Football0 min ago
Gay Cake
Should they continue with this or should they just accept the previous ruling of the court .
What's your opinion ?
http://
What's your opinion ?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. 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.
Svejk - //If no less an icon of gay rights* than Tatchell is now on the side of the bakers, that must carry some weight, mustn't it? If his views can be shoe-horned into the case.
*Presuming he's still seen as such. (or ever was, for all I know) //
I'm not sure that Mr Tatchell's volte face carries that much weight to be honest - in the wider scheme of things here anyway.
*Presuming he's still seen as such. (or ever was, for all I know) //
I'm not sure that Mr Tatchell's volte face carries that much weight to be honest - in the wider scheme of things here anyway.
Yes andy_hughes...agreed.
I doubt very much that the legal framework in the UK is dependent on the opinions of those not attached to the case.
Bazile - should they continue? If it were me, and I were a committed Christian, I definitely would. You have to stand up for your rights. I felt the same about the gay couple who sued the B&B.
I doubt very much that the legal framework in the UK is dependent on the opinions of those not attached to the case.
Bazile - should they continue? If it were me, and I were a committed Christian, I definitely would. You have to stand up for your rights. I felt the same about the gay couple who sued the B&B.
sp1814 - //Bazile - should they continue? If it were me, and I were a committed Christian, I definitely would. You have to stand up for your rights. I felt the same about the gay couple who sued the B&B. //
Yup - I'm with you on that one. Plenty of people have fought and died to enshrine the freedoms we all enjoy - rights are worthless if they are not worth fighting for.
The couple in question advise that they have prayed for guidance - not something I would endorse personally, but good luck to them, although as advised earlier, I think they will lose.
Yup - I'm with you on that one. Plenty of people have fought and died to enshrine the freedoms we all enjoy - rights are worthless if they are not worth fighting for.
The couple in question advise that they have prayed for guidance - not something I would endorse personally, but good luck to them, although as advised earlier, I think they will lose.
"Plenty of people have fought and died to enshrine the freedoms we all enjoy..."
could easily have continued "...while others just had a bright idea one day and popped those hard fought for rights into second place as the new order replaced them"
Their forthright honesty and belief in their right to choose was, and will in future, be their downfall.
'Hate' is the new 'I disagree'.
could easily have continued "...while others just had a bright idea one day and popped those hard fought for rights into second place as the new order replaced them"
Their forthright honesty and belief in their right to choose was, and will in future, be their downfall.
'Hate' is the new 'I disagree'.
I was considering doing an evening class in cake decoration but I think I will now give it a miss as it is so politically and religiously contentious and I might get burnt at the stake after having been tortured by the thought police. Is there another art form that might be safer, such as painting portraits of mohammed?...... :-)
andy
Do i detect a 'softening' of attitude to this family from you ?
(Apologies if i'm incorrect) but weren't you arguing , when this matter first hit the headlines ; that ( words to the effect ) the law is the law, and if they are offering a service to the public , then they can't discriminate against particular customers and their requests ?
Do i detect a 'softening' of attitude to this family from you ?
(Apologies if i'm incorrect) but weren't you arguing , when this matter first hit the headlines ; that ( words to the effect ) the law is the law, and if they are offering a service to the public , then they can't discriminate against particular customers and their requests ?
Bazile - //andy
Do i detect a 'softening' of attitude to this family from you ?
(Apologies if i'm incorrect) but weren't you arguing , when this matter first hit the headlines ; that ( words to the effect ) the law is the law, and if they are offering a service to the public , then they can't discriminate against particular customers and their requests ? //
I wouldn't say I had a 'hard' attitude that needed to be softened to he honest.
My position when the case arose was, as you say, that the couple are not above the law, and the legal process should be followed - as it was.
But - champion of the law as I am - I also appreciate that the very same legal process that brought the case allows the couple to appeal, and I am fully behind their rights to lodge that appeal.
As I have said, without fresh evidence, I believe the appeal will fail, but the legal process will again be followed.
It's logical that the legal system is unlikely to go against a judge's ruling simply because a guilty party appeals - that would open the system to ridicule as any judge risked his judgement being questioned and overturned for ever single case he prosecuted.
So, in my (amateur) view, the couple will need evidence not presented at the original case - simply saying, effectively, that they didn't agree with the verdict - and who could blame them - is not enough for the judgement to be overturned.
Do i detect a 'softening' of attitude to this family from you ?
(Apologies if i'm incorrect) but weren't you arguing , when this matter first hit the headlines ; that ( words to the effect ) the law is the law, and if they are offering a service to the public , then they can't discriminate against particular customers and their requests ? //
I wouldn't say I had a 'hard' attitude that needed to be softened to he honest.
My position when the case arose was, as you say, that the couple are not above the law, and the legal process should be followed - as it was.
But - champion of the law as I am - I also appreciate that the very same legal process that brought the case allows the couple to appeal, and I am fully behind their rights to lodge that appeal.
As I have said, without fresh evidence, I believe the appeal will fail, but the legal process will again be followed.
It's logical that the legal system is unlikely to go against a judge's ruling simply because a guilty party appeals - that would open the system to ridicule as any judge risked his judgement being questioned and overturned for ever single case he prosecuted.
So, in my (amateur) view, the couple will need evidence not presented at the original case - simply saying, effectively, that they didn't agree with the verdict - and who could blame them - is not enough for the judgement to be overturned.
