QuicheFontaine
Member
"Chosen to be outraged about"? From the article he was on a radio phone-in, he was asked his opinion and his response was, literally, "I'm not particularly bothered about it".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
"Chosen to be outraged about"? From the article he was on a radio phone-in, he was asked his opinion and his response was, literally, "I'm not particularly bothered about it".
Jezbollah
Member
If you can't beat them....
CyclopsRock
Member
Seems like a slightly weird decision tbh. I'm not really sure what he sees in the role - what can he do there that's useful other than as a purely constituency MP (which is all good of course, but an unusual direction to take).
BBCs Paul Lambert has joined UKIP as communications director.
http://www.ukip.org/bbc_veteran_paul_lambert_joins_ukip_s_media_team_as_director_of_communications
http://www.ukip.org/bbc_veteran_paul_lambert_joins_ukip_s_media_team_as_director_of_communications
Napoleonthechimp
Member
He loathes Westminster but now wants to be one of them.
Say one thing and do another. He's a politician through and through.
The place to have political power on these isles is Westminster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-30370570
dat dogwhistle. Reminds me of Nick Griffin's "off-the-cuff" comments.
Jezbollah
Member
I wonder if I can use immigration as an excuse when it takes me 3hrs 30 minutes to travel 60 miles around the M25 next time?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Come on. If they have to drink cava, it's like why even have a House of Lords.
Edit:
This bit could've been right out of a sitcom though!
CyclopsRock
Member
Seriously. If I could get free champagne, I'd move heaven and earth for it.
Masquerader
Member
So, uh. The DUP wants to make it legal to discriminate against people like me.
Worst part is that every party and person will embrace this wholeheartedly.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Cakegate seems to me to be a bit more nuanced than straight (sorry!) discrimination.
There are, as usual, faults on both sides. It seems for example that the customer went out of his way - literally - to seek service from a shop that would be unlikely to accede to his request and then brought the discrimination case. That is just plain impolite and smacks of deliberate incitement.
It is not clear either whether the shop discriminated against the customer (as being gay) or against the message on the cake (as being in support of gay marriage), though it seems it was the latter. So far as I can see it is entirely up to the shop what services they want to provide so long as they do not discriminate over who they provide them to. So If the shop would equally have refused to make a cake supporting gay marriage for a straight man there is no discrimination.
If that sounds like nitpicking then consider this. I make jewellery for my customers, but there are some things I refuse to make. In particular I do not make bracelets and necklaces for babies and toddlers because I think they are potentially dangerous. It so happens that the people who most often ask for bracelets and necklaces for babies and toddlers are hindu, muslim and romani. That doesn't mean I am being racist in refusing to offer that service, because I don't offer it to anyone at all. Very occasionally the customer gets a bit shirty about this. What I don't want is the law sitting down on me for discrimination.
Of course this is different from CakeGate, which is a matter of opinion about morality rather than about danger. But consider the possible extensions. I wouldn't, for example, make a bracelet extolling the supposed virtues of ISIS, and I wouldn't make it for anyone, not even as a joke (and some people round here have really bad taste). That should not be the basis for a discrimination claim, even though the only people who might request such a thing are likely to be muslim.
On the other hand, I think (and I haven't read the proposed Bill, as I couldn't find it on the NI Assembly website), that putting this forward as a "conscience clause" by the DUP is a really bad idea. People should not get a free pass as to serving particular customers because of their (the supplier's) religious beliefs, but they should be free to only offer - to anyone - the services that they want to offer.
I'm still a bit torn about how this should pan out, so I'd welcome a bit more conversation about it. At least now you know roughly where I stand.
Masquerader
Member
Well, I was less concerned about Cakegate, and more concerned with the actual law. I'll respond to segments of what you had to say... Before I begin, however, I think that the incident is more an ethics and morality issue, rather than a legal issue (hence why I referred to the new law and not the incident that it arose from).
I largely agree with you here. The circumstances were suspicious at best, it must be said. However, it would be rather unusual to consider the customer to be anything worse than 'the lesser of two evils'. Homophobia is arguably much worse than someone out to name and shame someone while making a quick buck in the process. To be fair though, no matter the circumstances, they needed a cake, and they didn't get it. And besides, "impoliteness" is an incredibly restrained response to homophobia, and arguably one that they did not deserve.
The shop would have discriminated against gays and gay supporters should they have refused the same cake to a completely straight person. That's even more homophobic in general, as it implies that what was otherwise a 'waryness' of gays is in fact a full-on intolerance of them. Even if they're not throwing rocks and shouting slurs, it's still intolerant and bigoted. As for it being up to the shop to what services they want to provide to certain people, well... I'm starting to get Apartheid vibes here. Segregation, basically. Every human should be allowed every service available to the general public, no matter what. No exceptions.
With respect, you are nitpicking, and it's pretty redundant to go with 'what ifs'. There are a ton of 'what could have beens', but what actually happened was homophobia. Mild or major, it's unjustifiable without an apology.
In regards to your example, that would genuinely be a coincidence. You would be genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of the customer, and that's equal treatment of customers. However, the incident with the cake was anything but equal treatment of customers. The owners could not have made that any more clear without bragging or confessing about it. The problem is that the upsides of this law are very thin veneers of discrimination, designed to help a small number of shopkeepers, while allowing discrimination to a large number of customers. I sympathise with any of the very few who would benefit from this law, but I can legally be discriminated against. No way should anyone advocate that.
The benefits of this law, as I said, are slightly helping a very small amount of people while possibly severely (more on that later) hindering a very large amount of people. The issue is that this law shall be used against people who attempt to gain inoffensive and/or safe items... Such as a pro gay marriage wedding cake, for instance. And really, people who request ISIS bracelets... Well, I wouldn't exactly arrest someone who refused to make one of those. It'd be common sense.
