British voters wake up and ask - Who are the DUP?

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, mrdome said:

[Obviously, we are not talking about drunk, misbehaving/breaking the law customers, so let's get that out of the way from the start.]

 

Not sure if you have thought this all the way through because at the end of your thinking stands discrimination as prohibited by law, for example, "we don't serve/rent to, etc. ... <insert skin color/minority of your choice>".

 

So, to answer your question, the right to not be discriminated against legally stands above that of the single business owner to select their customers.

Well, it's a bit more than that, isn't it.

 

The anti-discrimination law means that somebody's right to be served in my shop outweighs my right to run my business, and hence my life, in a way which fits in with my sincere moral beliefs and practices.

 

I think it's a dangerous line that's being crossed.

 

To ask somebody not to do something which may be offensive (such as using various words) is one side of the line; but forcing them to actively do something or be prosecuted is a whole different animal with no clear idea of where it could end. Especially so when the objection is a matter of conscience and belief.

 

Should doctors be forced to perform abortions? Should conscientious objectors to war be forced to go out and kill people?

 

[oxo1947]

13 minutes ago, mrfill said:

The British still prefer to pay  £145 a year for 4 acclaimed advert free TV stations and a full network of radio stations,

I dont think you understand the system mrfill...... So you can wander around posting how silly the Brits are to PREFER to do this---or you may want to Google it & find that they have no option-- If you are not an O.A.P. and you do not have a licence then you can be arrested and (if you dont pay the  fine) jailed.......where you can watch TV for free.....

Edited June 10, 2017 by oxo1947

[jesimps]

5 hours ago, Emster23 said:

 I almost find it funny that this regressive social dinosaur nut bag party (summary of description, not my opinion) holds beliefs such as: " It recently backed the right of a Belfast bakery to refuse to make a cake with a gay rights slogan and proposed a law to allow religious business people to refuse to serve people where that would conflict with their religious beliefs."

 This is exactly same position as religious whacks and Republican party in USA.

Can't criticise people for having the courage of their convictions. Or maybe that's only the case as long as they coincide with yours on the left.

 

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

I dont think you understand the system mrfill...... So you can wander around posting how silly the Brits are to PREFER to do this---or you may want to Google it & find that they have no option-- If you are not an O.A.P. and you do not have a licence then you can be arrested and (if you dont pay the  fine) jailed

Or not watch the BBC channels at all.  Many people watch TV and listen to the radio without having to pay the licence fee.  My neighbours do.  These days you can watch TV on many devises.

[mrfill]

7 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

I dont think you understand the system mrfill...... So you can wander around posting how silly the Brits are to PREFER to do this---or you may want to Google it & find that they have no option-- If you are not an O.A.P. and you do not have a licence then you can be arrested and (if you dont pay the  fine) jailed

Much the same then as driving a car and not having a licence then.....

[Basil B]

22 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Kensington and Chelsea (the last to declare) have fallen to Labour.

Actually it is officially "Kensington"  nothing else.

 

Current constituency Kensington created in 2010 from "Kensington and Chelsea" which was created from Kensington North & Kensington South in 1997.

 

In actual fact this constituency was heavily in favour of remain which was probably the Tory reason for losing surprisingly the LibDem vote nearly tripled in a contest that it would normally be squeezed.

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Basil B

[dunroaming]

1 minute ago, Basil B said:

Actually it is officially "Kensington"  nothing else.

 

Current constituency Kensington created in 2010 from "Kensington and Chelsea" which was created from Kensington North & Kensington South in 1997.

 

Thank you for the correction and as I lived in Chelsea I guess that doesn't count.

[RickBradford]

Just now, mrfill said:

Much the same then as driving a car and not having a licence then.....

No, because a driving licence indicates that you have come up to a required standard of driving.

 

A TV licence is just a tax - an archaic one, as the DUP says - which generally impacts poor and elderly people, as the rest can easily pay the tax or watch stuff from the Internet.

[oxo1947]

3 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Much the same then as driving a car and not having a licence then.

