A couple of inclusivity ideas, feel free to add your own

[horsefly 4,300]

Just now, Uncle Fred said:

You are being revisionist about this case , their actions come as a result of their beliefs 

They are committed Christians and they were targeted because they were Christians and no other reason 

You accuse others of being "revisionist" when that's precisely what you are doing in this particular example. Hilarious buffoonery!

Our legal system is based on secular principles precisely to avoid anyone being persecuted for their beliefs christian or otherwise. No one is prosecuted because they are a christian and it is profoundly ignorant to suggest so. Anyone can believe what they like as a private individual but the moment one acts in public space one is subject to all the laws that everyone else is subject to irrespective of personal belief. The logic of your position is patently absurd as should be obvious when one contemplates the number of egregious common nouns one might place in the elipsis "committed ..."  There are not only committed christians, but committed terrorists, comitted racists, committed Na*zis, committed satanists etc, etc, etc. The law only becomes active when the personal beliefs of such individuals result in actions that breach the laws that regulate the public sphere. 

There is a massive literature on jurisprudence and the private/public distinction if you ever wish to educate yourself on these matters (The Hart Devlin debate is a good place to start).

[Badger 2,405]

24 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

You are being revisionist about this case , their actions come as a result of their beliefs 

They are committed Christians and they were targeted because they were Christians and no other reason 

Nonsense. They were targeted for their actions, not their beliefs. 

I'm afraid you don't understand the law: thought crimes don't exist, nor does the thought police. It is only because you are easily manipulated that you believe such things.

[king canary 7,606]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

There's also this, which also went to the Supreme Court, but in this case the Court ruled the other way.

Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal - BBC News

There are some slight nuances to this debate.

The cake case wasn't simply 'make a cake for our wedding' it was a cake with the slogan 'support gay marriage' on it. There is a difference between refusing service for being gay and being asked to create something to support a cause that actively goes against their beliefs. 

If roles were reversed I wouldn't expect a gay bakery to make a cake saying 'marriage is between a man and a woman.' It would be different if the couple had come in to buy a brownie and were refused service for being gay.

However in the b and b case, the owners were actively refusing to provide their services simply on the basis of sexuality. Fundamentally if you don't feel comfortable having gay people staying in your b and b you shouldn't be running one.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

There are some slight nuances to this debate.

The cake case wasn't simply 'make a cake for our wedding' it was a cake with the slogan 'support gay marriage' on it. There is a difference between refusing service for being gay and being asked to create something to support a cause that actively goes against their beliefs. 

If roles were reversed I wouldn't expect a gay bakery to make a cake saying 'marriage is between a man and a woman.' It would be different if the couple had come in to buy a brownie and were refused service for being gay.

However in the b and b case, the owners were actively refusing to provide their services simply on the basis of sexuality. Fundamentally if you don't feel comfortable having gay people staying in your b and b you shouldn't be running one.

Interesting nuance re. the bakers, but the crux is that bit in bold. In fact, we can go further. If you feel you can't provide the service you're there for because of such beliefs, then you're not fit for the job. In other words, it's actually looking at the position based on merit.

[daly 501]

9 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

How on earth would they even settle on the colour of the seats? Every colour is problematic in some way.

Could be done based on a Dalmatian dog

[horsefly 4,300]

9 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

How on earth would they even settle on the colour of the seats? Every colour is problematic in some way.

I Think you would find they would be yellow and green 

[king canary 7,606]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Interesting nuance re. the bakers, but the crux is that bit in bold. In fact, we can go further. If you feel you can't provide the service you're there for because of such beliefs, then you're not fit for the job. In other words, it's actually looking at the position based on merit.

Disagree for a couple of reasons.

1- the bakery is refusing a specific request not  service. The bnb basically offer one service- its in the name. If you say gay people can't stay in the same room then you're refusing them service. With the bakery they refused to make a specific cake with a slogan. That person could still order a whole host of other products from them.

