Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pollsters should follow Ipsos MORI’s 2008 example and not r

1235»

Comments

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    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?
    No, because that is racism.
    When did racism become against the law?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,654


    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.

    http://tinyurl.com/ptxrytv
    OK, reading the full judgement it seems to have been Mrs Homophobic Christian Cake Person who took the order, and rather than declining it there and then she thought she should discuss what to do with Mr Homophobic Christian Cake Person.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
  • AllyPally_RobAllyPally_Rob Posts: 605
    notme said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    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?
    No, because that is racism.
    When did racism become against the law?
    Race Relations Act 1965

    Race Relations Act 1968

    Race Relations Act 1976

    Equality Act 2010
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293


    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.

    http://tinyurl.com/ptxrytv
    OK, reading the full judgement it seems to have been Mrs Homophobic Christian Cake Person who took the order, and rather than declining it there and then she thought she should discuss what to do with Mr Homophobic Christian Cake Person.
    is there anything unlawful about being a christian or unapproving of homosexuality?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    Point of order: there's a difference between prejudice [an opinion] and discrimination [an action/speech] when it comes to racism.

    It's impossible to make the former illegal, but the latter is illegal. Or is sort of illegal. There's still a black police association, or something similar. And a women-only Race for Life.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015
    notme said:

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
    And long may people continue to stand up for their rights. Meek acceptance of bigotry, and appeasement of the bigots, is not the way forward for society.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    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?
    No, because that is racism.
    When did racism become against the law?
    Race Relations Act 1965

    Race Relations Act 1968

    Race Relations Act 1976

    Equality Act 2010
    Dont be ridiculous. None of them make racism against the law. You might be able to argue amendments to the local government act make it against the law for councils, and various public order acts can make it an aggravating factor to an existing criminal offence, but you are stretching.
  • AllyPally_RobAllyPally_Rob Posts: 605
    edited May 2015
    notme said:


    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.

    http://tinyurl.com/ptxrytv
    OK, reading the full judgement it seems to have been Mrs Homophobic Christian Cake Person who took the order, and rather than declining it there and then she thought she should discuss what to do with Mr Homophobic Christian Cake Person.
    is there anything unlawful about being a christian or unapproving of homosexuality?
    In private or as a personal opinion, people are totally entitled to that.

    When those opinions affect commercial decisions of profit making enterprises, Yup. That's what the law says.

    A person or individual can have any opinion they want. This was a commercial transaction.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,972
    RichardDodds Take this yougov poll, 30% of the public wants Boris to succeed Cameron, 16% May, just 7% Osborne
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/boris-would-boost-tory-support-just-one-point-if-he-became-leader
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    notme said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    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?
    No, because that is racism.
    When did racism become against the law?
    inciting racial hatred, sorry.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    notme said:


    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.

    http://tinyurl.com/ptxrytv
    OK, reading the full judgement it seems to have been Mrs Homophobic Christian Cake Person who took the order, and rather than declining it there and then she thought she should discuss what to do with Mr Homophobic Christian Cake Person.
    is there anything unlawful about being a christian or unapproving of homosexuality?
    Homosexuality has been lawful between consenting adults since 1967.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,872
    This thread has degenerated into a lot of values signalling and moral grandstanding, as I feared it would.

    I think I'll come back later.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    notme said:

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
    They actually *did* go somewhere else, but were upset about the inconvenience
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531

    Point of order: there's a difference between prejudice [an opinion] and discrimination [an action/speech] when it comes to racism.

    It's impossible to make the former illegal, but the latter is illegal. Or is sort of illegal. There's still a black police association, or something similar. And a women-only Race for Life.

    Mr Dancer,
    Yes you are right about CRUK's charity run! Men get cancer too!
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Anorak said:

    notme said:

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
    And long may people continue to stand up for their rights. Meek acceptance of bigotry, and appeasement of the bigots, is not the way forward for society.
    I stand up for the right of people to say and do things i disapprove of. I thought that was liberalism. Would you like a looking glass?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Freedom of choice must always remain exactly that. The alternative is Ideological imprisonment.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015

    This thread has degenerated into a lot of values signalling and moral grandstanding, as I feared it would.

