Jerra

I am glad you feel there will be no downside/problems/loss of income/restrictions on travel etc etc from Brexit. I hope you are right but time will tell. Although you think it won't happen so that's OK.

I would have been tempted to ask him to tell his staff not to abuse my boat, then you wouldn't have needed to "abuse" the staff.

Or perhaps it was what they would have liked it to say.

Is this just a guess or do you have some evidence? I am still trying to work out how a person who wasn't in the shop knew the person placing the order was gay.

In our constituency it is a case of "they'd elect a pig if it had a Tory rosette on it"

Point of order M'Lud. I didn't repeat what the court said please read more carefully. I said that in my opinion the refusal was more likely be because of the message, not the same thing. Incidentally the pointing out that it was the owners of the chain rather than the shop staff makes it even more likely it was the message because it was extremely unlikely the owners knew the customer was gay.

I am interested to know how the baker would know they were gay unless they told the baker (assuming it was an individual). A good number of straight people support gay marriage. Which IMO makes it even more likely the refusal was because of the message rather than the sexuality.

Not sure I can agree with you on the last sentence given some of the things I have seen and heard re Brexit :-)

So suppose the event had been the exact opposite. A gay baker and somebody wanting a cake saying "Oppose Gay Marriage" and the baker refused to make it. What would be your opinion?

Whoops. Sorry! Thread drift has been part and parcel of every forum I have ever been on, I hadn't realised it wasn't allowed.

It strikes me as a sensible ruling otherwise a printer could be forced to print leaflets supporting UKIP when they disagreed with its aims. I was always under the belief (probably wrongly) that you had the right to refuse custom providing it wasn't on the grounds of racism, sexuality etc. This wasn't because the person was gay otherwise they could have got the cake by sending in somebody who was straight. It was because they did not wish to support gay marriage just like the printer may not wish to support UKIP (by producing the leaflets.)

I could understand such discussion in the early stages but fail to see why CWDF looking for new mods (for example) is worthy of discussion so long after the split. I would have thought they should have settled into their own niche by now but no 4 pages and roughly 100 threads suggests they haven't yet accepted themselves as a fully fledged stand alone forum. Just my opinion other opinions are available.

The spiteful and ill informed comments do occur on CWDF however this forum hasn't deemed it necessary to have a sub forum entitled Thunderboat where criticism and mockery of the forum and often named members takes place. It strikes me there is something a little amiss with a forum which can't stand on its own two feet without mocking and criticising other forums. If it is working and well supported why does it feel the need for such a section?

It goes back to the statement that the boundaries are and virtually always have been biased against labour. If it was just a question of sense there would be no bias as sensible people would normally be scattered fairly equally through the population.

In which case the boundaries weren't biased as I doubt people moved to vote in constituencies which were of the "correct" bias.