[aloo6]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

Sounded exactly like a dig at him being gay.

He's gay so he must enjoy the attention?

One is gay and one is a baker. They are both guys, I am trying to distinguish between the two. The blokes gay, he's a gay guy. The entire case/scenario is about the subject area.

Like I said before, it's a dig at the fact he thinks he's entitled to everything and anything and he doesn't like it when he doesn't get his way, he thinks he's been discriminated against, he's not.

By you doing exactly what you are doing, you are fuelling the discrimination debate by poking holes at my vague comment, twisting my comments. You are trying to fly a flag on something that isn't there.

Either way, it's a cake, shouldn't be ruined by such bitterness(a 500k lawsuit, for clarity) :

[Harryg]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

I've only read the one [BBC] story on this, but I got the feeling that he was on the 'activist' spectrum.

Whether sexuality-based, race-based, environment-based (etc. etc.) activists usually go the extra mile in attention-raising/point-proving. Sometimes for a very good reason, sometimes going a little far in my view.

Believing that the judges have found fairly, it does seem that this guy pushed this far more than he needed to.

As usual I am being too long winded what I am saying is that if he is an 'attention seeking gay activist' it's the activist word that attaches to attention seeking, not gay.

Its a good point looking at the activist theory, if this normal Joe this was happening to would he have the clout to go to all this bother I don't think so some one is bankrolling this to the tune of 1/2 million pounds yes it possibly activists at work seeking to disrupt and create attention but this needed to go to the supreme court for the ruling so how many judges got this wrong until this judgement was made.

If they cant get this right what else are they getting wrong makes me wonder

[Sasquartch]

Originally Posted by zofinger

I’m an average Joe. My employer has established groups for LGBT, women, black and families (plus others which elude me). Honestly? I feel somewhat disenfranchised. It’s not causing any great worries or anything, but the volume of emails I receive to attend a ‘women at work’ seminar or such like is just another email remindeing me I don’t belong to any of the groups. No one says I cannot attend any of the groups and I choose not to. But I often wonder whether inclusivity, certainly in the environment which I live, is going too far.

I’m all for bringing people together who share similar experiences and challenges but I don’t suppose i’ll be invited to a white male hetrosexual group anytime soon.

Is your employer Tesco ? When I worked at Head Office a few years ago this is what it was like.

Probably all big firms are like this though

[davyk31]

I'm delighted that common sense prevailed at last and the bakers won their case.

Most shocking though is the amount of public money that has gone into this. The complainant has been backed the whole way by the Equality Commission in N Ireland as they supported his discrimination allegation. Now they have lost all that money should not have been spent rather than wasting tax payers money trying to defend a spurious claim. All the guy had to do was go to the next bakers and ask them or amend his message so it was one that Ashers were comfortable with. It is also very highly probable he was trying to induce a reaction as the Christian nature of the Ashers company is well known locally and he ought to have known his request would be declined.

According to last night's news he now feels like a second class citizen, oh well that's won't kill him I'm sure and made no mention of the stress he has placed the baker's through. They in their speech made it clear he had been served before in their shops and was welcome back anytime, he did not reciprocate with such a sentiment thus making him look rather bitter.

[JD6]

There is another side to this. Apparently the bakers were backed by Christian Institute, who funded the case, so it isn't quite the David and Goliath story it has been made out to be. It seems both sides had powerful financial backers, so perhaps had no real exposure to the outcome, beyond publicity.


..the photographer later realised that the client was the lobby group Christian Institute, which has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds backing the bakery in their legal challenge...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8579136.html

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by JD6

There is another side to this. Apparently the bakers were backed by Christian Institute, who funded the case, so it isn't quite the David and Goliath story it has been made out to be. It seems both sides had powerful financial backers, so perhaps had no real exposure to the outcome, beyond publicity.


..the photographer later realised that the client was the lobby group Christian Institute, which has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds backing the bakery in their legal challenge...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8579136.html

The same Christian Institute who have campaigned and lobbied against EVERY piece of legislation aimed at gay equality.

They campaigned to retain Clause 28, against first reducing then equalising the age of consent, against Civil Partnerships and then against marriage rights. Also campaigned against the Equality Act. They believe companies should be able to refuse service to gay people (they funded the legal challenge of a hotel owner who refused to allow a gay couple in a civil partnership share a double bed. They lost. Also funded the legal challenge of a registrar who refused to do the paperwork work for civil partnerships. Again, also lost).

And for anyone who fancies a cheeky wager on the footie or Grand National, they campaign against gambling.

Also totally against abortion even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.

Not a particularly nice organisation in my opinion.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

The same Christian Institute who have campaigned and lobbied against EVERY piece of legislation aimed at gay equality.

They campaigned to retain Clause 28, against first reducing then equalising the age of consent, against Civil Partnerships and then against marriage rights. Also campaigned against the Equality Act. They believe companies should be able to refuse service to gay people (they funded the legal challenge of a hotel owner who refused to allow a gay couple in a civil partnership share a double bed. They lost. Also funded the legal challenge of a registrar who refused to do the paperwork work for civil partnerships. Again, also lost).

And for anyone who fancies a cheeky wager on the footie or Grand National, they campaign against gambling.

Also totally against abortion even if the pregnancy is the result of rape.

Not a particularly nice organisation in my opinion.

I agree - they sound like a very backward and unpleasant organisation.

That said, it seems to me that for once they were on the sensible side of this particular case, albeit for the wrong reasons. I’m just surprised that the High Court and the Court of Appeal were unable to separate the person ordering the cake from the baker’s right to choose if they would create that message.

[davyk31]

Still a big difference between the Chrisitan Institute gathering in donations to help fund the bakers costs and the complainant getting all his costs covered by us, the tax payer. Those who contributed towards the bakers cost chose to do so as they support the cause, the tax payer had no choice and paid his part towards the costs no matter what way someone feels about the case.

[TouringPleb]

Originally Posted by davyk31

Still a big difference between the Chrisitan Institute gathering in donations to help fund the bakers costs and the complainant getting all his costs covered by us, the tax payer. Those who contributed towards the bakers cost chose to do so as they support the cause, the tax payer had no choice and paid his part towards the costs no matter what way someone feels about the case.

The Equality Commission's legal bills are estimated at £250,000

There's 65.5 million people in the UK. Let's say half those people are tax payers. Works out at 8p per person.

PM me your address and I'll personally reimburse your 8p. Might even round it up to 10p if your lucky.

[JustChris]

WTF is going on.

[davyk31]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

The Equality Commission's legal bills are estimated at £250,000

There's 65.5 million people in the UK. Let's say half those people are tax payers. Works out at 8p per person.

PM me your address and I'll personally reimburse your 8p. Might even round it up to 10p if your lucky.

Could you maybe refund me 16p please as I'm not happy with my wife having to pay a contribution as well as me

[Wills2]

I'm astounded it had to go to the supreme court in the 1st place, it was a pretty simple concept to grasp.

[Zippee]

Originally Posted by TouringPleb

The Equality Commission's legal bills are estimated at £250,000

There's 65.5 million people in the UK. Let's say half those people are tax payers. Works out at 8p per person.

PM me your address and I'll personally reimburse your 8p. Might even round it up to 10p if your lucky.

Sound logic..... That must make it completely ok then.