    I think I'll come back later.

    Oh, pooh to you!

    This sort of debate is fun :kissing_heart:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    notme said:

    Robert Henderson article on UKIP, posted on 6 May on uk.politics.misc

    "Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election"

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.politics.misc/rh156rh/uk.politics.misc/ro91zyLllu8/6bGiavlGmRQJ

    i havetn been on ukpolitics.misc for years, there was a precursor group in the mid nineties that split. Good to see RH is alive and well.
    Yes, I agree about RH.

    Although I only had a brief scan of uk.p.m today, if only because "Liberal Bigot" came up on this thread!

    I think the original incarnation was plain, old "uk.politics".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,662
    edited May 2015
    Dr. Prasannan, indeed. That baffles me. Especially as the advert for it is fronted by a man.

    There's also a related problem with cancer funding/donations. Breast cancer gets a lot, but if you have pancreatic cancer [a less fashionable donation cause to support] then your prospects are worse.

    Mr. Charles, when inconvenienced at a shop I always go to court afterwards. Because nothing says minimal fuss like several months of a trial.

    Edited extra bit: off to perambulate with the hound.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,179
    Open letter from Liz Kendall to the trade unionists:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/letter-trade-unionist-britains-trade-unionists

    "I’m a proud trade unionist, and I know you are too.

    Trade unions helped found the Labour Party, and if I am elected as leader that link will never be broken. On the contrary, I want to strengthen your relationship with the Labour Party so I will not tolerate those inside or outside our movement who want to put that relationship at risk.

    Rather than being dominated by threats to withdraw funding or back other parties, let this leadership election give a voice to the many trade union members who now face a fresh assault on their rights at work because Labour failed to beat the Tories in the election. That includes union members who chose not vote Labour this time. I also want to hear from working people who have not yet joined a trade union, and hear why that is."
  • AllyPally_RobAllyPally_Rob Posts: 605
    edited May 2015
    @notmne

    Like i have said repeatedly, racism as a personal opinion is not illegal, but if it affects commercial decisions it is.

    If a social housing officer is racist, he is not braking any laws. If he denies a black person social housing based on their skin colour, he is braking the law.

    The distinction is not difficult to see.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited May 2015

    Homosexuality has been lawful between consenting adults since 1967.

    Not in progressive Scotland, cradle of the Enlightenment. It wasn't until we had a properly liberal government under Maggie in 1980 that the Scots were brought into line. [In Northern Ireland it was 1982].

    Curiously the left, especially the Scottish left, seem unaccountably reluctant to celebrate Maggie's part in this.

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Point of order: there's a difference between prejudice [an opinion] and discrimination [an action/speech] when it comes to racism.

    It's impossible to make the former illegal, but the latter is illegal. Or is sort of illegal. There's still a black police association, or something similar. And a women-only Race for Life.

    An action or speech that is racist is not illegal. There needs to be more than that, such as incitement, or an element of abuse, which is already criminal. Successful prosecutions are very very rare of the former because of that.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364

    The Northern Irish cake seems a mountain made out of a molehill. The bakers should have made the cake, but knowing their views, I'm not sure that the customers would want to eat it.

    For the same reason that you should never piss off the waiter.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531

    Homosexuality has been lawful between consenting adults since 1967.

    Not in progressive Scotland, cradle of the Enlightenment. It wasn't until we had a properly liberal government under Maggie in 1980 that the Scots were brought into line.

    Curiously the left, especially the Scottish left, seem unaccountably reluctant to celebrate Maggie's part in this.
    Ah, yes I forgot about that!

    I take it in NI itself (to bring this back to where the "Not-cake" was baked), it was even later.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Open letter from Liz Kendall to the trade unionists:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/letter-trade-unionist-britains-trade-unionists

    "I’m a proud trade unionist, and I know you are too.
    ."