2- the 'discrimination' is based on the belief, not the sexuality of the people purchasing. A cake saying 'support gay marriage' could be ordered by a straight person and this bakery could still have refused. It would be different if it was a cake for a gay wedding without a statement of beliefs that was refused. 

As an example- if I'm a baker with strongly pro EU beliefs and someone comes in to order a cake covered in pro brexit slogans I should be able to say 'thanks for your interest but I dont want to make that.' However if the same pro brexiteer walks in and wants to buy a loaf of farmhouse bread and a couple of éclairs I shouldn't be allowed to refuse him service on the basis of our political disagreement. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Disagree for a couple of reasons.

1- the bakery is refusing a specific request not  service. The bnb basically offer one service- its in the name. If you say gay people can't stay in the same room then you're refusing them service. With the bakery they refused to make a specific cake with a slogan. That person could still order a whole host of other products from them.

2- the 'discrimination' is based on the belief, not the sexuality of the people purchasing. A cake saying 'support gay marriage' could be ordered by a straight person and this bakery could still have refused. It would be different if it was a cake for a gay wedding without a statement of beliefs that was refused. 

As an example- if I'm a baker with strongly pro EU beliefs and someone comes in to order a cake covered in pro brexit slogans I should be able to say 'thanks for your interest but I dont want to make that.' However if the same pro brexiteer walks in and wants to buy a loaf of farmhouse bread and a couple of éclairs I shouldn't be allowed to refuse him service on the basis of our political disagreement. 

We've gone past each other there - as you said your point 1 was referring to a specific request and not a service. I highlighted the bold bit, and repeat: "Fundamentally if you don't feel comfortable having gay people staying in your b and b you shouldn't be running one."

However, you have come back when saying "the bnb basically offer one service".

It turns out that we actually do agree.

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

As an example- if I'm a baker with strongly pro EU beliefs and someone comes in to order a cake covered in pro brexit slogans I should be able to say 'thanks for your interest but I dont want to make that.' However if the same pro brexiteer walks in and wants to buy a loaf of farmhouse bread and a couple of éclairs I shouldn't be allowed to refuse him service on the basis of our political disagreement. 

I take your general point, but I don't think it is illegal to refuse to serve somebody because of their political beliefs. Brexiteers are not a persecuted minority (whatever they may believe!)

[king canary 7,606]

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

I take your general point, but I don't think it is illegal to refuse to serve somebody because of their political beliefs. Brexiteers are not a persecuted minority (whatever they may believe!)

Yeah agrees, probably not a great example on my part.

[Uncle Fred 526]

10 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

How on earth would they even settle on the colour of the seats? Every colour is problematic in some way.

It would be a nice woke rainbow colour scheme.

the woke nutters are out in force today 

[king canary 7,606]

18 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

We've gone past each other there - as you said your point 1 was referring to a specific request and not a service. I highlighted the bold bit, and repeat: "Fundamentally if you don't feel comfortable having gay people staying in your b and b you shouldn't be running one."

However, you have come back when saying "the bnb basically offer one service".

It turns out that we actually do agree.

Ah I get you! 

[Evil Monkey 52]

Let me tell y'all what it's like,
Being male, middle-class and white.
It's a b1tch, if you don't believe, listen up to my new CD... 

[king canary 7,606]

1 minute ago, Evil Monkey said:

Let me tell y'all what it's like,
Being male, middle-class and white.
It's a b1tch, if you don't believe, listen up to my new CD... 

I'm gonna cuss on the mike tonight

[Mr Angry 1,561]

Whenever I see or hear the woke card being played, I immediately picture someone who is offended by the idea of their right to be prejudiced being challenged.

[Naturalcynic 631]

4 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Whenever I see or hear the woke card being played, I immediately picture someone who is offended by the idea of their right to be prejudiced being challenged.

