BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:47 PM

Joe Offer: "Let the bakers get back to baking cakes, fer crissake."

Right!!...and musicians SHOULD be about the music!!....not stupid political agendas built on 'maybes' 'suggests', 'possibles', 'may suggests', etc etc...

Here I think Leonard Cohen said it all in the first verse, and several times after....:
Evancho & Hollens, done A Capella....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:12 AM

Greg F(again): " And you were agreeing with and amplifying that statement, Goofus.
Foot get in your mouth?"

At least we have something in common....neither one of us know what you're talking about!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:13 AM

If you're going to try to make a point with a Cohen song then use Cohen, not those two who are too pretty for their own good. Evancho was a phenom when she was a kid, but now she hits the notes without really having a pretty voice. The character that Cohen brings is what makes the song work.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:17 AM

"As I stated above, if you Google for bakery gay marriage, you will see that there have been similar cases making bakers miserable all over the English-speaking world"
I'm sure the slave-owners in the South felt exactly the same Joe - "why can't we get on with picking cotton without this fuss?"
Poor them
The bulk of news items in your link are reports of the Asher's case, a couple are from the U.S. (one dated 2013) - hardly world-wide fallout (or even rest-of-Ireland fallout) from recent events.
Perhaps people are coming to the conclusion that they don't have to put up with discrimination any more.
Perhaps it's time they ot their act together and set up a few bigots just to expose them for what they ate - bigots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:31 AM

I know it was a slip of the fingers and I am not taking the piss, Jim, honest, but I could not help but laugh at people eating bigots :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:34 AM

Joe. So lawsuits don't help causes?

How are you getting in over there. Does segregation mean twice as many buses on the street? Just think, if you have a few law suits, one day a black man could be President. Who knows? A few years later you may even be able to vote for a woman.

If you are in business either side of the pond, you cannot refuse business on the grounds of discrimination. Full stop.

As Dave said, in this case a court weighed up the evidence and gave a judgement. Mind you, keep going pete, Keith, Goofus, myriad "guest" apologists and even Joe..

Your outrageous sense of morality gives normal people an insight into how superstition fucks you up. You really are at the level of Akenaton on this one. The fact he doesn't need a bible to hide behind just shows the difference between having a view and being told what your view is.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:40 AM

The bakers did not discriminate against anyone.
They serve gay folk all the time and served this person.

No-one, whatever their trade, can be made by law to write stuff that they disagree with.

If you can be awarded £500 for every refusal, why wouldn't people demand lefty businesses produce right wing material?

Muslim businesses would be a really easy target.
"Support Gay Marriage" would catch most of them.
"Support Free Expression" with a cartoon of the Prophet would get the rest.
Would you be happy with those consequences Steve?
Not just a "what if" but a "why not"

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:59 AM

The bakers did not discriminate against anyone.

People don't forget so quickly, Keith, and I think I only pointed it out yesterday but just in case...

This is just your opinion. The judge said they did discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:39 AM

What if, what if, what if, Keith. Why not? Because the what-ifs are all made up, that's why not (I could use the terminology of Terbus and yerself, made-up shit, but I won't demean myself). They did not happen. What's more, your what-ifs are all predicated on someone going in to set up the baker. Not the same thing, as that did not happen, and, as I have said, a judge detecting mischief would throw the case out. If perchance he was forced by technicalities to favour the mischief-maker, he'd make him pay the costs.

The bakers did not discriminate against anyone.
They serve gay folk all the time...

So they discriminate against straight folk then...   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:41 AM

Terbus lost an i... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Thompson
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:01 AM

In Northern Ireland they call this 'whataboutery'.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:06 AM

Good word. The whole thing is a bit of an embuggerance. Thanks to Terry Pratchett for that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:41 AM

Dave, thanks for reminding me that I am disagreeing with the judge.
I had not forgotten, but thanks.

Steve,
What's more, your what-ifs are all predicated on someone going in to set up the baker.

