Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

Castiel · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:30

Tefal said:
I giggled

. I was going to leave it in, damned apple spelling.

Sliver · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:31

spoffle said:
Well this suggests you did intend it in the way it read.

You're reading things into what I said that I never actually said. Assumption just makes you look foolish.

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:31

dirtychinchilla said:
Yeah it's a pretty outrageous; clearly you did not mean that they are analogous...your agenda goes to far, spoffle.

Agenda?

I asked him a question, which he has now clarified. I didn't realise that was considered an agenda (pro tip, it's not).

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:33

I would say the o ly person who is trivialising marriage is Thompson_NCL degrading it to a mere business transaction.

Frightful Boar · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:33

Sliver said:
Why are people talking about me being violent all of a sudden ? I never said anything about violence. You guys are the ones talking about violence. I never threatened physical abuse on any one. Go re read my posts. All I wanted was a five minute face to face discussion.

Hahaha this is great!

Even if you didn't mean it you came across like a total radgie!

"I'd love 5 minutes in a room with you m8. Just 5 minutes, that's all I'd need."

I'm finding it hard to see how that's not threatening, but if you say you didn't mean it like that then fair enough. Doesn't make it any less funny.

Castiel · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:34

Sliver said:
Why are people talking about me being violent all of a sudden ? I never said anything about violence. You guys are the ones talking about violence. I never threatened physical abuse on any one. Go re read my posts. All I wanted was a five minute face to face discussion.

That's not how it came across, it does sound like you are implying violence with the way you worded it. "Just give me 5 minutes in the same room with with you" usually implies giving that person a kicking...

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:35

Sliver said:
You're reading things into what I said that I never actually said. Assumption just makes you look foolish.

So how does

I'd love 5 minutes in a room with you m8. Just 5 minutes, that's all I'd need.

Make you look? Especially with the added context of you qualifying it with you are angry about what he said.

So, what exactly would you do with these 5 minutes you'd love to have with him?

Wanting 5 minutes in a room with someone, and admitting that you're angry doesn't leave much to the imagination.

Considering you still haven't offered an explanation as to what you meant by it isn't really helping your argument for it not implying violence either.

Sliver · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:37

Frightful Boar said:
Hahaha this is great!

Even if you didn't mean it you came across like a total radgie!

"I'd love 5 minutes in a room with you m8. Just 5 minutes, that's all I'd need."

I'm finding it hard to see how that's not threatening, but if you say you didn't mean it like that then fair enough. Doesn't make it any less funny.

Well I'm glad you find it funny and can see it in a lighter side. To be honest, I can see how it seemed aggressive, but I never meant I wanted to beat him up. I meant I'd dress him down verbally and tell him exactly what I thought. Something I can not do on these forums because I'd get suspended for insulting him and swearies. Hence the 5 minutes in a room, away from these forums.

cheesyboy · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:37

Thread in terminal nose dive :/

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:39

I'm still skeptical, but at least you have offered a somewhat plausible explanation, and I do understand the limitations of written communication and how it can impact tone and context.

Frightful Boar · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:39

spoffle said:
Also, "real life"? What's not real about this conversation exactly? Is anything text based "Not real life" but some alternate existence that is only loosely related to the "real" on you're living?

No way do people argue like this in real life. I know you're being purposely obtuse. RL and IRL are staples of internet jargon.

People are much more "in your face" and opinionated online cos they have an audience. Most of the loudmouths on here are probably mice in a strange social situation.

RDM · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:42

Castiel said:
It only means they need to promote equality of opportunity to person of different political opinion (this is covered under the UK legislation as well underther terms Religion or Belief as Belief can be Political Belief. So you cannot discriminate against someone becasue they are a Unionist for example) the support or the opposition to Same Sex Marriage is an argument for or against a legal position, it doesn't constitute a political belief in and of itslef, therefore nor does it mean that they can be forced to associate or support another's opinion on changing a legal act through political means. Same Sex Marriage in itself is not a political opinion, it is a legal concept.

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/files/anti-discrimination-law-in-ni.pdf/at_download/file

If you have a look at the document I posted last night you will see that it also covers the provision of goods and services and is not restricted to just nationalism and socialism.

However I am now starting to get a bit confused as plenty of posters have been arguing that this is a political position and not a discrimination position but now we are saying it isn't a political position, isn't a discrimination issue but is a legal issue?

