The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Page 1 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Daniel McArthur...

16% 16% 
[ 12 ]
80% 80% 
[ 60 ]
4% 4% 
[ 3 ]
 
Total Votes : 75

'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.03.15 13:10

Tomorrow, the homophobic bigot Daniel McArthur faces the might of the Equalities Commission, who will attempt to obtain £500 damages against him for discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation.

He refused to bake a cake with the slogan: 'Support Gay Marriage' on it.

Here, he explains his actions to a Christian audience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIMviO3eaE 

...and here is a report today on how thousands turned out to support him at the Waterfront Centre, Belfast, last night:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/waterfront-rally-in-support-of-ashers-bakery-draws-thousands-1.2151726

The Equalties Commission has spent around £10,000 on this case already 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by BlueBag on 25.03.15 13:19

The thought police strike again.

How can they argue against Daniel McArthur's position as stated in the video?

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1268
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Guest on 25.03.15 13:26

I hope I'm still legally allowed to refuse any request to eat a faggot. Can't stand the things.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on 25.03.15 15:08

This person's actions are motivated by bigotry and ignorance, not by an awareness of religious belief.

The speaker says, at 05:00 “...these Biblical beliefs are obviously our highest priority as to how we live and conduct our lives...”  However, the biblical argument simply does not hold water as the Bible contains many, many, other things that are explicitly banned in Christianity, but which people such as Daniel MacArthur would have no problem at all with.

This suggests to me it is not ‘biblical doctrine’ motivating ‘anti-gay’ rhetoric, but more so a combination of social convention, rounded off with an antiquated, sinister, obsession with what consenting adults do with each others' sexual organs. 

How can I say that?  Well, here’s some things explicitly banned in the Bible that this bloke, and other Christians wouldn't bat an eyelid over.  Indeed, if Daniel MacArthur honestly, genuinely, sought to use the bible as "
our highest priority as to how we live and conduct our lives" then he'd have an equal issue with each of the following...



-          Round haircuts and trimming a beard - Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

-          Eating pork - Leviticus 11:8, when discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

-          Reading horoscopes or reading fortune cookies! - Leviticus 19:31 reads "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God."

-          Tattoos - Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord”

-          Wearing Polyester, or any other fabric blends - Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

-          Wearing gold, pearls, short skirts, braided hair - 1 Timothy 2:9  "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

-          Illegitimate children are  banned from church - Deuteronomy 23:2 reads, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

-          Eating crab, lobster, calamari, prawns, etc.  - Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." . Leviticus 11 bans lots of other animals from being eaten. Some may have even been eaten by the man in this video...such as rabbit, ostrich, crocodile and snail, (a stall in my local market sells ostrich and occasionally croc burgers!).

I could go on...the list is a long one...but hopefully I’ve made my point.

So, cherry picking what bits of one’s holy book to be concerned about, whilst simply ignoring other explicit religious laws and rules, doesn’t seem to me to be the basis of an effective moral, let alone a logical, defence for one’s actions.


The question of whether an independent business person is able to choose whether or not to serve someone based upon their own (bigoted) values is a healthy matter for debate... but attempting to bring religion into the mix simply shows (at least to us non-believers) how cherry picking biblical texts is just what religious people always fall back on to justify whatever they happen to be against at that particular time.

Indeed... Here’s a fantastic video of a progressive Christian Preacher making this exact point very well in an American courtroom... Showing how citing the Bible to try and enforce inequality is simply what bigoted people do.  Watch the video to the end, it's enlightening about how the Bible is used to oppress others not deemed to be part of the 'in group'...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois
 
n.b. I often fantasize about whether one of the 10 commandments (perhaps one of the first 4 that are all repetitive and just relate to worshiping what seems to be a rather insecure deity) might have instead said child abuse was unacceptable, or colour prejudice was ignorant... or maybe that treating women as 2nd class citizens was wrong? Just imagine how much better European history could have been if it had... But no... the bible would rather put ink onto parchment to tell you how to beat and kill your slave so as you don't get mis-judged on Judgement Day (Exodus 21-20/21)!!! Shameful!!!

