leviathan13 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 You're not saying whether it should or shouldn't be, but you did say "I'm not saying that businesses SHOULD 'discriminate', I just don't personally care if they do or not. " If you're not against something, then you are accepting of it. If you are accepting of it then presumably you think it should be legal. Show me where that logic is wrong. I'm discriminated against because of my age - if I'm under 16 or over 65, I can have a concession to watch my football team. If that was 'Concessions for whites only' there'd be uproar. SCC has 60+ accommodation that I cannot access because of my age. I can't access certain establishments at certain times when 'women only' sessions/events are on. Again, what if it was 'Whites only' sessions? Organisations give discounts to some sections of society and not others, for example students. Why does a student get 10% off food but I have to pay full price? I'm not upset about any of this, I just understand that 'discrimination' isn't a black and white thing (no pun intended). The world and mindsets of people 60 years ago needed to change. A business not allowing black people back then was the norm and flourished. Now, thankfully, it's the other way. To refuse service to someone on those grounds would be commercial suicide. In the case of this bakery, they didn't even refuse him service because the customer was gay; it was the design on the cake that was the issue. Again, I despise religion, but I support their right to refuse to create the item because it didn't fit with their politics. Then again, would a chain like Thornton's have allowed something similar? Maybe he didn't want to challenge a big business because he knew he wouldn't be able to compete in court. I'm against a lot of things, but support their right to exist for one reason or another. Just making things illegal because someone disagrees with it isn't always the way - look at prohibition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 I'm discriminated against because of my age - if I'm under 16 or over 65, I can have a concession to watch my football team. If that was 'Concessions for whites only' there'd be uproar. SCC has 60+ accommodation that I cannot access because of my age. I can't access certain establishments at certain times when 'women only' sessions/events are on. Again, what if it was 'Whites only' sessions? Organisations give discounts to some sections of society and not others, for example students. Why does a student get 10% off food but I have to pay full price? I'm not upset about any of this, I just understand that 'discrimination' isn't a black and white thing (no pun intended). The world and mindsets of people 60 years ago needed to change. A business not allowing black people back then was the norm and flourished. Now, thankfully, it's the other way. To refuse service to someone on those grounds would be commercial suicide. In the case of this bakery, they didn't even refuse him service because the customer was gay; it was the design on the cake that was the issue. Again, I despise religion, but I support their right to refuse to create the item because it didn't fit with their politics. Then again, would a chain like Thornton's have allowed something similar? Maybe he didn't want to challenge a big business because he knew he wouldn't be able to compete in court. I'm against a lot of things, but support their right to exist for one reason or another. Just making things illegal because someone disagrees with it isn't always the way - look at prohibition! Is that seriously your argument for suggesting that businesses should be allowed to discriminate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 So he is saying that discrimination should be legal, at least that's what I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fill Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) [/color] The innocent couple should be claiming all their expenses from the attention seeking bloke who made the false accusation, and who ever sanctioned the trial. I can not help but agree with you wholeheartedly. And regardless of their political / religious views. Its their business and who they choose to serve and what conditions they want to put on agreeing to perform those services is also their business and certainly should not have to involve the need of solicitors. Clearly the whole case was about someone treying to get attention, which unfortunately they probably had to recieve in order that the cake shop couple got treat properly by 'The Law' . It should never even have got to being considered a matter for the law courts. I just hope that all their expenses are repaid in full by that attention seeker. Edited October 18, 2018 by fill it tried to duplicate itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 Is that seriously your argument for suggesting that businesses should be allowed to discriminate? "To discriminate" is to select by preference. If you prefer red wine of vintage, you discriminate. If you appoint a new employee as the best person for a job vacancy, you discriminate. What's unlawful, on the other hand, is discrimination which the law prohibits on what are largely described as irrelevant grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 I thought that they were largely called protected characteristics. And to discriminate within the law means on those grounds, not on any legal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 "To discriminate" is to select by preference. If you prefer red wine of vintage, you discriminate. If you appoint a new employee as the best person for a job vacancy, you discriminate. It sounds like you're playing word games. Replace 'discriminate' with 'choose' and it works better. What's unlawful, on the other hand, is discrimination which the law prohibits on what are largely described as irrelevant grounds. Irrelevant grounds, such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) Irrelevant grounds, such as? What Cyclone said, I think. See Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents?text=%22protected%20characteristics%22#match-1 where that 'Protected characteristics' is a key concept. Edited October 18, 2018 by Jeffrey Shaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan13 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 So he is saying that discrimination should be legal, at least that's what I see. Positive discrimination... are you saying that should be illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26b-6 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 You're not saying whether it should or shouldn't be, but you did say "I'm not saying that businesses SHOULD 'discriminate', I just don't personally care if they do or not. " If you're not against something, then you are accepting of it. If you are accepting of it then presumably you think it should be legal. Show me where that logic is wrong. ---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 09:48 ---------- And was that how it used to work when discrimination was legal? ---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 09:51 ---------- What a slippery concept freedom is. Are you free to go and stab someone? Is it okay if you take someones mobile or wallet? Where's your freedom if society says that you can't do those things and that if caught they'll put you in prison? You're not free, you never have been. But you'd like it to be okay for businesses to discriminate. Fortunately you're in a minority. The 'freedom' argument is entirely bogus, there is not and should not be any right to refuse service on discriminatory grounds, society does not and should not accept that behaviour, just like it doesn't accept theft or assault. What a slippery slope fascism is. Where your racist and homophobic businesses thrive and prosper because gay bakers are forced to bake cakes with homophobic messages, where Jewish bakers are forced to decorate cakes with swastikas, where Jewish printers are forced to print anti-Semitic holocaust denying material, where Islamic caterers are forced to serve pork and bacon to the EDL. Your fascism argument is entirely bogus. We’re not entirely a fascist state (yet) and there is not and should not be any private business forcibly supporting something that is against their faith or ideology. Society does not and should not accept that behaviour, just like it doesn't forcibly enact theft or assault. ---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 18:45 ---------- Even more interesting response. Your defence of a society when there should be no restrictions on what people believe, stumbles at the first hurdle. Care to answer the question? An even more interesting absurd response. The defence for your fascist society is that my liberal one must be pro-pedophilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts