Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
Faith in authority a bit shaken when you don't agree with the decision then.
Restore Britain.
- Topic starter Matov
- Start date
the registrars will still hold shares, properties registered at the Land Registry. Like the Bundesbank folk with trolleys and prams full of currency in order to buy a pat of butter, anyone with a trace of entrepreneurial zest leaving in boats for foreign climes a wonderful image of an apocalyptic Britain that does not contain a shred of common sense, I did expect better considering the misnomer of a username, I could suggest a more appropriate username.
Phil’s Barber
Member
- Location
- Horley
- Country
England
I was interested in this claim so I asked Google…the answers completely contradict your claim and indicate that you sit on a throne of lies.
Link to the Search is here for clarity ⬇️
Well done.
My non legal view was that this was about 2 types of discrimination. The rights of gay people versus the rights of others not to be forced to promote a message that goes against their beliefs.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
Why should businesses or anyone else be obliged to aid and abet the propaganda of trouble making agitators.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
Not at all. A decision was made based on the strict interpretation of the current law. If I recall Lady Hale’s comments at the time correctly she said the judgement didn’t imply any kind of moral endorsement and suggested that new legislation ought to be considered.
This was more the result of a clever defence barrister seeking a way to present an unacceptable attitude as benign than anything else.
A while back a gay couple were thrown out of a Scottish hotel for just being gay. I have no sympathy with the owners. If you go into the hospitality business you must serve all customers providing they are well behaved.
What would have been interesting is if the gay couple had said we want to book the hotel for a gay rights meeting. There I think my sympathies would be with the owners. After all there must be plenty of hotels and conference centres that will refuse to rent their space for a political party they oppose.
georgenorman
Member
- Country
-
England
No it wasn’t. It was the authorities having to accept the bleeding’ obvious.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
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.
Mattconrov
Member
- Country
-
England
In my opinion anyone should have the right to say whether they want Gay, straight, black, white people in any business they own.
Donald Trump (if it is true) was right to ban black people from his real estate business if he wants to. It's his business.
Now the good part.
We will all know who these people are and their opinions; some will agree or disagree with them - but we will know who they are and will be able to make a decision based on what we feel. That's the true free market.
I'm guessing that those that banned groups of people wouldn't be in business for too long.
No government control on human rights. Pure people power.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
That also occurred at a hotel here in Cornwall. It resulted in the hotel owners going out of business.
What constitutes illegal discrimination is currently very specific in the UK. Discrimination is illegal under the Equality Act 2010 when it involves treating someone unfairly due to protected characteristics—age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy/maternity, race, religion/belief, sex, or sexual orientation.
Refusing a booking on political grounds wouldn’t be illegal, whilst because those involved are gay would be.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
The equality act 2010 is on a timer, as are a lot of disfigurements made to law in recent decades.
I'm looking forward to the screeching.
I'm looking forward to the screeching.
Mattconrov
Member
- Country
-
England
I don't think we need the government to protect us from discrimination.
The people will decide what's right. We just have to have a little faith.
If we hide behind laws, the danger is we never discuss what the underlying problems are. People can sort things out without government.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
Peter Tatchell on the wider implications.
I’ve changed my mind on the gay cake row. Here’s why | Peter Tatchell
I profoundly disagree with Ashers Bakery’s opposition to same-sex love – but believe the discrimination verdict infringes vital freedoms
www.theguardian.com
Common Sense Club
Member
- Country
-
England
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?
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
-
Scotland
At the time same sex marriage was illegal in N Ireland.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Tatchell writes, 'They claim to be Christians, yet Jesus never once condemned homosexuality, and discrimination is not a Christian value.'
This revisionism p1sses me off and his view is echoed in much new age Christianity, which breaks with thousands of years of policy on the matter.
Just to start on 'discrimination', it most certainly is a Christian value and it's all over the Bible new and old. That's up there with some of the most ridiculous statements someone could make.
Ok, on homosexuality, Jesus may not have expressly 'condemned homosexuality', but he never endorsed it either. Those who say he didn't condemn it meaning he accepted it ignore the fact that he never condemned many things....he didn't condemn slavery even though it was all around him, he didn't condemn incest either but no one goes around suggesting that he approved of these.
He said that he came to create the new covenant, yet never spoke against the existing anti homosexuality of the old testement.
He also spoke endorsing male and female marriage and sexual ethics.....never endorsing deviation from that.
In response to a question about divorce, Jesus quotes Genesis and defines marriage as the union of male and female:
“Haven’t you read… that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6; see also Mark 10:6-9)
His attitude towards sexual immorality (porneia) can be read however: Jesus lists “sexual immorality” (Greek: porneia) among the things that defile a person from the heart:
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications [porneia], murders…” (Mark 7:21; parallel in Matthew 15:19).
In first-century Jewish context, porneia was a broad term for any sexual activity outside the male-female marriage framework. The implications are that homosexuality isn't considered normal sexual ethics.
If Jesus had disapproved of the Jewish teaching on homosexuality then he would have mentioned it, but instead he focused upon areas that he wanted to change.
The modern day Church ignores all these implications, understood for thousands of years all for political and media acceptance within modern deviant westerm culture......all extremely recent within two generations.
This revisionism p1sses me off and his view is echoed in much new age Christianity, which breaks with thousands of years of policy on the matter.
Just to start on 'discrimination', it most certainly is a Christian value and it's all over the Bible new and old. That's up there with some of the most ridiculous statements someone could make.
Ok, on homosexuality, Jesus may not have expressly 'condemned homosexuality', but he never endorsed it either. Those who say he didn't condemn it meaning he accepted it ignore the fact that he never condemned many things....he didn't condemn slavery even though it was all around him, he didn't condemn incest either but no one goes around suggesting that he approved of these.
He said that he came to create the new covenant, yet never spoke against the existing anti homosexuality of the old testement.
He also spoke endorsing male and female marriage and sexual ethics.....never endorsing deviation from that.
In response to a question about divorce, Jesus quotes Genesis and defines marriage as the union of male and female:
“Haven’t you read… that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6; see also Mark 10:6-9)
His attitude towards sexual immorality (porneia) can be read however: Jesus lists “sexual immorality” (Greek: porneia) among the things that defile a person from the heart:
“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications [porneia], murders…” (Mark 7:21; parallel in Matthew 15:19).
In first-century Jewish context, porneia was a broad term for any sexual activity outside the male-female marriage framework. The implications are that homosexuality isn't considered normal sexual ethics.
If Jesus had disapproved of the Jewish teaching on homosexuality then he would have mentioned it, but instead he focused upon areas that he wanted to change.
The modern day Church ignores all these implications, understood for thousands of years all for political and media acceptance within modern deviant westerm culture......all extremely recent within two generations.
So that what Nigel has planned, i thought so the untrustworthy snake, I will at the first sign transfer the lot to Switzerland.As a heads up you should always diversify into various industries ,countries and asset classes.
I would dispose of the evidence I like 😉 cake.