If they help the cause then they have supported it. You can support something in the facilitate sense, without supporting it in the football team sense. So yes, you are conflating two things.
edit: and as I said in my post just above, the semantic argument oesn't detract from the point being made, which is that a business may not want to facilitate or provide support to a political cause.
No, I really am not. To facilitate is to make, not support. Their job is to make cakes and they can use disclaimers if they wish to distance themselves from any message that they don't wish to support.
Their argument was that making the cake was supporting the cause and the Judge addressed that.
No, I really am not. To facilitate is to make, not support. Their job is to make cakes and they can use disclaimers if they wish to distance themselves from any message that they don't wish to support.
Their argument was that making the cake was supporting the cause and the Judge addressed that.
Sorry Jesaya, I must conclude you are being wilfully ignorant - arguing over the semantics of a word doesn't bolster your point or detract from mine so I can only conclude that you are trying to drag the thread off in that direction as a means of deflection. It doesn't actually make a difference to my point if you think I should have used the word facilitate instead of support, feel free to re-read my argument with the word facilitate instead; that said you need only consult a dictionary to see that my use of the word support is indeed correct. ;-)
No, I really am not. To facilitate is to make, not support. Their job is to make cakes and they can use disclaimers if they wish to distance themselves from any message that they don't wish to support.
Their argument was that making the cake was supporting the cause and the Judge addressed that.
No I did not!!! You can underline an bold all you like. I was referring to the 1998 NI act which you were wrongly saying was defunct
No you were not. You even stated the year date as 2010 in your own post!
Also it's clear for all to see that it was you who stated it was 'defunct since 2010 law' and not me. In fact i've never used the word other than to quote from your postings.
No you were wrong, wont admit it and don't understand there were two separate pieces of legislation. As usual when you're wrong about anything, I don't expect any acknowledgement.
...and of course you won't admit your mistake......
No i won't as it's you who made the mistake and now been shown up for it. The Act is still in force current day legislation.
That's not the link anne posted hence why i called into question her claiming the 2010 Equality Act being 'defunct' (her term) which of course it's not. It's current legislation in force.
Sorry Jesaya, I must conclude you are being wilfully ignorant - arguing over the semantics of a word doesn't bolster your point or detract from mine so I can only conclude that you are trying to drag the thread off in that direction as a means of deflection. It doesn't actually make a difference to my point if you think I should have used the word facilitate instead of support, feel free to re-read my argument with the word facilitate instead; that said you need only consult a dictionary to see that my use of the word support is indeed correct. ;-)
Look Slarti - you used the word support. If you meant to use facilitate then you should have used it, although it alters your argument by doing so. Don't blame me if you cannot be clear about what you are saying.
I understand you want to allow people to discriminate - and I disagree, so I suggest we leave it at that.
That's not the link anne posted hence why i called into question her claiming the 2010 Equality Act being 'defunct' (her term) which of course it's not. It's current legislation in force.
Not in NI in the areas under discussion. Not sure what your issue is tbh.
I believe this is where it will be challenged if it goes to appeal. A political belief is not a protected characteristic covered in the Equality Act 2010 which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and NI.
Unless living under a Totalitarianist regime it's completely unrealistic and impossible to implement , otherwise the courts and prisons would be packed full of political activists and dissenters on a daily basis.
It does not! That's GB legislation.
NI has its own legislation for this. If you read the judgement you would know that the case was brought under the NI regulations on sexual orientation and the main NI legislation on Fair Treatment which covers discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
On what grounds could Ashers possibly sue "the gays"? And who are "the gays"? Are you referring just to Mr Lee or will all gay people in NI be held accountable for this imaginary wrongdoing?
I'm sure they can find a reason.. sue for religious discrimination, hurt feelings etc... and I I refer to the clown who took the shop to court. Not all gays. I didn't mean for that post to come across as offensive lol. No real harm was done, Mr Lee chose to be offended by the shop's decision and went to court over hurt feelings. I'm offended that Mr Lee was offended, and I'm doubly offended that he went to court and won....where can I apply for compensation?
I'm sure they can find a reason.. sue for religious discrimination, hurt feelings etc... and I I refer to the clown who took the shop to court. Not all gays. I didn't mean for that post to come across as offensive lol. No real harm was done, Mr Lee chose to be offended by the shop's decision and went to court over hurt feelings. I'm offended that Mr Lee was offended, and I'm doubly offended that he went to court and won....where can I apply for compensation?
It isn't a case of choosing to be offended - he was discriminated against. And I don't think you can choose to be offended in any case... you can, surely, only choose to act when someone offends you by discriminating against you. This might not seem important to you, but it didn't happen to you and I am sure you appreciate that not everyone feels the same about such things - it may be a case that Mr Lee had past experiences of discrimination that made it more significant to him than such a thing would be to you.
