The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Ashers Bakery Lose Same-Sex Cake Appeal
Common sense at last, they run a business if you bake a cake in Liverpool colours does not mean that you support Liverpool!
They were in the wrong and its about time the accepted it.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Islay. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//laws must be kept, and you cannot flout them simply because applying them flies in the face of your religious beliefs. //
While there are no official figures, it is believed that there may be as many as 20,000 polygamous marriages in the British Muslim community.
Would be interesting how many of the estimated 20,000 law breakers have made an appearance before the courts.
While there are no official figures, it is believed that there may be as many as 20,000 polygamous marriages in the British Muslim community.
Would be interesting how many of the estimated 20,000 law breakers have made an appearance before the courts.
Talbot - ////laws must be kept, and you cannot flout them simply because applying them flies in the face of your religious beliefs. //
While there are no official figures, it is believed that there may be as many as 20,000 polygamous marriages in the British Muslim community.
Would be interesting how many of the estimated 20,000 law breakers have made an appearance before the courts. //
Your piece does state that anyone who enters this country with a polygamous marriage in place is not breaking the law.
So first of all, it would be necessary to establish how many - if any - of those 20,000 marriages actually took place in the UK, which would be required in order for them to be illegal.
On that basis, I am unsure if your post has validity in the argument.
While there are no official figures, it is believed that there may be as many as 20,000 polygamous marriages in the British Muslim community.
Would be interesting how many of the estimated 20,000 law breakers have made an appearance before the courts. //
Your piece does state that anyone who enters this country with a polygamous marriage in place is not breaking the law.
So first of all, it would be necessary to establish how many - if any - of those 20,000 marriages actually took place in the UK, which would be required in order for them to be illegal.
On that basis, I am unsure if your post has validity in the argument.
what I find utterly incredible is that through all of this, kaufman-astoria and the children's television workshop have stood back and allowed two of their creations to be hijacked for what are effectively political ends. time and time again they have stated that ernie and bert are not gay, and yet they are prepared to allow activists to besmirch them over and over?
mushroom - //what I find utterly incredible is that through all of this, kaufman-astoria and the children's television workshop have stood back and allowed two of their creations to be hijacked for what are effectively political ends. time and time again they have stated that ernie and bert are not gay, and yet they are prepared to allow activists to besmirch them over and over? //
We will have to wait and see if the company concerned think it worthwhile to chase a trademark infringement prosecution - maybe they will.
We will have to wait and see if the company concerned think it worthwhile to chase a trademark infringement prosecution - maybe they will.
I disagree with the court on this. Just because you're in a business that accepts commissions doesn't mean you should be obliged to accept every commission that is requested under pain of prosecution.
To me, it can only be discrimination if they agree to make a particular cake for one person but refuse to make the same cake for a different person, because of something about that second person. They clearly wouldn't want to make this cake for anyone, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality etc etc.
jno said it on page 1 (and I haven't read any of the stuff in between) - does this mean they've now got to make a neo-Nazi cake on the basis that 'making the cake doesn't necessarily indicate support for neo-nazis'. ?
To me, it can only be discrimination if they agree to make a particular cake for one person but refuse to make the same cake for a different person, because of something about that second person. They clearly wouldn't want to make this cake for anyone, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality etc etc.
jno said it on page 1 (and I haven't read any of the stuff in between) - does this mean they've now got to make a neo-Nazi cake on the basis that 'making the cake doesn't necessarily indicate support for neo-nazis'. ?
Ludwig - //I disagree with the court on this. Just because you're in a business that accepts commissions doesn't mean you should be obliged to accept every commission that is requested under pain of prosecution. //
Indeed it doesn't - and you are not so obliged.
The law permits you to turn down business - this case a commission to make a cake, and you are not required to give a reason if you don't wish to do so.
What are not allowed to do is accept a commission, think about for a week, decide it offends your religious principles, and then phone the customer and refuse it, citing discrimination which is against the law.
// To me, it can only be discrimination if they agree to make a particular cake for one person but refuse to make the same cake for a different person, because of something about that second person. They clearly wouldn't want to make this cake for anyone, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality etc etc. //
To you - fair enough. To the court, they business contravened discrimination laws by refusing to make the cake on the grounds of the orientation of the customer. That is discrimination, and it's illegal, hence the court case.
//jno said it on page 1 (and I haven't read any of the stuff in between) - does this mean they've now got to make a neo-Nazi cake on the basis that 'making the cake doesn't necessarily indicate support for neo-nazis'. ? //
No, they can refer back to the law which allows them to refuse to bake any cake they choose not to bake, and they are not obliged to give a reason if they don't wish to do so.
Indeed it doesn't - and you are not so obliged.
The law permits you to turn down business - this case a commission to make a cake, and you are not required to give a reason if you don't wish to do so.
What are not allowed to do is accept a commission, think about for a week, decide it offends your religious principles, and then phone the customer and refuse it, citing discrimination which is against the law.
// To me, it can only be discrimination if they agree to make a particular cake for one person but refuse to make the same cake for a different person, because of something about that second person. They clearly wouldn't want to make this cake for anyone, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality etc etc. //
To you - fair enough. To the court, they business contravened discrimination laws by refusing to make the cake on the grounds of the orientation of the customer. That is discrimination, and it's illegal, hence the court case.
//jno said it on page 1 (and I haven't read any of the stuff in between) - does this mean they've now got to make a neo-Nazi cake on the basis that 'making the cake doesn't necessarily indicate support for neo-nazis'. ? //
No, they can refer back to the law which allows them to refuse to bake any cake they choose not to bake, and they are not obliged to give a reason if they don't wish to do so.
Naomi - //What I detest most about this is the suggestion that, rather than speaking the truth, they should have made excuses for refusing to complete the order. //
They don't have to make excuses.
They are entitled, under the law, to refuse to accept a commission to bake a cake, and they are not required under the law to offer a reason why.
That option was available, they chose not to take it, instead they took the choice to refuse the commission by dint of discrimination, which is illegal.
The law is there to protect people as well as to prosecute them - all that's required is the common sense to invoke the appropriate law, and avoid the inappropriate one.
They don't have to make excuses.
They are entitled, under the law, to refuse to accept a commission to bake a cake, and they are not required under the law to offer a reason why.
That option was available, they chose not to take it, instead they took the choice to refuse the commission by dint of discrimination, which is illegal.
The law is there to protect people as well as to prosecute them - all that's required is the common sense to invoke the appropriate law, and avoid the inappropriate one.
andy-hughes , //No, they can refer back to the law which allows them to refuse to bake any cake they choose not to bake, and they are not obliged to give a reason if they don't wish to do so.//
They are not obliged to give a reason, but if they do and it's the 'wrong' reason, they are breaking the law. Strange law.
They are not obliged to give a reason, but if they do and it's the 'wrong' reason, they are breaking the law. Strange law.
Naomi - //andy-hughes at 09:28. We know all of that. //
Is that the royal 'we'?
And if - as you should be - you are speaking for yourself only, then why do you post that the couple should 'make excuses' when you 'know' that they don't have to?
Either you 'know' in which case, why post nonsense, or you don't 'know', in which case, why post that you do?
Is that the royal 'we'?
And if - as you should be - you are speaking for yourself only, then why do you post that the couple should 'make excuses' when you 'know' that they don't have to?
Either you 'know' in which case, why post nonsense, or you don't 'know', in which case, why post that you do?
Naomi - //andy-hughes , //No, they can refer back to the law which allows them to refuse to bake any cake they choose not to bake, and they are not obliged to give a reason if they don't wish to do so.//
They are not obliged to give a reason, but if they do and it's the 'wrong' reason, they are breaking the law. Strange law. //
As Ludwig has done, you can of course think that the law is wrong - but to wilfully try repeatedly to defend this couple on the basis that they broke the law simply by offering the 'wrong' excuse is not going to work.
It didn't work in court, and it won't work on here.
They broke the law, they were punished, the appealed, they were unsuccessful.
But - and this is the crux of the issue, they didn't need to break the law in order not to contradict their own moral code - that was a choice they made, and they were breaking the law doing so.
They are not obliged to give a reason, but if they do and it's the 'wrong' reason, they are breaking the law. Strange law. //
As Ludwig has done, you can of course think that the law is wrong - but to wilfully try repeatedly to defend this couple on the basis that they broke the law simply by offering the 'wrong' excuse is not going to work.
It didn't work in court, and it won't work on here.
They broke the law, they were punished, the appealed, they were unsuccessful.
But - and this is the crux of the issue, they didn't need to break the law in order not to contradict their own moral code - that was a choice they made, and they were breaking the law doing so.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles72 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles81 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles85 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.