But customer service doesn't mean you need to supply everything the customer demands.
They should be willing to supply identical cakes to any customer regardless of customer orientation. They should also have the right to reject any proposed design that they wish.
If the baker doesn't do custom cakes you're right. If they do, then discrimination is still discrimination. If they do make custom cakes then should they be allowed to decline a cake with a Star of David because they don't like Jews?
Yes. They should be allowed to decline to make any cake that conflicts with their personal beliefs. Should a Palestinian refugee whose home has been blown up and family killed be forced to make a cake with a Star of David? According to your theory they should. Different messages mean different things to different people, and it is entirely proper in a free society to decline to do something that is against your beliefs unless it conflicts with the duties of your salaried position - in which case it is a matter for your employer.
A Palestinian refugee shouldn't be dragged off the streets and forced to make a cake with a Star of David on it. But if he accepts a job in a cake shop which makes bespoke cakes then, as the courts have just ruled, he does have to make a cake with a Star or David on it.
Or he is guilty of religious discrimination.
It isn't just a religious symbol, it's also a national flag.
I haven't argued that it isn't the law. I've argued that it's an unjust law that must and will be overturned.
But customer service doesn't mean you need to supply everything the customer demands.
They should be willing to supply identical cakes to any customer regardless of customer orientation. They should also have the right to reject any proposed design that they wish.
If the baker doesn't do custom cakes you're right. If they do, then discrimination is still discrimination. If they do make custom cakes then should they be allowed to decline a cake with a Star of David because they don't like Jews?
I would argue that racism is somewhat different to political promotion.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
@Sean Fear - I agree. There's a difference in my mind between a business refusing to offer to provide their services to someone *because* they're gay, and being asked to produce something that supports a cause they don't agree with.
Plenty of businesses have policies that they don't do X or Y. I can see a problem for a business if it were associated with supporting a cause, even indirectly, by a message that 'this cake supporting cause X was made by business Y"
Even if business Y didn't agree with cause X, an association with that cause could easily be implied and it would be reasonable to object to that.
A business is perfectly entitled to say "we avoid all politics".
The issue is saying "we won't do this one thing because of our religion (but we'd do other political things or the opposite)".
But, they are being required to support a political cause they disagree with, or else pay damages. It cuts both ways. If someone wants a cake saying "oppose gay marriage" shouldn't a contractor be entitled to decline the order if he supports gay marriage?
This has nothing to do with no blacks etc.
Absolutely it has to do with no blacks etc, if that's how you're turning down your product then that is the right comparison.
A baker that does custom cakes ought to be able to do both a cake saying "support gay marriage" and one saying "oppose gay marriage". All they're doing is baking the cake, they're not stamping their own approval saying "I agree with this personally" on either.
How a baker wants to express his views in his personal time is up to him, but in the cause of their work they are working.
That's a remarkable view for someone who claims to support free speech. Freedom of speech should include freedom not to promote causes one disagrees with. That should apply in the public sphere as well as in private.
The Belfast Gay Cake maker bakery has been found NOT Guilty of discrimination
It was a stupid prosecution in the first place.
But, a useful precedent has been set.
Not any more.
So it seems. On that basis, it would seem that for a contractor to decline to support a political or religious cause they disagree with is unlawful discrimination. I hope they appeal.
The contractor doesn't have to "support" anything, they just need to do their job. Baking a cake isn't supporting a cause, it is baking a cake.
Should a contractor be allowed to say "no Jews, no blacks, no Irish" - I thought we'd moved on from that being acceptable decades ago. I see no need to return to allowing that.
But, they are being required to support a political cause they disagree with, or else pay damages. It cuts both ways. If someone wants a cake saying "oppose gay marriage" shouldn't a contractor be entitled to decline the order if he supports gay marriage?
This has nothing to do with no blacks etc.
I'm curious as to why the bakery accepted the commission in the first place, then backtracked. It suggests their 'strongly held religious beliefs' are not quite as clearly defined as they're now claiming.
I think that's the biggest weakness in their case, and basically the problem.
I would argue that racism is somewhat different to political promotion.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
"Death to all Palestinians" is illegal, not free speech. Incitement to violence is a crime. You're perfectly entitled in all circumstances to turn down something illegal.
@Sean Fear - I agree. There's a difference in my mind between a business refusing to offer to provide their services to someone *because* they're gay, and being asked to produce something that supports a cause they don't agree with.
Plenty of businesses have policies that they don't do X or Y. I can see a problem for a business if it were associated with supporting a cause, even indirectly, by a message that 'this cake supporting cause X was made by business Y"
Even if business Y didn't agree with cause X, an association with that cause could easily be implied and it would be reasonable to object to that.
Indeed - I think that it would be perfectly acceptable for a printer to object to printing political leaflets for the BNP (for example) - particularly given that the imprint shows who printed them. Is that analogous or not - I am not sure.
It seems utterly lunatic that it is illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a certain kind of cake, yet perfectly legal for High Street banks to refuse to offer accounts to legitimate businesses such as bookies.
It's a mad, mad world. It always has been, mankind seems to excel at finding new ways to be mad. Getting the law involved in cake icing designs is a particularly imaginative form of utter madness.
But customer service doesn't mean you need to supply everything the customer demands.
They should be willing to supply identical cakes to any customer regardless of customer orientation. They should also have the right to reject any proposed design that they wish.
If the baker doesn't do custom cakes you're right. If they do, then discrimination is still discrimination. If they do make custom cakes then should they be allowed to decline a cake with a Star of David because they don't like Jews?
