1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A victory for free speech for everyone

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Faustus, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. kindai

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 9, 2013

    Posts: 5,622

    Location: Bromsgrove

    In your opinion. To him this could be a significant intrusion of his religious beliefs that he simply may not of been able to reconcile.
     
  2. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    You're making the same mistake that Kindai made, and are missing the point that I'm making.

    This is about the fifth time I've stated it now, and I have to admit it's getting a little bit frustrating. But for the final time, I'm not discussing who was write or wrong, or who should have won or lost the case. My point is purely regarding why it's a case at all, and why it's absolutely not a simple cut and dried 'free speech' issue.

    I don't mean to single you out dowie, because you're certainly not the only one, but I feel as though people are responding without actually reading what I've written.

    I'm being unintentionally (I think) straw-manned. Some people are quite capable of remaining completely impartial and refraining from allowing their personal views to colour their opinion when it comes to legal matters.

    I've said that myself at least four times. I don't understand why you would bring it up.

    I know that was the issue, that's why I said it.

    The analogy becomes valid if the Muslim shop owner is refusing a sale based upon someone's sexual orientation, religion, or race.

    I think they're all equally as daft. But again, that holds no relation to the point that I've repeatedly attempted to make, which is that calling this a simple 'free speech' issue, couldn't be further from the truth.
     
  3. kindai

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 9, 2013

    Posts: 5,622

    Location: Bromsgrove

    I think we are at odds as to the perception of the issue rather than either of us being right or wrong.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 36,485

    Yes and I was responding to what was written, I didn't assume that you supported either side. I still disagree though.

    Because that is the issue, a refusal to write a message on a cake. The Supreme Court has clarified that there was no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

    It is correct, it is a perfectly valid pov to say that this is a free speech issue. The ruling hasn't been made on the basis of clashing rights and the court deciding to favour the rights of one party over the other but it was purely down to the message on the cake.
     
  5. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    Perhaps mistake is too strong a word. I don't mean to sound like a d**k :p

    To clarify, what both you and dowie argued against in your quoting of my words, is not something I have argued for.
     
  6. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    Again, you've missed my point mate. :p

    How the judge justified the ruling is irrelevant. Hell, I've even said, based on what I know, I probably would have ruled the same way and for the very same reason.

    But the case itself is separate from the ruling, and I've been trying (clearly unsuccessfully) to explain why the case can't be reduced to merely a simple free speech issue, and why I think it's extremely intellectually lazy to try and do so.

    The case included discussions around the potential infringement of rights, it included discussions around precedent of one right over another, and yes, it included free speech aspects.

    But the overarching point is, had the other dimensions not existed, making the case truly about nothing other than 'free speech', then there wouldn't have been a case at all and it wouldn't have even made it to court.

    If my position isn't clear by now, it won't ever become clear...

    In which case, i'm clearly terrible at articulating myself and it's probably best if I crawl inside my own a**hole until this all blows over.
     
  7. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 36,485

    I think we're perhaps going to have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there was any merit to the case that there was an infringement of rights on the part of the customer and I think the ruling clarifies that. I do understand that you would have ruled that way and that your initial point wasn't to discuss who was right or wrong but I disagree with the portrayal of this as a clash of rights, that is of course how the person brining the initial case saw it but I think their argument was flawed and the ruling we've just had from the Supreme Court has clarified that this is essentially just down to a question of a baker refusing a message.
     
  8. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    Neither do I, but that's not what I've been arguing for! :D

    You're still not separating your opinion on the case, from the point i'm making, which is merely to say that those aspects of the case existed, making it significantly more complex than just being about free speech, whether we agreed with them being present or not.

    Consider my head firmly planted inside my a**hole for the foreseeable future.
     
  9. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 36,485

    I think you might have replied to my post before I edited and added in some further clarification, I do get that you weren't initially stating an opinion on the case per say but I still don't agree with the way it was framed in the previous post. :)

    For reference this is the post I initially made on it 4 years ago in GD, I'm pro gay rights/gay marriage but I've held the view that the gay rights issue re: this case is pretty much non-existent from the start:

    https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/26576891/
     
  10. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    Your post seems quite balanced and fair to me.

