Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Ashers 'gay cake' row: Bakers win Supreme Court appeal

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,142
    Thanks
    379
    Thanked 1,203 Times in 883 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cromwell View Post
    Well actually I was agreeing with the cake shop,it wasn't them who brought the case was it? If it was then I stand by my post,it's just a cake,tbh they shouldv'e told them they were too busy to do it.

    I mean a pub can refuse to serve you without giving a reason shops too iirc.
    The most worrying thing about all this is, if the article is correct, the Ashers have been forced to spend 200k defending themselves, while the "Equality Commission" have spent 250k of taxpayers money pursuing them.

    And people say I over react about liberals.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Leaving the EUSSR
    Posts
    9,785
    Thanks
    2,219
    Thanked 2,035 Times in 1,580 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DeppityDawg View Post
    The most worrying thing about all this is, if the article is correct, the Ashers have been forced to spend 200k defending themselves, while the "Equality Commission" have spent 250k of taxpayers money pursuing them.

    And people say I over react about liberals.
    Like I said,waste of money.
    To paraphase one of our last great political leaders Winston Spencer Churchill "Never in the field of British politics and Brexit was so much expected by so many of so few......only to be bitterly disappointed"

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    5,241
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 531 Times in 446 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DeppityDawg View Post
    The most worrying thing about all this is, if the article is correct, the Ashers have been forced to spend 200k defending themselves, while the "Equality Commission" have spent 250k of taxpayers money pursuing them.

    And people say I over react about liberals.
    Looks like this was a proxy war Gay Rights v The Christian Institute.

    From the original link:

    Ashers bakery has spent more 200,000 on the case. It is being paid by The Christian Institute, a charity and lobby group...
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,929
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 202 Times in 184 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    I happen to think the decision here was right, in a borderline sort of way. If it was a large company that refused to make the cake, it would be different.

    If someone from UKIP came to me and asked me to make a Happy Brexit cake I'd be inclined to refuse. But then again, I might take the job on and add a generous dose of rapid action laxatives.
    I dahn do non-judgement'aw. ... and put ya blinkin' shirt on mate, wiwya!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    9,254
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 1,227 Times in 1,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cromwell View Post
    Well actually I was agreeing with the cake shop,it wasn't them who brought the case was it? If it was then I stand by my post,it's just a cake,tbh they shouldv'e told them they were too busy to do it.

    I mean a pub can refuse to serve you without giving a reason shops too iirc.
    unfortunately, those rights have been seriously eroded, to the point the scum who invaded a local beauty spot and promptly set about shitting all over it would have won a discrimination case had the pub at the end of said beauty spot denied them access.

    To read more mealy mouthed attempts to pretend public and still have the right to refuse service they once had, Google "Wetherspoons travellers 44000" and start reading the various bits of lawyer BS.

    As I have said for years, to restore this country to somethi g worth living in, we really are going to have to start culling lawyers, there really are problems with the current overpopulation ...
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    9,254
    Thanks
    1,552
    Thanked 1,227 Times in 1,002 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    Looks like this was a proxy war — Gay Rights v The Christian Institute.

    From the original link:

    Ashers bakery has spent more 200,000 on the case. It is being paid by The Christian Institute, a charity and lobby group...
    except that the one side were funded by those wishing to see a fight, while the other was funded by the robbery through taxation of many who agree with the decision to tell them to go elsewhere.
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,478
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 179 Times in 157 Posts
    This is without the explosion of publicity promoting trannies and other such foolishness. Yes if you have dangly bits, you're are a bloke.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    848
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 52 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cromwell View Post
    Well actually I was agreeing with the cake shop,it wasn't them who brought the case was it? If it was then I stand by my post,it's just a cake,tbh they shouldv'e told them they were too busy to do it.

    I mean a pub can refuse to serve you without giving a reason shops too iirc.
    The owner did not take the order because they have a string of bakery shops now and rely on staff. If you had bothered to read the case, as opposed to the BBC's Pravda service, you would know this. The judge accepted this as OK. The owner acted as soon as they heard about it. They could not have predicted such a thing was likely so could not have done more.
    Toiler on the sea

Similar Threads

  1. Brexit: Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead
    By lankou in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 24-01-2017, 09:39 PM
  2. "Nigel Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court
    By Borchester in forum Political News
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-11-2016, 02:10 AM
  3. An interesting case for Britain's "Supreme Court"
    By johnofgwent in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-11-2014, 08:20 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 18-07-2014, 10:36 PM
  5. Supreme Court holds secret hearing
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22-03-2013, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •