Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The original law stands, and proves my points, they can refuse service to anyone they dont want to so long as they are white heterosexuals.
No. If a shop refused to serve someone because they were white or heterosexual they would be committing an offense under the same law. There is no special privilege for any particular group under discrimination laws.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
nkelsch wrote: Pretty much anyone who is is any protected class (which is everyone) who believes anything now has a right to force their messages on any cake ever and claim discrimination. If I believe it enough and it relates to an attribute of my being which is a protected class, then I can force my speech down anyone's throat and there is nothing they can do about it?
If that is how the UK works, I am glad I don't live there. That is not how it works in the US.
You can ask the Equality and Human Rights Commission to look at any case you deem worthy, they then decide whether to take it further. Or if you have the cash you can raise your own civil case, but that will cost you dearly if it proves to be frivolous.
Kilkrazy wrote: You would not be able to make a White Power cake or a God Hates Gays cake due to Equality legislation.
It is discriminating on a message tied to a protected class and messages tied to a protected class by the arguments here are 100% the same as discriminating against the protected class.
So now it is messages which are tied to protected class which the thought police happen to like?
This is the problem of freedom of speech, you can't have it both ways. If someone wants a cake expressing white pride and that is a message tied to his race, and you refuse because it is offensive... then there has to be a list somewhere of government deeming specific speech wrong...
Or speech is not protected class, and refusing to make a message is not the same as discriminating against a protected class even if they are related. You can't have mandatory pro-gay cakes but then refuse other content tied to protected classes simply because you find it repugnant. Either it is all mandatory or it is all allowed to be discretionary based upon content.
The message itself would then be discriminatory. You would not be forced to make a black power cake, or a cake with an "Heterosexuals should die" or something else anti heterosexual (If such a thing exists. Given the things that exist on the deep dark corners of the net it wouldn't supprise me)
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
The message itself would then be discriminatory. You would not be forced to make a black power cake, or a cake with an "Heterosexuals should die" or something else anti heterosexual (If such a thing exists. Given the things that exist on the deep dark corners of the net it wouldn't supprise me)
Messages can't be discriminatory... Now this is just silly...
White Pride can have no disparaging aspects to it but still be offensive and stupid... how do you refuse? Where does it say that a cake for white pride is bad but a cake for Hispanic heritage is ok. I can tell you there are a lot of groups who believe in racial purity as core tenants of their faith and culture... and they celebrate it regularly but yet they are not called out on it.
And by your argument all religious ideas are banned because you deem them 'discriminatory' by their very nature would be discriminatory on the surface against other religions which are protected classes. A 'Pro-gay' cake is actually discriminatory against those who have religious beliefs which believe it is a sin... and those religious beliefs make it a protected class therefor that message is also 'discriminatory' under your definition...
So basically you can refuse content and discriminate against protected classes as long as it is a message or class you deem worthy of 'discriminating' against. This is where you get into oppressing free speech and legislating censorship. What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
And we are back to the core issue. Refusing based upon content is not the same as discriminating against a person due to protected class. Never has been, never will be. If the UK/EUR laws work that way then they don't actually have freedom of speech, they have government controlled speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 14:02:56
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
nkelsch wrote: What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
Do you honesty not see that White power isn't about celebrating white heritage, it is about celebrating black subjugation?
And we are back to the core issue. Refusing based upon content is not the same as discriminating against a person due to protected class. Never has been, never will be. If the UK/EUR laws work that way then they don't actually have freedom of speech, they have government controlled speech.
Of course content is important, are you claiming that a written statement somehow doesn't count as a statement?
Say a non-gay person without any minority status was refused a cake, the default position is that its the retailers right to refuse service.
On what grounds are they refused service? If they were discriminated against because they were straight, or white, or Christian, then they have every right to launch a case for discrimination.
The grounds of non-participation. As shown the identity of the individual was not in question. Minority status demands the question otherwise absent.
When someone is banned from a pub 'your only doing this cos I'm white' doesn't wash, if there person has a minority status or other privilege an investigation is not unlikely.
Claiming minority status puts oneself in a privileged position whereupon equalities agencies will demand compo on your behalf. This is clearly unequal.
It would be if it worked like that but it doesn't. You don't seem to grasp that this isn't about one group being a minority, it is about a group being discriminated against for a particular unlawful reason.
I grasp perfectly well, no group is being discriminated against. The purchases of the cake is irrelevant to the message. The bakers practiced non-participation in a opposed activity, not an action curtailing or discriminatng against said activities.
Could you point out who is being discriminated against here? and for what reason? Is it the cigarettes? the tobacco company? every customer who comes in regardless of who they are?
The relevant is the special inclusion of privileged status.
someone who wants a cake doesnt get it because of Christian values gets support from equalities agencies and legal action.
someone who wants some cigarettes doesnt get it because of Moselm values gets no support from equalities agencies.
This is fundamentally an issue between the manager and staff member, people can ask for concessions in the work place much like Christians refusing to work sundays and leaving other staff members to work unsociable hours that they never have to.
Often Christians who refuse to work Sundays are discriminated against directly or indirectly. In my case the Sundays I didn't work were taken out of my allowance of Saturdays, not parsed evenly through the week. I was also illegally refused employment by an agency because I couldn't work Sunday quotas in the shift, by law the agency should have been unable to refuse me employment and would have to rearrange the hours another way. As it happens I was simply refused employment instead. In reality there was nothing I could do, while my rights were infringed some rights are protected others are de facto ignored.
Christians are advised to only exercise their rights after gaining employment, because of the prevelenance of indirect discrimination. In the second instance the agency made the wrok around of quoting Sundays as rota days and asking if I was able to work Sundays. I could either lie, and then have grounds for dismissal against me, or tell the truth and face direct illegal action.
Chrisitajns are not asking for the pro-gay opinions to be banned, they are asking for non-participation. They want to keep their opinions to themselves.
Are gay people calling for pro-Christian opinions to be banned? When did this happen?
Yes, some gay activists are.
The phenomena took off under New Labour with uneven rights religlation that selectively empowered some over others. The Christians have been singled out under New Labour, but that was for an disestablishmentariam agenda which has remarkably little to do with core Christian beleifs or homosexaulity and everything to do with de-anglicisation of the Uk to make the Labour party a more palettable option in England. A longer explanation requires more detail.
In any event some activists notably amongst the more extreme atheist and gay communities have jumped on this opportunity.
Case in point when Cameron mentioned that 'the UK was still a Christian country, which he did as part of the move to limit de-Anglicisation and not out of any Christian priniciple per se the comments while widely received even with cross relgion support were condemned by gay and atheist activists in unison.