But this is a free pass to be choosy about customers. This is a free pass which affects people having a normal life.
Put it this way: It's a law that gives religious businesses the right to accept or deny a customer an item. Imagine if a customer wrote a formal complaint to the shop about their non-service. The shop could conceivably sue them for 'discrimination' that never happened. That's lives ruined, all because a customer wanted to buy something. I know that this doesn't affect you, and I'm aware that you mean no harm, but this is much less a 'both sides have got their goods and bads', and more a 'one side's evil, the other side's not cared for'. Sure, it initially seems clear-cut, before you look into it and realise there may be more to it than you think... And then you look into it further ans realise it's definitely clear cut. And if you think describing the law as 'evil' is overdramatic, then you try receiving homophobic abuse every day just for wearing your sexuality openly (like everyone else does and takes for granted).
Sorry if I'm being rude, but I've had it up to here with all this shit that this country spouts constantly.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Oh. you're not being rude at all. I invited this sort of response because I thought it was needed, not because of being hyperdefensive or anything. This is exactly what I wanted.
I'll respond to the rest after I've had my dinner (45 seconds, timer on!).
EDIT: Mmmm nice steak, but I'll put off responding until tomorrow because I am too damn tired, and this needs a clear head. Night night.
Masquerader
Member
Ok, nighty-night~!
Nicktendo86
Member
So, what was Miliband's speech all about today? I've tried to work it out and cannot escape the conclusion is was complete and utter bollocks.
Not every party will embrace this, sinn féin will probably block it and certainly not everyone here will embrace it
Jezbollah
Member
I would love to see some articles that have proper analysis of this.
WayneMorse
Banned
Sinn Fein would be pretty shitty socialists if they didn't kill this off.
Masquerader
Member
Ehh. Never met anyone who's ever had an open and accepting opinion of homosexuals. I doubt that this'll be blocked or rejected.
Oh, don't worry. They're especially shitty socialists, be in no doubt.
I for one am glad that he actually addressed the deficit, but... I was astonished that he said very, VERY little.
Jezbollah
Member
So little comment here on Labours plans for the public finances?
Listening to Ed Milibands interview with Robert Peston, it was quite interesting to hear a leader of the opposition say to the BBC Economics editor that he (Peston) "got the numbers wrong" when challenged. Ho hum.
Farage and Brand on Question Time. This will be like watching a slow motion car crash.
Listening to Ed Milibands interview with Robert Peston, it was quite interesting to hear a leader of the opposition say to the BBC Economics editor that he (Peston) "got the numbers wrong" when challenged. Ho hum.
Farage and Brand on Question Time. This will be like watching a slow motion car crash.
WayneMorse
Banned
Ah, so I see Question Time is slowly becoming what CNN's Crossfire was in the US.
Let's see who can say the most idiotic populist bullshit the fastest and watch White Van Dan sitting at home confused at which populist rhetoric he should agree with.
Let's see who can say the most idiotic populist bullshit the fastest and watch White Van Dan sitting at home confused at which populist rhetoric he should agree with.
Nicktendo86
Member
I don't watch question time anymore, can't stand it.
Nicktendo86
Member
That is the accusation. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. It will always be free at the point of use, any party would be suicidal to change that.
The NHS is in need of serious reform. Cancer detection, GP waiting lists and A&E are terrible and nonkne is taking it serious and instead using the NHS as a political football. We can't have a proper debate as the while issue is poison with one aide screaming bloody murder if you dare touch it.
There are a lot of reasons to be angry about selling off chunks of the NHS even if it does remain free at the point of use (for now).
You want to know why people treat the NHS like a religion and get so hysterically mad about it being sold off? Because whenever they don't do that about a government service it has a habit of being sold off to the people in power's mates and hedge funds for dirt cheap. Everyone knows the right wants to get rid of it, making sure they understand people won't stand for it is the only way to stop them.
EDIT: If Question Time last night wasn't already enough of a joke, the dude who had a massive go at Russell Brand in the audience is a UKIP MEP's brother, who might be standing for them in the GE next year.
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-country-set-worst-4797980
So how many people are going to die this winter cause of austerity?
So how many people are going to die this winter cause of austerity?
Nicktendo86
Member
Every winter the papers say that and every winter is milder than usual. A killer storm is the only thing papers love more than a murder.
QuicheFontaine
Member
He's pretty unpopular up there and seems like an overall slippery cunt. Perfect 'new' labour material.
Long live the Queen?
He got practically double the vote of the party members in Scotland, so no - in terms of voting party members he very clearly was the most popular choice.
For the unions, he received 13.26% of the maximum 33% available compared to 17.34% for his rival, so whilst not their favourite he still held received a decent amount of the vote available.
He's had to pivot to the left over the course of this election, which is probably the right choice. Needs to be seen whether he is given the flexibility and independence Scottish Labour needs to stage a revival in Scotland though.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
He won with party members and the MSPs, lost the unions. Effectively the reverse of David vs Ed.
Nicktendo86
Member
So Miliband's speech on immigration today lasted a whole 7 minutes.
It's a pity you haven't we are about. This won't go through it Sinn Féin are against it. All they got to do is put it to a petition of concern and they could block it
Jezbollah
Member
Nicktendo86
Member
So more great job news today, pay above inflation (way about if you discount bonuses) and 95% of jobs created in last year were full time.
The only reason inflation dropped a lot is because of the oil price war going on. Nothing to do with the government. Also it wasn't great job news for some regions which actually saw unemployment increase.