No it is not.
If the judgement stands then anyone can demand anyone to print anything and be compensated for every refusal.
BNP ads. in the Guardian.
"Support Gay Marriage" and "Support Free Expression" with a cartoon of the Prophet for Muslims.

The judgement will be overthrown because apart from the injustice, the consequences would be damaging to society.

I think the judge was a fool Dave.
Sometimes they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:45 AM

"The bakers did not discriminate against anyone."
Oh dear - I do wish you "!I'm in favour of mixed sex marriages" bods would read the facts
The bakers discriminated against a gay man by refusing to accept a legitimate, perfectly legal order.
They were found guilty of doin so and unless the fundamentalist -backed appeal succeeds, that remains the case.
Th fact that they are prepared to take gays money over the counter is immaterial - they have expressed their prejudice in biblical terms. and have been found guilty of doing so.
"No-one, whatever their trade, can be made by law to write stuff that they disagree with."
So my local printer is quite withing his rights to refuse to produce a booklet I'm planning because he disagrees with my definition of folk song
"Curiouser and curiouser"
All you've manages to convince anybody of is where you stand on Gay marriage Keith - methinks, thou protesteth too much - but thanks for the heads-up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:14 AM

The bakers discriminated against a gay man by refusing to accept a legitimate, perfectly legal order.

No they did not.
He had been served before.
They did not know he was gay.
They only objected to the slogan.
You do not have to write stuff you do not like.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:18 AM

If the judgement stands then anyone can demand anyone to print anything and be compensated for every refusal.

Not so. Every case is different. Circumstances alter cases. As we saw in the court transcript (sorry if that's the wrong expression), details of every circumstance are gone over in minute detail. For your silly prediction to definitely come true, every single detail of the case would have to be identical to this one. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the finding would be the same. An important element in this case is that the shop was not deliberately set up. That creates a vital part of the precedent. In any future case, the possibility of such mischief would be to the fore in any judgement. Judges do not care for vexatious litigants. Your persistence in this is very telling, Keith. You're even resorting to calling the judge a fool now. You are not telling us the truth about your real standpoint on homosexuality and gay marriage, are you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:20 AM

So, if the bakery was known to the run by people with strong Christian principles, what if the baker had refused to make a cake with a message that would be found offensive by many Christians ? Something that would be abusive or offensive if said to the baker's face with the intention of being offensive or insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:30 AM

An important element in this case is that the shop was not deliberately set up.

No it is not.
Anyway, we only know that the activist denies a deliberate set up.
He would wouldn't he.
So would someone making EXACTLY THE SAME request to a Muslim business.

Every case is different. Circumstances alter cases.
Same case, same cicumstance, but different religion.
Perhaps the law should discriminate between religions.
Make it OK for any except Christians to refuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:11 AM

"Anyway, we only know that the activist denies a deliberate set up."
Perhaps he isn't a member of Mudcat - it took somebody who "supports" gay marriage as much as you do to dream up that one
That's one you made earlier, so to speak
The slogan the bakers objected to was an expression of protest against the same bigotry that was displayed by them by refusing to supply it.
Still wanna be a judge, Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:12 AM

Same case, same cicumstance, but different religion.

Different shop, different customer, different cake man, different town, different time, different way of asking, and a heads-up for judges on the possibility of mischief. Yeah, Keith, identical. As for the setup you allege, you are conveniently forgetting that there was no issue when the cake was first ordered. The bloke thought he was going to get his cake. So where's the setup, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:16 AM

So, if the bakery was known to the run by people with strong Christian principles, what if the baker had refused to make a cake with a message that would be found offensive by many Christians ? Something that would be abusive or offensive if said to the baker's face with the intention of being offensive or insulting.

Well, if that ever happens, let's see, eh? What other answer can there possibly be to all these what-ifs/whatabouteries?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:37 AM

The slogan the bakers objected to was an expression of protest against the same bigotry that was displayed by them by refusing to supply it.

No it was not.
They support the existing law.
That does not make anyone a bigot Jim.
More than a third of the poulation of Ireland agree with them.
Polls show that 70% in the North support the Bakers.

Well, if that ever happens, let's see, eh?

Let's see what Steve?
There is nothing to stop "activists" making an issue by putting the same request to Muslim businesses.
How many Muslim families are you prepared to see dragged to court like this Christian family?
That is equality for you Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:40 AM

Steve Shaw. It was a "what if" intended to support your points regarding the detail of the particular case and there being is no evidence of a 'set-up'

The court made reference to legislation relevant in that situation. I suspect that other legislatoin would be relevant, for example, in the case of the "what if" referring to Muslim sign writers.

I would be very surprised if any printer asked to produce a 1000 leaflets with the slogan 'Muslims go home' or 'hang the blacks' could not find a legal reason to refuse the order. They are not the same sort of 'slogan' as the message on this cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:41 AM

I was also, yet again, minded of sloppy journalism in your newspaper of choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:44 AM

Belfast Telegraph,

"Things were going well for the family business until a year ago, when Gareth Lee asked Ashers bakery to make a cake with the slogan 'Support Gay Marriage' on it. Mr Lee had used the bakery before and the company were - and remain - happy to serve him.

As Ashers' barrister said time and again during the hearing, "it was the content of the cake, not the characteristics of the customer that were critical to their decision". The company initially accepted the order, but later contacted Mr Lee to say that they could not fulfil the order as they are a Christian business. They apologised and arranged for a refund."

"The judge, to the surprise of many, found against Ashers on all counts, and even the European Convention on Human Rights couldn't save the company.

Given that the McArthurs did not know the sexual orientation of the customer, it is difficult to comprehend how they discriminated directly on this ground. The judge found that the McArthurs must have known, or perceived, that Mr Lee was gay, or associated with others who were gay. Surely the law is on shaky ground when it begins to perceive who people associate with?

The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." The reality is that the vast majority of people who support same-sex marriage are heterosexual.

The Office for National Statistics has found that 1.3% of the population is LGBT, and, according to the polls, anywhere from 30% to 50% of the population supports same-sex marriage, while, of course, some within the LGBT community oppose same-sex marriage. The company would not have made this cake for anyone, gay or straight.

As the atheist Brendan O'Neill has noted, there is a new social orthodoxy in relation to same-sex marriage, in which dissent will not be tolerated. We must be wary of what John Stuart Mill called "the tyranny of prevailing opinion"."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/everyone-a-loser-in-gay-cake-row-31236899.html

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:03 AM

"The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." "

No the judge didn't. Read the judgement.

It's complicated stuff. Life is like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:26 AM

Anyway, we only know that the activist denies a deliberate set up.
He would wouldn't he.

Is that anything like the baker denying that he discriminated?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:38 AM

Is the judgement available online?
Can you provide an alternative quote?
If not, why should I not believe the quote provided in the Belfast Telegraph?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:42 AM

No the judge didn't. Read the judgement.

You're forgetting that Keith can't - or at least doesn't - read. No need for him to. He gets his stuff directly from God, like pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:49 AM

Greg, you are as usual engaging in personal abuse instead of debate.
I hope you are deleted, and not the thread.

Perhaps you could follow up your nasty insults with a reasoned post expressing your views on this issue.

Should the law dictate to a business what goods and services they must provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:06 AM

No it shouldn't, Keith. The law is there to make sure that minorities are not discriminated against. That was the crux of this case, not to dictate what businesses should do. You disagree with the judgement. That's called hard luck. Judges know a lot more about the law then you do because they went to college and passed exams in it, Keith, unlike you. You're entitled to your opinion on the judgement but the overwhelming likelihood is that you are in a far weaker position to make a fair judgement than that judge. It's a pity that your pro-Christian beliefs won't let you see it.

By the way, slogans made in public such as "Muslims go home" or "Hang the blacks" are illegal. If you walked down the street carrying a banner saying "support gay marriage" you would be perfectly in order. If your banner said either of those two other things, you'd be arrested. Another what-if debunked.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:10 AM

Sorry for that last bit, Guest. I misread your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:11 AM

personal abuse instead of debate

There IS no debating you, Keith. Its impossible.