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by BlueBag on 25.03.15 15:56

It doesn't matter if you think his beliefs make sense or not.

The question is should he be forced to do something against his conscience?

The answer has to be no.

This isn't about stopping him doing something, he's quite happy not to do anything.. this is an entirely different level, this is FORCING him to do something he doesn't believe in.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1268
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Mo on 25.03.15 16:21

I agree with you Knitted.  The family of this young chap have opened a shop to serve the general public.  If they feel they cannot take an order from a gay person they should shut up shop.  Any beliefs they have should not come in to it. 
 I have worked for the Local Authority for a number of years with a variety of people from different backgrounds  and some of those are so called Christians -wouldn't the Country be in a worse mess than it is if people doing their jobs pick and choose to deal with people who suit their religion! It just gets worse.

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 61
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on 25.03.15 16:29

@BlueBag wrote:Snipped:  The question is should he be forced to do something against his conscience?

Agreed :D .. and that's why I said: "The question of whether an independent business person is able to choose whether or not to serve someone based upon their own (bigoted) values is a healthy matter for debate..."

...and that's why I wrote my piece. This person's defence was predicated on (their own cherry picked view of their) "religion". They had an ideal opportunity on that platform to air deep philosophical arguments on 'Freedom of choice' or on 'logic'. Then a valid debate could ensue and progress (hopefully) made. But he didn't... it's clear he simply fell back on a very specific bit of religious dogma, (and I bet he ignores any of the other bits in his holy book, of which I posted a few, because those ones don't conflict with his personal attitudes and ideas). 

Sorry, but important matters affecting society surely need rational thought, arguments presented for and against, and debate... not cherry picked religious dogma unchanged from the dawn of Human civilisation in the Middle East... it's simply not good enough, and morally weak, in this day and age to defend one's actions solely on one's (cherry picked bit of) religious belief.

This person may have had a valid argument... but we didn't hear it, did we? We just heard the old, old, old argument of "It's my religion so stuff you"...

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by BlueBag on 25.03.15 17:16

There are shoes on both feet here.

"It's my way of life so stuff you"....

Lot's of that about.

Can't we all just ignore each other?

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1268
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on 25.03.15 17:38

Forced "tolerance" is the worst form of oppression.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3274
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Boosey on 25.03.15 18:26

Ashers Bakery in Belfast has every right to be guided by their Christian principals and conscience and refuse to do something that goes against God's law.  Their view is that they would rather honour God than disobey him.  The Bible states in (New Testament) Hebrews 10 verse 31 - It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God.

Boosey

Posts : 30
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on 25.03.15 18:50

@lj wrote:Forced "tolerance" is the worst form of oppression.
I'd disagree. Forced intolerance is arguably worse.

For example, in many countries across the globe saying you do not believe in the State religion carries the death penalty.  It's no coincidence those same countries, all with high levels of religiosity, also tend to be the ones that carry for death penalty for homosexuality, or (female) adultery, too. Nowhere, in contrast, do countries impose capital punishment for failing to be tolerant of others.  Therefore, I don't think the argument that 'forced tolerance is the worst form of oppression' stacks up. Yes, forced tolerance is horrible, yes it's not nice... but it isn't 'the worst' is it?

I feel very strongly that adults should be free, and protected by law, to believe in whatever they like. However, when those beliefs overspill into wider society it is something that needs to, at least, be looked at for the sake of wider harmony.

For example...We'd (I hope) agree that if a shopkeeper refused to serve someone because of their skin colour we'd agree that's nowadays wrong and should be challenged by others, or by the legal system.  In this scenario, if the argument was presented in court that 'my religion says my race is superior and so it backs me up' I'm sure most of us, religious or otherwise, would not see it as a remotely defensible argument to make, (n.b. the Bible was very much used, and quoted, in this way in 1950s USA to try and bloke racial equality legislation).  So why's this any different? I'm not gay myself but the gay people I know all 'knew' they were Homosexual from a very early age so it is not something 'chosen' any more than skin colour, (n.b. Homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 animal species so far... but Homophobia in only one so far, and that's Humanity!).