    Thus endeth her campaign - LKICWNBPM


  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015

    Dr. Prasannan, indeed. That baffles me. Especially as the advert for it is fronted by a man.

    There's also a related problem with cancer funding/donations. Breast cancer gets a lot, but if you have pancreatic cancer [a less fashionable donation cause to support] then your prospects are worse.

    Mr. Charles, when inconvenienced at a shop I always go to court afterwards. Because nothing says minimal fuss like several months of a trial.

    Edited extra bit: off to perambulate with the hound.

    Interesting choice of cancers. In the UKUS, annually:
    Breast: 232k cases, 40k deaths
    Pancreatic: 49k cases 41k deaths
    http://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

    Is the differences in mortality due to the extra research money, or screening, or a fundamental characteristic of the cancer in question?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Charles said:

    notme said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    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?
    No, because that is racism.
    When did racism become against the law?
    inciting racial hatred, sorry.
    That is a totally different order of magnitude. You have to say some pretty ugly things to reach the necessary bar to have incited others to hate. Which is why, despite a lot of attempts by an over active CPS, they couldnt pin the BNP down for it. They got their way and bankrupted them by a complete destruction of the concept of free association.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "And I promise that I will always be an ally for you. I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them."

    Pathetic rubbish - no better than Ed.

    So much for her being the great white hope..
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,576
    Anorak said:

    This thread has degenerated into a lot of values signalling and moral grandstanding, as I feared it would.

    I think I'll come back later.

    Oh, pooh to you!

    This sort of debate is fun.
    But exhausting. Still, it's a change of pace from arguing about minutiaue no-one not an anorak cares about, to something more abstract.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited May 2015
    notme said:

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
    But they did not. They went to a well regarded business with a good reputation to have a good job done. My mother lives near an Asher's bakery and has frequently fed me their products. If I was looking for a special cake I would have walked in there too.

    They did not wave banners shouting "I am gay". They ordered a cake. They asked for a perfectly legal picture and sentence to be put on it and where then told that their business was unwanted.

    How do you think that made them feel? It would darn well ruin my day if I was treated like that, to be picked on because that is what it was. Did Asher's have a big sign up saying "No gays"? How where the couple supposed to know before they walked in there and had their business refused?

    Isn't it funny how religious folk pick out the parts of the Bible that "permit" them to be bigots? It seems incredible to me that the core message of Jesus - "Love one another" - is frequently disregarded. Jesus also wasted his breath on the the parable of the Good Samartian, an illustration of the righteous of his time being utter b******ds whilst one man helped another for no reason other than being good and decent.

    Jesus would be ashamed of many of his modern day followers, and rightly so.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    @notmne

    Like i have said repeatedly, racism as a personal opinion is not illegal, but if it affects commercial decisions it is.

    If a social housing officer is racist, he is not braking any laws. If he denies a black person social housing based on their skin colour, he is braking the law.

    The distinction is not difficult to see.


    Let's take a silly example (and I will be guilty of stereotyping, but please bear with me!)

    The social housing team offers people a choice of roofs on their houses. They don't specify any limitation on these, because most people choose either a slate roof or a tiled roof.

    A black individual (colour is irrelevant, but let's say) demands a palm frond roof because that is traditional in his community. This is refused on the grounds that the housing officer believes it would be inappropriate . It would also be refused to a white individual.

    The black individual sues on grounds of racism because the housing officer refused to supply him with a service that was compatible with his traditional customs.

    What is different about that from the argument you are making in respect of requiring the baker to make a specific cake that the individual customer demanded?
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Anorak said:

    Dr. Prasannan, indeed. That baffles me. Especially as the advert for it is fronted by a man.

    There's also a related problem with cancer funding/donations. Breast cancer gets a lot, but if you have pancreatic cancer [a less fashionable donation cause to support] then your prospects are worse.