Also, there's no point in my becomming engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:13 AM

Is that anything like the baker denying that he discriminated?

Did the baker deny he discriminated against inscribing a slogan that went against his principles?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:15 AM

Ha Ha, it's been linked above three times Keith. Can't read; don't read; won't read ?

judgement

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:23 AM

This gets ridiculous - someone claiming to support gay marriage has done his best for a great length of time denigrating efforts to win support for gay marriage
Beam me up Scotty
Before you say it - yes you have Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:24 AM

Missed a bit OVER TWO THREADS!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:27 AM

I wish to address the issue that Keith keeps raising, asking us whether a third of Irish people are bigots because they voted no. The answer to that is that most of them are probably not. You are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you like without being labelled a bigot. You are a bigot only if your prejudiced views are used to try to disadvantage a section of the community, or individuals within it. It's my guess that the majority of people in Ireland don't have strong feelings either way (it's never exactly the hot topic wherever I hang out), but they were polarised into a simplistic yes/no by the nature of the referendum question. There are many shades of yes and many shades of no that could not be expressed by a cross in a box. There must have been thousands of people voting no who were thinking, well, it sounds like a bloody weird idea to me and I'm not voting for it, but as far as I'm concerned they can just get on with it if they're that way inclined. That is not bigotry. We just don't know, because they were not asked to expand on their voting decision, so you might as well stop asking.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:32 AM

You are a bigot only if your prejudiced views are used to try to disadvantage a section of the community

I don't think so Steve Shaw. I think bigotry is a state of mind, expressing it to the disadvantage of others is discrimination.

As I said in a longer, better qualified, post earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:44 AM

unconcerned Guest,
Ha Ha, it's been linked above three times Keith. Can't read; don't read; won't read

You were wrong.
Paragraph 42.
"I (Judge Brownlie) regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation."

That is shown to be a false premise.
Some gay people oppose gay marriage, and the overwhelming majority of supporters are not gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:49 AM

I was trying to be careful in that post to say bigot, not bigotry, though not careful enough, see below. Bigotry is indeed a state of mind, one in which you hold opinions based on prejudice. But to be a bigot you need to articulate those thoughts in a way that disadvantages particular minorities. If you start regarding people with prejudices who keep them to themselves as bigots, the word loses its usefulness. By that reckoning you could feasibly call almost anyone a bigot who has a cockeyed view of some aspect of life, due to a deficient education or the undue influence of parents or peers, which could mean we're probably all bigots, one way or another. That isn't much use. I think the term is best kept for people who aggressively promote their bigotry. How's about that? And I shouldn't have said in the last post "that is not bigotry" because it is, and I contradicted myself, but "they are not bigots" is what I should have said instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:05 AM

Context Keith, context. What is "the criterion" ? The Belfast Telegraph quote was inaccurate. More sloppy journalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:20 AM

"Some gay people oppose gay marriage,"
You've claimed this several times Keith - do you have any evidence to show there to be a significant number - otherwise, as with many other of your statements, it is meaningless, bearing in mind that some black slaves were happy with their situation and extremely unhappy when slavery ended.
Th fact that "the overwhelming majority of supporters are not gay" is a smokescreen - equally meaningless, unless you are claiming that a significant number of people actually don't support law change and the end to gay persecution - is that your claim?
1.5 percent of the British population are estimated to be gay and 10 percent of the U.S. - therefore there are bound to be far more non-gay supporters than there are gay.
Isthere no lengths you will not go to to denigrate the gay-rights movement - and you a supporter, and all that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:29 AM

Steve Shaw. I see your point but I think that the approach the law appears to take (on the basis of that judgement - I don't really know) of focusing on the 'discrimination' is better as it is probably easier to recognise. No need to get insde people minds.