All my point is, is that if this shopkeeper wants to refuse to serve someone then let's hear his argument. If it's a logical and rational argument he'll be exonerated, or alternatively he may realise there's nothing wrong (despite what he may have been told his religious community)with Homosexuality and maybe he'll realise it wasn't actually worth upsetting anyone over it in the first place.

...but... to simply fall back on an argument arising from a biblical text, (whilst almost certainly ignoring others in his everyday life), is simply very, very, weak and surely we should all expect something more.  Indeed, if biblical guidance is a valid argument then he could go tomorrow and run his business with slaves, and beat them when they displeased him, and if all it took was to say "the Bible says it is OK and that's how I live my life" we'd have to all accept it should we? No... none of us (I hope) would.

I fully accept it's a tough one, I hate being told what to do by others... especially when it comes to who to like and who not to like and how to behave when interacting with others.  Forcing someone to be tolerant, or comply with laws they disagree with, is not nice to have to do. Whether the law is 'right' and then how far the law should get involved is a valid matter for debate, but in many cases it will always be a murky, grey, area...and an emotive one. But such is life... rarely are things 'black or white'. 

In biblical terms, (as I pointed out in my first post) he should be equally refusing to serve women in jewelry, wearing polyester, who are illegitimate, have eaten prawns or pork, etc. The fact he is not rather shows him to be at best a happy hypocrite and at worst a nasty bigot.

If this shopkeeper simply stood up and said "I just don't like Gays and I think they're dirty, seedy, scum" I'd have to at least respect his honesty and then would eagerly and actively listen more fully to the arguments on either side of the debate.  However, to simply cherry pick, as this shopkeeper has done, from a holy book that explicitly bans countless other things that no one now cares remotely about in this modern, enlightened, age is simply not a valid defence.  As a result it clouds and undermines, at least for me, what otherwise is a valid debate about personal freedom in our increasingly repressive and controlled society.

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Casey5 on 25.03.15 20:44

This is not about whether the shop owner refuses to serve homosexuals with cakes.
I'm pretty sure that not a single person entering any of his shops have ever been asked or judged on their sexuality.
This is about his right to refuse to decorate one of his cakes with a, to him, inappropriate message.
Just like he would refuse to decorate a cake with a message stating   "Hitler was a lovely man just misunderstood" or "9.11 the American lie" both of these being views held by large numbers of people  but inappropriate messages to put on a cake.

Casey5

Posts : 321
Reputation : 18
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by aquila on 25.03.15 21:10

@Casey5 wrote:This is not about whether the shop owner refuses to serve homosexuals with cakes.
I'm pretty sure that not a single person entering any of his shops have ever been asked or judged on their sexuality.
This is about his right to refuse to decorate one of his cakes with a, to him, inappropriate message.
Just like he would refuse to decorate a cake with a message stating   "Hitler was a lovely man just misunderstood" or "9.11 the American lie" both of these being views held by large numbers of people  but inappropriate messages to put on a cake.
What was the inappropriate message on this specific cake order?

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.03.15 21:14

@aquila wrote:
@Casey5 wrote:This is not about whether the shop owner refuses to serve homosexuals with cakes.
I'm pretty sure that not a single person entering any of his shops have ever been asked or judged on their sexuality.
This is about his right to refuse to decorate one of his cakes with a, to him, inappropriate message.
Just like he would refuse to decorate a cake with a message stating   "Hitler was a lovely man just misunderstood" or "9.11 the American lie" both of these being views held by large numbers of people  but inappropriate messages to put on a cake.
What was the inappropriate message on this specific cake order?
The message he was asked to put on the cake was:

'Support Gay Marriage'.

In the video clip of him speaking at the recent meeting (link in the OP), he says clearly that he does not have an issue with the sexual orientation of his customers - but from time to time he declines to take an order, giving as an example: 'designs with lewd images'.

He makes plain on the video that because of his belief in the Biblical view of marriage as the lifetime union of a man and a woman, he did not want to bake a cake that carried the above message.

So, he does not discriminate against any class of customer.