    Now, who's for making up with a big gay hug?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  11. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 36,485

    lol, [virtual hug sent]
     
  12. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    :D:D:D
     
  13. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,641

    You mean quite a difference in scientific opinion. You clearly stated "choice" sex/marriage is not a prerequisite for life like food and water is, one can have a prefeence but one does not have to act on it if one chooses not to.



    Rubbish. Mr Gareth Lee believed that he was discriminated because of his sexual orientation, Northern Ireland’s attorney general intervened and said the court of appeal was imposing a liability on the bakers to express a political opinion which was contrary to their religious belief. The supreme court ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights protected [the right] not to express an opinion they did not hold. “It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case,”
    UK supreme court rules
     
  14. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    There's really not. While i'm sure you'll be able to find the odd outlier, as is always the case, the weight of scientific evidence is overwhelming in one direction. They've even been able to identify a specific gene which can switch homosexuality on or off in men:

    https://www.newscientist.com/articl...w-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/

    Our current best understanding is that several different genes, as well as many other factors play a role, including the environment.

    "There are probably multiple genes involved, each with a fairly low effect"

    "There will be men who have the form of gene that increases the chance of being gay, but they won’t be gay."

    "Because many genes and other factors seem likely to play a role in sexual orientation, this may explain why some people are bisexual or see sexual orientation as a spectrum."

    So it's clearly a fairly complex topic. But like I said, if you want to debate it, then take it up with a sexual geneticist or someone fully qualified in the matter.

    I'm not, and I expect neither or you, so the most rational course of action for us both, is to defer to the scientific consensus until such time that new and contradictory evidence emerges to change our understanding.


    I fail to understand what that has to do with anything, and I certainly don't understand how it relates to my point in any way shape or form. :confused:

    Are you certain you've not misunderstood my posts?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  15. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,641

    How does anyone really know that it's not genetic abnormalities? or hormonal imbalances? just because a human being has a phd after their moniker does not make them the final arbiter.




    In one of your previous posts you claimed no choice in homosexuality, but just like heterosexuality there is a broad perspective on sexuality, sure one can have a preference but like I said in my previous post there is a choice one can make, there is no irrefutable proof it is hard wired.
     
  16. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    Well how far do you go with that? All evolution is the result of genetic abnormalities. The fact that you exist at all is the result of genetic abnormalities.

    It makes them the best we have, and therefore, the only truly rational choice with which to form our belief system. Any other choice would be by definition, irrational.

    You're verging extremely close to embodying a prime example of the dunning kruger effect, which is why I would really don't want to get into any kind of debate on this.

    Neither you nor I are at all qualified to speak on this with any kind of authority, and therefore, neither of us should. It would be nothing more than a huge waste of time because neither of us would come even close to having an understanding of the topic, that could compete with those who've dedicated their whole lives to understanding it.

    Oh I see. Okay, well this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but:

    - Michael Jackson was born genetically black.
    - He chose to bleach his skin.
    - Was he therefore white because he chose to look that way?

    The fact that we are thinking agents who can make our own decisions, and may have the ability to refrain from acting upon on our sexual preferences, has no bearing on whether we are actually homosexual or not.

    You're homosexual if you are attracted to members of the same sex. The term homosexuality says nothing about whether not you act upon that sexual preference.

    Or to put it another way, acting upon your sexual preference is not a requirement of homosexuality.

    My apologies for the confusion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  17. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,641

    Not just him but thousands. Ashers Baking in Belfast was found guilty of discrimination in 2015 for refusing to make a cake for a customer iced with the words “Support Gay Marriage” because of the owners’ Christian beliefs. Bible believing Christians see marriage as something only between one man and one woman. LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s highest court on Wednesday said a Northern Irish bakery’s refusal to make a cake bearing a pro-gay slogan was not discriminatory.
     
  18. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,641

    Not interested in your evolution crap.
     
  19. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,146

    Location: Essex

    Oh boy... Let me guess? The Earth is flat and the Queen is a space Lizard?

    Well that's my cue to depart. When a young Earth creationist enters the scene, rational discourse has clearly left the building.

    I like logic, evidence, and demonstrable fact. Not blind faith, self contradiction and bizarre mental gymnastics that actively contradicts all observable evidence.

    What a disappointment, our discussion was going so well.

    Ciao.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  20. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,641

    Juvenility is delinquency. Not going to be drawn into a long boring debate about evolution. Breaking things down into its smallest components this whole case was about the legal right for anyone to reject a political slogan without accusations of discrimination.