    Mr. Charles, when inconvenienced at a shop I always go to court afterwards. Because nothing says minimal fuss like several months of a trial.

    Edited extra bit: off to perambulate with the hound.

    Interesting choice of cancers. In the UKUS, annually:
    Breast: 232k cases, 40k deaths
    Pancreatic: 49k cases 41k deaths
    http://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

    Is the differences in mortality due to the extra research money, or screening, or a fundamental characteristic of the cancer in question?
    pancreatic cancer is very ugly, by the time you have symptoms (a nasty dose of pancreatitas ) its too late. Survival happens when it is uncovered while looking for something else. Ive suffered pancreatitas, i think i might have actually lost my mind with pain if it wasnt for morphine.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    kle4 said:

    Anorak said:

    This thread has degenerated into a lot of values signalling and moral grandstanding, as I feared it would.

    I think I'll come back later.

    Oh, pooh to you!

    This sort of debate is fun.
    But exhausting. Still, it's a change of pace from arguing about minutiaue no-one not an anorak cares about, to something more abstract.
    I REALLY wish there were a bunch of opinion polls regarding the minutiae of Cake-gate!

    (only kidding!)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Anorak said:

    Dr. Prasannan, indeed. That baffles me. Especially as the advert for it is fronted by a man.

    There's also a related problem with cancer funding/donations. Breast cancer gets a lot, but if you have pancreatic cancer [a less fashionable donation cause to support] then your prospects are worse.

    Mr. Charles, when inconvenienced at a shop I always go to court afterwards. Because nothing says minimal fuss like several months of a trial.

    Edited extra bit: off to perambulate with the hound.

    Interesting choice of cancers. In the UKUS, annually:
    Breast: 232k cases, 40k deaths
    Pancreatic: 49k cases 41k deaths
    http://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

    Is the differences in mortality due to the extra research money, or screening, or a fundamental characteristic of the cancer in question?
    Market size.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    kle4 said:

    Anorak said:

    This thread has degenerated into a lot of values signalling and moral grandstanding, as I feared it would.

    I think I'll come back later.

    Oh, pooh to you!

    This sort of debate is fun.
    But exhausting. Still, it's a change of pace from arguing about minutiaue no-one not an anorak cares about, to something more abstract.
    We could all go back to agreeing that Ed was crap, I suppose.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    TGOHF said:

    "And I promise that I will always be an ally for you. I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them."

    Pathetic rubbish - no better than Ed.

    So much for her being the great white hope..

    Excellent. Another no hoper kowtowing to the Unions.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    TGOHF said:

    "And I promise that I will always be an ally for you. I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them."

    Pathetic rubbish - no better than Ed.

    So much for her being the great white hope..

    It's brilliant stuff, pure comedy:

    One of the great strengths of the trade union movement is to take power from the centre and put power into the hands of the many.

    I'm sure Len will applaud that!
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
    But they did not. They went to a well regarded business with a good reputation to have a good job done. My mother lives near an Asher's bakery and has frequently fed me their products. If I was looking for a special cake I would have walked in there too.

    They did not wave banners shouting "I am gay". They ordered a cake. They asked for a perfectly legal picture and sentence to be put on it and where then told that their business was unwanted.

    How do you think that made them feel? It would darn well ruin my day if I was treated like that, to be picked on because that is what it was. Did Asher's have a big sign up saying "No gays"? How where the couple supposed to know before they walked in there and had their business refused?

    Isn't it funny how religious folk pick out the parts of the Bible that "permit" them to be bigots? It seems incredible to me that the core message of Jesus - "Love one another" - is frequently disregarded. Jesus also wasted his breath on the the parable of the Good Samartian, an illustration of the righteous of his time being utter b******ds whilst one man helped another for no reason other than being good and decent.

    Jesus would be ashamed of many of his modern day followers, and rightly so.
    im not a lover of jesus, just a lover of freedom.
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659

    notme said:

    notme said:


    It's quite clear where the power was in this situation, and who the bullies were.