Yer a lot the same mrfill---- there is an argument on there at the moment as as lot of Brits try to get around it by just streaming on their Ipad's etc Saying I dont have TV...just internet----dont know where that will go. I remember when I lived there as a school kid, they used to have a detector van They could tell if a house had TV switched on in those days, because of the great big aerial  usually strapped to the Chimney they knew you were capable----but some hard up people would say its not working now...but the detector van could tell.

 

The Idea was OK I suppose-- they wanted it to be independent, not have to rely on the industry that advertised......so they could say Cigarettes are bad for you without losing a million or 2 in advert revenue......they have done some good expose over the years , but it didn't seem to quite work out that way they thought.

[Chivas]

simply cannot and will not happen no matter what weak and wobbly spouted to our queen yesterday....will all implode next week rest assured

[thequietman]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Do you think it is correct to legally force private businesses and individuals to do things which go against their conscience?

OK, I see where you are going with this.

 

My conscience tells me I am not comfortable with Blacks  because of high crime figures. OK to not serve them?

My conscience tells me I am not comfortable with Jews cause they killed Christ and I am a Christian. OK to not serve them?

My conscience tells me I am not comfortable with gays, lesbo's and cross dressers cause the Bible says it is an abomination. Ok as well?

 

Do you see where I am going with this?  Where will it stop?

[thequietman]

27 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

Yer a lot the same mrfill---- there is an argument on there at the moment as as lot of Brits try to get around it by just streaming on their Ipad's etc Saying I dont have TV...just internet----dont know where that will go. I remember when I lived there as a school kid, they used to have a detector van They could tell if a house had TV switched on in those days, because of the great big aerial  usually strapped to the Chimney they knew you were capable----but some hard up people would say its not working now...but the detector van could tell.

 

The Idea was OK I suppose-- they wanted it to be independent, not have to rely on the industry that advertised......so they could say Cigarettes are bad for you without losing a million or 2 in advert revenue......they have done some good expose over the years , but it didn't seem to quite work out that way they thought.

Happened to me. Guy says you have an aerial, so you must have a TV. I says I have milk in the fridge, does that mean I have a cow in here as well ?

[thequietman]

52 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Can't criticise people for having the courage of their convictions. Or maybe that's only the case as long as they coincide with yours on the left.

 

Here are some of the DUP’s more … erm … colourful opinions or convictions :
Abortion should be “ruled out for rape victims”
The Pope is the Anti-Christ
Gay couples “more likely to abuse children”
“Homosexuality is an abomination”
No gay marriage
“Gays more vile than child abusers”
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are “Green propaganda”
Claims that fossil fuels will run out are “nonsense”
“Man-made climate change is a con”
Creationism should be “taught in every school”
Removal of evolutionary teaching from the curriculum
The 60 million-year-old Giant’s Causeway is only 6,000 years old
Line dancing is “sinful”
The DUP is also funded by a dodgy businessman with links to Saudi intelligence.
Just when we thought we’d seen the back of the barmy UKIP loonies, Theresa May’s getting into bed with an even more tin-foil hat bunch of fruitcakes.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, thequietman said:

OK, I see where you are going with this.

 

My conscience tells me I am not comfortable with Blacks  because of high crime figures. OK to not serve them?

My conscience tells me I am not comfortable with Jews cause they killed Christ and I am a Christian. OK to not serve them?

My conscience tells me I am not comfortable with gays, lesbo's and cross dressers cause the Bible says it is an abomination. Ok as well?

 

Do you see where I am going with this?  Where will it stop?

I don't think you understand what a conscience is.

 

In any case, the baker did not refuse to serve these people. If they had come in and ordered a loaf of bread, there wouldn't have been a problem. 

 

The bakers simply refused to spend time creating something which put out what they regarded as an offensive message, by their moral beliefs.

 

By the same token, do you think the law should force a bakery to create a cake which contained an anti-gay message, like "homosexuality is a sin"?

[thequietman]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I don't think you understand what a conscience is.

 

In any case, the baker did not refuse to serve these people. If they had come in and ordered a loaf of bread, there wouldn't have been a problem. 

