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

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:06 PM

IIRC (not going to read back but it's there) the 'Muslims go home' what-if was a quote from a well known columnist in a well-known newspaper. If it was just someone on a minority interest web forum it wouldn't matter so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:08 PM

Got it! Its in one newspaper paper so it MUST be true.

But then again, is it an eminent paper, and is it alive, and do all other eminent papers agree with it? ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:10 PM

The judge did not say that Keith, it is an edited version of what she said and the changes are not indicated. Can you read ?

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

The judge did say that.
It is quoted in paragraph 42 as you have been told.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:13 PM

Sigh. If it was just someone on a minority interest web forum it wouldn't matter so much that it was nonesense.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:17 PM

Keith . Look at these closely.

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

"I regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation." (Court judgement)

Are they the same ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:20 PM

The other occassion was this:

The criterion as for the 2006 Regulations is "support for same sex marriage" which, in the context of the political debate ongoing in Northern Ireland at the time, is indissociable from the political opinion of those who support it. There is also an exact correspondence between the disadvantage imposed in supporting one and not the other.

Does that help ?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:26 PM

""The gay people against gay marriage"
As I said - an insignificant number - many of which oppose marriage per se - nothing whatever to do with ending persecution and prejudice.
Feminists oppose marriage anyway because it goes against their principles.
You continue distort information to denigrate ending gay persecution
Why on earth do you continue to be in favour of Gay rights - you are clearly not, when you are prepared to put this much effort into denigrating their cause?
I really am glad I'm not a Christian
The cae is over and the judgement given Keith
You've already claimed that the judge didn't know what she was doing, so why quote her?
If she didn't know what she was talking about she didn't know what she was talking about - as far as your concerned - can't ave your cake and eat it!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:31 PM

""Some gay people oppose gay marriage,"

yeah.. ok.. you aroused my curiosity to read that BBC article ...

I think many who read that would discern that the main thrust is
regarding Gay people who oppose Marriage..

same as so many straight radicals and progressives
oppose the conservative concept and institution of 'marriage'...

[like me and the mrs did until we relented in our 40s
after a very long time of 'living in sin'
and married for the legal securities]

Keith - perhaps not so many gays actually oppose 'gay marriage'
as you believe is the proposition that BBC article supports.......?????

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:38 PM

Keith.... Can you read ?

Obviously, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 30 May 15 - 12:54 PM

[like me and the mrs did until we relented in our 40s
after a very long time of 'living in sin'
and married for the legal securities]


I can ditto that. Quick dash to a registry office after twenty two years. The only difference is it will be a lot easier to sort things, house etc, once I drop.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:13 PM

One of the strangest assertions which Keith keeps making is that Asher's regularly served gay customers without complaints.

Were all of the company's customers quizzed regarding their sexual orientation on entering the premises? If not, how did the staff of Asher's know?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:16 PM

yeah.. just the minimum cost for the registry office and licence..
a handful of female relatives for witnesses,
and 4 pints of stella immediately before the 'ceremony'..
...and quite a few more stellas afterwards.....

bollocks to the profiteering parasitic wedding industry...



Next on the medium to hopefully long term agenda..

how to get cremated with least fuss and as cheaply as possible...😎

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:31 PM

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

British common law is based on precedent.
This judgement sets a precedent.
That makes it totally relevant to consider what other kinds of situations could be affected by this ruling.
That is what legalists do.
You and the others who drone on about "whatifery" are afraid to consider some of the hypothetical situations that could be adjudicated under this precedent.
Is that because they present too much of a challenge to your entrenched ideological positions?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:33 PM

"If not, how did the staff of Asher's know?"

Well they did have a gay on staff so that might be clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:38 PM

Legalists know how to read the judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:40 PM

no... not at all afraid..

It would actually be a very interesting exercise to consider such potential ramifications of precedent
under more rational and less prejudiced conditions...

..but certainly not in this particular loaded 'debate'...????


punkfolkrocker [A level law 1977 - passed despite playing guitar in a somewhat wayward punk rock band]

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:41 PM

And legalists wouldn't rephrase its sentences when claiming to quote from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:42 PM

"That makes it totally relevant to consider what other kinds of situations could be affected by this ruling.
That is what legalists do."

No they don't. They consider cases that have actually arisen in the light of precedents. There are no bunches of lawyers sitting around tables today going through umpteen future what-if scenarios. They have far better things to do. More lucrative things to do as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:43 PM

They consider, in the light of precedents, cases that have already arisen. Ah, that's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:48 PM

"Cunt Cakes" 😍

Brings to mind Johnny Cradock's parting shot at the end of one of their cookery shows, "And may your doughnuts all turn out like Fanny's."

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:53 PM

I suspect that legalists working for people who provide business insurance to bakeries (and signwriters etc) will be doing some what-ifing.

I think that I saw this thing about not taking on certain classes of work in something related to business or professional insurance. In amongst the exclusions about ionising radions etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:55 PM

radiations

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 15 - 01:57 PM

Legalist is a broad term that encompasses academic and philosophical legalism which is an approach to the analysis of legal questions characterized by abstract logical reasoning focused on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, legislation, or case law.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:05 PM

"Analyst" - those who get really anal over every minute nit picking pedantic detail...😜

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:14 PM

Well Steve, I did throw in the word ....perhaps....,as I might not be accurate, but as it happens I googled. ...straw man....,and I found the meaning less restrictive than the definition you offered.   What you did, was set up an argument that could be easily knocked down , ie homosexuals suffering down the years.   That is not the argument that I opposed.   I am aware of that. My argument was that the denial of a sloganized cake, is not discrimination. It is a matter of conscience on the bakers part.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:21 PM

Keith . Look at these closely.

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

"I regard the criterion to be "support for same sex marriage" which is indissociable from sexual orientation." (Court judgement)

Are they the same ?

Yes.
The judge said exactly what she was reported as saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:34 PM

Are they the same ?

Yes.

See? Can't read and/or can't understand what he reads. Its hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,unconcerned
Date: 30 May 15 - 02:40 PM

Keith. If one removed from the text of the judgement what the judge actually said and replaced it with what the Belfast Telegraph said she said would the judgement still make sense ?

You could answer in the spirit of a comprehension test.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:12 PM

"Legalist is a broad term that encompasses academic and philosophical legalism which is an approach to the analysis of legal questions characterized by abstract logical reasoning focused on the applicable legal text, such as a constitution, legislation, or case law."

Jaysus, that was pretty bloody abstract.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:33 PM

Well shit!...tell the homosexuals, seeking 'marriage cakes' to order them from a Muslim baker.....IF a 'marriage cake' was really their top priority....then the judge could order the Muslims to forget their dogmas and bake the stupid cake!

GfS

P.S. My karma just ran over your dogma!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 05:23 PM

You're really not amusing, you know, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:11 PM

He's a bloody sight more amusing than you Greg.

and he makes a good point, something which you have utterly failed to do.

Continually whining about the right of homosexuals to throw their new found weight about is not reason.
Homosexual "marriage" is presently against the law in NI...can people really be forced to promote something which is not legal?

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 15 - 06:18 PM

All this about conscience.. Err.. What has conscience to do with it? You do as your employer is required to do under law or you are not employed. A person isn't selling cake, a corporate body is, and corporate bodies aren't members of any sect.

I had a service engineer who, once we got a rota going for "on call" said that as a Christian he couldn't work Sundays. I sacked him and the tribunal agreed with us that "on call" was an expectation and though informal at the time of his employment as opposed to rota, his intransigence to a rota was not reasonable.

Sometimes, the system works. In later years, on call in a different field meant that a Muslim colleague was happy to work Sundays on condition that he had time for Friday prayers, whilst a devout Christian colleague was happy to always be available on Fridays.

Reasonable.

I love Keith's assertion above. God /Clapton help us. were you really a teacher Keith? Do you feel at all ashamed of the standard you must have worked to? If you cannot grasp the subject in hand or the judgement it refers to, have the decency to know when you are out of your depth instead of embarrassing yourself. You give the likes of me all the ammunition we need when bemoaning the state of students we gave to deal with, and lecturing at a medical school, I'm supposed to be getting the cream!

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:34 PM

Continually whining about the right of homosexuals to throw their new found weight about is not reason.

A disgustingly homophobic remark.

Homosexual "marriage" is presently against the law in NI...can people really be forced to promote something which is not legal?

The cake was part of a campaign to get something made legal. In democracies you are allowed to campaign to get laws changed. You say "forced to promote something which is not legal" as though there was incitement or coercion to break the law. That is deliberate misrepresentation of the issue, as there was no such incitement. You post ill-judged and uninformed nonsense all the time, but this post is one of your worst, an absolute disgrace.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 15 - 07:39 PM

"can people really be forced to promote something which is not legal?"
Yes they can if it's done in the spirit that it was done here
The Bakery made it quite clear that their reasons for turning down the order were homophobic i just as this statement it
"Continually whining about the right of homosexuals to throw their new found weight about is not reason."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:26 PM

He's a bloody sight more amusing than you Greg. and he makes a good point, something which you have utterly failed to do.

Well, Pharoah, some time back, in response to a PM query of yours - and one in which you were fairly complimentary, bye the bye - I said something to the effect that the reason I was civil to you when others were not was that though I disagreed with you, I thought you were intelligent though wrong in your opinions, but not necessarily a bigot or "evil".

I herewith publicly retract that statement in its entirety. Guess you're just a fag-basher after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 15 - 09:02 PM

Fag-basher could just be a heavy smoker this end, Greg!

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

Crikey! Forgot about that...Poof/Pouff- basher then? Help me out here, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't have your gay cake and eat it
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 May 15 - 10:36 PM

Oh quit being so bigoted toward Christians...buy the fucking cake from Muslims!...and sue them...I mean, equality is equality, isn't it???

...or only when it suits you....?

GfS