Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Alan de Enfield

Common Sense In A Court

Featured Posts

Just now, Machpoint005 said:

A nice touch, but a great shame it is even necessary to place the notices.

I may be wrong but I think this was brought about after some football "supporters?" got out of hand either before or after a match at the Ricoh Arena which is about a mile away from The Greyhound as the crow flies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Machpoint005 said:

It is to be hoped that rugby supporters would have known how to behave. I think Wasps get bigger crowds than Coventry City!

No odds to me as I don't follow rugby or football. I like The Greyhound as there is no piped music, food whilst not Cordon Bleu is wholesome, don't drink beer so I know not of that. Wine is always palatable. Also if I can get what was the shop window seat, I can watch the varying degrees of success of the boats getting round the turn in one. The other week I watched a 53 odd footer use a bow thruster to get round!!!!!

 

How on earth did the working boaters manage? Rhetorical question.

Sorry for taking the thread off track. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Sorry for taking the thread off track. :)

I think it has probably run it course, its now just re-runs of the same.

 

NN is entrenched in his views, and the other posters are just as entrenched in their views.

I suppose it is just 'fortunate' that the Judge was of the same mind as the 'majority'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MJG said:

My understanding was that he was a previous customer (I haven't doubly checked that) and so it's quite possible (probable) he was quite open about it.

 

 

Wot! Gay AND proud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think it has probably run it course, its now just re-runs of the same.

 

NN is entrenched in his views, and the other posters are just as entrenched in their views.

I suppose it is just 'fortunate' that the Judge was of the same mind as the 'majority'.

Well the first two judges weren’t, so clearly it’s a marginal case.

 

An why do you think it fortunate? Can you not see it opens the door to bigoted and prejudicial behaviour? Or maybe you think that’s fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well the first two judges weren’t, so clearly it’s a marginal case.

That's why we have a hierarchy of courts, so when the 'lower courts' get it wrong, the mistake can be rectified.

 

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

An why do you think it fortunate? Can you not see it opens the door to bigoted and prejudicial behaviour?

Because it shows that everyone has a right to their views and they cannot be overruled by some 'unsubstantiated equality rant'.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

That's why we have a hierarchy of courts, so when the 'lower courts' get it wrong, the mistake can be rectified.

 

Because it shows that everyone has a right to their views and they cannot be overruled by some 'equality rant'.

But as I said before, the baker didn’t want to express his views he just wanted to stop someone else doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

But as I said before, the baker didn’t want to express his views he just wanted to stop someone else doing so.

He didn't want his companies work used to express those views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

But as I said before, the baker didn’t want to express his views he just wanted to stop someone else doing so.

No - he just didn't want to express views of others that conflicted with his - and there is no reason why he should be forced to do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No - he just didn't want to express views of others that conflicted with his - and there is no reason why he should be forced to do so

The reason is as described by the customer - you go into a cake shop that produces thousands of cakes with slogans many of which the bakery owner won’t have personally sided with (but equally, didn’t particualrly care) and then along comes one subject which pushes the hate button of the boss and lo, the order is later declined with the result that the customer is made to feel like a second class citizen - because if the message had said “support heterosexual marriage” then it would have gone through without comment. So in my opinion the decision was because the chap was gay and wanted to promote a gay agenda, and the owner was homophobic. However as we know, the Supreme Court full of old fogies with 20th century attitudes (if we are lucky, more likely 19th century attitudes) took a different view and decided to ignore the impact of the refusal on the customer. Personally I think that was wrong and I think it will lead to trouble in the future, we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think m'learned friends can tell the difference between a genuinely offended punter and somebody who is deliberately looking for a fight, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 So in my opinion the decision was because the chap was gay 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

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.

On the balance of probabilities, someone wanting to campaign for gay marriage is likely to be gay.

14 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I think m'learned friends can tell the difference between a genuinely offended punter and somebody who is deliberately looking for a fight, though. 

Well the first two clearly couldn’t or didn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

 

Well the first two clearly couldn’t or didn’t.

 

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That's why we have a hierarchy of courts, so when the 'lower courts' get it wrong, the mistake can be rectified.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's a bit arrogant to expect some scripture to be changed in a book that someone believes in down to the ground. It's as improbable as asking a gay to conform to something that is wholly impossible to do and expecting it to happen.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

(snip) The beauty of common law is its more or less set in stone and there is far less to challenge. Its far more straightforward unlike the millions of bits of legislation that are open to interpretation such as oh I dont know .............continuous cruising...................................................

Common law can be, and often is, modified by court precedent, and can be stretched quite a bit.

As an example, back in the 80s, when glue sniffing was in vogue, the sale of sniffing "kits" (glue plus a plastic bag) was successfully prosecuted in Scotland  as a common law Breach of the Peace. (As was the sniffing itself)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.