 

The bakers simply refused to spend time creating something which put out what they regarded as an offensive message, by their moral beliefs.

 

By the same token, do you think the law should force a bakery to create a cake which contained an anti-gay message, like "homosexuality is a sin"?

The judge found in favour of Mr Lee, saying that as a business, Ashers Bakery was not exempt from discrimination law.
District Judge Isobel Brownlie said Ashers was "conducting a business for profit", and it was not a religious group.
The firm was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs.
The judge said she accepted that Ashers has "genuine and deeply held" religious views, but said the business was not above the law.

[RickBradford]

1 minute ago, thequietman said:

The judge found in favour of Mr Lee, saying that as a business, Ashers Bakery was not exempt from discrimination law.
District Judge Isobel Brownlie said Ashers was "conducting a business for profit", and it was not a religious group.
The firm was found to have discriminated against Mr Lee on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as his political beliefs.
The judge said she accepted that Ashers has "genuine and deeply held" religious views, but said the business was not above the law.

Would you expect to see a similar legal judgment against a bakery if it refused on moral grounds to create a cake with a Christian anti-gay message on it?

[vaultdweller0013]

48 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Well, it's a bit more than that, isn't it.

 

The anti-discrimination law means that somebody's right to be served in my shop outweighs my right to run my business, and hence my life, in a way which fits in with my sincere moral beliefs and practices.

 

I think it's a dangerous line that's being crossed.

 

To ask somebody not to do something which may be offensive (such as using various words) is one side of the line; but forcing them to actively do something or be prosecuted is a whole different animal with no clear idea of where it could end. Especially so when the objection is a matter of conscience and belief.

 

Should doctors be forced to perform abortions? Should conscientious objectors to war be forced to go out and kill people?

 

I would recommend that you read up on US history from the end of the US Civil War to around the late 1960's.

 

During this time it was generally held that the equal protection provisions of the US Constitution were only binding on government and that private citizens were still free to discriminate. (An make no mistake, during that time, the belief of the inferiority of blacks was a deeply held belief of many people conscience.)

 

This led to US law striking a balance and establishing certain protected classes and characteristics based on which groups were historically subject to discrimination. This means that you are free to discriminate against red heads if you have a legitimate belief of conscience that they are somehow inferior because there is little chance that they would have a hard time finding someone to provide the service you are withholding. One the other hand, you cannot discriminate against someone who is black because if this was allowed, there is a good chance (based on recent history) that this would result widespread discrimination against blacks.

 

One should remember that until recently homosexuality was considered criminal, or at least an indication of insanity,  in most western societies. 

 

This leads to the challenge. You cannot accept the blanket ability for private citizens to discriminate while also ensuring that there won't be systematic discrimination against certain classes. However, this could be taken too far, but in reality, we are currently talking about some trivial infringements.

 

I realize that this doesn't give a nice simple black and white answer that a lot of people would like to have. However, that is the reality of they world. It is mostly shades of gray and compromise isn't a bad thing.

[thequietman]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Would you expect to see a similar legal judgment against a bakery if it refused on moral grounds to create a cake with a Christian anti-gay message on it?

 

[RickBradford]

@vaultdweller0013

 

Points taken.

 

To restate, the Belfast bakery did not refuse to serve the customers, but simply refused to create a message which they found to be offensive to their moral beliefs. The same applied at a bakery in Oregon, where the customer sued for discrimination and won.

 

In similar fashion, a Denver bakery refused to create 2 cakes requested by a Christian customer which contained biblical messages such as "God hates sin" under a drawing of a gay couple with a large X above them, indicating disapproval.

 

In this case, the customer sued for discrimination and lost.

 

Some discrimination, it seems, is more discriminating than others.

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

 

It's the other lot!

 

The guys in the hats - the orange men.

 

Jesus oxo, with a hat like that you should know.

 

We should keep the IRA calm.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Pdaz said:

British voters wake up and ask, "Who the <deleted> was dumb enough to believe Jeremy Corbyn's pipe dream manifesto"

 

 

Me

[oxo1947]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

It's the other lot!

