost their case, and I rather liked what Stonewall said in their statement:
'Some might suggest that, rather than pursuing this case, a far more Christian thing to do would be to fight the evils of poverty and disease worldwide.'
The majority judgment given by Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC is absolutely bonkers for the reasons given by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC in his dissent. The case was clearly one of indirect rather than direct discrimination. The approach of the Court of Appeal and the majority of the Supreme Court is deeply flawed.
I feel a bit sorry for them in a way I wouldn't for a younger couple.
The Lightning went into service in 1954 IIRC. Various versions were in service for over 50 years. No doubt there are experts on here who can put me right as to whether this was basically the same plane or completely different varients.
What is clear, I think, is that WW2 and Korea gave a fantastic lift to military aircraft design which was not really matched until the American super budgets of the 80s produced stealth technology.
Really? Without turning this into planespotters-r-us, the Lightning was introduced into service in 1959, and last retired from Saudi use in 1986 and RAF in 1988. I'm not sure any were flying in service after that date. Therefore less than 30 years.
Also, the US were investing in stealth from the mid-1970s; the Have Blue prototype first flew in 1977, and the F117 Stealth Fighter in 1981. Therefore it was well before Reagan's military spending ramp.
I saw a TV program the other day which had a Lightning in the South African Air Force. Looks like it was quite recent, it featured Brian Cox (ah, Wikipedia you're my friend. Filmed in 2009, the aircraft crashed soon afterwards).
They are preserved planes, and not in active service (as far as I'm aware they do not belong to the SAAF). South Africa has some rather interesting aviation laws which mean that classic aircraft can be flown cheaply.
If you go by that measure, than the Spitfire and Lancaster are still in service as they are flying with the BBMF, and the Meteor as two are in use by Martin-Baker.
I've just seen that the Christian B&B owners in Cornwall who turned away a gay couple have had their case at the Supreme Court turned down. BBC report here.
Is anyone bothered about this? I'm a Christian - evangelical-ish but not sure where I stand personally on what God things about same-sex, um, sex; but strongly liberal in that I think the state shouldn't treat people differently based upon the gender of their partner. So I think it's absolutely right that this the B&B owners lost their case, and I rather liked what Stonewall said in their statement:
'Some might suggest that, rather than pursuing this case, a far more Christian thing to do would be to fight the evils of poverty and disease worldwide.'
I agree with the outcome but I completely disagree with you about Stonewall's smug and sanctimonious pronouncement which had nothing to do with the substance of the case.
Does anyone know if they banned non-heterosexual couples?
Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin".
The Bulls denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, who are from Bristol.
Sixty-nine-year-old Mrs Bull and her 74-year-old husband said their decision was founded on a "religiously-informed judgment of conscience".
The judgment of the Supreme Court is availiable for anyone to read at their leisure (see Bull v Hall[2013] UKSC 73). The court also helpfully publishes a summary for the media.
They argued their policy of restricting double beds to married couples in accordance with their religious beliefs was not directed at sexual orientation but sexual practice.
Mr. Eagles, that's an interesting point you raise.
On IQ: it's not a measure of intelligence. It's meant to be, but it is a long way from perfect. I'm not saying it's useless, just that it's not actually a properly scientific measure of intelligence.
Mind you, the use of IQ as a measure of intelligence is a thousand times more accurate and less aggravating than the idiots who think a polygraph is actually a lie-detector...
I'm sure they turned away heterosexual unmarried couples and demanded to see marriage certificates, wouldn't like to think they were lying would we.
Read the judgment. As Baroness Hale of Richmond states (at [17]): '[t]hey have applied exactly the same policy to unmarried opposite sex couples.' So your speculation, which impugns the character of the appellants, runs contrary to a finding of fact made by a court of law.
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The hoteliers do seem to have their religious beliefs rather deeply embedded in their business:
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The hoteliers do seem to have their religious beliefs rather deeply embedded in their business:
If I understand this correctly, if gay marriage becomes legal (and all civil partnerships are converted to married status), they would be allowed to discriminate.
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The hoteliers do seem to have their religious beliefs rather deeply embedded in their business:
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The hoteliers do seem to have their religious beliefs rather deeply embedded in their business:
A computer game about cricket reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon where he is reading a golf game manual. "So you are reading a book about a simulation of an activity that is not quite a sport?"
Happy Thanksgiving to all US based lurkers / posters.
Watching the Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade - singers and dancers from all the Broadway shows doing their thing in the street outside Macys in NYC, in their skimpy show costumes, with the temperature several degrees below freezing.
But it's still 6 degrees warmer there than it is here, 1,000 miles south. Life's not fair.
So we have the BoE pulling FLS due to worries about a housing bubble while Osborne tries to stoke a housing bubble through HTB.
Has the Boy Osborne mistimed again?
They haven't pulled it, it is continuing as previously announced until the 31st December. The announcement is about whether they would extend it beyond that date, which they are doing for business loans but not for housing loans:
I know it's a disappointment for you, you were hoping they'd over-do it and bring about a catastrophic boom, but the the Boy and the Guvnor are, very sensibly, easing back well in advance of any problems occurring. The measures seem to be working, the housing market is beginning slowly to return to normal outside London and house building is moving again.
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The hoteliers do seem to have their religious beliefs rather deeply embedded in their business:
If I understand this correctly, if gay marriage becomes legal (and all civil partnerships are converted to married status), they would be allowed to discriminate.
That seems to be the logical conclusion, I agree. But marital status is a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act so you'd need 'objective justification' (is that the phrase in the Act?) to discriminate based on whether or not someone was married, in the same way as you would if you wanted to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Right?
Going back to AndyJS's comment, maybe Stonewall's comment (that 'a far more Christian thing to do would be to fight the evils of poverty and disease worldwide.') was a bit smug and sanctimonious, but I still think they're right!
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The Court of Appeal's judgment, given by Rafferty LJ, was at best inept. As the President points out, the case is not analogous to James v Eastleigh Borough Council because there is not an exact correspondence between the criterion for discrimination and the protected characteristic. The approach of the majority is simply intellectually incoherent.
"Indicators point to further house price rises in the near term" - heading back to pre-crisis levels: pic.twitter.com/jULtVtuAOK
Yes, there has been some modest price recovery following a period of slump (London is different, of course, but the factors there are largely independent of any UK government action).
You seem to think any price rise is an unsustainable boom, when it's actually a modest correction after a period of near-collapse in many areas of the country. The government and Bank of England are acting to ensure the market remains on a sensible course, steering between deflation and inflation, both of which can be very damaging.
I would have preferred Stonewall to have spent their time and money campaigning against something like FGM rather than targetting a rather old-fashioned couple running a B&B.
I would have preferred Stonewall to have spent their time and money campaigning against something like FGM rather than targetting a rather old-fashioned couple running a B&B.
What has female genital mutilation got particularly to do with lesbians and gay men?
I disapprove of it strongly, but asking Stonewall to take a lead on it is like asking the NSPCC to campaign about the treatment of the autistic.
I would have preferred Stonewall to have spent their time and money campaigning against something like FGM rather than targetting a rather old-fashioned couple running a B&B.
House prices on the march, according to the BoE's Financial Stability Report... pic.twitter.com/wIlRGFHz81
James Plunkett @jamestplunkett 5m Sentences to read from behind the sofa, courtesy of the Bank's new financial stability report: pic.twitter.com/cOp2dg9a28
Those sentences translated mean a) the banks are still chokka with toxic mortgage assets that haven't yet been transferred to the public via QE and b) a lot of households are clinging to the edge of a cliff by their fingertips so c) anything that rocks the boat, like raising interest rates or rebooting the housing bubble, before all those toxic assets have been transferred to the public (so the public take the loss when the hose prices eventually crash) could end up causing the banks to collapse again.
I'd agree that not long after Wednesday's problems (and perhaps in some ways they were a bit of a canary in the coal mine) it became pretty clear that football is a bad bet as a business proposition - the rewards at the top of the game mean that the incentive to overspend is too great, and if a few clubs do it (some with sugar daddies assistance) then others have to to compete or you're left in an even worse position - relegation and even greater reduced income.
However at that particular point in football's history we were at a strange nexus - the days of owners being altruistic custodians had gone and it was obvious that some people were going to make some serious money as the game realised its worth to TV and sponsorship, but it hadn't quite got to the point though that it had become clear that it was a mug's game and that:
a) Most of the money coming in would go just as quickly out through increased wages as players gained power and clubs spent all they could to move up and gain greater riches, and
b) the real money was only going to go to a few clubs at the top and more lowly clubs wouldn't be able to compete without huge injections of cash either through borrowing or investment.
Now you'd be mad to invest in football, but those who'd invested in clubs who came out of that era as successes made millions. Just look at the Arsenal shareholders who when selling up to Kroenke made an absolute mint (After the George Graham scandal in the 90s Arsenal were struggling in mid-table and without Wenger might have slid into mediocrity or worse) .
If something like Financial Fair Play, or a wage and transfer cap as an element of turnover had been introduced then, then football could have worked as a business as you'd have had the riches coming in without the endless need for them to go out the other end. There would also have been an incentive towards good business practice as that would've been the best way to increase your turnover and therefore playing budget.
Alas, there was too much money to be made and people were either greedy and stupid or greedy and smart, and now FFP been introduced the gaps in income are so great that it will make no difference whatsoever or entrench a bad system.
It's a work event: he's hosting it in his capacity as PM.
One might think that part of Cameron's work as a UK pm was to preserve the UK, he certainly likes to give that impression. However I accept that his heart isn't really in it, and he's not very good at it.
Salmond has done far more to preserve the UK this week than anyone.
You'll be willing to bet on a big surge for No in the next independence poll then?
I'm not particularly interested in the next poll; it's the one next year that counts. Following that launch, I'm now pretty certain that No will win comfortably. I'll explain why in detail on Saturday.