People like Pater Tatchill have an undisguised hate on for religion in general and Christianity in particular and frequently make (political) bedfellows with the hardcore atheist movement. and yes some do want Christiainty or at least the church removed completely.
besides is keeping ones opinions to oneself is the requirement shouldnt we ban Gay Pride then? I dont think we should for the record, but its plain as day that some opinions are not kept to oneself, and others are expected to tolerate them. Pity there is so little reciprocation
If you were to drop the martyr act you might realise that there are lots of religious events in the UK in 2014, remind me why all those people march around Northern Ireland which causes all sorts of tension.
There is no 'martyr act', if you cant argue respectfully get off the thread.
I am aware of the fact there are religious events in the UK, as I have been to a few. They are not political, were they in any way homophobic the state would likely step on them without mercy, as the government of the day were looking for excuses.
I remember an outreach when church members were monitored in case they caused offense by officials. They sang some songs in an area away from the flow of traffic under supervision and monitoring from council officials, some kids from the church were allowed to hand out balloons saying 'Jesus loves you', under similar scrutiny outide the cordoned of earea. The pastor was questioned about his content before he was allowed access to the venue at all, an outdoor shopping centre entrance area.
The next weekend a Moslem outreach booked the same venue, no monitoring was present. They placed their stand in the middle of the flow of foot traffic, which is where they normally placed their stand, (they were frequent users of the site) and handed out leaflets. They tried to stop me collecting the leaflets but I just ignored them and collected a few anyway. I still have those leaflets: Jihad against Israel, Jihad against America, a call for mandatory Halal, a call fro Sharia law, and a call for women to wear the burka.
Apparently this was not of concern to local authorities as much as the church was.
remind me why all those people march around Northern Ireland which causes all sorts of tension.
Thr troubles are a race politics issue not a religious one. You find me a quote from the bible that supports the Orange Order fanaticism, or that of the Nationalist 'catholic' community and I will revise that statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 14:12:07
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Kilkrazy wrote: You would not be able to make a White Power cake or a God Hates Gays cake due to Equality legislation.
What if it says Black Power?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
nkelsch wrote: What you say is obviously offensive in a confederate flag cake which is promoting white power, how can you refuse that without discriminating against his protected class by race? Oh because you don't like the message?
Do you honesty not see that White power isn't about celebrating white heritage, it is about celebrating black subjugation?
And we are back to the core issue. Refusing based upon content is not the same as discriminating against a person due to protected class. Never has been, never will be. If the UK/EUR laws work that way then they don't actually have freedom of speech, they have government controlled speech.
Of course content is important, are you claiming that a written statement somehow doesn't count as a statement?
But every message which is 'pro' is going to have a camp of people who are 'con'... and a 'pro' message is going to be discriminatory' against the group of 'con'. people.
If messages can be discriminatory and therefor not produced because they are discriminating against a protected class, then a 'pro-gay' slogan is discriminating against anyone who believes in an anti-gay' position which happens to be religions which are a protected class.
Being a message you happen to like vs a repugnant offensive one like a white-power cake makes no difference, unless you are subjecting all speech to a government censored thought police.
Discrimination happens against people. No one was discriminated against in this case. Refusing to make a custom message is not the same as refusing service due to protected class. Tying the two together leads to some logical absurdities, double standards and requires thought police to determine which messages tied to protected class are ok to not make and which ones are discrimination.
And talk to a Jewish mother about 'racial purity' sometime... I personally find racial purity in any culture horribly offensive and destructive to society but lots of religions and cultures (outside the white power movement) believe it and celebrate it to this day. This is where one moves from 'the speech is discriminatory, ban it' to 'the speech is unpopular and we don't like it because it discriminates against something I like, ban it"
Refusing to make a custom product with speech you disagree with is free speech and is not denying service based upon a protected class... Refusing to sell a cake because someone is gay is discrimination against protected class, refusing to sell a cake because of a pro-gay message is not discriminating against gays any more than refusing to sell a confederate flag cake is discriminating against whites. If you believe it works that way, then the whole system breaks down. Jut admit you want unpopular positions censored by the government and no freedom of speech and move on, not try to make examples why you think it is wrong in one situation but ok in others.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
Often Christians who refuse to work Sundays are discriminated against directly or indirectly. In my case the Sundays I didn't work were taken out of my allowance of Saturdays, not parsed evenly through the week. I was also illegally refused employment by an agency because I couldn't work Sunday quotas in the shift, by law the agency should have been unable to refuse me employment and would have to rearrange the hours another way. As it happens I was simply refused employment instead. In reality there was nothing I could do, while my rights were infringed some rights are protected others are de facto ignored.
Christians are advised to only exercise their rights after gaining employment, because of the prevelenance of indirect discrimination. In the second instance the agency made the wrok around of quoting Sundays as rota days and asking if I was able to work Sundays. I could either lie, and then have grounds for dismissal against me, or tell the truth and face direct illegal action.
So what you are saying is that you are upset because someone did something that is illigal and you did nothing about it?
I remember an outreach when church members were monitored in case they caused offense by officials. They sang some songs in an area away from the flow of traffic under supervision and monitoring from council officials, some kids from the church were allowed to hand out balloons saying 'Jesus loves you', under similar scrutiny outide the cordoned of earea. The pastor was questioned about his content before he was allowed access to the venue at all, an outdoor shopping centre entrance area.
Strange that, since jehovas witnesses are quite able to hand out leaflets in central London with no one looking over them...
The next weekend a Moslem outreach booked the same venue, no monitoring was present. They placed their stand in the middle of the flow of foot traffic, which is where they normally placed their stand, (they were frequent users of the site) and handed out leaflets. They tried to stop me collecting the leaflets but I just ignored them and collected a few anyway. I still have those leaflets: Jihad against Israel, Jihad against America, a call for mandatory Halal, a call fro Sharia law, and a call for women to wear the burka.
Apparently this was not of concern to local authorities as much as the church was.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you at all. If that were true the Jihad ones would fall under promotion of terrorism laws, like this:
nkelsch wrote: unless you are subjecting all speech to a government censored thought police.
your viewing the world as very black and white to suit your world view. We have managed in the UK for over a thousand years without freedom of speech laws. Weather you like it or not many people do not thing the US system is the best way to go and their should be some limits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/10 14:34:12
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
your viewing the world as very black and white to suit your world view. We have managed in the UK for over a thousand years without freedom of speech laws. Weather you like it or not many people do not thing the US system is the best way to go and their should be some limits.
I am sure those limits are reasonable, when you are the class in charge and you agree with the majority opinion. Such behavior helps keep those classes and majorities in power as well.