That’s odd.  I get exactly the same feeling when some on the left use words like “bigot”, “racist” and “gammon” because they can’t tolerate someone having different views to them.

[Renskay 36]

On 10/06/2021 at 21:52, KeiranShikari said:

Football is the world game and Norwich is an increasingly diverse city yet our fanbase is still incredably white (like seriously, don't season food correctly white). Why is this and why aren't the club (or it's fanbase) doing anything about it?  I'd suggest advertising in mosques, predominantly black churches and in schools.

 

 Why is a fanbase being majority white in a majority white city considered a negative? Are you suggesting the amount of white people in the fanbase makes BAME people feel unwelcome? 

Norwich City demographics (2011)

Norfolk demographics (2011)

 

[C.I.D 302]

9 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

That’s odd.  I get exactly the same feeling when some on the left use words like “bigot”, “racist” and “gammon” because they can’t tolerate someone having different views to them.

ROFL.....steer clear of Tw*tted then.......it's a cesspit of such views 🙄

[Herman 9,767]

1 hour ago, Uncle Fred said:

It would be a nice woke rainbow colour scheme.

the woke nutters are out in force today 

Bloody wokes.🤬

[Herman 9,767]

20 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

That’s odd.  I get exactly the same feeling when some on the left use words like “bigot”, “racist” and “gammon” because they can’t tolerate someone having different views to them.

Have you stopped to think why you are being regularly accused of these things?

[Naturalcynic 631]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

Have you stopped to think why you are being regularly accused of these things?

I’m not, but it’s something I regularly see in The Indy’s comments sections.  Nice try though.

[Herman 9,767]

Nobody can read the Indy let alone the comments section. Nice try though.👍

[Mr.Carrow 376]

1 hour ago, Uncle Fred said:

It would be a nice woke rainbow colour scheme.

the woke nutters are out in force today 

The problem with that is that everyone would be sitting on different coloured seats which is clearly performatively  exclusionary. The only solution would be for every seat to be rainbow coloured. Woe betide the club if they leave out any colours or any shade of any colour.

It goes without saying that each seat must be fitted with a list of colours/shades included so that colourblind folks don't feel excluded.

[Badger 2,405]

55 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

That’s odd.  I get exactly the same feeling when some on the left use words like “bigot”, “racist” and “gammon” because they can’t tolerate someone having different views to them.

So how long has it been "left" to be opposed to racism? It used to be common to all major political parties?

[Naturalcynic 631]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

So how long has it been "left" to be opposed to racism? It used to be common to all major political parties?

It’s not, but it certainly seems to be some on the “left” that resort to labelling others as racists and bigots simply because they have opinions that don’t accord with the prevailing “acceptable” ideology.

[Naturalcynic 631]

43 minutes ago, Herman said:

Nobody can read the Indy let alone the comments section. Nice try though.👍

I often wish that were true.

[Badger 2,405]

... or alternatively some racists try to cover for their views by crying "woke" as if it were a term of abuse.

Being "woke" means being opposed to prejudice and discrimination: for most decent people of all political persuasion this is a good thing. Unfortunately some racists try to redefine the word as a cover for the obnoxiousness for their own views, and the gullible follow along in ignorance.

 

[Naturalcynic 631]

Just now, Badger said:

... or alternatively some racists try to cover for their views by crying "woke" as if it were a term of abuse.

Being "woke" means being opposed to prejudice and discrimination: for most decent people of all political persuasion this is a good thing. Unfortunately some racists try to redefine the word as a cover for the obnoxiousness for their own views, and the gullible follow along in ignorance.

 

There you go again.  Labelling people as racist simply because they have a different opinion to you.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Whether their opinion is different is a moot point. When that opinion results in discrimination against people for no sensible reason whatsoever (such as denying people accommodation / equal treatment etc.), then it certainly is bigoted / racist depending on the nature of the group that is being hosed over.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Can I just say congrats to the OP for baiting this thread, top form mate I take my hat off to you.