But he does reserve the right to choose what messages or designs he decorates his cakes with

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by aquila on 25.03.15 21:27

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Casey5 wrote:This is not about whether the shop owner refuses to serve homosexuals with cakes.
I'm pretty sure that not a single person entering any of his shops have ever been asked or judged on their sexuality.
This is about his right to refuse to decorate one of his cakes with a, to him, inappropriate message.
Just like he would refuse to decorate a cake with a message stating   "Hitler was a lovely man just misunderstood" or "9.11 the American lie" both of these being views held by large numbers of people  but inappropriate messages to put on a cake.
What was the inappropriate message on this specific cake order?
The message he was asked to put on the cake was:

'Support Gay Marriage'.

In the video clip of him speaking at the recent meeting (link in the OP), he says clearly that he does not have an issue with the sexual orientation of his customers - but from time to time he declines to take an order, giving as an example: 'designs with lewd images'.

He makes plain on the video that because of his belief in the Biblical view of marriage as the lifetime union of a man and a woman, he did not want to bake a cake that carried the above message.

So, he does not discriminate against any class of customer.

But he does reserve the right to choose what messages or designs he decorates his cakes with
Sorry, I didn't watch the video. I'll take a look at it now.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on 25.03.15 21:38

I have a hairdresser who refuses:

die hair purple
cut anyone with head lice, unless she can give a head lice treatment first.

Should we sue them too?

If it was about a life saving product, or a product that was nowhere else available I would consider talking about it. This no, live and let live.

And I was very active for gay rights and gay marriage for over 50 years.


Edited to change 60 into 50, I'm younger than it feels     Shocked

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3274
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Knitted on 25.03.15 22:50

Tony Bennet
Snipped: But he does reserve the right to choose what messages or designs he decorates his cakes with
Casey
Snipped: This is about his right to refuse to decorate one of his cakes with a, to him, inappropriate message.
I agree...

But religion has been bought into this, by the speaker, and by him taking his 'issue' with a Christian audience there to listen to him. To deny this is not a religiously motivated 'article' is to be dishonest.

The root cause of this matter lies with the person's religious beliefs. He's absolutely entitled to hold those beliefs, but society does also have a duty to challenge and test when those views (might, possibly) become a problem, or become deemed offensive by others, who have an equal right to go about their daily lives based upon their own ideals, values, morals, etc.  It's a minefield where no perfect balance exists!

However, let's not forget that parts of the bible were used in the 19th C to defend the people's rights to maintain slaves. This was successfully challenged by a progressive society and slavery in the West (despite being condoned in the bible) is now illegal (& also deemed morally unacceptable by almost all citizens).  Then, 120yrs further on, parts of that same bible were used in the 20th C to defend people's rights to operate a racially segregated society. This was also successfully challenged by a progressive society, and treating people differently based upon skin colour/race is now illegal, (though still deemed morally acceptable to a sizable minority of citizens)

Personally I don't care who wins. If the decision is that the shopkeeper is allowed to refuse whomsoever he wants then that's AOK by me. The boundaries of an individual's right to live a free life has to lie somewhere!  What I think is a major positive is that we live in a society that 'tests' where the right boundaries should lie in such situations. Also, one where religions (with their unarguably tainted moral history!) are no longer afforded the automatic privilege to trump secular ideals of Humanity, equality and fairness.  I do have an issue that the 'legal tests' are not applied equally across religions. For example we have Islam which still promotes, and give credence to, many oppressive Abrahamic dogmas and doctrines that Christianity and Judaism started to ignore many centuries ago.... but I'm in danger of going 'off topic' so shall stop there!

If this shopkeeper wants to refuse to finish a cake because he disagrees with the content then so be it.  Indeed, I make personalised goods for a (very frugal!) living so one day I may be asked to make/engrave something that I don't agree with and might refuse. If/when I do I shall expect to be challenged in the same way as this shopkeeper.  The difference is that when that happens I'll be up for a logical debate and will welcome being challenged and will also have no problem if my views end up being changed by the weight of the arguments against me.

What I won't do, if it happens, is jump on the bandwagon that periodically (often just before election times!) perpetuates the 'myth' of a 'crusade against religion'. Nor will I have the audacity to pick some bits out of a holy book whilst hypocritically living each day totally ignoring (the larger majority of) other rules, regulations and laws contained in that very same holy book.