It's a work event: he's hosting it in his capacity as PM.
One might think that part of Cameron's work as a UK pm was to preserve the UK, he certainly likes to give that impression. However I accept that his heart isn't really in it, and he's not very good at it.
Salmond has done far more to preserve the UK this week than anyone.
You'll be willing to bet on a big surge for No in the next independence poll then?
I'm not particularly interested in the next poll; it's the one next year that counts. Following that launch, I'm now pretty certain that No will win comfortably. I'll explain why in detail on Saturday.
David, do you discuss what you think might happen after a 'No' result?
I admit, it's very unlikely that a heterosexual couple would want to stay at Hamilton Hall or Chapz.
More interesting is the complete intellectual confusion which took hold of the political class on the subject of whether religious organisations should be compelled to offer same-sex marriages. If it is unlawful to discriminate directly on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, it is entirely illogical that certain providers should be exempted in respect of some services (but not others) because they hold an irrational belief. Yet politicians were arguing that it was a virtue of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 that religious organisations had been exempted.
"Indicators point to further house price rises in the near term" - heading back to pre-crisis levels: pic.twitter.com/jULtVtuAOK
Yes, there has been some modest price recovery following a period of slump (London is different, of course, but the factors there are largely independent of any UK government action).
You seem to think any price rise is an unsustainable boom, when it's actually a modest correction after a period of near-collapse in many areas of the country. The government and Bank of England are acting to ensure the market remains on a sensible course, steering between deflation and inflation, both of which can be very damaging.
Clearly there's a massive boom in the housing market. That'll be why four months after we put the house on the market, and about six weeks after we cut the asking price by about 7%, we've finally been advised by the estate agents of the first viewing of it having been booked.
Those sentences translated mean a) the banks are still chokka with toxic mortgage assets that haven't yet been transferred to the public via QE and b) a lot of households are clinging to the edge of a cliff by their fingertips so c) anything that rocks the boat, like raising interest rates or rebooting the housing bubble, before all those toxic assets have been transferred to the public (so the public take the loss when the hose prices eventually crash) could end up causing the banks to collapse again.
It's a work event: he's hosting it in his capacity as PM.
One might think that part of Cameron's work as a UK pm was to preserve the UK, he certainly likes to give that impression. However I accept that his heart isn't really in it, and he's not very good at it.
Salmond has done far more to preserve the UK this week than anyone.
You'll be willing to bet on a big surge for No in the next independence poll then?
I'm not particularly interested in the next poll; it's the one next year that counts. Following that launch, I'm now pretty certain that No will win comfortably. I'll explain why in detail on Saturday.
David, do you discuss what you think might happen after a 'No' result?
I don't know; I haven't written the piece yet. I usually try to write a 500-700 word piece on a 1500-2000 word subject so there are always aspects missing, with the objective of opening up discussion for the thread.
I thought Martin Kettle's article on Scottish independence was very astute. There are two battlegrounds: process and vision. The Yes campaign are losing miserably on the process battleground and winning comfortably on the vision battleground.
I see this as a hierarchy of wants, so you don't get onto the vision ground properly until you've dealt with the process questions adequately. By and large, the white paper has not done that (and indeed may set new hares running by dealing superficially with some matters that can be pawed at further).
I therefore expect Yes to lose next year. However, the No camp should not be complacent. And even if the referendum is defeated as I expect, if the nationalists can regroup after that and can come up with clearer answers to the process questions, a future referendum might well produce a very different result. The absence of a clear unionist vision for Scotland's future is a big weakness.
It's a work event: he's hosting it in his capacity as PM.
One might think that part of Cameron's work as a UK pm was to preserve the UK, he certainly likes to give that impression. However I accept that his heart isn't really in it, and he's not very good at it.
Salmond has done far more to preserve the UK this week than anyone.
You'll be willing to bet on a big surge for No in the next independence poll then?
I'm not particularly interested in the next poll; it's the one next year that counts. Following that launch, I'm now pretty certain that No will win comfortably. I'll explain why in detail on Saturday.
Ooh battle of The PB Tories.
I'm writing a thread for tomorrow on how yes might win.
Does anyone know if they banned non-heterosexual couples?
Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin".
The Bulls denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, who are from Bristol.
Sixty-nine-year-old Mrs Bull and her 74-year-old husband said their decision was founded on a "religiously-informed judgment of conscience".
The judgment of the Supreme Court is availiable for anyone to read at their leisure (see Bull v Hall[2013] UKSC 73). The court also helpfully publishes a summary for the media.
Their conclusion that this was direct discrimination is based upon the idea that a civil partnership is a marriage and therefore different from non-married heterosexual couples. The refusal to recognised their "marriage" made this direct discrimination of a gay couple.
Whether they are right to assert such an equivalence at the time of the incident this surely will be right when gay marriage comes into force.
There has to be a suspicion that their willingness to regard this as direct was non unconected with the very much more complicated issues that would arise if it was indrect and a justification was possible.