Does an orthodox Jewish baker have the right to refuse to make a Christian cake because he doesn't like Christians, of course. What part of its their business and they are free to serve whomsoever they choose do people not understand?
But the law says you are WRONG! We do not live in a libertarian eutopia, we live in a country where profit making enterprises are governed by rules that protect consumers.
It may not be the situation you like, but it is the situation.
Laws can be changed, I just like to highlight the ridiculous situation where nasty little authoritarian bigots pose as somehow being liberal and tolerant.
Are you calling me a 'nasty little authoritarian bigot' now?!
Look if the bakery owners really wanted to make a difference to their beliefs, they should have taken the profits they made from the cake and donated it to an anti gay marriage group.
But instead they chose to discriminate, and they lost.
As I keep coming back to, religious beliefs in private or in a place of worship are fine. As soon as they start influencing the decisions of a profit making enterprise that's when its wrong.
Unless you believe corporations can have religious beliefs of course? Then you get into the Hobby Lobby quagmire.
And notice how I haven't thrown about any insults, or made any judgement on your views? Much nicer form of discussion isn't it
George Osborne is by far the most impressive and interesting Tory politician out there. He seems to have real ideas that can actually be turned into real policy. I don't like a lot of what he does, but he is brilliant at doing it and beyond the Brownite point-scoring he clearly thinks deeply about some of the most important issues we face as a country. I'd love to know what his real views are on the EU and our membership of it. If we had PR he would be an absolute shoe-in for next Tory leader - and deservedly so.
Wow.
Considering the absolute derision that frequently gets heaped on Osbourne, that is quite a statement coming from someone with left-leanings. Nonetheless, I think you are right. He is greatly underrated as is (was?) Cameron
I'm afraid I think that Cameron is vastly over-rated as a politician. He is what he is: a PR man who knows how to give a good speech and likes being PM. I'd put Osborne way above him. George v Boris should be a no contest. That it isn't is a terrible condemnation of the political culture of our country.
Maybe so. But he has now been returned as PM in two successive general elections, and is far more widely liked than the Conservative Party and has enhanced their electoral appeal.
I have many criticisms of Cameron but if we judge the success of a politician by whether they win elections or not then he must go down as something of a success.
That's a remarkable view for someone who claims to support free speech. Freedom of speech should include freedom not to promote causes one disagrees with. That should apply in the public sphere as well as in private.
Baking a cake for a commission, especially after said commission was accepted already, isn't promotion.
But if we're to say discrimination is allowed we have a lot to reverse and not just this one case. My issue is with people who think that discrimination isn't allowed, but that this isn't discrimination - of course it is. If you think its OK for a business to turn away jews, blacks, Irish or others then of course they can turn away gays. If they can't turn away the others, they can't turn away gays.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
But customer service doesn't mean you need to supply everything the customer demands.
They should be willing to supply identical cakes to any customer regardless of customer orientation. They should also have the right to reject any proposed design that they wish.
If the baker doesn't do custom cakes you're right. If they do, then discrimination is still discrimination. If they do make custom cakes then should they be allowed to decline a cake with a Star of David because they don't like Jews?
I would argue that racism is somewhat different to political promotion.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
Hardly a tenable position. Let private companies accept or decline whichever commissions they wish to accept or decline. That's the only possible outcome compatible with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, not to mention the free market.
The amount of avowedly conservative posters here either supporting or equivocating over this grotesque judgement is shocking. Burke would turn in his grave. But that's ok, you got a parliamentary majority - well done you.
I would argue that racism is somewhat different to political promotion.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
"Death to all Palestinians" is illegal, not free speech. Incitement to violence is a crime. You're perfectly entitled in all circumstances to turn down something illegal.
The fundamental point was put very well by @Casino_Royale:
There's a difference ... between a business refusing to offer to provide their services to someone *because* they're gay, and being asked to produce something that supports a cause they don't agree with.
The first should be illegal. The second is free speech.
I'm curious as to why the bakery accepted the commission in the first place, then backtracked. It suggests their 'strongly held religious beliefs' are not quite as clearly defined as they're now claiming.
Maybe the order was accepted by a minion and the homophobic owners didn't find out until later.
I wonder whether George Osborne will miss Ed Balls. I think he might.
is it just me or was it Ed Balls who was trying to keep some kind of semblance of fiscal discipline to the shadow cabinet? What would they have been like without him?
It seems utterly lunatic that it is illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a certain kind of cake, yet perfectly legal for High Street banks to refuse to offer accounts to legitimate businesses such as bookies.
It's a mad, mad world. It always has been, mankind seems to excel at finding new ways to be mad. Getting the law involved in cake icing designs is a particularly imaginative form of utter madness.
You could say, that of all the madness in the world, this is the icing on the cake.
"Maybe so. But he has now been returned as PM in two successive general elections, and is far more widely liked than the Conservative Party and has enhanced their electoral appeal.
I have many criticisms of Cameron but if we judge the success of a politician by whether they win elections or not then he must go down as something of a success."
If he walks away like he says he will, I think he'll end up being remembered much more fondly than some who held on by their fingernails or came back when quite clearly not up to the job.
What on earth is wrong with discrimination.We all do it every day..it simply means choice ...and we choose things on a daily basis...personally I am all for it as it seems to be a basic human right.
When it is used to pick on someone because of an innate characteristic that they have little or no control over then there is a lot wrong with it.
Less than 100 years ago women could not vote and if they married they became the property of their husbands. Why? Because they were women. They did not choose that and there is nothing wrong with being a woman yet it was used to deny them the same rights as men. How do you think that feels? Can you even concieve of it?
Gay people do not choose to be gay, they just are. WHy should they be picked on, jeered at and belittled for being themselves?
Suppose some picked something arbitrary that you had no control over - say your eye colour - and then passed laws picking on you. How would you feel if property or jobs or the right to vote was denied you because your eye colour was wrong?
Discrimination is a nasty business used by bullies to belittle others. That is what is wrong with it.
I wouldn't be too sure. Osborne & Co have a track record of nurturing business here. Look at how tech city is booming, and how the film industry has exploded.
Osborne has personally backed other stuff like graphene and Alan Bond's Sabre engine project. He really has a passion for this area.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
I would argue that racism is somewhat different to political promotion.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
"Death to all Palestinians" is illegal, not free speech. Incitement to violence is a crime. You're perfectly entitled in all circumstances to turn down something illegal.
The fundamental point was put very well by @Casino_Royale:
There's a difference ... between a business refusing to offer to provide their services to someone *because* they're gay, and being asked to produce something that supports a cause they don't agree with.
The first should be illegal. The second is free speech.
Where it gets iffy is if they would produce some things that support some causes that they don't agree with but not others. Then you're back into the question of discrimination. That's the significance of the backtracking.
Would they have refused to produce a cake with the message "support the intifada"?
I wonder whether George Osborne will miss Ed Balls. I think he might.
is it just me or was it Ed Balls who was trying to keep some kind of semblance of fiscal discipline to the shadow cabinet? What would they have been like without him?
I guess we're about to find out. Losing Ed Balls from Parliament was a real blow for Labour.
What on earth is wrong with discrimination.We all do it every day..it simply means choice ...and we choose things on a daily basis...personally I am all for it as it seems to be a basic human right.
When it is used to pick on someone because of an innate characteristic that they have little or no control over then there is a lot wrong with it.
Less than 100 years ago women could not vote and if they married they became the property of their husbands. Why? Because they were women. They did not choose that and there is nothing wrong with being a woman yet it was used to deny them the same rights as men. How do you think that feels? Can you even concieve of it?
Gay people do not choose to be gay, they just are. WHy should they be picked on, jeered at and belittled for being themselves?
Suppose some picked something arbitrary that you had no control over - say your eye colour - and then passed laws picking on you. How would you feel if property or jobs or the right to vote was denied you because your eye colour was wrong?
Discrimination is a nasty business used by bullies to belittle others. That is what is wrong with it.
What on earth is wrong with discrimination.We all do it every day..it simply means choice ...and we choose things on a daily basis...personally I am all for it as it seems to be a basic human right.
When it is used to pick on someone because of an innate characteristic that they have little or no control over then there is a lot wrong with it.
Less than 100 years ago women could not vote and if they married they became the property of their husbands. Why? Because they were women. They did not choose that and there is nothing wrong with being a woman yet it was used to deny them the same rights as men. How do you think that feels? Can you even concieve of it?
Gay people do not choose to be gay, they just are. WHy should they be picked on, jeered at and belittled for being themselves?
Suppose some picked something arbitrary that you had no control over - say your eye colour - and then passed laws picking on you. How would you feel if property or jobs or the right to vote was denied you because your eye colour was wrong?
Discrimination is a nasty business used by bullies to belittle others. That is what is wrong with it.
Beautifully put.
And completely irrelevant to the discussion of this case.
"Maybe so. But he has now been returned as PM in two successive general elections, and is far more widely liked than the Conservative Party and has enhanced their electoral appeal.
I have many criticisms of Cameron but if we judge the success of a politician by whether they win elections or not then he must go down as something of a success."
If he walks away like he says he will, I think he'll end up being remembered much more fondly than some who held on by their fingernails or came back when quite clearly not up to the job.
Maybe Cameron will try to resign, but be dragged back to the dispatch box, in the style of the Speaker....
I gather resigning and unresigning is all the rage this Parliament.
Personally, I doubt he'd win the Presidential - he'd be painted, however unfairly, as 8 more years of Obama. Despite Obama's recent slight uptick in job approval ratings, that is still a very hard sell.
I guess we're about to find out. Losing Ed Balls from Parliament was a real blow for Labour.
I wonder what he'll do next. It's hard to imagine him not wanting to be at the centre of UK politics. Will he try to re-enter parliament, or will he think it best not to risk treading on Yvette's toes?
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Nonsense. In the context of discrimination being outlawed decades ago, there is nothing wrong with this case.
If you think its OK to say no to Jews. If you think its OK to say no to Irish If you think its OK to say no to blacks.
Then its OK to say no to gays by consistency.
However its not, the law outlawed the others all decades ago and has caught up now with gays. Outlawing discrimination like this is absolutely nothing new. If you want to roll away protections for gays, I hope you're prepared to say you'll roll away protections for everyone else too.
If you're willing to stop everyone's protections then good for you, you're consistent. If you're only wanting to stop one group's protections but want to keep those for everyone else that have existed for decades then no you can't claim the moral high ground.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
I wonder whether George Osborne will miss Ed Balls. I think he might.
is it just me or was it Ed Balls who was trying to keep some kind of semblance of fiscal discipline to the shadow cabinet? What would they have been like without him?
If only there had been a fly-on-the-wall documentary crew following around the Cooper-Balls for the past few months.
Their reaction to the Ed Stone would have been award-winning telly.
(Do we definitely know it wasn't Ed Balls screaming at the telly in Labour HQ when it was shown?)
I guess we're about to find out. Losing Ed Balls from Parliament was a real blow for Labour.