Considering most of the worlds problems in the 20th century are based off a racist European imperialist doctrine and the problems it left around the world, I 'question' the worth of the UK and its like 'managing for 1000 years without free speech laws'. If I was going to error on one side of the free speech coin, I would rather too much than not enough.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
As a business owner of a bakery, you are fool if you turn down cakes from Gay people. They are a great demo for a bakery for a lot of reasons. I question this bakers commitment to Capitalism... they might be a closet Socialist!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: Well this thread has become very circular.
As a business owner of a bakery, you are fool if you turn down cakes from Gay people. They are a great demo for a bakery for a lot of reasons. I question this bakers commitment to Capitalism... they might be a closet Socialist!
Agreed. And since we're talking socialists let end this with a bang.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
So what you are saying is that you are upset because someone did something that is illigal and you did nothing about it?
No I am debunking comments that this is about my 'martyrdom', and the flat denial that Christians get uneven treatment.
This was why my own experiences of discrimination were aired, because someone assumed there is no anti-Christian discrimination.
I am not however upset (why would you project this onto me) the dicrimination against me that I mentioned here was in 1998.
Not am I posting purely on account of personal experiences (I gave my reasons for several pages and with no mentikon of my own case).
I can see why you would like to assume that I am here because of some secret anger, by projecting an image that I am not being rational it absolves you of forwarding an intelligent argument. Standard ad hominemBS. But I would appreciate it if you didnt try to take wild guesses at my motives, especially when they are derogatory and far off the mark.
Strange that, since jehovas witnesses are quite able to hand out leaflets in central London with no one looking over them...
Not strange at all. Street venues need no permits, council owned shopping centers do. Also as stated some religious groups are left alone others are interfered with, and this doesn't necessarily involve actual risk or discriminatory attitude. Jehovahs Witnesses are generally left alone, there aren't that many and they have no power base. Islam is left alone too often because authorities are afraid to challenge it. Some authorities feel they have to be seen to do something though and so target the churches, however often its just the usual hate on that a lot of people have for Christianity.
That shouldnt be hard to understand, there is plenty of that on Dakka, the world outside is little different.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe you at all. If that were true the Jihad ones would fall under promotion of terrorism laws, like this:
The incidents mention were in 2001. The Islamic group in my home town that used the same outside venue was Al-Mouhaijiroun, which was eventually banned, but only in 2010.
Any web search on thier activities will show that they are not especially nice people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun Eventually there were crackdowns on terror group apologists, but there were crackdowns on innocent churches a lot sooner.
If you can find me links to show the UK Pentecostal and Charismatic churches promote holy war on our streets?
Remember this guy
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach in and out of mosques for many years before he was arrested.
Abu Hamza prached violence against Jews and others openly, even the BBC recorded it. He was finally arrested only in 2004
You can even see policemen standing around while he was preaching that Jews were Satanic.
This was symptomic of the times, at the slightest complaint a Christian preacher could be arrested, while those calling for jihad on our streets are free to continue about their business.
Whether you choose to believe my own eye witness statement is up to you, but dont deny that this sort of incident occurs and that faiths were and indeed are handled entirely differently and not on merit.
Preaching Christianity or supporting a Christian message openly can lead to arrest, Jihad is preached openly in the UK, and it is not stopped, , but only those who go on jihad are arrested, and often not even then.
What would happen if preachers called for a violent Crusade? Thrown in jail, and church closed next day I guess.
In any case give up the idea that its all in my head, it isn't; there is open and incontrovertible evidence that Islam and Christianity are handled very differently in the UK, and not on merit.
Christians get short changed on justice a lot of the time, these bakers are one such instance.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/07/10 17:28:17
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:When someone is banned from a pub 'your only doing this cos I'm white' doesn't wash, if there person has a minority status or other privilege an investigation is not unlikely.
You basing that assertion from your years of experience working for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission? Or a series of questionable articles in the right wing press you have read?
I grasp perfectly well, no group is being discriminated against. The purchases of the cake is irrelevant to the message. The bakers practiced non-participation in a opposed activity, not an action curtailing or discriminatng against said activities.
Please find me where the ECHR or the Human Rights Act allow for provisions for cases of "non participation" to be immune from all human rights legislation. Here's a tip to save you some time, no such thing exists.
Saying 'I understand perfectly well and then repeating what you said earlier is generally not the best idea. Here is a page you may find interesting, but for the benefit of everyone I will quote the relevant bit
Equalities and Human Rights Commission wrote:"Nobody has the right to refuse you products or services because of your religion or belief, or because you have no religion or belief"
That applies for all rights, be it age, gender or any of the others.
The relevant is the special inclusion of privileged status.
someone who wants a cake doesnt get it because of Christian values gets support from equalities agencies and legal action.
someone who wants some cigarettes doesnt get it because of Moselm values gets no support from equalities agencies.
Who said anything abut "priviledged status, which isn't a thing in English law. There are people with protected status, but that falls under the Equalities Act, which noone here is referring to otherwise we would have to include pregnant women.
This is a non-story that has nothing to do with anything, I don't even know why you brought it up other than a sort of "look at the Muslims, look at how many rights they have that we highly privileged white male Telegraph readers don't have" thing. A person refuses to sell cigarettes, nobody is being discriminated against, I thought that might have got through from my previous questions, but guess not.
Often Christians who refuse to work Sundays are discriminated against directly or indirectly. In my case the Sundays I didn't work were taken out of my allowance of Saturdays, not parsed evenly through the week.
Wait so you refuse some unsociable hours and they make you work different unsociable hours rather than a tuesday afternoon, better call up the European Court, that seems a cut and dried case of discrimination there.
I was also illegally refused employment by an agency because I couldn't work Sunday quotas in the shift, by law the agency should have been unable to refuse me employment and would have to rearrange the hours another way. As it happens I was simply refused employment instead. In reality there was nothing I could do, while my rights were infringed some rights are protected others are de facto ignored.
No, you were unlawfully refused employment, not illegally, there is a difference there. Did you contact the EHRC or the EHSS on this matter, as you would have a legitimate case here.
Yes, some gay activists are.
The phenomena took off under New Labour with uneven rights religlation that selectively empowered some over others. The Christians have been singled out under New Labour, but that was for an disestablishmentariam agenda which has remarkably little to do with core Christian beleifs or homosexaulity and everything to do with de-anglicisation of the Uk to make the Labour party a more palettable option in England. A longer explanation requires more detail.
In any event some activists notably amongst the more extreme atheist and gay communities have jumped on this opportunity.
Can we keep the tin foil hat Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens liberal conspiracy nonsense to a minimum please. Try to focus on things you can back up with actual documents that aren't editorials in the Mail or Telegraph.
Case in point when Cameron mentioned that 'the UK was still a Christian country, which he did as part of the move to limit de-Anglicisation and not out of any Christian priniciple per se the comments while widely received even with cross relgion support were condemned by gay and atheist activists in unison.
People like Pater Tatchill have an undisguised hate on for religion in general and Christianity in particular and frequently make (political) bedfellows with the hardcore atheist movement. and yes some do want Christiainty or at least the church removed completely.
I wasn't aware that Peter Tatchell made policy in the UK, what is the name of his role in Government and does it put him above or below the 21 Priests who sit in the House of Lords because of that whole 'Lords Spiritual' state religion thing.
I am aware of the fact there are religious events in the UK, as I have been to a few. They are not political, were they in any way homophobic the state would likely step on them without mercy, as the government of the day were looking for excuses.
But as I have pointed out, gay pride is not an anti Christian event. You are making false comparisons.
I remember an outreach when church members were monitored in case they caused offense by officials. They sang some songs in an area away from the flow of traffic under supervision and monitoring from council officials, some kids from the church were allowed to hand out balloons saying 'Jesus loves you', under similar scrutiny outide the cordoned of earea. The pastor was questioned about his content before he was allowed access to the venue at all, an outdoor shopping centre entrance area.
The next weekend a Moslem outreach booked the same venue, no monitoring was present. They placed their stand in the middle of the flow of foot traffic, which is where they normally placed their stand, (they were frequent users of the site) and handed out leaflets. They tried to stop me collecting the leaflets but I just ignored them and collected a few anyway. I still have those leaflets: Jihad against Israel, Jihad against America, a call for mandatory Halal, a call fro Sharia law, and a call for women to wear the burka.
Apparently this was not of concern to local authorities as much as the church was.
So you were following them the entire time to see they weren't questioned? Or did you just make an assumption? What has the content of their leaflet got to do with you? Do you feel it breaks laws on hate speech? Then please raise the issue with the police, otherwise I suggest you find better things to do with your time.
Equality, yeah right.
Thinking of yourself as a victim because you are in a naturally privileged position and other people get more attention because they have real cases of real discrimination doesn't change the fact that you have exactly the same rights before the law as anyone else.
Thr troubles are a race politics issue not a religious one. You find me a quote from the bible that supports the Orange Order fanaticism, or that of the Nationalist 'catholic' community and I will revise that statement.
Where does the sect in sectarianism come from again?
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach in and out of mosques for many years before he was arrested.
Abu Hamza prached violence against Jews and others openly, even the BBC recorded it. He was finally arrested only in 2004
You can even see policemen standing around while he was preaching that Jews were Satanic.
Which was because of a specific policy called the Covenant of Security which allowed extremists in Britain on the condition they did not carry out attacks on British soil. This policy failed and should have been shut down in the mid 90s.
In 1999 a preacher was arrested for preaching on the steps of a cathedral, and charged. His conviction, was quashed on appeal.
You know what quashed on appeal means right?
Preaching Christianity or supporting a Christian message openly can lead to arrest,
No, 'acting in a manner which may cause a breach of the peace' can lead to arrest, and yes that is intentionally as vague as it needs to be for police to get away with pretty much anything.
What would happen if preachers called for a violent Crusade? Thrown in jail, and church closed next day I guess.
I would imagine they would be put on a list, and spied on while being allowed to carry on, thats the thing with law, you need some evidence of wrongdoing for the CPS to get a conviction.
You basing that assertion from your years of experience working for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission? Or a series of questionable articles in the right wing press you have read?
I dont see which of your arguments are more ridiculous, that the politicised Equalities quangos are impartial, or that all the articles are either 'questionable' or entirely 'right wing press'.
So you are going to the head in sand approach. Handwave all arguments away are hysterical, even if videos by the BBC.
Also just because the Guardian refuses to cover these sort of stories doesn't mean they have no validity or do not occur.
Equalities and Human Rights Commission wrote:"Nobody has the right to refuse you products or services because of your religion or belief, or because you have no religion or belief"
That applies for all rights, be it age, gender or any of the others.
Indeed, however the bakers refused a specific service, they would have refused that sefvice to anyone.
Also there is no evidence that the bakers would refuse regular service to anyone, we have evidence at least they serve gays in their bakery because they took the order before realising that the content of the order violated their ethos.
Can we keep the tin foil hat Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens liberal conspiracy nonsense to a minimum please. Try to focus on things you can back up with actual documents that aren't editorials in the Mail or Telegraph.
I havent quoted Melanie Phillips of Peter Hitchens, I gave links to actual events, and only some were covered in Mail or Telegraph. Besides what is inherently wrong with quoting from the Telegraph.
I wasn't aware that Peter Tatchell made policy in the UK, what is the name of his role in Government and does it put him above or below the 21 Priests who sit in the House of Lords because of that whole 'Lords Spiritual' state religion thing.
Well you arent aware of much.
Peter Tachell like a number of lobbyists can wield indirect influence. That is what lobbying is for. Whwen Camerion made his commentary that the Uk was a Christian country Tatchell and many others joined the petition against the statement.
besides where did I imply Tatchell was in government position, clearly you are confused..
You are certainly unaware that the current CoE is not as it was. CoE bishops are political appointments, Christianity is not required, especailly under New Labour. When Williams was elevated to Archbishop of Canterbury Blair refused the appointment 14 times until he got the man he wanted, namely someone who had little or no interest in church issues, and could be relied upon to be very wooly and not make waves.
Have you actually ever met a Bishop? The current lot are often more New Labour than the MP's.
So you were following them the entire time to see they weren't questioned? Or did you just make an assumption? What has the content of their leaflet got to do with you? Do you feel it breaks laws on hate speech? Then please raise the issue with the police, otherwise I suggest you find better things to do with your time.
I collected the leaflets out of interest as to what might be preached. I didnt follow them the whole time, nor did I need to. Every weekend Al Mouhajiroun was at the venue they placed their stall in the same place, right in the middle of the through traffic, the council have every opportunity to stop that. My first point was that the churches were expressly forbidden from doing that, the Islamists were not.
Second Al Mouhajiroun is well known to law enforcement authorities, it nothing new to anyone that the preached jihad.
Third why do you expect me or anyone else not to be concerned, I am not your peon. If I see the interest to collect flyers handed out by Islamic fundamentalists to see their content what is it to you. It is of interest to any open minded man to see what is going on in the world. and the comparison of activities is valid and how different groups are treated
Why assume I am doing wrong by collecting the information.
Besides why would I complain, what good would it do.
Thinking of yourself as a victim because you are in a naturally privileged position and other people get more attention because they have real cases of real discrimination doesn't change the fact that you have exactly the same rights before the law as anyone else.
