A slice of common sense

Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by Heat, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. kitfit1

    kitfit1 Well-Known Member

    Actually, even what you mentioned would never be a case anyway. Any and all businesses have a perfect right not to sell products or to provide a service to anyone they choose not to. A good example is a pub landlord, they have the right not to serve someone or a group of people and don't even have to give a reason. As far as i'm aware, the only exception to that rule are crown appointed services like the post office and some utility services. Our local post office though is inside a Londis store and there is a clear sign outside that says if you are barred from the store then you are barred from using that particular post office as well. Plenty of people now have to use another post office.
  2. Pollowick

    Pollowick Well-Known Member

    What would have happened if the tables had been turned?

    If the gay man and his partner were running a bakery, and a couple walked in asking for a cake that said "Ban Gay Pride" or "Marriage is the union of a Man and a Woman" ... what would the gay man have done/said? Would he have accepted that and baked a cake with those slogans?

    And another point that annoys me ... the fallacious complaint has cost the taxpayer £250k, cost the baker and their supporters over £200k and the original complainant - nothing! He was in th ewrong and has not or will not suffer financially.
    Heat and Jord86 like this.
  3. Heat

    Heat Well-Known Member

    I think the Supreme Court judgement could now be used for to give a gay person the right to refuse to use a slogan that they see as against gay marriage, or whatever.
    I find no problem with that really.

    I see the ruling as being that a business cannot discriminate against any group or religion, say as an example because they are heterosexual or homosexual, but the business can refuse a request to do a slogan that supports something that is against their beliefs.

    The Equality Commision NI had supported the man who asked for the cake.
  4. Pollowick

    Pollowick Well-Known Member

    Funded by who? The tax payer. And they failed in their case.
    Heat likes this.
  5. Heat

    Heat Well-Known Member

    Yes, exactly. A complete disgrace.
    The so called ‘Equality’ Commision were not being sensible in equality thinking imo. So they were at fault.
    But the law is also at fault to allow this expensive nonsense.
    Only winners are the legal people.
  6. chippie244

    chippie244 Well-Known Member

    It took several court cases for this to be decided so well worth it,
  7. Heat

    Heat Well-Known Member

    Bloody ridiculous and shows what a farce the law can be.
    First judges rule one way, then Supreme Court say the first judges were wrong.
    I bet a few half educated trades folk, with differing viewpoints could have come together and eventually arrived at the Supreme Court verdict.
    It was initially made overly complicated as always.
  8. fillyboy

    fillyboy Well-Known Member

  9. chippie244

    chippie244 Well-Known Member

    I really doubt that.

Share This Page