It also allows the critical aspect of different things to be covered by the same legislation. I guess businesses who discriminate against disabled people are being penny-pinching rather than bigoted. Sexual orientation has sensual and emotional aspects. Many people clearly feel awkward and unhappy about orientations other than their own and may not be able to set those feelings aside and make the rational decision that it is unfair to treat those people differently. Otherwise political debates and referendums would not be needed.

The directors of the bakery may or may not be bigots but the what seems to matter to the law is that as a commerical concern they are not allowed to discriminate.

If they are not bigots then, as with the Savation Army folks mentioned earlier, I have some sympathy. If I was a sign writer there are plenty of legal slogans (religion, politics, evolution, global warning etc) that I would not want to write signs for. I hope I would simply be able to say that I didn't write client-supplied messages related to any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:36 AM

I like the "what ifs" the idiots are coming out with. Slogans such as "Muslims go home, blacks this, that and the other" are discriminatory slogans so no business could be asked to break the law in putting them on a cake. If a bakery run by a Muslim with similar views to the bakery in question refused and the circumstances similar, there is no reason to expect anything other than a similar outcome.

Nobody is getting at any flavour of superstition, but any and all forms of bigotry, regardless of whether they say Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Chewbacca or the noodly one told them to discriminate. Stop seeing this as Christian persecution, when it is protecting society from bigots.

The person wanting this cake asked for a perfectly reasonable slogan that does not discriminate.

The Keith's of this world don't know what discrimination is, or choose not to when they invoke their fairy tales at normal people.

I don't know why Keith thinks he knows better than the judge? After all, she is alive, eminent, judging in the last twenty years and all the judges agree with her 😹😹😹😹

Even.. Apparently 70% of the people agree with the bakers eh Keith? Any chance of proving that, or is that just in your head? 70% of criminals agree that beating people up when you burgle their homes reduces the chances of being caught. 70% of Christians think they are 70% of the country. 70% of WW1 soldiers reckon Haig was a cunt.

The possibilities are endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:52 AM

i like the word "cunt".

I'm sure some folks regard it as a 'bad' word that should be censored and summarily deleted.

Obviously I, and some others, don't.

Would I walk into a bakers and insist they make me a cake with "Cunt" iced on it ???

and then take them to court if they refuse ????

Well... probably not...

"Cunt Cakes" 😍

but it's another 'what if' which I freely donate to the thread Whatifers
to save them the effort of thinking up one more ludicrously tenuous example...😩

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:54 AM

Unconcerned,
"The judge went on to say: "Support for same-sex marriage was indissociable from sexual orientation." "
No the judge didn't.

Yes the judge did.
You were wrong.
Belfast Telegraph were right, including the context.

The Belfast Telegraph quote was inaccurate.

It was verbatim correct.
YOU were wrong.

Jim,
1.5 percent of the British population are estimated to be gay and 10 percent of the U.S. - therefore there are bound to be far more non-gay supporters than there are gay.

Obviously.
The judge was wrong to say that support for same sex marriage is indissociable from sexual orientation, because some gay people do not support it and the overwhelming majority of supporters are not gay.

The judgement was based on a false premise.
It was wrong.

"Some gay people oppose gay marriage,"
You've claimed this several times Keith - do you have any evidence to show there to be a significant number - otherwise, as with many other of your statements, it is meaningless,

"The gay people against gay marriage"
By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News, Washington
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22758434

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 11:58 AM

Gosh! Some gay people don't want to get married!

One or two apparently don't want any gay people to get married. That makes them bigots.

Next.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:00 PM

Musket,
Apparently 70% of the people agree with the bakers eh Keith? Any chance of proving that, or is that just in your head?

It is reported in the Belfast Telegraph article I quoted, and I have also seen it elsewhere if you want to challenge them too.

The majority of WW1 soldiers thought well of Haig.
Revered him even.
They turned out in their thousands to welcome him home after the war, and in tens of thousands at his funeral on a bitter February day.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:05 PM

"The majority of WW1 soldiers thought well of Haig.
Revered him even.
They turned out in their thousands to welcome him home after the war, and in tens of thousands at his funeral on a bitter February day."

Was Haig gay? If not what does he have to do with this thread?