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.

Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by lj on 26.03.15 1:43

Nope, it's a private enterprise, they have every right to choose what to make or not make, and their reasoning is nobody's business.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3274
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 26.03.15 7:17

Would I get away with taking legal action against a Muslim baker who refused to make me a Peppa Pig cake? Probably not.

I respect him for putting his beliefs above making a few quid, it would be far worse if he did something against his inner conscience for money IMO.

Anyway, I'm getting fed up with all these legal battles being thrust upon people just because someone else doesn't like their opinion. At the end of the day it's about a cake for goodness sake, NOT a doctor refusing to treat a critically ill patient. It's about time people stopped thinking they can demand to get exactly what they want from whoever they want, smacks of a childish tantrum.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Tony Bennett on 26.03.15 7:52

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Anyway, I'm getting fed up with all these legal battles being thrust upon people just because someone else doesn't like their opinion. At the end of the day it's about a cake for goodness sake, NOT a doctor refusing to treat a critically ill patient...
One other thing I should have mentioned is that the bakery was also required to decorate the cake with the logo of the gay rights group, Queer Space.

Another point is that there are apparently 1,010 bakeries in Northern Ireland.

The Queer Space group chose a known Christian bakery to bake their cake.

Extract from report in the Guardian, 8 July 2014:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Northern Ireland's first openly gay mayor, Andrew Muir, has backed legal action against the bakery, saying businesses should not be able to pick and choose who they serve.

In its statement, the firm's general manager, Daniel McArthur, said: "The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs. It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."

McArthur said the company had offered to fully refund the customer, who wanted to have the logo of the pressure group QueerSpace on the cake.

The 24-year-old businessman, whose company was established in 1992, runs six shops in the region and employs 62 people, confirmed he had received a letter from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

He said: "We thought that was the end of it, but approximately six weeks later we received a letter from the Equality commission. The commission's letter said that we had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation."

McArthur said he was very surprised by the watchdog's letter and had asked the Christian Institute, an evangelical pressure group, for advice. The institute supports the bakery's stance and is providing legal assistance...

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 26.03.15 8:16

What this demonstrates is a deliberate act of bullying from the disgruntled customer. The customer wasn't driven out of the shop with unkind words, the matter was given consideration and a measured response given.

After the Charlie Hebdo incident, approx.50 very prominent global political figures marched in Paris to defend freedom of speech despite the fact that the cartoons featured could be seen as a deliberate attempt to provoke, and were taking the mickey out of the Muslim faith. Nick Clegg on LBC said no-one had the right NOT to be offended, asserted we had the RIGHT to offend under freedom of speech. 

All this bakery did was to decline an order which offended the customer. 

So where does freedom of speech and the right to offend cross the line into unfair discrimination?

Queer Space's stance on this appears NOT to be about discrimination as such, but a cynical, opportunistic move to bully. In terms of equality, this petulant behaviour demonstrates hypocrisy at it's very worst, a nasty childish demand that one persons perceived right to have a cake decorated as they wish whilst having zero tolerance or respect for anothers human right to hold a view based on their interpretation of a Holy scripture, one that is clearly central to their core values as a human being.

These ridiculous legal actions set BACK the move for equality, instead they are a form of prejudice, discrimination and bigotry in and of themselves.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 'Homophobic bigot', Daniel McArthur, defendant in Court case (26 March 2015) brought by the Equalities Commission, explains his case to hundreds - and gets a huge round of applause

Post by Tony Bennett on 26.03.15 9:17

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Queer Space's stance on this appears NOT to be about discrimination as such, but a cynical, opportunistic move to bully. In terms of equality, this petulant behaviour demonstrates hypocrisy at it's very worst, a nasty childish demand that one persons perceived right to have a cake decorated as they wish whilst having zero tolerance or respect for anothers human right to hold a view based on their interpretation of a Holy scripture, one that is clearly central to their core values as a human being.

These ridiculous legal actions set BACK the move for equality, instead they are a form of prejudice, discrimination and bigotry in and of themselves.
It's of no little interest that there is very substantial opposition within what we now call 'the gay community' to both 'gay marriage' and 'gay adoption'.

