Restore Britain.

Common Sense Club said:
Thank you. So what happens to those shares when a dictatorship decides to nationalise businesses? Do they buy the shares from the holders at market value or do they just take over control of the industries and leave the shareholders to wallpaper their living room with the now useless bits of paper?
Click to expand...
Both Iran and Libya paid compensation when they nationalised/ appropriated foreign oil companies assets in the past. I doubt it was a smooth process but BP definitely were paid an amount and in the scheme of things they probably wanted to remain on goods terms with the new government.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
If they were actually being requested to promote the message that argument would be correct.

They weren’t though. They were asked to bake a cake. Not to endorse anything associated with it. There was nothing to stop them putting signs in their shop with their own messaging on making that perfectly clear.

it’s been held not to be illegal discrimination but that doesn’t make it either acceptable to a lot of people or a wise business decision. In time it’s also likely to become illegal when the scope of what constitutes discrimination is expanded.
Click to expand...

Here you go again, promoting your ill informed personal opinions as fact, you are so disingenuous it’s untrue.

They don’t need to put signs in their shop with their own messaging on. The Supreme Court made that very clear. There is NO onus on them or requirement whatsoever to advertise or state what they will or won’t bake.

It was also found by The Supreme Court NOT to be discrimination of ANY form (not just your incorrect ‘illegal discrimination’ terminology). The Supreme Court ruling emphasised that the case was about the protection of freedoms of expression and conscience (Articles 9 & 10 of the ECHR) and was not a case of discrimination.

Finally, to address your last sentence (which is just pure made up guff)…

There is no new legislation being proposed or considered as a result of the Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd. case following the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling did not trigger a change in the Equality Act 2010 or relevant Northern Ireland legislation, as the court found the existing equality law does not compel service providers to to express a message with which they disagree. The subsequent ECHR ruling backed up The Supreme Court ruling and the case is concluded.
 
Phil’s Barber said:
Here you go again, promoting your ill informed personal opinions as fact, you are so disingenuous it’s untrue.

They don’t need to put signs in their shop with their own messaging on. The Supreme Court made that very clear. There is NO onus on them or requirement whatsoever to advertise or state what they will or won’t bake.

It was also found by The Supreme Court NOT to be discrimination of ANY form (not just your incorrect ‘illegal discrimination’ terminology). The Supreme Court ruling emphasised that the case was about the protection of freedoms of expression and conscience (Articles 9 & 10 of the ECHR) and was not a case of discrimination.

Finally, to address your last sentence (which is just pure made up guff)…

There is no new legislation being proposed or considered as a result of the Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd. case following the Supreme Court ruling. The ruling did not trigger a change in the Equality Act 2010 or relevant Northern Ireland legislation, as the court found the existing equality law does not compel service providers to to express a message with which they disagree. The subsequent ECHR ruling backed up The Supreme Court ruling and the case is concluded.
Click to expand...

The final paragraph is 100% correct. There is no plan to change the law to reverse this decision and no government has undertaken to do so. Completely false to suggest otherwise. The law is crystal clear.
 
Hrolf The Ganger said:
No.

This is the dumbest thing you could imagine at a time when Reform are performing miracles in the polls.

Habib is at it as well.

Do these guys want to shift politics to the right at the next election, or are their little ego trips more important to them?

I don't care if I like their policies. Nigel Farage is the only man who can win the next election. These two have no hope, so what is their real motive?
Click to expand...
Plenty of Time before the G.E to overthrow the tory 2.0
 
kevlee said:
The final paragraph is 100% correct. There is no plan to change the law to reverse this decision and no government has undertaken to do so. Completely false to suggest otherwise. The law is crystal clear.
Click to expand...
The law is far from crystal clear. This case only succeeded because of the involvement of the US based “Christian Institute” who make a habit of looking for loopholes in the law to further their dubious aims. It was them who invented the “silently praying” excuse.

Another prosecution may well succeed, so long as discrimination can be proved.

Whilst there isn’t anything yet in the legislative programme, the Government having more pressing issues, it isn’t forgotten. The involvement of the US Christian Nationalist right in our politics being a very unwelcome and disturbing development, that concerns many people. One that needs to be removed. Far too many in the USA feel they can impose their standards on us, in all sorts of areas.

This analysis explains why action is required:-

“The objection of the bakery owners was to the message, which conflicted with their deeply held religious convictions, and not to any personal characteristics of the customer. However, the core difficulty with this judgment lies in the assumption that being required to convey the opinions of others, with which the deliverer disagrees, is a breach of the latter’s right to freedom of belief and/or expression.

Yet, if this were the case, it would also be true of post office workers delivering mail, and printers printing material, containing points of view with which they disagree. Many journals and periodicals also typically declare that the opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors. Businesses conveying messages in other ways would be in substantially the same position if the terms of their contracts with customers contained similar disclaimers. Allowing certain providers of goods and services but not others to choose which otherwise lawful messages they are prepared to deliver, as the supreme court has, effectively enables them to have their cake and eat it.
Steven Greer
Professor of human rights, University of Bristol Law School”
 
This case cost over £500,000. Money well spent when there was no possible alternative other than the plaintiff going to any one of another dozen bakers. Admittedly this cake would plainly have brought about a law change six years earlier than it actually happened but it still seems expensive.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
This case cost over £500,000. Money well spent when there was no possible alternative other than the plaintiff going to any one of another dozen bakers. Admittedly this cake would plainly have brought about a law change six years earlier than it actually happened but it still seems expensive.
Click to expand...
If it cost 500 grand, then shame on the gay couple who brought the action.

This waste of money shows complete narcissism on their part to worry about a cake.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
This case cost over £500,000. Money well spent when there was no possible alternative other than the plaintiff going to any one of another dozen bakers. Admittedly this cake would plainly have brought about a law change six years earlier than it actually happened but it still seems expensive.
Click to expand...
That they were deliberately exposing the discrimination is beyond question. So no point in going elsewhere that didn’t discriminate. That they were supported in their efforts by others is to the credit of all involved. It gained a lot of attention and exposed not only the nastiness of some fundamentalist sects who refuse to acknowledge that the attitudes towards homosexuality has changed in modern Britain but also a weakness in the Equality Act. Money very well spent.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That they were deliberately exposing the discrimination is beyond question. So no point in going elsewhere that didn’t discriminate. That they were supported in their efforts by others is to the credit of all involved. It gained a lot of attention and exposed not only the nastiness of some fundamentalist sects who refuse to acknowledge that the attitudes towards homosexuality has changed in modern Britain but also a weakness in the Equality Act. Money very well spent.
Click to expand...
Laughable. Half a million quid because a baker didn't care to endorse a message supporting something which was illegal at the time.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland spent £251,000 of public money on this case which could have helped genuine cases and not to resolve one which had been manufactured.
 
HKOwen said:
This should never have been funded from public funds
Click to expand...
The courts are littered with no win no fee cases many of which are spurious to say the least. Personally I would give the judge the power to make the ambulance chasing lawyers a party to the case.

Justice can be one sided, a dodgy person makes claims about a celebrity and sues for compensation. If they are lucky the jury believe them and win, if they lose so what! They don't pay costs because they have no money, meanwhile the innocent party may have won but be out of pocket by hundreds of thousands.

If the lawyers were told by a judge if you loose you are on the hook for the other parties costs they might be a bit more circumspect in taking on dodgy cases. If they have a strong case this will not bother them.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That they were deliberately exposing the discrimination is beyond question. So no point in going elsewhere that didn’t discriminate. That they were supported in their efforts by others is to the credit of all involved. It gained a lot of attention and exposed not only the nastiness of some fundamentalist sects who refuse to acknowledge that the attitudes towards homosexuality has changed in modern Britain but also a weakness in the Equality Act. Money very well spent.
Click to expand...
I passed an old white English guy in Croydon last week. He was slumped out in front of primemark

I don't normally give money to people; but he seemed genuine. I only gave him a fiver, for which he was so grateful.

I believe that 500 grand would be better spent on old guys like that.

Morals and virtue signalling do not feed empty stomachs.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Laughable. Half a million quid because a baker didn't care to endorse a message supporting something which was illegal at the time.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland spent £251,000 of public money on this case which could have helped genuine cases and not to resolve one which had been manufactured.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with them endorsing it. That was just the excuse used. Everyone knows that they don’t endorse it. Homosexuality was made legal in Northern Island in 1982 and nobody is breaking the law by asking for a message to be prepared for them about it.

This action was solely about discrimination. They refused to supply something because they personally disagreed with it. They though didn’t own the cake, or the message. They were no different to any other contractor working in any other industry. Signwriters don’t own signs nor do bill board posters own the posters. They just assist in making and displaying them.

They got away with it with the assistance of a devious legal manoeuvre by the scurrilous group they used to represent them. That’s what was being targeted by the likes of the Equality Commission, which suffered the disappointment of losing in the Supreme Court. For which there is only one remedy. To amend the law. That will happen. When is another matter.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
It had nothing to do with them endorsing it. That was just the excuse used. Everyone knows that they don’t endorse it. Homosexuality was made legal in Northern Island in 1982 and nobody is breaking the law by asking for a message to be prepared for them about it.

This action was solely about discrimination. They refused to supply something because they personally disagreed with it. They though didn’t own the cake, or the message. They were no different to any other contractor working in any other industry. Signwriters don’t own signs nor do bill board posters own the posters. They just assist in making and displaying them.

They got away with it with the assistance of a devious legal manoeuvre by the scurrilous group they used to represent them. That’s what was being targeted by the likes of the Equality Commission, which suffered the disappointment of losing in the Supreme Court. For which there is only one remedy. To amend the law. That will happen. When is another matter.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Discrimination would have been refusing to sell him the cake which they didn't.
Do you honestly believe a Halal baker would decorate a cake celebrating Israel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top