I wonder what he'll do next. It's hard to imagine him not wanting to be at the centre of UK politics. Will he try to re-enter parliament, or will he think it best not to risk treading on Yvette's toes?
In the short term, he's no doubt got piano exams coming up.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Nonsense. In the context of discrimination being outlawed decades ago, there is nothing wrong with this case.
If you think its OK to say no to Jews. If you think its OK to say no to Irish If you think its OK to say no to blacks.
Then its OK to say no to gays by consistency.
However its not, the law outlawed the others all decades ago and has caught up now with gays. Outlawing discrimination like this is absolutely nothing new. If you want to roll away protections for gays, I hope you're prepared to say you'll roll away protections for everyone else too.
If you're willing to stop everyone's protections then good for you, you're consistent. If you're only wanting to stop one group's protections but want to keep those for everyone else that have existed for decades then no you can't claim the moral high ground.
The breed is particularly inclined to formulate ridiculous straw men that even a reasonably alert 8 year old could drive a coach and horses through, especially if this means they can attempt to smear their opponents as racist.
I guess we're about to find out. Losing Ed Balls from Parliament was a real blow for Labour.
I wonder what he'll do next. It's hard to imagine him not wanting to be at the centre of UK politics. Will he try to re-enter parliament, or will he think it best not to risk treading on Yvette's toes?
Depends upon who wins the leadership race. If Yvette does it may be easier to be behind the scenes. If Burnham does, I think he's free to try to re-enter.
I'm curious as to why the bakery accepted the commission in the first place, then backtracked. It suggests their 'strongly held religious beliefs' are not quite as clearly defined as they're now claiming.
Maybe the order was accepted by a minion and the homophobic owners didn't find out until later.
Anyone got a link to the actual judgement?
Bloody incompetent not employing homophobic minions.
There seems to be a lot of the judge's ruling here.
SO Osborne would be a disaster as Tory leader, Labour would not believe their luck, he is reasonably effective behind the scenes, but he can make mistakes, as shown by his 2012 'pasty tax' budget and his cut in the top tax rate for the rich at a time of public service cuts and low wages, economically OK, politically disastrous, while his ringfencing has hammered some departments at the expense of others
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Kim Il Jung, it's the company one keeps.
Cameron and Osborne appear to be a very good team, and there does not appear to have been to date friction between them like there was between Blair and Brown. I wonder how either would manage without the other. Can Osborne step up to be the front man after being a fairly quiet no.2 all these years?
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Nonsense. In the context of discrimination being outlawed decades ago, there is nothing wrong with this case.
If you think its OK to say no to Jews. If you think its OK to say no to Irish If you think its OK to say no to blacks.
Then its OK to say no to gays by consistency.
However its not, the law outlawed the others all decades ago and has caught up now with gays. Outlawing discrimination like this is absolutely nothing new. If you want to roll away protections for gays, I hope you're prepared to say you'll roll away protections for everyone else too.
If you're willing to stop everyone's protections then good for you, you're consistent. If you're only wanting to stop one group's protections but want to keep those for everyone else that have existed for decades then no you can't claim the moral high ground.
The breed is particularly inclined to formulate ridiculous straw men that even a reasonably alert 8 year old could drive a coach and horses through, especially if this means they can attempt to smear their opponents as racist.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Robert Henderson used that terminology a lot on Usenet way back in c. 2000.
TimT Now Hillary is in Biden has as much chance of being the 2016 Dem nominee as Cheney did of being GOP candidate in 2008, let alone president. Hillary v Sanders will be the Democrat race, Biden will not run but bow out having been VP
I would argue that racism is somewhat different to political promotion.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
"Death to all Palestinians" is illegal, not free speech. Incitement to violence is a crime. You're perfectly entitled in all circumstances to turn down something illegal.
The fundamental point was put very well by @Casino_Royale:
There's a difference ... between a business refusing to offer to provide their services to someone *because* they're gay, and being asked to produce something that supports a cause they don't agree with.
The first should be illegal. The second is free speech.
Where it gets iffy is if they would produce some things that support some causes that they don't agree with but not others. Then you're back into the question of discrimination. That's the significance of the backtracking.
Would they have refused to produce a cake with the message "support the intifada"?
Which is why the law shouldn't be getting into this area. It just makes an ass of itself.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Nonsense. In the context of discrimination being outlawed decades ago, there is nothing wrong with this case.
If you think its OK to say no to Jews. If you think its OK to say no to Irish If you think its OK to say no to blacks.
Then its OK to say no to gays by consistency.
However its not, the law outlawed the others all decades ago and has caught up now with gays. Outlawing discrimination like this is absolutely nothing new. If you want to roll away protections for gays, I hope you're prepared to say you'll roll away protections for everyone else too.
If you're willing to stop everyone's protections then good for you, you're consistent. If you're only wanting to stop one group's protections but want to keep those for everyone else that have existed for decades then no you can't claim the moral high ground.
The breed is particularly inclined to formulate ridiculous straw men that even a reasonably alert 8 year old could drive a coach and horses through, especially if this means they can attempt to smear their opponents as racist.
Why are these examples straw men? The reason we don't have discrimination against Blacks, or Jews or Catholics is largely due to the impact of legislation outlawing it. The only reason you think scenarios are far fetched or 'straw men' is because those scenarios have been outlawed.
It reminds me of the supreme court rolling back voting rights legislation in America last year. Effectively their argument was, it doesn't happen anymore so we don't need this law, seemingly ignoring the reason it doesn't happen anymore is BECAUSE of the law!
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
"Maybe so. But he has now been returned as PM in two successive general elections, and is far more widely liked than the Conservative Party and has enhanced their electoral appeal.
I have many criticisms of Cameron but if we judge the success of a politician by whether they win elections or not then he must go down as something of a success."
If he walks away like he says he will, I think he'll end up being remembered much more fondly than some who held on by their fingernails or came back when quite clearly not up to the job.
Maybe Cameron will try to resign, but be dragged back to the dispatch box, in the style of the Speaker....
I gather resigning and unresigning is all the rage this Parliament.
Or not really resigning at all, but claiming that you have in the case of Farage, and the letter that never was.
Mr. Royale, I agree entirely. Identity politics is thoroughly despicable.
A key test may be Sadiq Khan and has disgraceful desire for ethnic quotas in the workplace.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Notme, waiting*. I sympathise, as my typos are often horrendously homophonic (once wrote 'caught' instead of 'got', and had one typo so vast I couldn't work out what I'd meant to write ['western' instead of something like 'whore' or 'strumpet']).
facepalm illiteracy !! Not something i would normally get wrong. Of course i was referring the government's new obesity plan, and in fact we do have significant weighting lists....
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
Some people use their "religion" as an excuse to hate gay people?
I wonder whether George Osborne will miss Ed Balls. I think he might.
is it just me or was it Ed Balls who was trying to keep some kind of semblance of fiscal discipline to the shadow cabinet? What would they have been like without him?
Ed Miliband clearly thought so too, that anecdote about them sitting on the data showing Morley and Outwood possibly going Blue was correct I think. The counterfactual with Miliband PM and Leslie CoE was far worse than Balls in position.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
As a athiest, global warming sceptic, pro-Iraq liberation, Labour voting individual, I can say that personally I don't feel very stifled.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
If you're willing to share: Do you believe homosexuality is a 'perversion of nature'? Feel free to reframe in less inflammatory language, if that helps.
Ed Miliband clearly thought so too, that anecdote about them sitting on the data showing Morley and Outwood possibly going Blue was correct I think. The counterfactual with Miliband PM and Leslie CoE was far worse than Balls in position.
Not to mention an affront to those of use who'd bet on Ed Balls as Next Chancellor as a proxy for Labour forming the next government!
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
Some people use their "religion" as an excuse to hate gay people?
so? Some people use their politics to hate Torys. If people want to hate others, its up to them. Dont confuse tolerance with acceptance.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
Some people use their "religion" as an excuse to hate gay people?
so? Some people use their politics to hate Torys. If people want to hate others, its up to them. Dont confuse tolerance with acceptance.
Not me! Despite voting Labour, I'm actually - shall we say - "supremely relaxed" that Cameron finally won a majority two weeks back!
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
Allow me to explain.
I would be perfectly comfortable with someone refusing to make a cake for Sinn Fein, or even something milder like the SDLP, or a cake demanding Scottish Independence, or a cake against the EU. These are cakes expressing a political or ideological position.
I would not be comfortable with someone being refused a cake because they were gay, black, or anything else.
To try and frame this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply mischeivous, and undermines whatever serious argument (I haven't seen one yet) to be made in favour of this judgement.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
George Osborne is by far the most impressive and interesting Tory politician out there. He seems to have real ideas that can actually be turned into real policy. I don't like a lot of what he does, but he is brilliant at doing it and beyond the Brownite point-scoring he clearly thinks deeply about some of the most important issues we face as a country. I'd love to know what his real views are on the EU and our membership of it. If we had PR he would be an absolute shoe-in for next Tory leader - and deservedly so.
Agreed. He is also very skilled at framing the arguments. He did this about the overspending issue, for example. Kept on about it for years and when Ed denied Labour had overspent he was met with utter incredulity. The argument had been won by consistent and skilful messaging over years until it was just an indisputable fact.
On the EU I think he was very angry indeed about the FTT and will be looking for protections to stop that sort of EZ interference with London in the future. If that can be obtained I think he will be for In but it is not a given and if the EU want Britain to remain they should be listening very carefully to what Osborne is saying.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
If you're willing to share: Do you believe homosexuality is a 'perversion of nature'? Feel free to reframe in less inflammatory language, if that helps.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
Some people use their "religion" as an excuse to hate gay people?
so? Some people use their politics to hate Torys. If people want to hate others, its up to them. Dont confuse tolerance with acceptance.
Indeed if people want to hate it is up to them. However if they decide to let that hate influence the decisions of a for-profit tax paying enterprise, they have to abide by the legislation restricting the activities of that enterprise.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Robert Henderson used that terminology a lot on Usenet way back in c. 2000.
I'm not him, but i know he used to refer to your toilet cleaning skills...
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
As a athiest, global warming sceptic, pro-Iraq liberation, Labour voting individual, I can say that personally I don't feel very stifled.
Nor should you, with the exception of not being a warmist (a promising start), you're right there with the stiflers.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
Allow me to explain.
I would be perfectly comfortable with someone refusing to make a cake for Sinn Fein, or even something milder like the SDLP, or a cake demanding Scottish Independence, or a cake against the EU. These are cakes expressing a political or ideological position.
I would not be comfortable with someone being refused a cake because they were gay, black, or anything else.
To try and frame this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply mischeivous, and undermines whatever serious argument (I haven't seen one yet) to be made in favour of this judgement.
It is not mischievous, it is factual. That is what the case determined is that this was discrimination on these grounds - if it wasn't discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then it wouldn't have been illegal.
To dismiss the law this breached as not being relevant is to stick your head in the sand. Only if the judgement was itself mischievous is it mischievous to agree with the judge. You're being absurd.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Robert Henderson used that terminology a lot on Usenet way back in c. 2000.
I'm not him, but i know he used to refer to your toilet cleaning skills...
Yes, I remember that too! For a brief period he also claimed I was a Labour plant!
MD But as leader you cannot afford to learn on the job, Osborne neither has the charisma of Boris or Cameron, or the backstory of Javid or the reassuring presence of May, he has the charm of Uriah Heap coupled with the arrogance of Flashman. He is basically the Mandelson of the Cameroons, both effective behind the scenes but both would be disasters as frontman. If Osborne does become Tory Leader and PM, and that is now a strong possibility following the Tory win, Cooper or Burnham would almost certainly beat him in 2020, he would have neither Cameron's appeal to the moderate middle nor the appeal of Boris to those Tories thinking of voting UKIP
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
If you're willing to share: Do you believe homosexuality is a 'perversion of nature'? Feel free to reframe in less inflammatory language, if that helps.
Nope.
Also been legal between consenting adults in this country since 1967.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
Ed Miliband clearly thought so too, that anecdote about them sitting on the data showing Morley and Outwood possibly going Blue was correct I think. The counterfactual with Miliband PM and Leslie CoE was far worse than Balls in position.
Not to mention an affront to those of use who'd bet on Ed Balls as Next Chancellor as a proxy for Labour forming the next government!
Yes, quite !
I took the view that if Ed Balls was out Labour probably wouldn't be forming the next Government though.
That did prove to be the case, but the scenario of Balls out, Miliband PM was with hindsight not totally out the question. Still I'd take the 7-2/3-1 I had on that particular bet every day of the week and twice on Sundays every time.
George Osborne is by far the most impressive and interesting Tory politician out there. He seems to have real ideas that can actually be turned into real policy. I don't like a lot of what he does, but he is brilliant at doing it and beyond the Brownite point-scoring he clearly thinks deeply about some of the most important issues we face as a country. I'd love to know what his real views are on the EU and our membership of it. If we had PR he would be an absolute shoe-in for next Tory leader - and deservedly so.
Agreed. He is also very skilled at framing the arguments. He did this about the overspending issue, for example. Kept on about it for years and when Ed denied Labour had overspent he was met with utter incredulity. The argument had been won by consistent and skilful messaging over years until it was just an indisputable fact.
On the EU I think he was very angry indeed about the FTT and will be looking for protections to stop that sort of EZ interference with London in the future. If that can be obtained I think he will be for In but it is not a given and if the EU want Britain to remain they should be listening very carefully to what Osborne is saying.
where's @Alanbrooke when we need him for a bit of a tear up on this.
What on earth is wrong with discrimination.We all do it every day..it simply means choice ...and we choose things on a daily basis...personally I am all for it as it seems to be a basic human right.
When it is used to pick on someone because of an innate characteristic that they have little or no control over then there is a lot wrong with it.
Less than 100 years ago women could not vote and if they married they became the property of their husbands. Why? Because they were women. They did not choose that and there is nothing wrong with being a woman yet it was used to deny them the same rights as men. How do you think that feels? Can you even concieve of it?
Gay people do not choose to be gay, they just are. WHy should they be picked on, jeered at and belittled for being themselves?
Suppose some picked something arbitrary that you had no control over - say your eye colour - and then passed laws picking on you. How would you feel if property or jobs or the right to vote was denied you because your eye colour was wrong?
Discrimination is a nasty business used by bullies to belittle others. That is what is wrong with it.
It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.
Intolerant Illiberal? Whats your basis for that accusation?
I am intolerant of intolerance, from the Christopher Hitchens school of thought.
Like i say in private people are free to practice whatever they want to believe, when it comes to profit making enterprises, religion/discrimination stops at the door.
You're being grotesquely illiberal, sadly you can't see it. Liberalism doesn't extend until you find something you don't particularly like. God save us from hectoring hatetheists - so 2010.
The 'Liberal Bigots' are everywhere.
Everywhere on the internet certainly. Foolish people with no concept of the broad sweep of history. No idea that when looked at in context it is they who will be seen as the luddites and extremists of the day.
Like I say I cast my lot with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher ect. Religion of any stripe shouldn't have the slightest influence on decisions of profit making enterprises.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Yes, but it can be objectively reasoned which is which. Enlightenment requires the seeking of new knowledge, the willingness to cast off old theories as an when they cease to answer the questions they need to. Freedom is a huge part of the move toward enlightenment. What we have at the moment is a stifling secular orthodoxy, that refuses to brook any opposition to its atheist, darwinist, statist, warmist, pro 'science', and PC (though the interpretation of this is remarkably flexible in some cases) worldview - all of which is starting to get very dated and stale, as the general western population grows more sick, stupid, and un-engaged by the year.
As a athiest, global warming sceptic, pro-Iraq liberation, Labour voting individual, I can say that personally I don't feel very stifled.
Nor should you, with the exception of not being a warmist (a promising start), you're right there with the stiflers.
You think supporting the Iraq war is a Orthodox Liberal position? Crikey that's an interesting angle!
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
And you're just repeating your view, my view happens to match the view the law has too.
If a baker accepted a commission to bake a cake with a photo of a black couple on it saying "congratulations x and y" - only for the owners of the shop to cancel the order because they don't like blacks and think black marriage shouldn't be legal, would that be discrimination?
Yes it would. Under the same laws as this was illegal.
Two little known facts: on 7th May, Labour out-polled or was level with the Tories in every age group but the over-65s; and the two age groups in which the SNP did worse were the over-65s and the 18-24s.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
so if a white guy had gone into the shop and asked for a cake which said "I hate blacks" would that have been ok?