Openly gay dashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana received aggressive abuse from gay supporters of gay marriage and gay adoption, and rock star Elton John now leads a vigorous campaign to boycott them.

One of the saddest things to see is the emerging reactions of a new generation of young people who have been brought up in homosexual homes. Some of them are very much against the idea of gay marriage and are saying so loudly, e.g. here:      

https://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

And here is another sad article along the same lines, about young people who consider themselves 'the victims of the homosexual lifesyle':

QUOTE  

Legendary homosexual Italian fashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have received accolades for standing against same-sex "marriage" and adoption. The praise came in the form of a letter from six American adults who were raised by homosexual parents.

Shortly after Dolce and Gabbana essentially told the Italian magazine Panorama there is no substitute for the natural family, Elton John — the iconic British pop musician who has adopted children with his homosexual spouse — blasted the designers for going against LGBT doctrine. The rock-and-roll legend, along with other "gay" activists, is calling consumers to boycott the Italian designers' fashion line.

Last week, Dolce and Gabbana condemned not only same-sex marriage and adoption, but the unnatural process of in-vitro fertilization, insisting that procreation "must be an act of love," arguing that "the only family is the traditional one," according to LifeSiteNews.

"It's not us who invented the family," Dolce said. "You are born and you have a mother and a father, or at least it should be so … that's why I'm skeptical about what I call the sons of the chemistry, synthetic children, wombs for rent, seeds chosen by a catalog."

Dolce contended that setting up unnatural families simply sells children short of experiencing the real thing that God intended. "And then, let's go to these children and explain [to] them who is their mother," he continued. "Would you ever accept to be a daughter of the chemistry? Procreation needs to be an act of love."

Gabbana agreed with Dolce saying that "There is a supernatural sense of belonging [in a natural family]."

Well said … just don't back down

The six adult children of same-sex couples who wrote the letter to the openly homosexual fashion legends commended them for their bold stand. "We want to thank you for giving voice to something that we learned by experience," the letter published in Tempi reads. "Every human being has a mother and a father, and to cut either from a child's life is to rob the child of dignity, humanity, and equality."

Fully understanding the detrimental effects of being raised by homosexual parents, the five women and one man writing the letter exhorted the designers to continue their stand and not back down.

"We know that you will come under tremendous pressure, especially now when both Italy and the United States are being pushed to override our concerns for our rights to a mom and dad, in order to please a powerful gay lobby," the letter continues.

Having received much heat themselves for testifying against same-sex adoption and pointing out the harm children undergo while being raised by homosexual parents, the six pro-family advocates encourage the Italian designers to be ready for a barrage of attacks from the LGBT community.

"Nobody receives more vicious attacks from the lobby than those who come from the gay community and question its policies: children of gay couples just as much as the gay men who defend them (like the two of you)," the six signatories expressed. "We want to praise your courage and thank you for your inspiration [and urge you] not to surrender when the backlash grows in intensity."

Standing in the fire

The six pro-family activists go on to commend the fashion designers for providing them with the motivation they needed to press their cause further in the midst of hostile opposition.

"You have shown yourselves to be extremely brave," they shared in their letter. "You have given us great inspiration as all six of us prepare to submit letters to the U.S. Supreme Court against gay marriage."

The concerned victims of homosexual lifestyles closed their letter by warning Dolce and Gabbana about the consequences of reneging on their stance on homosexual marriage and adoption.

"If you back down from what you said and apologize, it will leave the children of gay homes even more vulnerable and discredited," the six told the fashion legends. "It is important for our sake, for the sake of Italian children as well, that you not apologize or capitulate."

The letter ended by imploring Dolce and Gabbana to stick to their basic claim that neither a father or a mother is expendable when raising children, who shouldn't be sold short because of the selfish desires of their parents.

"Please support the idea that all children need to be bonded with their mothers and fathers," the six reminded the Italian designers. "It is a human right."

UNQUOTE

LINK:  http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2015/03/25/gay-fashion-legends-praised-for-marriage-stance-against-elton-john/

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum