Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News0 min ago
Gay Cake Gate Thrown Out.......
163 Answers
Answers
People need to stop clambering onto the holier than thou bandwagon and get back to basics , this couple should have said ‘0kayyy’ and took themselves off to another bakers , No, they decide to ruin a craftsman’s business and have the shop shut and take the matter to court , the right decision was made to kick it out, I hope the baker can reopen with three times the...
11:33 Thu 06th Jan 2022
//The point I'm making, Bobbi, is that if the couple had followed the correct legal procedure in all probability they would have won their case.//
But if they had won it (in the ECHR) that court has no powers to enforce its rulings. It can only hope that the relevant domestic court "pays heed" to their decision. This demonstrates the inadequacy of that tribunal and, apart from that, its unnecessary interference in the K's domestic affairs. The 1998 Human Rights Act near enough mirrors the European Convention on Human Rights. It gives domestic judges wide-ranging discretion the make judgements based on vague principles, in just the same way that the ECHR does. Having seen their case lost in the UK's Supreme Court that should have been the end of the matter. Perfectly adequate protections for people's rights exist exist in domestic law and it is about time that was recognised by the UK withdrawing from the European Convention.
But if they had won it (in the ECHR) that court has no powers to enforce its rulings. It can only hope that the relevant domestic court "pays heed" to their decision. This demonstrates the inadequacy of that tribunal and, apart from that, its unnecessary interference in the K's domestic affairs. The 1998 Human Rights Act near enough mirrors the European Convention on Human Rights. It gives domestic judges wide-ranging discretion the make judgements based on vague principles, in just the same way that the ECHR does. Having seen their case lost in the UK's Supreme Court that should have been the end of the matter. Perfectly adequate protections for people's rights exist exist in domestic law and it is about time that was recognised by the UK withdrawing from the European Convention.
-- answer removed --
Quite right, ringlet. It was the slogan. I can’t help wondering what would have happened had they taken their order to Halal or Kosher bakers. I doubt they'd have been happy to produce that slogan either.
//The shop owner can refuse, and politely decline to give a reason.//
That the law prevents people from telling the truth is sad indictment on society - and even sadder that it garners support.
//I strongly suspect that you are looking for a scenario that did not exist in order to shoehorn in your belief that the couple involved in the case are bullies, and reactionaries based on their need to confront homophobia everywhere they find it.//
The scenario did exist. These people were determined to confront what they saw as homophobia regardless of the trouble they caused.
//The shop owner can refuse, and politely decline to give a reason.//
That the law prevents people from telling the truth is sad indictment on society - and even sadder that it garners support.
//I strongly suspect that you are looking for a scenario that did not exist in order to shoehorn in your belief that the couple involved in the case are bullies, and reactionaries based on their need to confront homophobia everywhere they find it.//
The scenario did exist. These people were determined to confront what they saw as homophobia regardless of the trouble they caused.
naomi - // These people were determined to confront what they saw as homophobia regardless of the trouble they caused. //
As advised, you don't know that they took the glee in causing trouble that is assigned to them by yourself and others.
As for it being 'what they saw as homophobia' - are you suggesting that there is another way of seeing it?
As advised, you don't know that they took the glee in causing trouble that is assigned to them by yourself and others.
As for it being 'what they saw as homophobia' - are you suggesting that there is another way of seeing it?
naomi - // Some do put principles aside in favour of money. These Christian bakers weren't among them. //
This issue arose, not because the bakers were not willing to put aside their principles in favour of money, it arose because they felt they had to advise the customer of those principles, and broke the law to do so.
It is perfectly possible to hold principles, and not land yourself in court in your eagerness to advise the prejudices that your principles give you.
Or that you are happy to break the law to ensure that those principles and prejudices, are advised to customers who don't actually need to be aware of either, or both.
This issue arose, not because the bakers were not willing to put aside their principles in favour of money, it arose because they felt they had to advise the customer of those principles, and broke the law to do so.
It is perfectly possible to hold principles, and not land yourself in court in your eagerness to advise the prejudices that your principles give you.
Or that you are happy to break the law to ensure that those principles and prejudices, are advised to customers who don't actually need to be aware of either, or both.
naomi - // According to google Homophobia is defined as //dislike of or prejudice against gay people// so yes, I am suggesting there is another way of seeing it. The bakers objected to the slogan. That doesn't equate to the definition of homophobic. //
Now it's your turn to split hairs.
If you cannot see that any reasonable person would see this scenario as being rooted in homophobia, so be it, but the court clearly did, and ruled accordingly.
Now it's your turn to split hairs.
If you cannot see that any reasonable person would see this scenario as being rooted in homophobia, so be it, but the court clearly did, and ruled accordingly.
Naomi - // "That the law prevents people from telling the truth is sad indictment on society - and even sadder that it garners support." //
The law does not prevent people from telling the truth - it does prevent them from using the truth to break the law.
This smacks of the belief of 'plain speaking' - which translates as - I am going to give you my view about how you live, which I disagree with, and if it offends you, I don't care.
Well society does care.
Predjudice is nasty and demeaning, and there is no need whatsoever for one individual to make a point of demeaning another simply because it is their 'principle'.
I have a principle that alcohol should be banned off the planet tomorrow, but I wouldn't sit in a pub full of people and foghorn that view for everyone to hear.
Principles come with responsibilities, like obeying the law.
The law does not prevent people from telling the truth - it does prevent them from using the truth to break the law.
This smacks of the belief of 'plain speaking' - which translates as - I am going to give you my view about how you live, which I disagree with, and if it offends you, I don't care.
Well society does care.
Predjudice is nasty and demeaning, and there is no need whatsoever for one individual to make a point of demeaning another simply because it is their 'principle'.
I have a principle that alcohol should be banned off the planet tomorrow, but I wouldn't sit in a pub full of people and foghorn that view for everyone to hear.
Principles come with responsibilities, like obeying the law.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.