If a baker accepted a commission to bake a cake with a photo of a black couple on it saying "congratulations x and y" - only for the owners of the shop to cancel the order because they don't like blacks and think black marriage shouldn't be legal, would that be discrimination?
Yes it would. Under the same laws as this was illegal.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
Allow me to explain.
I would be perfectly comfortable with someone refusing to make a cake for Sinn Fein, or even something milder like the SDLP, or a cake demanding Scottish Independence, or a cake against the EU. These are cakes expressing a political or ideological position.
I would not be comfortable with someone being refused a cake because they were gay, black, or anything else.
To try and frame this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply mischeivous, and undermines whatever serious argument (I haven't seen one yet) to be made in favour of this judgement.
It is not mischievous, it is factual. That is what the case determined is that this was discrimination on these grounds - if it wasn't discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation then it wouldn't have been illegal.
To dismiss the law this breached as not being relevant is to stick your head in the sand. Only if the judgement was itself mischievous is it mischievous to agree with the judge. You're being absurd.
We appear to be arguing in circles. My argument is that this is an unjust verdict - if it is an accurate reflection of the statute, then the law is unjust. For the reasons I stated. You have responded by reminding me what the law is.
If you want to respond with an argument as to why cake shop owners should not have the right to refuse to write something (anything that isn't illegal) they have an objection to, then by all means make it. If you don't have one, the discussion appears to be at an end.
Two little known facts: on 7th May, Labour out-polled or was level with the Tories in every age group but the over-65s; and the two age groups in which the SNP did worse were the over-65s and the 18-24s.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
so if a white guy had gone into the shop and asked for a cake which said "I hate BAKERS" would that have been ok?
Two little known facts: on 7th May, Labour out-polled or was level with the Tories in every age group but the over-65s; and the two age groups in which the SNP did worse were the over-65s and the 18-24s.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
so if a white guy had gone into the shop and asked for a cake which said "I hate blacks" would that have been ok?
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
so if a white guy had gone into the shop and asked for a cake which said "I hate BAKERS" would that have been ok?
Two little known facts: on 7th May, Labour out-polled or was level with the Tories in every age group but the over-65s; and the two age groups in which the SNP did worse were the over-65s and the 18-24s.
Really? I'm not sure how the Tories could have been a clear 7% ahead nationwide on that basis, or by almost 10% in England.
It's not a straw man, it's just reality. Gays have been added to laws preventing discrimination that applied to others. There is not a law existing to protect gays in ways that doesn't apply to other races etc ... the law is the same.
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
But that's what you're missing.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
They refused to bake it because of the message, which is discrimination on illegal grounds.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
You're not answering the argument, you're just repeating your view.
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
so if a white guy had gone into the shop and asked for a cake which said "I hate BAKERS" would that have been ok?
Two little known facts: on 7th May, Labour out-polled or was level with the Tories in every age group but the over-65s; and the two age groups in which the SNP did worse were the over-65s and the 18-24s.
Really? I'm not sure how the Tories could have been a clear 7% ahead nationwide on that basis, or by almost 10% in England.
There just aren't that many pensioners.
Yes, those are ComRes breakdowns based on pre-election polling. No-one knows the definitive breakdown from May 7th other than by constituency.
Comments
I haven't argued that it isn't the law. I've argued that it's an unjust law that must and will be overturned.
I'd be fine with him refusing to make a cake saying "death to all Palestinians" or celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the KKK for instance. But probably not an innocent one with just the Star of David.
The issue is saying "we won't do this one thing because of our religion (but we'd do other political things or the opposite)".
The first isn't discrimination, the second is.
It's a mad, mad world. It always has been, mankind seems to excel at finding new ways to be mad. Getting the law involved in cake icing designs is a particularly imaginative form of utter madness.
Look if the bakery owners really wanted to make a difference to their beliefs, they should have taken the profits they made from the cake and donated it to an anti gay marriage group.
But instead they chose to discriminate, and they lost.
As I keep coming back to, religious beliefs in private or in a place of worship are fine. As soon as they start influencing the decisions of a profit making enterprise that's when its wrong.
Unless you believe corporations can have religious beliefs of course? Then you get into the Hobby Lobby quagmire.
And notice how I haven't thrown about any insults, or made any judgement on your views? Much nicer form of discussion isn't it
I have many criticisms of Cameron but if we judge the success of a politician by whether they win elections or not then he must go down as something of a success.
But if we're to say discrimination is allowed we have a lot to reverse and not just this one case. My issue is with people who think that discrimination isn't allowed, but that this isn't discrimination - of course it is. If you think its OK for a business to turn away jews, blacks, Irish or others then of course they can turn away gays. If they can't turn away the others, they can't turn away gays.
My issue here is consistency.
The amount of avowedly conservative posters here either supporting or equivocating over this grotesque judgement is shocking. Burke would turn in his grave. But that's ok, you got a parliamentary majority - well done you.
There's a difference ... between a business refusing to offer to provide their services to someone *because* they're gay, and being asked to produce something that supports a cause they don't agree with.
The first should be illegal. The second is free speech.
Anyone got a link to the actual judgement?
is it just me or was it Ed Balls who was trying to keep some kind of semblance of fiscal discipline to the shadow cabinet? What would they have been like without him?
I have many criticisms of Cameron but if we judge the success of a politician by whether they win elections or not then he must go down as something of a success."
If he walks away like he says he will, I think he'll end up being remembered much more fondly than some who held on by their fingernails or came back when quite clearly not up to the job.