I'm sure they can find a reason.. sue for religious discrimination, hurt feelings etc... and I I refer to the clown who took the shop to court. Not all gays. I didn't mean for that post to come across as offensive lol. No real harm was done, Mr Lee chose to be offended by the shop's decision and went to court over hurt feelings. I'm offended that Mr Lee was offended, and I'm doubly offended that he went to court and won....where can I apply for compensation?
Oh, and no they cannot sue Mr Lee as he did not discriminate against them.
It isn't a case of choosing to be offended - he was discriminated against. And I don't think you can choose to be offended in any case... you can, surely, only choose to act when someone offends you by discriminating against you. This might not seem important to you, but it didn't happen to you and I am sure you appreciate that not everyone feels the same about such things - it may be a case that Mr Lee had past experiences of discrimination that made it more significant to him than such a thing would be to you.
"He was discriminated against" ok, so what if he was! The Ashers might be offended by Mr Lee supporting gay marriage, therefore the shop has to be offended by Lee's actions, but Lee isn't allowed to be offended by the shops decision because its "discrimination" therefore the Ashers are discriminated against as this violates their religious rights.
Refusing to add a certain design to a cake is not discrimination.
We all know the outcome if this was a Muslim owned shop.
Look Slarti - you used the word support. If you meant to use facilitate then you should have used it, although it alters your argument by doing so. Don't blame me if you cannot be clear about what you are saying.
I understand you want to allow people to discriminate - and I disagree, so I suggest we leave it at that.
I used the word support because that's what I meant to use, though it does not alter my argument if I had used the word facilitate. You simply misunderstood because you weren't sure of the meaning of a word. There's no shame in that but your little outburst here isn't going to change that and I'd prefer you didn't take it out on me. Now can you please stop trying to derail the thread.
"He was discriminated against" ok, so what if he was! The Ashers might be offended by Mr Lee supporting gay marriage, therefore the shop has to be offended by Lee's actions, but Lee isn't allowed to be offended by the shops decision because its "discrimination" therefore the Ashers are discriminated against as this violates their religious rights.
Refusing to add a certain design to a cake is not discrimination.
We all know the outcome if this was a Muslim owned shop.
They were discriminated against because they weren't allowed to discriminate?
I used the word support because that's what I meant to use, though it does not alter my argument if I had used the word facilitate. You simply misunderstood because you weren't sure of the meaning of a word. There's no shame in that but your little outburst here isn't going to change that and I'd prefer you didn't take it out on me. Now can you please stop trying to derail the thread.
I think you are the one intent on derailing and the one having 'little outbursts' in an attempt to deflect. I was not, after all, the only person to mention your use of language. Perhaps you would like to return to your attempt to justify undermining the equality laws.
They were discriminated against because they weren't allowed to discriminate?
I think that sums it up. Apparently it is ok to discriminate when a person has 'deeply held beliefs' and the other person is gay. That's why the DUP are proposing legislation to enable just that.
"He was discriminated against" ok, so what if he was! The Ashers might be offended by Mr Lee supporting gay marriage, therefore the shop has to be offended by Lee's actions, but Lee isn't allowed to be offended by the shops decision because its "discrimination" therefore the Ashers are discriminated against as this violates their religious rights.
Refusing to add a certain design to a cake is not discrimination.
We all know the outcome if this was a Muslim owned shop.
BIB - You should have left it there.
Taking offence is not the issue, discrimination is. Suggest you either read the thread or do some research to find out what constitutes discrimination.
I'm sure they can find a reason.. sue for religious discrimination, hurt feelings etc... and I I refer to the clown who took the shop to court. Not all gays. I didn't mean for that post to come across as offensive lol. No real harm was done, Mr Lee chose to be offended by the shop's decision and went to court over hurt feelings. I'm offended that Mr Lee was offended, and I'm doubly offended that he went to court and won....where can I apply for compensation?
Mr Lee used the legal process and the outcome was in his favour. I find it utterly bizarre that you think he could personally be sued for that.
I think that sums it up. Apparently it is ok to discriminate when a person has 'deeply held beliefs' and the other person is gay. That's why the DUP are proposing legislation to enable just that.
The DUP wouldn't need to legislate if the judge had given more weight to the freedom of conscience.
I think that sums it up. Apparently it is ok to discriminate when a person has 'deeply held beliefs' and the other person is gay. That's why the DUP are proposing legislation to enable just that.
So let's explore this hypothetical situation where a law is passed and 'The Religious' can discriminate against others of their choosing but everyone else can't discriminate against then or anyone else.
Who then decides what is religion and which ones this applies to?
New religions will spring up over-night. The EDL will rename itself The Church of Englishness and then be feely allowed to discriminate against anyone who isn't English. In fact every single organisation that hates someone else will just re-brand as a religion and do what they wanted to do in the first place.
And the fun the Muslims will have telling us all to behead all the gay people in England and their families and it will no longer be a hate crime.
So I take it that these VERY misguided idiots who want freedom of discrimination because of faith, only want it for their own religion and no one else. How could that ever be implemented?
So the whole thing is a complete nonsense and won't ever get voted in because the results would be unthinkable.
Religious Freedom is a lie so Christian homophobic scum can get away with homophobia, when satanists in America wants to use theirs they get denied by the same Christians obsessed with that lie
If you run a business you need to obey the law , even their bible says to obey the law
Comments
No, I really am not. To facilitate is to make, not support. Their job is to make cakes and they can use disclaimers if they wish to distance themselves from any message that they don't wish to support.
Their argument was that making the cake was supporting the cause and the Judge addressed that.
Sorry Jesaya, I must conclude you are being wilfully ignorant - arguing over the semantics of a word doesn't bolster your point or detract from mine so I can only conclude that you are trying to drag the thread off in that direction as a means of deflection. It doesn't actually make a difference to my point if you think I should have used the word facilitate instead of support, feel free to re-read my argument with the word facilitate instead; that said you need only consult a dictionary to see that my use of the word support is indeed correct. ;-)
Where could they have put the disclaimer?
Also it's clear for all to see that it was you who stated it was 'defunct since 2010 law' and not me. In fact i've never used the word other than to quote from your postings.
Here is the start of the string;
No i won't as it's you who made the mistake and now been shown up for it. The Act is still in force current day legislation.
Now do the decent thing and apologise.
Look Slarti - you used the word support. If you meant to use facilitate then you should have used it, although it alters your argument by doing so. Don't blame me if you cannot be clear about what you are saying.
I understand you want to allow people to discriminate - and I disagree, so I suggest we leave it at that.
As I said, where their logo appeared - the bag, the box, the little square tray these cakes come on.
Not in NI in the areas under discussion. Not sure what your issue is tbh.
It does not! That's GB legislation.
NI has its own legislation for this. If you read the judgement you would know that the case was brought under the NI regulations on sexual orientation and the main NI legislation on Fair Treatment which covers discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
Sorry, I thought you meant on the cake itself.
I'm sure they can find a reason.. sue for religious discrimination, hurt feelings etc... and I I refer to the clown who took the shop to court. Not all gays. I didn't mean for that post to come across as offensive lol. No real harm was done, Mr Lee chose to be offended by the shop's decision and went to court over hurt feelings. I'm offended that Mr Lee was offended, and I'm doubly offended that he went to court and won....where can I apply for compensation?
It isn't a case of choosing to be offended - he was discriminated against. And I don't think you can choose to be offended in any case... you can, surely, only choose to act when someone offends you by discriminating against you. This might not seem important to you, but it didn't happen to you and I am sure you appreciate that not everyone feels the same about such things - it may be a case that Mr Lee had past experiences of discrimination that made it more significant to him than such a thing would be to you.
Oh, and no they cannot sue Mr Lee as he did not discriminate against them.
"He was discriminated against" ok, so what if he was! The Ashers might be offended by Mr Lee supporting gay marriage, therefore the shop has to be offended by Lee's actions, but Lee isn't allowed to be offended by the shops decision because its "discrimination" therefore the Ashers are discriminated against as this violates their religious rights.
Refusing to add a certain design to a cake is not discrimination.
We all know the outcome if this was a Muslim owned shop.
I used the word support because that's what I meant to use, though it does not alter my argument if I had used the word facilitate. You simply misunderstood because you weren't sure of the meaning of a word. There's no shame in that but your little outburst here isn't going to change that and I'd prefer you didn't take it out on me. Now can you please stop trying to derail the thread.
They were discriminated against because they weren't allowed to discriminate?
I think you are the one intent on derailing and the one having 'little outbursts' in an attempt to deflect. I was not, after all, the only person to mention your use of language. Perhaps you would like to return to your attempt to justify undermining the equality laws.
I think that sums it up. Apparently it is ok to discriminate when a person has 'deeply held beliefs' and the other person is gay. That's why the DUP are proposing legislation to enable just that.
BIB - You should have left it there.
Taking offence is not the issue, discrimination is. Suggest you either read the thread or do some research to find out what constitutes discrimination.
The DUP wouldn't need to legislate if the judge had given more weight to the freedom of conscience.
Are you talking about the Equality Act 2010?
If so, what is it's connection to the Ashers case?
So let's explore this hypothetical situation where a law is passed and 'The Religious' can discriminate against others of their choosing but everyone else can't discriminate against then or anyone else.
Who then decides what is religion and which ones this applies to?
New religions will spring up over-night. The EDL will rename itself The Church of Englishness and then be feely allowed to discriminate against anyone who isn't English. In fact every single organisation that hates someone else will just re-brand as a religion and do what they wanted to do in the first place.
And the fun the Muslims will have telling us all to behead all the gay people in England and their families and it will no longer be a hate crime.
So I take it that these VERY misguided idiots who want freedom of discrimination because of faith, only want it for their own religion and no one else. How could that ever be implemented?
So the whole thing is a complete nonsense and won't ever get voted in because the results would be unthinkable.
Common sense will prevail.
If you run a business you need to obey the law , even their bible says to obey the law