I thought Martin Kettle's article on Scottish independence was very astute. There are two battlegrounds: process and vision. The Yes campaign are losing miserably on the process battleground and winning comfortably on the vision battleground.
I see this as a hierarchy of wants, so you don't get onto the vision ground properly until you've dealt with the process questions adequately. By and large, the white paper has not done that (and indeed may set new hares running by dealing superficially with some matters that can be pawed at further).
I therefore expect Yes to lose next year. However, the No camp should not be complacent. And even if the referendum is defeated as I expect, if the nationalists can regroup after that and can come up with clearer answers to the process questions, a future referendum might well produce a very different result. The absence of a clear unionist vision for Scotland's future is a big weakness.
An excellent post.
My current impression seems to mirror yours: a no win next year, but with a great deal of discontentment which may lead to a second referendum.
@marktheowl : I bow to your superior knowledge of both Sheffield Wednesday and football generally.
I therefore expect Yes to lose next year. However, the No camp should not be complacent. And even if the referendum is defeated as I expect, if the nationalists can regroup after that and can come up with clearer answers to the process questions, a future referendum might well produce a very different result. The absence of a clear unionist vision for Scotland's future is a big weakness.
I'm not sure the unionists need a 'vision'; they just need to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. In fact, they hardly even need to do that, since the SNP are doing the job for them.
I think I'd put it the other way round: the White Paper showed a curious lack of vision of the independence movement. It was very odd that it put so much emphasis on routine day-to-day measures like child care, benefits payments and pensions; it read like a particularly pie-in-the-sky election manifesto rather than presenting a vision for an independent nation. It was basically a series of uncosted bribes, of a sort which a devolved (or certainly Devo-Max) government could largely do anyway if the money was there. That was an odd strategy because it puts the argument onto non-visionary ground, reducing it to a battle of competing counter-claims on the detail. In such a battle, the status quo is hard to beat.
I concur, though, with your general take that a Yes vote is rather unlikely but far from impossible.
I thought Martin Kettle's article on Scottish independence was very astute. There are two battlegrounds: process and vision. The Yes campaign are losing miserably on the process battleground and winning comfortably on the vision battleground.
Agree - its one of the best bits of commentary that sets out reasons why 'Yes' may win, without invoking 'no one saw 2011 coming' or the 'magic ground war'.
The 'No' campaign is rational - a lot of 'whataboutery' - the 'Yes' campaign an appeal to the emotions - 'see the sunlit uplands of a social democratic Scotland' - and as such, could still swing it, if it can get the debate onto its terms.
That the defence against this lies in the on-the-ground capability of Scottish Labour and the intellectual vision of Ed Miliband does not fill me with boundless confidence....
I thought Martin Kettle's article on Scottish independence was very astute. There are two battlegrounds: process and vision. The Yes campaign are losing miserably on the process battleground and winning comfortably on the vision battleground.
I see this as a hierarchy of wants, so you don't get onto the vision ground properly until you've dealt with the process questions adequately. By and large, the white paper has not done that (and indeed may set new hares running by dealing superficially with some matters that can be pawed at further).
I therefore expect Yes to lose next year. However, the No camp should not be complacent. And even if the referendum is defeated as I expect, if the nationalists can regroup after that and can come up with clearer answers to the process questions, a future referendum might well produce a very different result. The absence of a clear unionist vision for Scotland's future is a big weakness.
There is something in that, although as oil revenue seems to be to the SNP what the bankers' levy is to Labour, the longer a second independence referendum is postponed, the less credible it is that golden geese will lay black eggs.
Their conclusion that this was direct discrimination is based upon the idea that a civil partnership is a marriage and therefore different from non-married heterosexual couples. The refusal to recognised their "marriage" made this direct discrimination of a gay couple.
Whether they are right to assert such an equivalence at the time of the incident this surely will be right when gay marriage comes into force.
There has to be a suspicion that their willingness to regard this as direct was non unconected with the very much more complicated issues that would arise if it was indrect and a justification was possible.
I'm not sure that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 will change the situation. Civil partnerships will continue to exist and be available to same sex couples alone. On that basis, it more than arguable that by the majority's logic, adopting a policy of giving double rooms to married couples alone, would remain direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That result would be perverse, and it says something about the soundness of the majority's judgment.
As for why the majority were willing to regard this as direct discrimination, I tend to think your suspicions are well grounded. This is particularly evident from the judgment of Lady Justice Rafferty which was the subject of the appeal.
I admit, it's very unlikely that a heterosexual couple would want to stay at Hamilton Hall or Chapz.
More interesting is the complete intellectual confusion which took hold of the political class on the subject of whether religious organisations should be compelled to offer same-sex marriages. If it is unlawful to discriminate directly on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, it is entirely illogical that certain providers should be exempted in respect of some services (but not others) because they hold an irrational belief. Yet politicians were arguing that it was a virtue of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 that religious organisations had been exempted.
On your point about philosophical incoherence, I was interested in one of the arguments put forward by Counsel for the UK government,before the European Court of Human Rights, against Natalie Eweide and others. The argument was that no harm is done to someone, if they lose their job, or are denied employment, due to their religious or ethical convictions, so long as they are entitled to seek alternative employment. That's essentially the classically liberal position in relation to employment contracts, but does run completely contrary to domestic policy.
I thought Martin Kettle's article on Scottish independence was very astute. There are two battlegrounds: process and vision. The Yes campaign are losing miserably on the process battleground and winning comfortably on the vision battleground.
I see this as a hierarchy of wants, so you don't get onto the vision ground properly until you've dealt with the process questions adequately. By and large, the white paper has not done that (and indeed may set new hares running by dealing superficially with some matters that can be pawed at further).
I therefore expect Yes to lose next year. However, the No camp should not be complacent. And even if the referendum is defeated as I expect, if the nationalists can regroup after that and can come up with clearer answers to the process questions, a future referendum might well produce a very different result. The absence of a clear unionist vision for Scotland's future is a big weakness.
There is something in that, although as oil revenue seems to be to the SNP what the bankers' levy is to Labour, the longer a second independence referendum is postponed, the less credible it is that golden geese will lay black eggs.
I've never understood why Scotland should keep all the oil. Much of it is around Scotland, but when it was found it was all part of the UK.
If a small town in the Midlands suddenly found a highly valuable diamond mine under them, would they just be able to declare independence and run off with the riches?
I could accept Scotland having more than just the 8% their population represents, but it also seems supremely unreasonable to get most of the oil for themselves. What they do (or find) after independence would be all theirs, of course.
The Falkirk scandal: 15 facts you need to know Labour's vote-rigging scandal gets murkier by the day. Priti Patel breaks it down and explains what it tells us about Ed Miliband's leadership.
I'm not sure that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 will change the situation. Civil partnerships will continue to exist and be available to same sex couples alone. On that basis, it more than arguable that by the majority's logic, adopting a policy of giving double rooms to married couples alone, would remain direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That result would be perverse, and it says something about the soundness of the majority's judgment.
Is this a technical argument on the meaning of 'direct discrimination'? I ask, because as far as I can tell if you only accept married couples then that's clear discrimination against gay people for as long as they can't marry the person they want to. What's the 'objective justification' for treating married people and civil partnered people differently?
On your point about philosophical incoherence, I was interested in one of the arguments put forward by Counsel for the UK government,before the European Court of Human Rights, against Natalie Eweide and others. The argument was that no harm is done to someone, if they lose their job, or are denied employment, due to their religious or ethical convictions, so long as they are entitled to seek alternative employment. That's essentially the classically liberal position in relation to employment contracts, but does run completely contrary to domestic policy.
Indeed. The point is that the courts have said that it is sophistical to attempt to draw a distinction between someone's sexuality and the manifestation of that sexuality, whereas they maintain fervently that the manifestation of religious belief is entirely separable from holding that religious belief. Accordingly, despite both sexual orientation and religious belief (or lack thereof) being protected characteristics, the courts have managed to privilege one over the other. The reality is that no one who supports the Equality Act 2010 (or its predecessors) is intellectually consistent or coherent, and will usually simply hurl accusations of bigotry at those who are prepared to point out what a shambles the law finds itself in this area.
On your point about philosophical incoherence, I was interested in one of the arguments put forward by Counsel for the UK government,before the European Court of Human Rights, against Natalie Eweide and others. The argument was that no harm is done to someone, if they lose their job, or are denied employment, due to their religious or ethical convictions, so long as they are entitled to seek alternative employment. That's essentially the classically liberal position in relation to employment contracts, but does run completely contrary to domestic policy.
Indeed. The point is that the courts have said that it is sophistical to attempt to draw a distinction between someone's sexuality and the manifestation of that sexuality, whereas they maintain fervently that the manifestation of religious belief is entirely separable from holding that religious belief. Accordingly, despite both sexual orientation and religious belief (or lack thereof) being protected characteristics, the courts have managed to privilege one over the other. The reality is that no one who supports the Equality Act 2010 (or its predecessors) is intellectually consistent or coherent, and will usually simply hurl accusations of bigotry at those who are prepared to point out what a shambles the law finds itself in this area.
The Falkirk scandal: 15 facts you need to know Labour's vote-rigging scandal gets murkier by the day. Priti Patel breaks it down and explains what it tells us about Ed Miliband's leadership.
Is this a technical argument on the meaning of 'direct discrimination'? I ask, because as far as I can tell if you only accept married couples then that's clear discrimination against gay people for as long as they can't marry the person they want to. What's the 'objective justification' for treating married people and civil partnered people differently?
Direct discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic (save age) is unlawful. Objective justification only arises when the discrimination is indirect. Until this week's judgment, the rule has been that direct discrimination occurs when the criterion for discrimination and the protected characteristic correspond exactly (James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751). The criterion adopted in this case does not correspond exactly with the protected characteristic. Unmarried heterosexuals would be adversely affected in the same way as unmarried homosexuals. Accordingly, it follows that this ought to have been held to have been a case of indirect discrimination. Only then would the issue of objective justification have been material to the outcome of the case.
