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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Race Relations Act 1968
Race Relations Act 1976
Equality Act 2010
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.
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.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/boris-would-boost-tory-support-just-one-point-if-he-became-leader
I think I'll come back later.
Yes you are right about CRUK's charity run! Men get cancer too!
This sort of debate is fun
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".
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.
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."
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.
Curiously the left, especially the Scottish left, seem unaccountably reluctant to celebrate Maggie's part in this.
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.
I take it in NI itself (to bring this back to where the "Not-cake" was baked), it was even later.
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?
Pathetic rubbish - no better than Ed.
So much for her being the great white hope..
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.
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?
(only kidding!)
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!
+1
Very eloquently put.
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
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.
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.
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.
To prevent Cake-gate happening again, homophobic bakers should put out circulars... "Gay cake orders welcome, all made with added protein."
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.
The oldsters are well known - more likely to be Tory voters etc.
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...
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.
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
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.
because cakes with messages are part of the offering of the bakers.
And a good afternoon to all.
NEW THREAD
I have never had any desire to join a political party of any colour
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,
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.