    Clarify for me please. I am having trouble reading between the lines.
    the power was in the hand of the customers, not the business owners. They could just go somewhere that wants their business, but no they decided to punish them.
    But they did not. They went to a well regarded business with a good reputation to have a good job done. My mother lives near an Asher's bakery and has frequently fed me their products. If I was looking for a special cake I would have walked in there too.

    They did not wave banners shouting "I am gay". They ordered a cake. They asked for a perfectly legal picture and sentence to be put on it and where then told that their business was unwanted.

    How do you think that made them feel? It would darn well ruin my day if I was treated like that, to be picked on because that is what it was. Did Asher's have a big sign up saying "No gays"? How where the couple supposed to know before they walked in there and had their business refused?

    Isn't it funny how religious folk pick out the parts of the Bible that "permit" them to be bigots? It seems incredible to me that the core message of Jesus - "Love one another" - is frequently disregarded. Jesus also wasted his breath on the the parable of the Good Samartian, an illustration of the righteous of his time being utter b******ds whilst one man helped another for no reason other than being good and decent.

    Jesus would be ashamed of many of his modern day followers, and rightly so.

    +1

    Very eloquently put.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,531
    notme said:

    Anorak said:

    Dr. Prasannan, indeed. That baffles me. Especially as the advert for it is fronted by a man.

    There's also a related problem with cancer funding/donations. Breast cancer gets a lot, but if you have pancreatic cancer [a less fashionable donation cause to support] then your prospects are worse.

    Mr. Charles, when inconvenienced at a shop I always go to court afterwards. Because nothing says minimal fuss like several months of a trial.

    Edited extra bit: off to perambulate with the hound.

    Interesting choice of cancers. In the UKUS, annually:
    Breast: 232k cases, 40k deaths
    Pancreatic: 49k cases 41k deaths
    http://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

    Is the differences in mortality due to the extra research money, or screening, or a fundamental characteristic of the cancer in question?
    pancreatic cancer is very ugly, by the time you have symptoms (a nasty dose of pancreatitas ) its too late. Survival happens when it is uncovered while looking for something else. Ive suffered pancreatitas, i think i might have actually lost my mind with pain if it wasnt for morphine.
    Sorry to hear that, hope you made a full recovery.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    Least the damages don't seem to be disproportionate, if this was the USA there'd be quite a few zeroes added to that £500.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Charles said:


    A black individual (colour is irrelevant, but let's say) demands a palm frond roof because that is traditional in his community. This is refused on the grounds that the housing officer believes it would be inappropriate . It would also be refused to a white individual.

    The black individual sues on grounds of racism because the housing officer refused to supply him with a service that was compatible with his traditional customs.

    What is different about that from the argument you are making in respect of requiring the baker to make a specific cake that the individual customer demanded?

    The Housing Officer could say that it was not possible to get palm fronds or that they contravened Health & Safety or simply that they had no houses that such roofing material could be fitted to.

    This case differed from that. These people went to a company that specialised in exactly what they wanted - cake with a message on it.

    The parallel version in your example would be that the couple went to a company offering a choice of roofs only to be told "We could do what you ask but we will not because you are black"

    And that is why it is both wrong and offensive

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,576
    TGOHF said:

    "And I promise that I will always be an ally for you. I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them."

    Pathetic rubbish - no better than Ed.

    So much for her being the great white hope..

    Heh. It will be fun to see if the positive comments from the Tory leaning pundits begins to dry up a little, it was a help and a hindrance to her chances I suspect. Helpful as it showed she had some appeal beyond the core, but a hindrance if appeared she was a bit too Toryish.

    Of course, a thing I think is key in politics is cementing your image early on - if you can do that, you can say things obviously not in accordance with it later, and people who liked your initial image will give you greater benefit of the doubt. I never thought Ed was that crap, only bland and average, and that filtered how I saw everything else he did. If Kendall can present as one thing initially, she could say some things entirely opposite to that later, as long as it is not too obvious or frequent.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,284
    Anorak said:

    Dr. Prasannan, indeed. That baffles me. Especially as the advert for it is fronted by a man.