Castiel said:
Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Northern Ireland, the recognition of Same Sex Marriage in States where it is legal is not, however the recognition only extends as far as ensuring they received the same rights and protections as a Civil Partnership in Northern Ireland, which is legal and you have said this yourself, it is not extending them the same rights as they might receive in the country where they married....pedantic, but a quite important point, being as the disagreement revolves around the legality of conducting and recognising Same Sex Marriage conducted in Northern Ireland and not the rest of the UK and elsewhere.

In that case, if you perform a same sex marriage in Northern Ireland what would you be charged with? You wouldn't, the marriage just wouldn't be recognised.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:42

Frightful Boar said:
No way do people argue like this in real life. I know you're being purposely obtuse. RL and IRL are staples of internet jargon.

People are much more "in your face" and opinionated online cos they have an audience. Most of the loudmouths on here are probably mice in a strange social situation.

drunk people do

talking of strange social situations though club antichrists birthday party is tomorrow

if you want any kind of first hand information or experience about half of the topic of this thread its worth a visit. also balloons and cake

just excuse the lesbians for some reason they always end up having sex in the bar area :/

Schlong&Stable · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:43

Tefal said:
So now your saying thier marriage does have value?

Your stance seem inconsistent and seemingly made up on the spot.

Their happiness and subsequent productivity has a value, yes. Their marriage does not. As I said, that they can parrot other heterosexuals is what negates the potential trivilaisation a childless marriage has. Homosexuals do not have that luxury.

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:43

Frightful Boar said:
No way do people argue like this in real life. I know you're being purposely obtuse. RL and IRL are staples of internet jargon.

People are much more "in your face" and opinionated online cos they have an audience. Most of the loudmouths on here are probably mice in a strange social situation.

Most of them may be, but you'll have to take my word for it that I am not one of them. I am very outspoken.

Also, extensive use of "in real life" doesn't validate its use in anyway. To say "in real life" implies that you're somehow playing a game by visiting a forum, or pretending to be someone you aren't.

"In person" is the entirely accurate way of saying what you mean, and there is no ambiguity there.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:45

Thompson_NCL said:
Their happiness and subsequent productivity has a value, yes. Their marriage does not. As I said, that they can parrot other heterosexuals is what negates the potential trivilaisation a childless marriage has. Homosexuals do not have that luxury.

but their marriage is what gives them that happiness hence it is the value.

you will have to expand on your "parroting" philosophy here as the happiness gained is the same regardless of the couple being hetero or homo.

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:45

Thompson_NCL said:
Their happiness and subsequent productivity has a value, yes. Their marriage does not. As I said, that they can parrot other heterosexuals is what negates the potential trivilaisation a childless marriage has. Homosexuals do not have that luxury.

I keep asking you what your views are based on, and why you feel you have the right to just what is of value and or acceptable, but you don't want to answer. Do I read in to that as you can't answer?

Schlong&Stable · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:46

Sliver said:
Well I'm glad you find it funny and can see it in a lighter side. To be honest, I can see how it seemed aggressive, but I never meant I wanted to beat him up. I meant I'd dress him down verbally and tell him exactly what I thought. Something I can not do on these forums because I'd get suspended for insulting him and swearies. Hence the 5 minutes in a room, away from these forums.

I can assure you I am utterly intractable, five minutes in a room or not. I didn't mean any offense to your family, but you brought them up, not me.

Frightful Boar · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:47

Sliver said:
Well I'm glad you find it funny and can see it in a lighter side. To be honest, I can see how it seemed aggressive, but I never meant I wanted to beat him up. I meant I'd dress him down verbally and tell him exactly what I thought. Something I can not do on these forums because I'd get suspended for insulting him and swearies. Hence the 5 minutes in a room, away from these forums.

Fair play!

cheesyboy said:
Thread in terminal nose dive :/

Insightful and helpful, as are all your posts in this thread.

spoffle said:
Most of them may be, but you'll have to take my word for it that I am not one of them. I am very outspoken.

Also, extensive use of "in real life" doesn't validate its use in anyway. To say "in real life" implies that you're somehow playing a game by visiting a forum, or pretending to be someone you aren't.

"In person" is the entirely accurate way of saying what you mean, and there is no ambiguity there.

I'm all for better communication so I'll take that one on board.

spudbynight · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:48

OcUK General Discussion - "The gayest place on earth™"