I admit, it's very unlikely that a heterosexual couple would want to stay at Hamilton Hall or Chapz.
More interesting is the complete intellectual confusion which took hold of the political class on the subject of whether religious organisations should be compelled to offer same-sex marriages. If it is unlawful to discriminate directly on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, it is entirely illogical that certain providers should be exempted in respect of some services (but not others) because they hold an irrational belief. Yet politicians were arguing that it was a virtue of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 that religious organisations had been exempted.
@Life_ina_market_town - Sure, thanks for that. The techical details are rather over my head, I'm afraid; my take on it is that a just decision was made...
I'm not in favour of an established church but that is a separate issue. The exemption covers all religious organisations. Quite extraordinarily, the Church of England have been partially exempted from the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 by section 1(3) of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, reversing a central principle of the Henrician and Elizabethan reformations.
On your point about philosophical incoherence, I was interested in one of the arguments put forward by Counsel for the UK government,before the European Court of Human Rights, against Natalie Eweide and others. The argument was that no harm is done to someone, if they lose their job, or are denied employment, due to their religious or ethical convictions, so long as they are entitled to seek alternative employment. That's essentially the classically liberal position in relation to employment contracts, but does run completely contrary to domestic policy.
Indeed. The point is that the courts have said that it is sophistical to attempt to draw a distinction between someone's sexuality and the manifestation of that sexuality, whereas they maintain fervently that the manifestation of religious belief is entirely separable from holding that religious belief. Accordingly, despite both sexual orientation and religious belief (or lack thereof) being protected characteristics, the courts have managed to privilege one over the other. The reality is that no one who supports the Equality Act 2010 (or its predecessors) is intellectually consistent or coherent, and will usually simply hurl accusations of bigotry at those who are prepared to point out what a shambles the law finds itself in this area.
Consistency is the tyranny of unimaginative minds.
Positive assessment from the New Statesman on 'Scotland's Future'
The Scottish independence White Paper passed the political test The whole document was designed to highlight the governance-focused nature of modern Scottish nationalism - and largely succeeded in doing so.
I'm not in favour of an established church but that is a separate issue. The exemption covers all religious organisations. Quite extraordinarily, the Church of England have been partially exempted from the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 by section 1(3) of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, reversing a central principle of the Henrician and Elizabethan reformations.
Is it any different in principle from the fact that religious organisations are not required to marry divorcees?
It's you that should be celebrating, tim. Your mates in the Labour Party will be celebrating their vision of importing thousands of new voters. the backbone of their immigration policy.
I'm not in favour of an established church but that is a separate issue. The exemption covers all religious organisations. Quite extraordinarily, the Church of England have been partially exempted from the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 by section 1(3) of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, reversing a central principle of the Henrician and Elizabethan reformations.
I am not as up to date on the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 as I should be but my point is that surely the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013 did all it could to acknowledge the wholly justified demand to allow gay marriage while not provoking a constitutional crisis with a conflict between statute and Canon law.
If you are saying "I wouldn't have started from here" then I agree with you of course....
A long time ago far, far away I was in a job where the boss looked just like Lewis Collins, my colleagues wound me up telling me he was his brother but in his case the real thing, never had the courage to ask him but later found out it wasn't true.
I did however get to drive a Ford Capri, fast, radio, gun, everything :-)
' It was very odd that it put so much emphasis on routine day-to-day measures like child care, benefits payments and pensions; it read like a particularly pie-in-the-sky election manifesto rather than presenting a vision for an independent nation'
The debate yesterday illustrated why the focus is now on day-to-day issues. Lamont demolished the SNP position on currency & Davidson on EU membership (application after financial issues settled with UK,treated as new applicant,join the 8 year queue etc).
So the voter bribes are essentially what's left,it could still work,wasn't there a poll that showed that if voters were £500 better off 'Yes' could win?
1 The seat became vacant 2 There were some shady shenanigans as various people manoevured to get their preferred candidate selected 3 Unite got involved 4 Quite a few obscure people resigned from mostly unimportant positions 5 There were lots of sensational press stories which repeated the same few "facts" again and again until everyone got bored 6 A vast number of posts on PB repeated the same thing many time all over again 7 There was some kind of inquiry which covered up all the interesting bits and decided that everything was perfectly OK 8 A new selection process was held 9 A candidate was selected 10 The effect on Labour's poll rating was about 0 11 The effect on the Tories poll rating was about 0 12 The effect on the Lib dems poll rating was about 0 13 The effect on UKIP's poll rating was about 0 14 The effect on the SNP's poll rating was about 0 15 Posts on PB continued despite the obvious irrelevance of issue to the standing of the parties
OT Hi, I've changed PCs and can't get your widget to load using Greasemonkey on Firefox latest version. I've tried dragging the PB link onto my toolbar from the post you have on your website but no luck getting it to install under Greasemonkey.