 

The guys in the hats - the orange men.

 

Jesus oxo, with a hat like that you should know.

 

We should keep the IRA calm.

That's true Grouse---- just the only Pic I could find on the internet---

.

But with Donald Trump ruling America and the D.U.P holding power in Westminister it looks like Orangemen will be ruling the world.

 

I'll put in for a new hat.........

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, oxo1947 said:

I dont think you understand the system mrfill...... So you can wander around posting how silly the Brits are to PREFER to do this---or you may want to Google it & find that they have no option-- If you are not an O.A.P. and you do not have a licence then you can be arrested and (if you dont pay the  fine) jailed.......where you can watch TV for free.....

The BBC is an excellent instituation attacked from all sides. I hate the fact that they don't put ISLAMIC in bold next to all terrorist incidents but that's just me.

 

They still produce fabulous drama and documentaries with very high production values. If you prefer to watch "the other side", as my mother would say, up to you.

 

Leave the BEEB ALONE!

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

No, because a driving licence indicates that you have come up to a required standard of driving.

 

A TV licence is just a tax - an archaic one, as the DUP says - which generally impacts poor and elderly people, as the rest can easily pay the tax or watch stuff from the Internet.

The elderly don't pay and the poor can usually use their benefit payments to help with that.  Frankly though if this is all we can come up with to bicker about then god help us!

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

No, because a driving licence indicates that you have come up to a required standard of driving.

 

A TV licence is just a tax - an archaic one, as the DUP says - which generally impacts poor and elderly people, as the rest can easily pay the tax or watch stuff from the Internet.

No a licence is exactly that. A licence to do something. It can be taken away!

[dunroaming]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The BBC is an excellent instituation attacked from all sides. I hate the fact that they don't put ISLAMIC in bold next to all terrorist incidents but that's just me.

 

They still produce fabulous drama and documentaries with very high production values. If you prefer to watch "the other side", as my mother would say, up to you.

 

Leave the BEEB ALONE!

The BBC does lean to the left somewhat but still has the most balanced and honest approach when it comes to the news.  The people who usually complain about the coverage are the fox news fans and if people think they are better then I fear there is no hope for them.

[RickBradford]

15 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

The elderly don't pay and the poor can usually use their benefit payments to help with that.  Frankly though if this is all we can come up with to bicker about then god help us!

The BBC's print arm, The Guardian, ran an article in 2014 entitled "A day in court for non-payment of the TV licence: ‘What do they want us to do, kill ourselves?’"

 

It's very well written, but quite long, and paints a tragi-comic view of life at the bottom end in modern-day Britain. For those interested, here's the link:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases

[Bannoi]

I can just picture Ian Paisley standing on the other side of the table from Theresa May banging his fist on the table and shouting  NEVER......NEVER.......NEVER.......NEVER....... I met the man a few times in fact I used to live a stones throw from his church in Belfast he would have had her quaking in her shoes.

[Grouse]

36 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

The BBC does lean to the left somewhat but still has the most balanced and honest approach when it comes to the news.  The people who usually complain about the coverage are the fox news fans and if people think they are better then I fear there is no hope for them.

I really don't think that there is institutional bias. There is probably some personal bias but the BBC do have this policy of hiring the smartest, highly educated people. I guess they could do a little more voxpop to keep the morons calm? More soaps and I'm a celebrity <deleted>!

Edited June 10, 2017 by Grouse

[JAG]

Northern Ireland is at the moment having an absolutely disproportionate and central influence on the current political situation (mess) in the UK. It returns 17 MPs. 7 are Sinn Fein and will not take their seats, thus denying Jeremy Corbyn support which he has to have to have any hope of ousting the Tories and forming a minority government. The other 10 are DUP, who whatever they might think about Mrs May and the Tories, would not ever, ever countenance any sort of accommodation with Jeremy Corbyn on account of his long standing support for Sinn Fein/IRA.

Funny how things come back to bite you on the bum, isn't it?