What naturally privileged position? You must be insane.
As for real cases of discrimination. Again I pointed out known well documented cases of Christian prwachers being areasted just for pereacghing, while also showing evidence of jihadis call for anti-Semitic violence in full vierw of the police without arrest.
Also calling Jews Satanic is real discrimination.
Clearly you lack and elementary logical understanding of the point of mounting a comparison.
Where does the sect in sectarianism come from again?
Race, after all sectarianism its just a word.
Sectarianism occurs when there is a violent racial divide, often using religion as an excuse. However its not an acrtuial relgious issue, but a racial one. This is why you get sectarianism in Northern Ireland and Glasgow, but in most other places where you have catholics and protestants living together you don't.
The race issue is compounded by the polarisation which prevents intermarriage.
In the case of Glasgow the two main factions of 'catholic and protestant', are more closely defined by their football team than by any church. the main divide in that city is Rangers vs Celtic, and it can get VERY nasty, the religion is just a backstory, few go to any form of church, and fewer yet practice what those religions say.
Which was because of a specific policy called the Covenant of Security which allowed extremists in Britain on the condition they did not carry out attacks on British soil. This policy failed and should have been shut down in the mid 90s.
Well this explains why they were in thed country, it doesn't explain why they were not arrested for crimes. The Covenant of Security did not give carte blanche to ignore UK law.
[No, 'acting in a manner which may cause a breach of the peace' can lead to arrest, and yes that is intentionally as vague as it needs to be for police to get away with pretty much anything.
Indeed, however saying Jews are Satanic was somehow not breaching the peace, you are clutching at straws.
Besides in these instances the charges were eventually dropped or appealed against.
Yet in some cases especailly the third case from Perth, the preacher was arrested at least twice on separate occasions. Once for using a loudhailer, when he was not, but the busker down the street (who was not arrested) was.
I would imagine they would be put on a list, and spied on while being allowed to carry on, thats the thing with law, you need some evidence of wrongdoing for the CPS to get a conviction.
Apprantly not if you just are a street preacher. Besides the CPS determines charges not convictions, and they are more than happy from evidence to press charges brought by police for preaching, but still the Islamics get to preach their jihad...
No matter how you try to slice this, its grossly discriminatory, and smacks of large scale abuse and uneven handling.
I will end up with this one:
In my home town a street preacher was set upon by four Islamic teenagers because they didnt like his message. The police intervened before the violence got too bad (they had hit him) and arrested the preacher for disturbing the peace, the teenagers went on their way.
Sometimes law enforcement finds the easy way out, not the just way out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 19:43:14
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
What is the point of this thread anymore?
There are two very obvious camps here, and both of them are just saying the same things over and over and no one is convincing anyone because the point of difference is a single very specific idea.
Let it work itself out, for now we are all just wasting our time.
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
So by your twisted logic, if I had a cake shop that said 'no political slogans'... if a homosexual came in and asked for 'pro-gay marriage' cake and I refused, I would still be forced to make the cake because refusing all political slogans would result in discrimination against a political slogan which happens to be 'liked' by a protected class and therefor discriminatory.
And I totally disagree that 'pro-gay marriage' is not at all discriminatory... Every position which has two sides by its very nature discriminates against the opposite side. And an idea, not an actual action is 'discriminatory' then it is illegal means all religion in the UK is illegal simply at the 'idea' level because core aspects of most belief systems, including athiesim discriminates... Hence content or beliefs are not the same as discriminating against a protected class. To tie the two together results in bullcrap situations where a straight person wants to buy a pro-gay marriage cake, and is denied and you claim 'discrimination against homosexuals' when there is no actual homosexual involved in the purchase.
Basically the government can put a gun to your head and basically say 'you must make propaganda for whatever cause a paying customer wants.'
And this is why people left Europe and made a country founded on freedom of speech, because that type of behavior is a slippery slope to some really terrible thought police.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
So by your twisted logic, if I had a cake shop that said 'no political slogans'... if a homosexual came in and asked for 'pro-gay marriage' cake and I refused, I would still be forced to make the cake because refusing all political slogans would result in discrimination against a political slogan which happens to be 'liked' by a protected class and therefor discriminatory.
How is a picture of Eric and Ernie a political slogan?
If you break the law against unfair discrimination by unfairly discriminating, would you not expect to be prosecuted?
And I totally disagree that 'pro-gay marriage' is not at all discriminatory... Every position which has two sides by its very nature discriminates against the opposite side. ...
The existence of gay marriage does not prevent the existence of non-gay marriage.
Your position is that you don't want gay marriage to exist.
If you break the law against unfair discrimination by unfairly discriminating, would you not expect to be prosecuted?
In the US they have not broken a law, to see if they have broken a UK law has yet to be seen. They did not deny service based upon a protected class, they denied service based upon the content they were asked to produce. By your twisted logic that 'ideas' translate into protected classes, discrimination against gays would have happened if a non-homosexual had requested the same cake. How does that work? Since when can you be discriminated against when they didn't actually discriminate against you? How do you discriminate against a homosexual when the person is heterosexual. CONTENT is never PROTECTED CLASS and you can only actually discriminate against people, not their ideas. The people were not discriminated against. They could have bought a cake and were not denied a sake due to their orientation.
The existence of gay marriage does not prevent the existence of non-gay marriage.
Your position is that you don't want gay marriage to exist.
Um... no, that is not my position at all. Way to fail again. Supporting Freedom of speech is not the same thing as anti-gay marriage... And prioritizing political beliefs based upon government thought police and cultural popularity is also a scary thing to demand. And forcing people to churn out propaganda for worthy causes can quickly turn into government forced propaganda of unworthy causes...
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
Gay marriage does not invalidate non-gay marriage.
Being pro-gay marriage is not discriminatory against non-gay marriage.
Being anti-gay marriage is discriminatory.
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
Your putative Christian baker could have been a Jamaican Rastaman, or an atheist, and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
So by your twisted logic, if I had a cake shop that said 'no political slogans'... if a homosexual came in and asked for 'pro-gay marriage' cake and I refused, I would still be forced to make the cake because refusing all political slogans would result in discrimination against a political slogan which happens to be 'liked' by a protected class and therefor discriminatory.
How is a picture of Eric and Ernie a political slogan?
If you break the law against unfair discrimination by unfairly discriminating, would you not expect to be prosecuted?
And I totally disagree that 'pro-gay marriage' is not at all discriminatory... Every position which has two sides by its very nature discriminates against the opposite side. ...
The existence of gay marriage does not prevent the existence of non-gay marriage.
Your position is that you don't want gay marriage to exist.
Nice moving of the goalposts, there.
IIRC the article in the OP also made reference to a political,campaign group and its slogan (a flag or symbol and the slogan in text were o n the cake too IIRC).
So,it,was not,just, "Eric and Ernie".
As for gay marriage itself. My view (as an atheist libertarian) is that it should exist, but,churches Reverend s etc should not be forced into conducting them and providing a venue if they feel it violates their religious beliefs. Each church should be allowed to choose for itself whether they wish to conduct and provide a venue for gay marriage.
Gay couple have the right to get married, but not the right to get married in a particular church if that church is against it. They should find another church which is willing, or have a secular marriage.
Otherwise you're cherry picking rights by dictating that one particular group's rights supersede those of another group's.
The last thing I want to see is a society where people are compelled through force of law to hold to a politically correct progressive doctrine (even if I personally dislike their religious views and beliefs, like I do with Islam), for that leads to thought policing,which is anathema to liberty.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 20:45:49
Orlanth wrote:I dont see which of your arguments are more ridiculous, that the politicised Equalities quangos are impartial
The EHRC is not politicised, it is accountable to Parliament, not the government of the day. It has legal and enforcement powers and is world renowned in the field of Human Rights. You would know all this with some basic research, but I guess the 'all non departmental governing bodies are a marxist plot' route requires less effort.
all the articles are either 'questionable' or entirely 'right wing press'.
So who have you quoted here other than the Mail, the Spectator and some Christian blogs?
So you are going to the head in sand approach. Handwave all arguments away are hysterical, even if videos by the BBC.
No I take the approach that you are using terms that have no place in any Statute in the history of the United Kingdom, so are arguing from a point of ignorance about the laws being discussed.
Also just because the Guardian refuses to cover these sort of stories doesn't mean they have no validity or do not occur.
I am well aware that the Guardian does not cover all stories, neither does any other paper, but you see I haven't made any assertions based on the content of news articles, I have provided the specific Acts of Parliament that cover this. see the difference?
Indeed, however the bakers refused a specific service, they would have refused that sefvice to anyone.
Also there is no evidence that the bakers would refuse regular service to anyone, we have evidence at least they serve gays in their bakery because they took the order before realising that the content of the order violated their ethos.
So far the quoted law has been complied with.
If that is the defence you would go with then good luck to you, but when you provide the service of icing cakes, its kind of difficult to say you didn't refuse service when you refused to ice a cake.
I havent quoted Melanie Phillips of Peter Hitchens, I gave links to actual events, and only some were covered in Mail or Telegraph. Besides what is inherently wrong with quoting from the Telegraph.
Links to events where Britain was actively de-anglicanised as a political tool by Labour? Must have missed them, could you point them out.
Nothing is wrong with quoting an article, an editorial is not an article, it is an opinion piece.
Peter Tachell like a number of lobbyists can wield indirect influence. That is what lobbying is for. Whwen Camerion made his commentary that the Uk was a Christian country Tatchell and many others joined the petition against the statement.
besides where did I imply Tatchell was in government position, clearly you are confused..
How much has Tatchell contributed to the main two parties financially?
You claimed that Tatchell had more power than the Church over policy, this is utter nonsense.
Your reading comprehension failed. I never implied Gay Pride was an anti-christian event.
You claimed that if a Christian event was homophobic it would be shut down, that is debatable, but if Gay Pride was not pro-gay, but rather anti-Christian it would suffer the same fate.
I collected the leaflets out of interest as to what might be preached.
Leaflets? As in more than one? Why was that necessary, surely you would know the content from the first one?
Every weekend Al Mouhajiroun was at the venue they placed their stall in the same place, right in the middle of the through traffic, the council have every opportunity to stop that.
So they could well have been subject to the same questioning your group was without your knowledge the first time they turned up.
Third why do you expect me or anyone else not to be concerned, I am not your peon. If I see the interest to collect flyers handed out by Islamic fundamentalists to see their content what is it to you. It is of interest to any open minded man to see what is going on in the world. and the comparison of activities is valid and how different groups are treated
You are indeed allowed to act in any way you see fit within the law, I just figure your time would be better spent not following round leaflets. But if that is what makes you happy then it is not my place to judge.
Besides why would I complain, what good would it do.
The police actively encourage people to report cases of extremism.
What naturally privileged position? You must be insane.
White, straight, male. All three are naturally privileged positions, I wasn't even aware that could be disputed it is that blindingly obvious.
Also calling Jews Satanic is real discrimination.
Actually it is hate speech, discrimination is where social participation is denied to someone.
Clearly you lack and elementary logical understanding of the point of mounting a comparison.
To quote a previous post of yours, if you cant argue respectfully get off the thread.
Race, after all sectarianism its just a word.
Sectarianism occurs when there is a violent racial divide, often using religion as an excuse. However its not an acrtuial relgious issue, but a racial one. This is why you get sectarianism in Northern Ireland and Glasgow, but in most other places where you have catholics and protestants living together you don't.
The race issue is compounded by the polarisation which prevents intermarriage.
In the case of Glasgow the two main factions of 'catholic and protestant', are more closely defined by their football team than by any church. the main divide in that city is Rangers vs Celtic, and it can get VERY nasty, the religion is just a backstory, few go to any form of church, and fewer yet practice what those religions say.
A no true Scotsman that is about Scotsmen, fair play. Alas, it doesn't change the fact that the Catholics and Protestants in NI get to have religious events.
Besides the CPS determines charges not convictions
The CPS decide what goes to court based upon two tests, whether there exists enough evidence and whether there exists a public interest in the conviction. A lack of evidence means no case, the police understand this so they like to collect evidence, this is sometimes best done by keeping persons of interest under surveillance.
I will end up with this one:
In my home town a street preacher was set upon by four Islamic teenagers because they didnt like his message. The police intervened before the violence got too bad (they had hit him) and arrested the preacher for disturbing the peace, the teenagers went on their way.
Sometimes law enforcement finds the easy way out, not the just way out.
No it isnt, its a freely held opinion. Acting against gay marriage is dicriminatory, you can even a draw a line after speaking out against it. however
Being anti-gay marriage is not a crime though, we don't have thought police yet, but we aren't far off in some ways.
So with your outlandish dogmas above you come to this twaddle:
If a Christian refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake, he is discriminating against gay marriage and therefore against gay people.
and its just not true, if anyone refuses to make a pro-gay marriage cake they are non-participating in the gay marriage arguement. They are refraining from creating slogans in support of gay marriaige. It doesnt even allow room to assume a vocalisation of anti-gay marriage sentiments, only a refusal to endorse.
What you are trying to do is make pro-gay marriage sentiments mandatory, on pain of state sponsored litigation. That is pretty much thought policing.
If he is prosecuted for this, because it is illegal, it is not discriminatory against Christians. Anyone who discriminates against gay people is liable to be prosecuted no matter what their religion of lack of it.
If the bakery is prosecuted it is because the local Equality quango is heavily dogmatised, this should not be a surprise to anyone.
and would have been equally liable for discrimination.
more like equally liable to being victimised by dogmatised officials.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
There's half a clue in why the bakeries being slammed and it's the phrase "refunded the customers money", weather the person went into the store to pick a fight or not is irrelevant.
If it was the companies "strong belief" then the order should have been refused at the counter in any number of ways without being discriminative or offensive.
I'm not entirely sure why it needed to be mailed to the whole company for a decision to be made on weather to produce the goods, I'm pretty sure they made that decision at the point of sale.
Whilst it's being blown out of all proportions and hardly requires court time or news coverage I'd say the customer, because he actually was a customer, has a pretty solid case.
Orlanth wrote: What you are trying to do is make pro-gay marriage sentiments mandatory, on pain of state sponsored litigation. That is pretty much thought policing.
This is not true at all. Selling a product with a particular message does not mean endorsing that message.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The EHRC is not politicised, it is accountable to Parliament, not the government of the day. It has legal and enforcement powers and is world renowned in the field of Human Rights. You would know all this with some basic research, but I guess the 'all non departmental governing bodies are a marxist plot' route requires less effort.
Well that proves the spin is working.
First it take two terms of government to get the cronies of a previous government out of place. this os normal, in Westminster is is common to replace the top tier of the civil service and to appoint a few key members elsewhere. Blair took it to a whole new level, Blair systemically cleared out the civil service in his second term. and almost entirely replaced the leadership of key external bodies.
The EHRC was set up in 2006 absorbing three other bodies, mostly this was in order to fill fresh (read party affiliated) leadership in an ostensibly independent body, and to replace anyone not Labour affiliated fromm the prior bodies Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Disability Rights Commission.
You would know all this with some basic research, but I guess the 'all non departmental governing bodies are a marxist plot' route requires less effort.
No I take the approach that you are using terms that have no place in any Statute in the history of the United Kingdom, so are arguing from a point of ignorance about the laws being discussed.
And here I was thinking we were posting on Dakka, not writing legal suppositions in the Inns of Court.
I am well aware that the Guardian does not cover all stories, neither does any other paper, but you see I haven't made any assertions based on the content of news articles, I have provided the specific Acts of Parliament that cover this. see the difference?.
You took a line out of context from the EHRC website, you didn't actually quote the law. There is a difference.
Nobody has the right to refuse you products or services because of your religion or belief, or because you have no religion or belief.
In the case at hand they didnt rerfuse goods or services because of the clients beliefs in gay marriage. This can be proven because the bakers took money to bake cakes.
What they did not do is bake a seopcific cake. There is no evidence to suggest they would have baked the same cake for anyone else, so nobody was discriminated against.
Lets look at the real law
Equality Act 2010 29.1
"A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service."
a Christian baker cannot deny the service of baking a cake due to rthe homosexuality of the client. However the word service is clarified below:
Equality Act 2010 31.2
A reference to the provision of a service includes a reference to the provision of goods or facilities.
So in general the refusal of a service would vbe in breach of the Equality Act is goods were not provided. However there is no evidence to sugrst that the gays could not have had a ckae from the bakery, indeed evidence suggests they could because monies were exchanged. If the bakers offered a different cake (which apparently they did because they contacted the client offered money and a face to face explanation. The provisions of the Equality Act would be adhered to in full because goods were offered.
However also look at this
Equality Act 2010 29.6
A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation.
As rel'gion is also a protected lass under the same legislation the Christians were discriminated against when they werre forced to participate in activities against thier eithos. This is covered here in the act under Indirect Discrimnination
Equality Act 2010 19.1
A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
Person a the client demands person B perform a practice in violation of their protected (relgious) ethos. Produce pro-gay slogans.
If that is the defence you would go with then good luck to you, but when you provide the service of icing cakes, its kind of difficult to say you didn't refuse service when you refused to ice a cake.
The bakers refused to ice a cake with a specific slogan, as they acepted money it is provable (though as the defence they need not prove anything) that they are prepared to ice cakes for gay people.
So they could well have been subject to the same questioning your group was without your knowledge the first time they turned up.
Nope because the church group was told that if it strayed from the cordoned area it would be shut down. The jihadists set up stall in the middle of the walkspeace week after week and were never shut down.
You are indeed allowed to act in any way you see fit within the law, I just figure your time would be better spent not following round leaflets. But if that is what makes you happy then it is not my place to judge.
Well you do judge, especially when you get it in your head I fo0llowec around leaflets. As I stated the venue was the entrace to a shopping centre, I like many others collected leaflets while out doing shopping. I didnt monitor the jihadists, I just regularly saw them when going shopping on Saturday mornings. It did help that I lived 200 yards away in the town centre.
White, straight, male. All three are naturally privileged positions, I wasn't even aware that could be disputed it is that blindingly obvious.
Where do you get the idea I am white?
Or did you just assume this.
If so why?
Also females are shortlisted for council housing and can apply for vacancies closed to males, including women only shortlists for public positions..
Also calling Jews Satanic is real discrimination.
Actually it is hate speech, discrimination is where social participation is denied to someone.
I will accept that, except that I cant see Jews being socially included by jihadists for any vacancy others than punchbag.
So its hate speech and discrimnination.
A no true Scotsman that is about Scotsmen, fair play. Alas, it doesn't change the fact that the Catholics and Protestants in NI get to have religious events.
And the religious events are the least sectarian part. The Orance order marches may include lots of nominal protestants, but the content isnt Protestant Christianity and the relfgious content is minimal. the race hate content however is evident.
dæl wrote: The CPS decide what goes to court based upon two tests, whether there exists enough evidence and whether there exists a public interest in the conviction. A lack of evidence means no case, the police understand this so they like to collect evidence, this is sometimes best done by keeping persons of interest under surveillance.
Wel;l in the cae of a Chritian preachers listed 'surveillance' lasted until the preacher was confrmed to be speaking, then action was taken.
In the case of the jihadists the police can be seen standing around doping 'surveillance' long after they had evidence to arrest anyone else.
So the EHRC should be talking to the police about their heavy handed treatment of Christians. However for some reason this is one bit of equality watchdogging that is consistently overlooked.
Basically the government can put a gun to your head and basically say 'you must make propaganda for whatever cause a paying customer wants.'
And this is why people left Europe and made a country founded on freedom of speech, because that type of behavior is a slippery slope to some really terrible thought police.
You see clearly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 23:34:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
If even the Guardian says the EHRC is run in a "very New Labour, Blairite way" are we surprised its actually Blairite.
So you cite a "libertarian" website, edited by a guy from the Spectator that seemingly misquotes people from the Guardian.
New Labour isnt marxist.
That is a fact I am acutely aware of, the abandoning of Clause 4 was the death knell of socialism in the UK for the foreseeable future.
You took a line out of context from the EHRC website
Please explain how the context on the page changed the content of the quoted line.
you didn't actually quote the law
No, I told you the relevant law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and thus contained in it Article 14 of the ECHR. I didn't use the Equality Act 2006, or the Equality Act 2010 because I haven't had to study those laws so don't have the relevant knowledge.
The bakers refused to ice a cake with a specific slogan
Did the slogan intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress? If not, then the baker has no right to refuse service on discriminatory grounds.
Each leaflet was diffierent
I bet they are popular at the printers, who must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Where do you get the idea I am white?
I figured from your idiosyncratic ideas about discrimination, that you hadn't had much experience being discriminated against. Are you not white?
Also females are shortlisted for council housing and can apply for vacancies closed to males, including women only shortlists for public positions..
I wonder why that could be? Could it be something to do with lack of equal representation by any chance?
So the EHRC should be talking to the police about their heavy handed treatment of Christians
Among other groups, yes they should if there is a case to answer, failing that send the case to Strasbourg.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 23:48:20
No, I told you the relevant law, the Human Rights Act 1998, and thus contained in it Article 14 of the ECHR. I didn't use the Equality Act 2006, or the Equality Act 2010 because I haven't had to study those laws so don't have the relevant knowledge.
The more recent legislation outweighs older legislation, you ought to know that.
I bet they are popular at the printers, who must be laughing all the way to the bank.
What is specifically unusual about jihadists printing flyers, besides they were A4 sheets and not professionally done. Also the leaflets were rather restricted, I was stweered away from the jihad flyers towards the conversion flyers, but i pretended not to hear and took one of each one.
I figured from your idiosyncratic ideas about discrimination, that you hadn't had much experience being discriminated against. Are you not white?
My colour is not relevant, though yes I am white..
Besides what would you know about my life.
I was attacked in the street for being Christian, though this was by a local moslem with severe mental health issues. I don't blame Islam per se for him.
I was with as church member half an hour before she was stabbed to death because refused to give up her faith.
However oddly enough.
I have gay friends, and when they were targeted by homophobes I was targeted also because I was in their company and the homophobes assumed therefore I was also gay.
i have been mistaken for a Jew based on my looks, and experienced small amounts of anti-Semitism from time to time. This has occurred twice that I recognise.
I wonder why that could be? Could it be something to do with lack of equal representation by any chance?
No women faxce no discrimination in housing, only privileged status. The reasons are fair sounding, women are more vulnerable when homeless than men. But the privileged status nevertheless also extends to temporary housing provision.
More problematically ethjic minorities are sometimes given housing preference. This is not their fault, however as certain ethnic groups tend to vote for certain parties as a whole if a new housing development in a ward is erthnically tailored then it can effect voting patterns in a ward and shift it, normally to Labour or Liberal Democrat.
The housing zone in which I live is a Tory ward, a large housing unit was built both social and part owned housing, and this was to be Asians only. Thankfully this was leaked and the council was forced to backtrack and apply equal opportunities.
It is important not to blame Asians for this, offered a house by the council and uyou take it yes. It is not their fault or to their discredit if dodgy councils want to ethnically tailor estates to change the voting demographic, nor are social housing tenants expected to ethnically graph their own neighbourhoods.
As a general rule if you tailor a development for blacks you get a shift to Labour, for Asians you get LD or Labour dependent on the area. This is evidence based on large scale voting habits and does not take into account individuals.just statistical averages.
There are varied ways to smokescreen this discriminatory action such as using BME Housing Initiatives, 'specialist providers' etc.
Among other groups, yes they should if there is a case to answer, failing that send the case to Strasbourg.
Christian groups find it hard to get state funding to fight a case in the European court, though some have tried. However that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems with legal aid. Christians are far from the only groups who get short changed on legal protection. I don't think I can blame the EHRC for this though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/11 00:26:19
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: Well it obviously did cause distress to the bakers, or they would have iced the cake with it..
I think you're confusing distress with the attitude held by a lot of conservative Christians that they're entitled to a world in which they never have to be aware of anything that violates their beliefs. And I find it difficult to believe that the cake caused any significant distress given the fact that they initially accepted the job and only later decided that it was against their religion. If this was truly an offensive message then why didn't they immediately reject it like they might have rejected a racist cake ordered by a KKK group, or a "CHRISTIANS SUCK!" cake?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Did the slogan intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress? If not, then the baker has no right to refuse service on discriminatory grounds.
Well it obviously did cause distress to the bakers, or they would have iced the cake with it..
The key word is intentionally, the motivation is as important as the act.
I was attacked in the street for being Christian, though this was by a local moslem with severe mental health issues. I don't blame Islam per se for him.
I was with as church member half an hour before she was stabbed to death because refused to give up her faith.
However oddly enough.
I have gay friends, and when they were targeted by homophobes I was targeted also because I was in their company and the homophobes assumed therefore I was also gay.
i have been mistaken for a Jew based on my looks, and experienced small amounts of anti-Semitism from time to time. This has occurred twice that I recognise.
These are, without doubt, horrific instances of hate crimes. However systemic discrimination is different, it is not specific instances, it is a constant battle.
No women faxce no discrimination in housing, only privileged status. The reasons are fair sounding, women are more vulnerable when homeless than men. But the privileged status nevertheless also extends to temporary housing provision.
I agree with this, and I was homeless and received what was essentially no support. Vulnerable groups should be given more support than less vulnerable ones.
As a general rule if you tailor a development for blacks you get a shift to Labour, for Asians you get LD or Labour dependent on the area. This is evidence based on large scale voting habits and does not take into account individuals.just statistical averages.
I would be very interested in seeing a psephological study on this. Generally a change in voting habits is down to perceived levels of competence in office.
Christian groups find it hard to get state funding to fight a case in the European court, though some have tried. However that is just the tip of the iceberg of problems with legal aid. Christians are far from the only groups who get short changed on legal protection. I don't think I can blame the EHRC for this though.
Human Rights lawyers are generally far more receptive to doing work pro bono than other lawyers, especially in cases that would be high profile or have a large public interest. Of course the case does have to have some merit, unlike the famous B&B case, or if the bakery in this case claimed discrimination.
