YES or NO - The Big Vote

Mistral001

guiriman wrote: »

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.

Judges are called judges for a reason. They make judgements. In civil cases there are no juries and in effect they have to weigh up the evidence and come to a judgement in the same way as a jury comes to a judgement in criminal cases. I am not sure what happened here, but very often in civil cases the plaintiff says one thing and the defendant says the opposite and the judge has to make a judgement as to who is telling the truth.

qwert_yuiop

Mistral001 wrote: »

Judges are called judges for a reason. They make judgements. In civil cases there are no juries and in effect they have to weigh up the evidence and come to a judgement in the same way as a jury comes to a judgement in criminal cases. I am not sure what happened here, but very often in civil cases the plaintiff says one thing and the defendant says the opposite and the judge has to make a judgement as to who is telling the truth.

I don't think there was any suggestion of anyone lying, just whether asher's action was fair or not.

I think going this far was fairly pointless.

Mistral001

Yes there is no suggestion that anybody was lying. I was using an extreme example of a judgement that judges have to make in civil cases.

RikM

The judge doesn't get to say what is fair, just which law applies, and whether it was infringed, with reference to previous examples...

guiriman

Mistral001 wrote: »

Judges are called judges for a reason. They make judgements. In civil cases there are no juries and in effect they have to weigh up the evidence and come to a judgement in the same way as a jury comes to a judgement in criminal cases. I am not sure what happened here, but very often in civil cases the plaintiff says one thing and the defendant says the opposite and the judge has to make a judgement as to who is telling the truth.

Yes, but I wonder how she makes that assertion. The guy in question looked like a very ordinary bloke, so unless he was wearing something or specifically said something that would reveal his sexuality then I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.

qwert_yuiop

guiriman wrote: »

Yes, but I wonder how she makes that assertion. The guy in question looked like a very ordinary bloke, so unless he was wearing something or specifically said something that would reveal his sexuality then I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.

Presumably ordering a cake iced with the slogan "support gay marriage" could be considered a reasonable indicator, but you're right - "how was I to know?" might have been a useful argument in court.

RikM

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Presumably ordering a cake iced with the slogan "support gay marriage" could be considered a reasonable indicator, but you're right - "how was I to know?" might have been a useful argument in court.

I believe you will find that they did that. They went so far as to say that it wouldn't matter if it was a heterosexual person buying the cake, they still wouldn't do it.

The judge considered that an admission of discrimination on "religious or political grounds" - something a business is not permitted to do.

BigAl94

Massive Yes then.

zoob

The gay should have a right to marry and be miserable to, I'm also in a same sex marrage, the sex with the wife has always being the same.

RikM

BigAl94 wrote: »

Massive Yes then.

Early indications are 75% in favour, off a greater than 50% turn out (surprisingly big turnout for a referendum).