YES or NO - The Big Vote

warmhands.coldheart

saverbuyer wrote: »

Suggest you read the Judgement. 41 pages of explanation.




http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

guiriman

Cotta wrote: »

I'm not sticking up for Ashers, however wasn't their issue with the message rather than the sexual orientation of the customer?

Quote from the judge "I believe the defendants did have the knowledge that the plaintiff was gay" so on the basis of that she ruled that they had discriminated against the person, not the message. No idea of the details of how she arrived at that conclusion though.

saverbuyer

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I actually laughed out loud at that.

RikM

Cotta wrote: »

I'm not sticking up for Ashers, however wasn't their issue with the message rather than the sexual orientation of the customer?

The judgement addresses that... it seems to say that even if the judge accepted that (and he didn't), it would still be discrimination, as they would be treating the plaintiff differently on the basis of their religious/political beliefs.

warmhands.coldheart

saverbuyer wrote: »

I actually laughed out loud at that.

I actually tried reading through it... my god, judges don't half know how to confuse folk with quotes.......

BigAl94

Read this which for me sums up why it should be a no vote http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/05/21/the-right-side-of-truth-saying-no-to-same-sex-marriage/

saverbuyer

BigAl94 wrote: »

Read this which for me sums up why it should be a no vote http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/05/21/the-right-side-of-truth-saying-no-to-same-sex-marriage/

Honestly, I read it and found it all a bit... wishy washy. It certainly wouldn't sway me either way.

warmhands.coldheart

If this whole "Gay Marriage" debate/vote is to do with "Rights" why not just give all Civil Partnerships the exact same rights as Marriages... would be a hell of a lot easier.... Even if they vote YES to allow gay "marriage" it will NOT mean that a gay couple will have a right to get married in a Church. they won't, that's the churches decision and I wonder how many folk do not realise this?

qwert_yuiop

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

If this whole "Gay Marriage" debate/vote is to do with "Rights" why not just give all Civil Partnerships the exact same rights as Marriages... would be a hell of a lot easier.... Even if they vote YES to allow gay "marriage" it will NOT mean that a gay couple will have a right to get married in a Church. they won't, that's the churches decision and I wonder how many folk do not realise this?

Glad you told us that - we were wondering last night which bride would be expected to turn up a bit late. Could develop into a stand off.

RikM

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

If this whole "Gay Marriage" debate/vote is to do with "Rights" why not just give all Civil Partnerships the exact same rights as Marriages... would be a hell of a lot easier.... Even if they vote YES to allow gay "marriage" it will NOT mean that a gay couple will have a right to get married in a Church. they won't, that's the churches decision and I wonder how many folk do not realise this?

Um. So you change Civil Partnership, so that it is in every way the same as marriage, but don't give it the name "marriage"?
That seems kind of nonsensical to me. Either it's the same, or it's different. If it's the same, there are no grounds to call it something different. If it's different, *why* is it okay to treat these two people differently from those two people?