    There's also a related problem with cancer funding/donations. Breast cancer gets a lot, but if you have pancreatic cancer [a less fashionable donation cause to support] then your prospects are worse.

    Mr. Charles, when inconvenienced at a shop I always go to court afterwards. Because nothing says minimal fuss like several months of a trial.

    Edited extra bit: off to perambulate with the hound.

    Interesting choice of cancers. In the UKUS, annually:
    Breast: 232k cases, 40k deaths
    Pancreatic: 49k cases 41k deaths
    http://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers

    Is the differences in mortality due to the extra research money, or screening, or a fundamental characteristic of the cancer in question?
    AFAIK it’s the latter. Pancreatic cancer is “normally” untreatable, and,tAFAIK, it’s not possible to remove the pancreas, or do take away part of it with any degree of confidence that the cancer will be removed entirely.

    Bowel cancer lies somewhere between the two. I was diagnosed and treated 4 years ago and so far (crosses figers while typing) I’m OK. And I know others who are in a similar position. However I know others who have died of,or as a consequence of, it during the same period, including a cousin.
  • 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.

    Is this a fact or an opinion poll 'fact'? If true, It rather mirrors the Scottish referendum. And reminds Labour that chasing the non-voting yoof with comedic stunts is an electoral cul-de-sac. Though I expect that they have worked that out now.

    Actually, no I don't. Just remembered that they seem to drag poor Eddie Izzard out to make a tit of himself on a regular basis.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364

    To prevent Cake-gate happening again, homophobic bakers should put out circulars... "Gay cake orders welcome, all made with added protein."

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:

    Heh. It will be fun to see if the positive comments from the Tory leaning pundits begins to dry up a little,

    To be fair, anyone who wants to lead the Labour Party has to come out with that sort of syrupy claptrap. I wouldn't hold it against her particularly.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    The parallel version in your example would be that the couple went to a company offering a choice of roofs only to be told "We could do what you ask but we will not because you are black"

    And that is why it is both wrong and offensive

    Indeed, that would be wrong and offensive.

    But equally that's not what happened in the cake case. I'm sure they would have been delighted to sell the customer a cake with any other message on it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,598

    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.

    Is this a fact or an opinion poll 'fact'? If true, It rather mirrors the Scottish referendum. And reminds Labour that chasing the non-voting yoof with comedic stunts is an electoral cul-de-sac. Though I expect that they have worked that out now.

    Actually, no I don't. Just remembered that they seem to drag poor Eddie Izzard out to make a tit of himself on a regular basis.
    SO, do you happen to remember, please, what parties did better than the SNP for the youngsters? Was this for example accounted for by the Greens or DNV?

    The oldsters are well known - more likely to be Tory voters etc.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,598
    CD13 said:


    To prevent Cake-gate happening again, homophobic bakers should put out circulars... "Gay cake orders welcome, all made with added protein."

    Mucopolysaccharide surely?

  • On the gay marriage debate, the Church of Ireland is in real danger of falling apart. A couple of bishops have indicated that they are in favour and a lot of clergy are majorly unhappy. With the CoI so small already, any major tear could be very problematic. I was rather unhappy that my own rector included a prayer of intercession for the bakers to fight the good fight. It seemed rather less noble than the ones for the Christians suffering in the Middle East to me.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    Christ, enough about the stupid bloody cake already
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Kendall raises an interesting point. Why don;t more people want to join unions?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    Here it is - Gay Cakes, the US version

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/24/state-says-bakers-should-pay-135000-for-refusing-to-bake-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/

    $135,000 for hurt feelings over someone refusing to bake a cake - completely out of all proportion:

    Check out the list of alleged sufferings...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    notme said:

    im not a lover of jesus, just a lover of freedom.

    You are just hiding behind a different facade, nothing more.

    Freedom does not infer rights. Ashers exercised their right to make a free choice and that choice had consequences. Freedom did not protect them from those consequences, nor should it.


  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    TGOHF said:

    "And I promise that I will always be an ally for you. I will tolerate no weakening of protections for working people or the basic rights of trade unions while I’m leader. If they’re implemented by this Tory government, the Labour government I will lead will reverse them."

    Pathetic rubbish - no better than Ed.

    So much for her being the great white hope..

    Hilarious and Labour's problem in a nutshell. Anyone normal enough to win general elections can never be elected leader and anyone warped enough to be elected leader can't win elections.

    It took four defeats before they got fed up with this last time around. They then elected the whore of Babylon as leader just to get into power and look how well that went.

    They're so screwed :-0
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    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.

    George Osborne really is heir-to-Brown and it will be interesting to see if his Brown-like urge to tinker in departmental matters causes tensions with cabinet colleagues.

    Osborne is much more at ease with himself than Brown and far less obsessive. He also strikes me as someone who will listen to other points of view rather than shout them down. He is obsessed with point-scoring and was not that impressive for the first two or three years at the Treasury - in fact he looked well out of his depth, even if he wasn't - but over the last two years he has grown into someone of real stature. I don't like much of what he does, but I like the fact he clearly thinks beyond the next week. What he is doing on English devolution is kind of below the radar, but could be transformative.

    He is the most serious option for the next Conservative leader. I find him equally impressive and a great strategic thinker.

    His trouble is he doesn't look or sound human. That's why he and Cameron make such a good pair.
    I disagree with the "not human" bit. He strikes me as much more interesting, humorous and, dare I say it, attractive than Cameron. He has really matured as a politician.
    antifrank said:

    I find the gay cake case tricky for two reasons. First, everyone involved in the case without exception seems to have been a complete berk. And secondly, it's such a trivial case.

    It will give the DUP's fight for a freedom of conscience clause a boost. Simultaneously, it will give the pro-gay marriage lobby in Ireland a boost in advance of the referendum.

    Agreed. A bit of common sense by all parties could have avoided this. On the whole if you're providing a service to the public you provide it to all, unless what you're being asked to do is illegal. When I go to a shop or whatever I don't want to be bothered by the shopkeeper's private political/religious or any other views/sexuality/race or anything else and nor frankly do I want to be asked about my own. It's hard enough getting good service without having to fight your way through some sort of mental picket line.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,576
    Anorak said:

    kle4 said:

    Anorak said:

    This thread has degenerated into a lot of values signalling and moral grandstanding, as I feared it would.

    I think I'll come back later.

    Oh, pooh to you!

    This sort of debate is fun.
    But exhausting. Still, it's a change of pace from arguing about minutiaue no-one not an anorak cares about, to something more abstract.
    We could all go back to agreeing that Ed was crap, I suppose.
    The cake is much more preferable.
    Charles said:



    The parallel version in your example would be that the couple went to a company offering a choice of roofs only to be told "We could do what you ask but we will not because you are black"

    And that is why it is both wrong and offensive

    Indeed, that would be wrong and offensive.

    But equally that's not what happened in the cake case. I'm sure they would have been delighted to sell the customer a cake with any other message on it.
    Well, presumably not 'any' other message on it; they probably have a number of things they don't want to put on their cakes.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364
    Subjective views are just that ... but the offence bus rumbles on.

    If I went to a baker and said I wanted a cake with "Cameron is a twat" emblazoned on it, he might refuse. I'd probably go and find another one. Or how about "Death to the IRA."?

    Spending a fortune to find out what is nowadays deemed offensive is petty in the extreme.Why use cakes to make political or social points? Get a life.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,676
    Charles said:



    The parallel version in your example would be that the couple went to a company offering a choice of roofs only to be told "We could do what you ask but we will not because you are black"

    And that is why it is both wrong and offensive

    Indeed, that would be wrong and offensive.

    But equally that's not what happened in the cake case. I'm sure they would have been delighted to sell the customer a cake with any other message on it.
    no.

    because cakes with messages are part of the offering of the bakers.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    taffys said:

    Kendall raises an interesting point. Why don;t more people want to join unions?

    The same reason they don't join the Woodland Folk.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,576
    I like antifrank's take on this cake business. A lot of berks involved in this one. Mighty inconvenient when trying to take moral lessons I find, when all or most of the parties involved are like that.


    And a good afternoon to all.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Couldn't agree more.
    CD13 said:

    Subjective views are just that ... but the offence bus rumbles on.

    If I went to a baker and said I wanted a cake with "Cameron is a twat" emblazoned on it, he might refuse. I'd probably go and find another one. Or how about "Death to the IRA."?

    Spending a fortune to find out what is nowadays deemed offensive is petty in the extreme.Why use cakes to make political or social points? Get a life.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2015

    NEW THREAD

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    taffys said:

    Kendall raises an interesting point. Why don;t more people want to join unions?

    I joined a union because at the time it was a closed shop.

    I have never had any desire to join a political party of any colour
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Would a gay baker be within his rights refusing to bake a 'Save Ulster from Sodomy' cake?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,576
    A welcome piece, from what was among the more interesting results from the GE, so it's good to see what some of the implications might be.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    CD13 said:


    If I went to a baker and said I wanted a cake with "Cameron is a twat" emblazoned on it,

    He could argue that it is libellous
    CD13 said:

    Or how about "Death to the IRA."?

    Incitement to violence, therefore illegal
    Cyclefree said:

    I don't want to be bothered by the shopkeeper's private political/religious or any other views/sexuality/race or anything else and nor frankly do I want to be asked about my own. It's hard enough getting good service without having to fight your way through some sort of mental picket line.

    Indeed. Over the years I have done business for many people whose views I disagreed with, but my personal views are MY personal views and I do what I am contracted to do and keep my mouth shut. The only time I was asked to do something illegal I flatly refused and told them that I would report it to the police. They were convicted,
  • AllyPally_RobAllyPally_Rob Posts: 605
    Charles said:

    @notmne

    Like i have said repeatedly, racism as a personal opinion is not illegal, but if it affects commercial decisions it is.

    If a social housing officer is racist, he is not braking any laws. If he denies a black person social housing based on their skin colour, he is braking the law.

    The distinction is not difficult to see.


    Let's take a silly example (and I will be guilty of stereotyping, but please bear with me!)

    The social housing team offers people a choice of roofs on their houses. They don't specify any limitation on these, because most people choose either a slate roof or a tiled roof.

    A black individual (colour is irrelevant, but let's say) demands a palm frond roof because that is traditional in his community. This is refused on the grounds that the housing officer believes it would be inappropriate . It would also be refused to a white individual.

    The black individual sues on grounds of racism because the housing officer refused to supply him with a service that was compatible with his traditional customs.

    What is different about that from the argument you are making in respect of requiring the baker to make a specific cake that the individual customer demanded?
    A comparable version would be something like, a white man hires a building company to build a house with a palm roof, the building company completes the job.

    His black neighbour contacts the same company to build an identical house on his land, and the building firm say no on the basis of his race.

    The Palm roof is equivalent to the cake. Both the builder and the baker are capable of providing the service and are discriminating on race/sexual orientation.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    antifrank said:

    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.
    I don't see that. If Milliband seriously thought that Morley & Outwood was in danger he would have known that Labour was doomed at the election.
  • justin124 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    antifrank said:

    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.
    I don't see that. If Milliband seriously thought that Morley & Outwood was in danger he would have known that Labour was doomed at the election.
    The fact that Balls did not know he was in danger of losing speaks to the total ineptness of his own canvassing. But he does seem to have been an absent MP.
This discussion has been closed.