Comments
And you can keep track of it here: http://www.cometison2013.co.uk/perihelion-and-distance/
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/capetown2.html
If you go by that measure, than the Spitfire and Lancaster are still in service as they are flying with the BBMF, and the Meteor as two are in use by Martin-Baker.
Mr and Mrs Bull have said they regard any sex outside marriage as a "sin".
The Bulls denied discriminating against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, who are from Bristol.
Sixty-nine-year-old Mrs Bull and her 74-year-old husband said their decision was founded on a "religiously-informed judgment of conscience".
Edit I meant non married heterosexual couples
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-24159559
They argued their policy of restricting double beds to married couples in accordance with their religious beliefs was not directed at sexual orientation but sexual practice.
On IQ: it's not a measure of intelligence. It's meant to be, but it is a long way from perfect. I'm not saying it's useless, just that it's not actually a properly scientific measure of intelligence.
Mind you, the use of IQ as a measure of intelligence is a thousand times more accurate and less aggravating than the idiots who think a polygraph is actually a lie-detector...
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0065_Judgment.pdf
The case turned in large part on whether treating civil partners differently from married couples was direct discrimination on the ground of sexuality rather than indirect discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court came to the common sense (though logically debatable) conclusion that it was. Effectively the Supreme Court determined that marriage and civil partnerships were substantively identical.
The hoteliers do seem to have their religious beliefs rather deeply embedded in their business:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/19/article-2424983-1BE93222000005DC-529_634x421.jpg
Thanks to everyone for their replies.
http://www.tijarapages.com/categories.asp?cid=1893790932&id=129
http://www.kosherholidays.net/MainV2_EN.aspx?HotelCountryID=England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25137093
A computer game about cricket reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon where he is reading a golf game manual. "So you are reading a book about a simulation of an activity that is not quite a sport?"
Ah, here it is:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-07-17/
Watching the Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade - singers and dancers from all the Broadway shows doing their thing in the street outside Macys in NYC, in their skimpy show costumes, with the temperature several degrees below freezing.
But it's still 6 degrees warmer there than it is here, 1,000 miles south. Life's not fair.
We don't tolerate "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" any more, so why should we tolerate this form of discrimination?
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2013/178.aspx
I know it's a disappointment for you, you were hoping they'd over-do it and bring about a catastrophic boom, but the the Boy and the Guvnor are, very sensibly, easing back well in advance of any problems occurring. The measures seem to be working, the housing market is beginning slowly to return to normal outside London and house building is moving again.
Going back to AndyJS's comment, maybe Stonewall's comment (that 'a far more Christian thing to do would be to fight the evils of poverty and disease worldwide.') was a bit smug and sanctimonious, but I still think they're right!
You seem to think any price rise is an unsustainable boom, when it's actually a modest correction after a period of near-collapse in many areas of the country. The government and Bank of England are acting to ensure the market remains on a sensible course, steering between deflation and inflation, both of which can be very damaging.
Interestingly, it seems to be lawful (in some circumstances) not to offer a double room to a heterosexual couple.
http://www.hamiltonhall.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=310:discrimination&catid=44:public-content
I disapprove of it strongly, but asking Stonewall to take a lead on it is like asking the NSPCC to campaign about the treatment of the autistic.
I don't think FGM falls under their scope.
I admit, it's very unlikely that a heterosexual couple would want to stay at Hamilton Hall or Chapz.
How could you tell?
I'd agree that not long after Wednesday's problems (and perhaps in some ways they were a bit of a canary in the coal mine) it became pretty clear that football is a bad bet as a business proposition - the rewards at the top of the game mean that the incentive to overspend is too great, and if a few clubs do it (some with sugar daddies assistance) then others have to to compete or you're left in an even worse position - relegation and even greater reduced income.
However at that particular point in football's history we were at a strange nexus - the days of owners being altruistic custodians had gone and it was obvious that some people were going to make some serious money as the game realised its worth to TV and sponsorship, but it hadn't quite got to the point though that it had become clear that it was a mug's game and that:
a) Most of the money coming in would go just as quickly out through increased wages as players gained power and clubs spent all they could to move up and gain greater riches, and
b) the real money was only going to go to a few clubs at the top and more lowly clubs wouldn't be able to compete without huge injections of cash either through borrowing or investment.
Now you'd be mad to invest in football, but those who'd invested in clubs who came out of that era as successes made millions. Just look at the Arsenal shareholders who when selling up to Kroenke made an absolute mint (After the George Graham scandal in the 90s Arsenal were struggling in mid-table and without Wenger might have slid into mediocrity or worse) .
If something like Financial Fair Play, or a wage and transfer cap as an element of turnover had been introduced then, then football could have worked as a business as you'd have had the riches coming in without the endless need for them to go out the other end. There would also have been an incentive towards good business practice as that would've been the best way to increase your turnover and therefore playing budget.
Alas, there was too much money to be made and people were either greedy and stupid or greedy and smart, and now FFP been introduced the gaps in income are so great that it will make no difference whatsoever or entrench a bad system.
I see this as a hierarchy of wants, so you don't get onto the vision ground properly until you've dealt with the process questions adequately. By and large, the white paper has not done that (and indeed may set new hares running by dealing superficially with some matters that can be pawed at further).
I therefore expect Yes to lose next year. However, the No camp should not be complacent. And even if the referendum is defeated as I expect, if the nationalists can regroup after that and can come up with clearer answers to the process questions, a future referendum might well produce a very different result. The absence of a clear unionist vision for Scotland's future is a big weakness.
Ooh battle of The PB Tories.
I'm writing a thread for tomorrow on how yes might win.
Whether they are right to assert such an equivalence at the time of the incident this surely will be right when gay marriage comes into force.
There has to be a suspicion that their willingness to regard this as direct was non unconected with the very much more complicated issues that would arise if it was indrect and a justification was possible.
Surprised Johan Lamont isn't on......
:InnocentFace:
My current impression seems to mirror yours: a no win next year, but with a great deal of discontentment which may lead to a second referendum.
@marktheowl : I bow to your superior knowledge of both Sheffield Wednesday and football generally.
I think I'd put it the other way round: the White Paper showed a curious lack of vision of the independence movement. It was very odd that it put so much emphasis on routine day-to-day measures like child care, benefits payments and pensions; it read like a particularly pie-in-the-sky election manifesto rather than presenting a vision for an independent nation. It was basically a series of uncosted bribes, of a sort which a devolved (or certainly Devo-Max) government could largely do anyway if the money was there. That was an odd strategy because it puts the argument onto non-visionary ground, reducing it to a battle of competing counter-claims on the detail. In such a battle, the status quo is hard to beat.
I concur, though, with your general take that a Yes vote is rather unlikely but far from impossible.
The 'No' campaign is rational - a lot of 'whataboutery' - the 'Yes' campaign an appeal to the emotions - 'see the sunlit uplands of a social democratic Scotland' - and as such, could still swing it, if it can get the debate onto its terms.
That the defence against this lies in the on-the-ground capability of Scottish Labour and the intellectual vision of Ed Miliband does not fill me with boundless confidence....
As for why the majority were willing to regard this as direct discrimination, I tend to think your suspicions are well grounded. This is particularly evident from the judgment of Lady Justice Rafferty which was the subject of the appeal.
If a small town in the Midlands suddenly found a highly valuable diamond mine under them, would they just be able to declare independence and run off with the riches?
I could accept Scotland having more than just the 8% their population represents, but it also seems supremely unreasonable to get most of the oil for themselves. What they do (or find) after independence would be all theirs, of course.
The Falkirk scandal: 15 facts you need to know
Labour's vote-rigging scandal gets murkier by the day. Priti Patel breaks it down and explains what it tells us about Ed Miliband's leadership.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10480602/The-Falkirk-scandal-15-facts-you-need-to-know.html
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1222910/viral-review-mischievous-harvey-nichols-scores-win-eschewing-xmas-cheer
Damn, they are the only place I know stocking Elemis.
The Scottish independence White Paper passed the political test
The whole document was designed to highlight the governance-focused nature of modern Scottish nationalism - and largely succeeded in doing so.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/scottish-independence-white-paper-passed-political-test
However, our expats are having a lovely time basking in the sun.
If you are saying "I wouldn't have started from here" then I agree with you of course....
I did however get to drive a Ford Capri, fast, radio, gun, everything :-)
' It was very odd that it put so much emphasis on routine day-to-day measures like child care, benefits payments and pensions; it read like a particularly pie-in-the-sky election manifesto rather than presenting a vision for an independent nation'
The debate yesterday illustrated why the focus is now on day-to-day issues.
Lamont demolished the SNP position on currency & Davidson on EU membership (application after financial issues settled with UK,treated as new applicant,join the 8 year queue etc).
So the voter bribes are essentially what's left,it could still work,wasn't there a poll that showed that if voters were £500 better off 'Yes' could win?
2 There were some shady shenanigans as various people manoevured to get their preferred candidate selected
3 Unite got involved
4 Quite a few obscure people resigned from mostly unimportant positions
5 There were lots of sensational press stories which repeated the same few "facts" again and again until everyone got bored
6 A vast number of posts on PB repeated the same thing many time all over again
7 There was some kind of inquiry which covered up all the interesting bits and decided that everything was perfectly OK
8 A new selection process was held
9 A candidate was selected
10 The effect on Labour's poll rating was about 0
11 The effect on the Tories poll rating was about 0
12 The effect on the Lib dems poll rating was about 0
13 The effect on UKIP's poll rating was about 0
14 The effect on the SNP's poll rating was about 0
15 Posts on PB continued despite the obvious irrelevance of issue to the standing of the parties
OT Hi, I've changed PCs and can't get your widget to load using Greasemonkey on Firefox latest version. I've tried dragging the PB link onto my toolbar from the post you have on your website but no luck getting it to install under Greasemonkey.
Any ideas?