Less than 100 years ago women could not vote and if they married they became the property of their husbands. Why? Because they were women. They did not choose that and there is nothing wrong with being a woman yet it was used to deny them the same rights as men. How do you think that feels? Can you even concieve of it?
Gay people do not choose to be gay, they just are. WHy should they be picked on, jeered at and belittled for being themselves?
Suppose some picked something arbitrary that you had no control over - say your eye colour - and then passed laws picking on you. How would you feel if property or jobs or the right to vote was denied you because your eye colour was wrong?
Discrimination is a nasty business used by bullies to belittle others. That is what is wrong with it.
I wouldn't be too sure. Osborne & Co have a track record of nurturing business here. Look at how tech city is booming, and how the film industry has exploded.
Osborne has personally backed other stuff like graphene and Alan Bond's Sabre engine project. He really has a passion for this area.
Would they have refused to produce a cake with the message "support the intifada"?
I gather resigning and unresigning is all the rage this Parliament.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/19/are-you-ready-for-president-biden.html
Personally, I doubt he'd win the Presidential - he'd be painted, however unfairly, as 8 more years of Obama. Despite Obama's recent slight uptick in job approval ratings, that is still a very hard sell.
If you think its OK to say no to Jews.
If you think its OK to say no to Irish
If you think its OK to say no to blacks.
Then its OK to say no to gays by consistency.
However its not, the law outlawed the others all decades ago and has caught up now with gays. Outlawing discrimination like this is absolutely nothing new. If you want to roll away protections for gays, I hope you're prepared to say you'll roll away protections for everyone else too.
If you're willing to stop everyone's protections then good for you, you're consistent. If you're only wanting to stop one group's protections but want to keep those for everyone else that have existed for decades then no you can't claim the moral high ground.
One man's Luddite is another man's enlightenment I guess.
Their reaction to the Ed Stone would have been award-winning telly.
(Do we definitely know it wasn't Ed Balls screaming at the telly in Labour HQ when it was shown?)
There seems to be a lot of the judge's ruling here.
http://tinyurl.com/ptxrytv
Shadow chancellor when labour are in opposition is a bit of a poisoned challice, isn't it?
So unless you want to roll back the law for all, admit you're against discrimination for some but in favour of it for others. The law that applied here, could have applied for someone refusing to serve blacks or others in an illegal manner.
I've not started reading it yet.
It reminds me of the supreme court rolling back voting rights legislation in America last year. Effectively their argument was, it doesn't happen anymore so we don't need this law, seemingly ignoring the reason it doesn't happen anymore is BECAUSE of the law!
Press officer.
They didn't refuse to serve the guy. They just refused to make *this specific cake*. If he had asked for a cake with Bert & Ernie but without the political message, I'm sure they would have been delighted to make it.
Perhaps the answer is to require the plaintiff to show damage as a result of the discrimination?
I would be perfectly comfortable with someone refusing to make a cake for Sinn Fein, or even something milder like the SDLP, or a cake demanding Scottish Independence, or a cake against the EU. These are cakes expressing a political or ideological position.
I would not be comfortable with someone being refused a cake because they were gay, black, or anything else.
To try and frame this as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply mischeivous, and undermines whatever serious argument (I haven't seen one yet) to be made in favour of this judgement.
Just the same as it'd also be illegal if they'd refused to bake a cake with black people on it or a pro-black message because they don't like blacks.
The law is the same and not modern, what is modern is gays being treated the same as everyone else has been for a long time. The problem here is that they think that discrimination against gays is OK because their religion says it is OK - that is no different to saying that discrimination against blacks is OK because ...
On the EU I think he was very angry indeed about the FTT and will be looking for protections to stop that sort of EZ interference with London in the future. If that can be obtained I think he will be for In but it is not a given and if the EU want Britain to remain they should be listening very carefully to what Osborne is saying.
To dismiss the law this breached as not being relevant is to stick your head in the sand. Only if the judgement was itself mischievous is it mischievous to agree with the judge. You're being absurd.
Did you use the same moniker back then?
If Osborne does become Tory Leader and PM, and that is now a strong possibility following the Tory win, Cooper or Burnham would almost certainly beat him in 2020, he would have neither Cameron's appeal to the moderate middle nor the appeal of Boris to those Tories thinking of voting UKIP
https://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2015/[2015] NICty 2/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm
Discriminating against someone on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation is, and should be, illegal.
That doesn't mean you are required to do everything they wish.
If a straight guy had come into the shop and requested the same cake, they would have turned the order down as well. That, for me, indicates it is to do with the *message* not the *customer*
Hattie ?
I took the view that if Ed Balls was out Labour probably wouldn't be forming the next Government though.
That did prove to be the case, but the scenario of Balls out, Miliband PM was with hindsight not totally out the question. Still I'd take the 7-2/3-1 I had on that particular bet every day of the week and twice on Sundays every time.
(tear to rhyme with hair btw....)
If a baker accepted a commission to bake a cake with a photo of a black couple on it saying "congratulations x and y" - only for the owners of the shop to cancel the order because they don't like blacks and think black marriage shouldn't be legal, would that be discrimination?
Yes it would. Under the same laws as this was illegal.
Mr. HYUFD, I think you underrate Osborne.
Scottish Tory Surge alert
If you want to respond with an argument as to why cake shop owners should not have the right to refuse to write something (anything that isn't illegal) they have an objection to, then by all means make it. If you don't have one, the discussion appears to be at an end.
There just aren't that many pensioners.
"Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.politics.misc/rh156rh/uk.politics.misc/ro91zyLllu8/6bGiavlGmRQJ