YES or NO - The Big Vote

warmhands.coldheart

So the BIG vote down south is on Friday.

Will it be a Yes or No?

Will Northern Ireland be left the "Odd One Out" in the British Isles?

Should we have more "referendum(s)" here in NI to decide on controversial matters rather than leaving it to the tainted and party political lines of our politicians?

EG.
Same Sex Marriage.
Abortion Issues.
Maze "Peace" Centre.

mind you... the list could be endless...

qwert_yuiop

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

So the BIG vote down south is on Friday.

Will it be a Yes or No?

Will Northern Ireland be left the "Odd One Out" in the British Isles?

Should we have more "referendum(s)" here in NI to decide on controversial matters rather than leaving it to the tainted and party political lines of our politicians?

EG.
Same Sex Marriage.
Abortion Issues.
Maze "Peace" Centre.

mind you... the list could be endless...

Yes indeed - a fundamental denial of basic human rights, an outrage, a scandal. Get to the back of the bus - a 21 year old cannot be president.

qwert_yuiop

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

So the BIG vote down south is on Friday.

Will it be a Yes or No?

Will Northern Ireland be left the "Odd One Out" in the British Isles?

Should we have more "referendum(s)" here in NI to decide on controversial matters rather than leaving it to the tainted and party political lines of our politicians?

EG.
Same Sex Marriage.
Abortion Issues.
Maze "Peace" Centre.

mind you... the list could be endless...

..and on the same subject (sort of), what a waste of money that was (today's verdict) - the sum total of human happiness would have been increased so much more by buying everyone a cake. I think I'll get one this weekend.

RikM

we really shouldn't need referenda to determine simple and obvious issues of human rights...
let people marry whoever (and how many) they like, all the state needs to know is that it's a genuine marriage, and not a convenience to avoid tax/immigration rules.

warmhands.coldheart

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

..and on the same subject (sort of), what a waste of money that was (today's verdict) - the sum total of human happiness would have been increased so much more by buying everyone a cake. I think I'll get one this weekend.

Indeed. I'll be waiting patiently now for the complaints/court cases now to come rolling in from Orange Orders ordering cakes on the Falls Road for the 12th July and vide-versa....

qwert_yuiop

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

..and on the same subject (sort of), what a waste of money that was (today's verdict) - the sum total of human happiness would have been increased so much more by buying everyone a cake. I think I'll get one this weekend.

Oh - spoke too soon - seems they've been found guilty. Fairy cakes and a mince pie, please.

I know where I'll be buying cakes from now on. Come on, people - get your gnashers into asher's.

qwert_yuiop

RikM wrote: »

we really shouldn't need referenda to determine simple and obvious issues of human rights...
let people marry whoever (and how many) they like, all the state needs to know is that it's a genuine marriage, and not a convenience to avoid tax/immigration rules.

Marriage is a means of avoiding tax, and it's clearly neither simple nor obvious if there's so much fuss about it.

warmhands.coldheart

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Oh - spoke too soon - seems they've been found guilty. Fairy cakes and a mince pie, please.

I know where I'll be buying cakes from now on. Come on, people - get your gnashers into asher's.

So basically seems you can only refuse the service if you are a religious group aimed at a specific religious audience....
So goes back to the example Churches can refuse to conduct "same sex marriages" as they are a religious organisation but a "private body or business" cannot refuse as they are not a religious group and would be there to offer a service to all..

I know the Catholic Church has ended its relationship with an adoption service "The Family Care Society NI" following changes in legislation last year. Seems they pre-empted this

qwert_yuiop

What it means is, it is illegal to have an opinion at variance from the supposed orthodox. Very dangerous precedent.

fallin123

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

What it means is, it is illegal to have an opinion at variance from the supposed orthodox. Very dangerous precedent.

It isn't illegal to have any opinion, it is however illegal to refuse service to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.

qwert_yuiop

fallin123 wrote: »

It isn't illegal to have any opinion, it is however illegal to refuse service to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Indeed. However, their contention was that they didn't. It was the slogan they objected to, which of course was the desired result for the homosexual activist who ordered it.

What a waste.