Restore Britain.

[kevlee]

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?

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.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

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.

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.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Mic drop.

 

[kevlee]

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.

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.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Have you first hand knowledge????? You can tell us discretion guaranteed ! 😳 😉

Yes. I can state unequivocally that I have first hand knowledge of reading.

 

[beak]

Yes. I can state unequivocally that I have first hand knowledge of reading.

From the contents of your post I thought that you might be batting for the other side!

 

[Teddy Eagle]

From the contents of your post I thought that you might be batting for the other side!

Sorry, no. Not batting, bowling or fielding.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Sorry, no. Not batting, bowling or fielding.

Just watching?

Some people take out a subscription.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Just watching?

Some people take out a subscription.

A TV license? Already got one.

 

[aashman12]

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?

Plenty of Time before the G.E to overthrow the tory 2.0

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

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.

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”

 

[Teddy Eagle]

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.