|
Post by partickpotter on May 25, 2015 21:17:48 GMT
In fairness, the complaint against Israel was less about their politics and more about their indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Specifically in the most recent onslaught 1,462 civilians, of whom 495 were children and 253 women ( source BBC / UN). In the interest of fairness it must be said civilians were also killed in Israel. Seven of them. I'm not too impressed with what is happening in Zimbabwe but using the n word to describe Mugabee would be wrong. Just as it's wrong to racially abuse Israeli's due to the actions of their government i.e politics. I'd rather my wife and children were on the receiving end of racial abuse than a explosive missile. The racial abuse isn't nice, but it ain't fatal. You need to keep some perspective.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 25, 2015 21:18:02 GMT
It wasn't used in abusive context though was it, context is important. How do you know, you've not even read the thread. IS using the n word wrong, or justified in certain contexts? The context it was used in has been described and it doesn't seem like it was used in an abusive context. Using a word to describe someone as pale is completely different to using the N word for all sorts of reasons and you know it is. To try and put them in the same category like you have is quite frankly ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 26, 2015 6:34:14 GMT
I'm not too impressed with what is happening in Zimbabwe but using the n word to describe Mugabee would be wrong. Just as it's wrong to racially abuse Israeli's due to the actions of their government i.e politics. I'd rather my wife and children were on the receiving end of racial abuse than a explosive missile. The racial abuse isn't nice, but it ain't fatal. You need to keep some perspective. I'm surprised at that mate. Watching Edge and the like try and defend some daft opinion is par for the course, but whilst I don't always agree with you, I can usually understand your point of view. This "pasty faced" insult was only brought up again as it always comes to mind when certain posters start accusing others of racism. As Carps has already said, they are quick enough to shout racist at anyone but it's apparently fine for them to use the colour of somebodys skin as an insult, which must be pretty close to the dictionary definition of racism. I disagree with quite a lot of what the Israeli government does, but thats irrelevant. You can't start trying to justify racism based on the actions of a race/country/government, isn't that again what racists do? Perhaps they should change the site rules to something like, "Should you come across racist posts try and keep a bit of perspective and remember that worse things happen at sea."
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 26, 2015 7:30:33 GMT
I'd rather my wife and children were on the receiving end of racial abuse than a explosive missile. The racial abuse isn't nice, but it ain't fatal. You need to keep some perspective. I'm surprised at that mate. Watching Edge and the like try and defend some daft opinion is par for the course, but whilst I don't always agree with you, I can usually understand your point of view. This "pasty faced" insult was only brought up again as it always comes to mind when certain posters start accusing others of racism. As Carps has already said, they are quick enough to shout racist at anyone but it's apparently fine for them to use the colour of somebodys skin as an insult, which must be pretty close to the dictionary definition of racism. I disagree with quite a lot of what the Israeli government does, but thats irrelevant. You can't start trying to justify racism based on the actions of a race/country/government, isn't that again what racists do? Perhaps they should change the site rules to something like, "Should you come across racist posts try and keep a bit of perspective and remember that worse things happen at sea." Understood. Calling someone or a group of people "pasty faced" is pish. Not sure if I'd class it as racist though. But I accept other folk do. My point though is the ill judged comment was made in a discussion about the latest mass slaughter of civilians by Israelis armed forces. Which is, of course, a bigger issue. Appreciate the point you are making though.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2015 13:27:43 GMT
I'd rather my wife and children were on the receiving end of racial abuse than a explosive missile. The racial abuse isn't nice, but it ain't fatal. You need to keep some perspective. I'm surprised at that mate. Watching Edge and the like try and defend some daft opinion is par for the course, but whilst I don't always agree with you, I can usually understand your point of view. This "pasty faced" insult was only brought up again as it always comes to mind when certain posters start accusing others of racism. As Carps has already said, they are quick enough to shout racist at anyone but it's apparently fine for them to use the colour of somebodys skin as an insult, which must be pretty close to the dictionary definition of racism. I disagree with quite a lot of what the Israeli government does, but thats irrelevant. You can't start trying to justify racism based on the actions of a race/country/government, isn't that again what racists do? Perhaps they should change the site rules to something like, "Should you come across racist posts try and keep a bit of perspective and remember that worse things happen at sea." It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 13:30:19 GMT
I'm surprised at that mate. Watching Edge and the like try and defend some daft opinion is par for the course, but whilst I don't always agree with you, I can usually understand your point of view. This "pasty faced" insult was only brought up again as it always comes to mind when certain posters start accusing others of racism. As Carps has already said, they are quick enough to shout racist at anyone but it's apparently fine for them to use the colour of somebodys skin as an insult, which must be pretty close to the dictionary definition of racism. I disagree with quite a lot of what the Israeli government does, but thats irrelevant. You can't start trying to justify racism based on the actions of a race/country/government, isn't that again what racists do? Perhaps they should change the site rules to something like, "Should you come across racist posts try and keep a bit of perspective and remember that worse things happen at sea." It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz........its Mumf . Not forest Mumf you name calling insulting moron. You'd be squealing like a deranged girl if I'd called a Pakistan that . Grow up .
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 27, 2015 13:51:52 GMT
I'd rather my wife and children were on the receiving end of racial abuse than a explosive missile. The racial abuse isn't nice, but it ain't fatal. You need to keep some perspective. I'm surprised at that mate. Watching Edge and the like try and defend some daft opinion is par for the course, but whilst I don't always agree with you, I can usually understand your point of view. This "pasty faced" insult was only brought up again as it always comes to mind when certain posters start accusing others of racism. As Carps has already said, they are quick enough to shout racist at anyone but it's apparently fine for them to use the colour of somebodys skin as an insult, which must be pretty close to the dictionary definition of racism. I disagree with quite a lot of what the Israeli government does, but thats irrelevant. You can't start trying to justify racism based on the actions of a race/country/government, isn't that again what racists do? Perhaps they should change the site rules to something like, "Should you come across racist posts try and keep a bit of perspective and remember that worse things happen at sea." Good post. Anti white racism is fine but other kinds of racism is wrong according to certain leftys on the oatcake and in society in general. This attitude breeds racism and it's one of the reasons I don't have any time or respect for their views
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 27, 2015 17:09:26 GMT
I'm surprised at that mate. Watching Edge and the like try and defend some daft opinion is par for the course, but whilst I don't always agree with you, I can usually understand your point of view. This "pasty faced" insult was only brought up again as it always comes to mind when certain posters start accusing others of racism. As Carps has already said, they are quick enough to shout racist at anyone but it's apparently fine for them to use the colour of somebodys skin as an insult, which must be pretty close to the dictionary definition of racism. I disagree with quite a lot of what the Israeli government does, but thats irrelevant. You can't start trying to justify racism based on the actions of a race/country/government, isn't that again what racists do? Perhaps they should change the site rules to something like, "Should you come across racist posts try and keep a bit of perspective and remember that worse things happen at sea." It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 27, 2015 17:45:27 GMT
It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. If you look at the context in which was the comment was made as explained by followyoudown then its evidently clear that he was being neither racist or anti-Islamic and to think or suggest otherwise is quite frankly moronic.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 27, 2015 18:03:29 GMT
Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. If you look at the context in which was the comment was made as explained by followyoudown then its evidently clear that he was being neither racist or anti-Islamic and to think or suggest otherwise is quite frankly moronic. I think the only thing moronic would be somebody taking a strong view on this, without having read the actual thread. Only a moron would nail their colours to the mast before investigating or researching properly. Once again nothing new in that for you. Without wishing to drag anyone else into this, a staunch left winger actually liked the post in question. When the error of his ways was pointed out he backtracked pretty quickly and apologised, fair enough we all make mistakes. The one thing he didn't do, as he was aware of all of the facts having read the thread, was continue to try and justify the quote. I think the phrase to help you contains the words, "stop digging".
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 27, 2015 18:13:29 GMT
If you look at the context in which was the comment was made as explained by followyoudown then its evidently clear that he was being neither racist or anti-Islamic and to think or suggest otherwise is quite frankly moronic. I think the only thing moronic would be somebody taking a strong view on this, without having read the actual thread. Only a moron would nail their colours to the mast before investigating or researching properly. Once again nothing new in that for you. Without wishing to drag anyone else into this, a staunch left winger actually liked the post in question. When the error of his ways was pointed out he backtracked pretty quickly and apologised, fair enough we all make mistakes. The one thing he didn't do, as he was aware of all of the facts having read the thread, was continue to try and justify the quote. I think the phrase to help you contains the words, "stop digging". So followyoudown is lying about the context then? Is that what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2015 18:18:59 GMT
It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz........its Mumf . Not forest Mumf you name calling insulting moron. You'd be squealing like a deranged girl if I'd called a Pakistan that . Grow up . If you'd called a Pakistan what? Grow up says the guy who was banned for running to teacher for constantly trying to get other posters banned bless.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 27, 2015 18:23:17 GMT
I think the only thing moronic would be somebody taking a strong view on this, without having read the actual thread. Only a moron would nail their colours to the mast before investigating or researching properly. Once again nothing new in that for you. Without wishing to drag anyone else into this, a staunch left winger actually liked the post in question. When the error of his ways was pointed out he backtracked pretty quickly and apologised, fair enough we all make mistakes. The one thing he didn't do, as he was aware of all of the facts having read the thread, was continue to try and justify the quote. I think the phrase to help you contains the words, "stop digging". So followyoudown is lying about the context then? Is that what you're saying? Having seen what happens when people get involved in a long running discussion with you about anything, this will be my final post on the subject. I'd be more interested in listening to the wifes talks on one of her dreams than getting involved in the to and fro you seem to enjoy, and trust me when you eventually find a woman you'll understand how bad the dream talks are. Do I think followyoudown is lying? No I don't, but people make mistakes and then look for ways of justifying their actions. I don't believe he's racist, but he shouldn't throw the word at others either. This context thing is a bit baffling to be honest. I wasn't aware of a correct context for racist language, although I'm sure you'll enlighten us. So fire away safe in the knowledge that you'll be getting the final word, but with that comes pressure to at least try and not make it look moronic. Doubtful, but do your best.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 27, 2015 18:36:38 GMT
So followyoudown is lying about the context then? Is that what you're saying? Having seen what happens when people get involved in a long running discussion with you about anything, this will be my final post on the subject. I'd be more interested in listening to the wifes talks on one of her dreams than getting involved in the to and fro you seem to enjoy, and trust me when you eventually find a woman you'll understand how bad the dream talks are. Do I think followyoudown is lying? No I don't, but people make mistakes and then look for ways of justifying their actions. I don't believe he's racist, but he shouldn't throw the word at others either. This context thing is a bit baffling to be honest. I wasn't aware of a correct context for racist language, although I'm sure you'll enlighten us. So fire away safe in the knowledge that you'll be getting the final word, but with that comes pressure to at least try and not make it look moronic. Doubtful, but do your best. Context and intent. If we take followyoudown at his word (you don't think he's lying) then the context and intent behind what he said is vitally important. As I've said previously if you look at the context it was said then anyone trying to paint or label him as racist or anti-Islamic are being moronic. Thank you for proving my point.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 27, 2015 18:42:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 18:42:25 GMT
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz........its Mumf . Not forest Mumf you name calling insulting moron. You'd be squealing like a deranged girl if I'd called a Pakistan that . Grow up . If you'd called a Pakistan what? Grow up says the guy who was banned for running to teacher for constantly trying to get other posters banned bless. Do you ever get anything right ?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2015 18:46:54 GMT
It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. You would be right except the quote from your liker was along the lines of his support \ view would be different if it was a muslim bakery than if it was a christian bakery so not really apples with apples you are comparing there. As far as i'm aware there's no law stopping anyone producing images of Mohammed just the same as there isn't for Jesus however if you were to produce images of them designed to deliberately offend, say showing them engaging in a practice that would stop you getting cakes made in certain Irish bakeries you could probably expect a knock from the long arm of the law. But to answer your question my view is if you work in a bakery or any other customer facing business unless what a customer asks for is unpractical or illegal you have no right to turn down a request based on your own religious beliefs, there's no doubt the bakery in question has been screwed over for publicity reasons but equally they could have avoided it all by just quoting a ridiculous price or delivery date.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 27, 2015 18:49:37 GMT
It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. Good post. Spot on
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 27, 2015 19:44:42 GMT
It's not a daft opinion though is it, the point of my post and comment was that muslims involved in killing someone invokes much comment and vitriol from certain posters other people killing people in large numbers barely rates a mention, one of your fellow UKIPers even posted on the cake thread that his reaction would have been different if it had been a muslim bakery rather than a christian owned bakery not surprisingly you've happily let that comment pass. It is not an insult as I've told you before it's something I've been referred to as have many british people espicially in Australia and it is used to indicate pale skinned and the point of that is as mentioned previously to highlight how killings by certain people are ignored and others are used to suit certain peoples agenda. The post was not a point about the rights and wrongs of the middle east either it was merely a juxtaposition of how killings by muslim and non-muslims are viewed on here by certain posters, so your attempt to paint it as some anti israeli point is a fail as is your claim that I've shouted racist at forest mumf when I have pointed out the facts that he has been banned for numerous homophobic, racist and bigotted posts. Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal?
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 27, 2015 20:00:36 GMT
Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? Anyone can do whatever they want to mate. If it was my cake shop and I didn't want to make the cake on religious grounds I'd refuse to make it but I'd make an excuse if I felt the need but either way if I don't want someone or something on my property, on my land or in my shop it/they won't br coming in . It's really that simple It's only a drama because people make it one. No one can make you do or think anything unless you give them the power
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 27, 2015 20:02:53 GMT
Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? No although the idea of compelling builders to do a job would probably be popular with anyone who has dealt with a builder. The issue in the cake case was they agreed to do the cake then backed out when asked to put the slogan on as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 20:05:49 GMT
Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? Done it for 26 yrs.....always picked my customers and dumped ones I became suspicious of.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 27, 2015 20:09:14 GMT
I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? Done it for 26 yrs.....always picked my customers and dumped ones I became suspicious of. That's racist
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on May 27, 2015 20:10:36 GMT
Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? The situation you describe is based on business principles. No one can compel you to provide a service. What you can't do is discriminate. That's a legal situation as well as a moral one. So you can't not serve someone because of the colour of their skin - to cite the most obvious example. The problem with the cake is the courts made a decision that homosexual rights trumped religious rights. It was a decision always likely to cause problems. And so it transpires.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 27, 2015 20:14:40 GMT
Ignoring most of that as we are just going around in circles.... One point though about the muslim bakery. I don't see anything racist in comparing how it would be viewed if another religion had refused to make the cake. Ian Hislop raised a similar point on HIGNFY last week. He said that it was now legally enforcable to go into a muslim owned cakeshop and demand a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it. I think people should have the right to produce his image if they want but how can it be right that you can make somebody do something against their religious beliefs? Obviously it isn't, a fact lost on many of the posters on that thread as they view it as some old fashioned Irish christian who needs to be draagged into the correct (their way) of thinking. I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? The reasons you give would be fine for turning down the job (unless you said that they couldn't afford to have it done as they were say black). The baker in Ireland was fined for discrimination. There are various groups of people covered by various discrimination laws in the Uk i.e the elderly, ethenic minorities, the disabled, homosexuals. The problem with these human rights laws is when they come into conflict with one another. From the judges judgement one must assume that the rights of a homosexual to buy a cake trump the rights of someone to follow their religious beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 27, 2015 20:17:41 GMT
I haven't thought this through yet, but perhaps someone can help me out. If a self employed person, say a builder or gardener, had a look at a potential job, but did not fancy doing it ( perhap she just had a bad feeling about the client's ability to pay, perhaps it was not her particular specialism, perhaps it was a bigger job than she thought) could she be compelled to do the job .......logically speaking, in light of the Cake scandal? The reasons you give would be fine for turning down the job (unless you said that they couldn't afford to have it done as they were say black). The baker in Ireland was fined for discrimination. There are various groups of people covered by various discrimination laws in the Uk i.e the elderly, ethenic minorities, the disabled, homosexuals. The problem with these human rights laws is when they come into conflict with one another. From the judges judgement one must assume that the rights of a homosexual to buy a cake trump the rights of someone to follow their religious beliefs. They should of just said they didn't realise how busy they were so unfortunately can no longer make the cake. You can refuse anyone for any reason as long as you are shrewd about it and make a different excuse.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 27, 2015 20:21:24 GMT
The reasons you give would be fine for turning down the job (unless you said that they couldn't afford to have it done as they were say black). The baker in Ireland was fined for discrimination. There are various groups of people covered by various discrimination laws in the Uk i.e the elderly, ethenic minorities, the disabled, homosexuals. The problem with these human rights laws is when they come into conflict with one another. From the judges judgement one must assume that the rights of a homosexual to buy a cake trump the rights of someone to follow their religious beliefs. They should of just said they didn't realise how busy they were so unfortunately can no longer make the cake. You can refuse anyone for any reason as long as you are shrewd about it and make a different excuse. They could mate, and I'm sure thats what most people would of done. Should peopole really have to lie or create fictitious tales though?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 27, 2015 20:21:53 GMT
I agree with all the points above, yes I think that we should choose what work we take on; but logically it seems that the law now says that you are not allowed to refuse , which I realise is a ridiculous thing to say. About the change of mind, as I understand contract law ,if there is a significant change in terms, it is legally acceptable to withdraw. If the shop owners weren't aware of the full specification at the time of accepting the contract they were in their rights to withdraw (but I admit that I don't know the full circumstances of the case)
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 27, 2015 20:23:52 GMT
They should of just said they didn't realise how busy they were so unfortunately can no longer make the cake. You can refuse anyone for any reason as long as you are shrewd about it and make a different excuse. They could mate, and I'm sure thats what most people would of done. Should peopole really have to lie or create fictitious tales though? Shouldn't have to no but we live in a warped PC society so sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2015 20:33:36 GMT
Done it for 26 yrs.....always picked my customers and dumped ones I became suspicious of. That's racist I don't pick and chose on colour / creed / sexuality. I made my decissions on their attitude .....ie if one was to start that bartering shit (and a lot did) I wouldn't be working for them and I'd tell them so. ive never believed in buying work while I'm pricing and they are making a decision on me, I'm doing the same with them. actually, if I was to be picky.... police officers, as a whole are some of the worsed customers I've worked for......tight arsed and arrogant as fuck, with the odd exception imo. as for the cake makers, they should have just made any old excuse up How am I talking of this on the Farage thread
|
|