I know...I---know..some will say same old same old... but wait..

I only heard about this from my daughter today and it struck me as a good litmus test for our 'convention against all forms of discrimination' fundamentalists.

It's also a good 'hypocrisy' test.

COUPLE DENIED BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR 3 yr old SON... who...they happened to name: "Adolph Hilter Campbell". One of their daughters is named
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell.

Clearly... the people concerned are a bit 'outthere' with the white supremacy thing.

But the point is.. if we claim 'human rights' are that we are not discriminated against for any reason of political or religous idea....

then... Houston/Canberra.....we have a ...problem.

The local bakery refused to print the childs name"Adolph Hitler" on the cake.....that.. is discimination

It's all very well to speak about 'fruitloops' who hold religious views etc..but those who hold to the strange idea of 'universal non discrimination' and support the idea of a Sikh child taking a dagger to school, a classroom, a court, or and adult (or child)taking one on a plane (Canada) would SURELY not support the blatant discrimination experienced by this family.....would they ?

Or.. are these 'tolerance' ethics as plastic and rubbery as I know they actually are.. a convenient tool in the hands of those who like to use them as a weapon of control against ideas they dislike.

Just as the Gaza protests are in reality Anti Semitic rallying points which refuse to condemn equally Hamas rockets, so is the example cited above. "Convenient/selective" discrimination, by supposedly 'tolerant' people.

What is the point of this Polycarp?

" those who hold to the strange idea of 'universal non discrimination' and support the idea of a Sikh child taking a dagger to school, a classroom, a court, or and adult (or child)taking one on a plane (Canada) would SURELY not support the blatant discrimination experienced by this family.....would they ?"

Would you have us believe that all those who subscribe to human rights philosophy advocate a boy taking a knife to school or on a plane? You have a very distorted view of what human rights are Poly but I suspect you have your own agenda.

Ask yourself if you have to extreme examples (of the ridiculous) like this to demonstrate your point what does that say about your stance on the issue of human rights. When you start debunking human rights using rational and reasoned argument we may take you more seriously.

You should know better by now Poly. You do more harm in presenting your case like this and your cause a disservice.

But this will probably fall on deaf ears.

Hi Polycarp.

The bakery did well.

Im really glad they did what they decided to do because somewhere it might just remind a few that Auschwitz, Belsen and Treblinka were real places... that people were shot and buried in long trenches, gassed and then burnt in those wicked ovens because of Mr. Hitler.

Many in the present generation think they know it all...but not much if they deny the Holocaust.

Their choice to ignore what occured or make light of it shows that it can happen all over again.
God bless the Jewish people to remind them.

The fact that their children seem to have been taken off them shows that sense and caring still prevails.

Polycarp,

The store has denied similiar requests from
the Campbells over the last two years, including
a request for a swastika.

"We reserve the right not to print anything on
the cake that we deem inappropriate. We
considered this inappropriate."

That is the store's business prerogative.
Same as some hotels do not allow shorts
and thongs, inappropriate behaviour, or dress,
smoking, et cetera.

It is not discrimination, and certainly
does not deserve to be placed under the
umbrella of 'human rights.' As Pelican rightly
points out - your credibility suffers when you
indulge in threads such as this.

Foxy, well said. The thread takes completely immaterial issue and correlate spuriously to human rights. It is equally the right of the cakeshop owner to determine if it accepts. and what basis it is that Poly is arguing the shopowners action as constituing discrimination. It is clear that the refusal is not against a person.

Since when has the right to a decorated birthday cake become a "human right?"

A UN vote on whether simple access to food was a basic Human Right was recently voted down by the USA, so what are human rights anyway?

You just had to throw in the "Gaza protests are in reality Anti Semitic rallying points which refuse to condemn equally Hamas rockets" which shows that the preamble was just a convenient lauchpad.

I was impressed however, by the way you managed to have a go at both Sikhs and Muslims at the same time.

In the case of protests, I would have thought that freedom of speech was at least a basic democratic right but it's you who are re-classifying it into some sort of quasi-religious statement by one group while simultaneously denying another group their right to food and medicine.

Then again, it's typical of zealots to demand standards from others that they just can't live up to themselves.

The 'RIGHT' here..is that of not being discriminated against.

I also note that those who suggest the Campbells don't have a right to not be discriminated against, due to their naming choices, also consider this a trivial and spurious issue.

Adolph Hitler is a name associated with brutality, mass murder, abuse of captive women and chidren.

"Mohammad" is also such a name. Why are people selective about who we pick on?

These people HAVE the 'human right' NOT to be discriminated against.

They definitely have a legal case against the bakery and the state which has now taken the children into care.

Soooo...its a 'business choice' for the Bakery but NOT a 'business choice for the Philip Island Bretho camp? (Hyyyypocrisy)

COMPARE. That story is in today's Herald.. along with this!

"A PUSH to ban customers wearing Muslim garb or hooded tops in shops and banks has outraged religious, political and business leaders."

Ohhhhh.... I get it, 'good moral people' are 'outraged' by a call to ban a symbol of hate, evil, genocide, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and war to extend territory... (which any Islamic symbol is when you scratch the surface)

but they are not in the slightest bit outraged by discrimination against a family which names their children after a high profile person/movement which indulged in the same things?

HYPOCRISY in the extreme! Absolute shallow, spineless hypocrisy.

The only crediblity at stake here..is that of those who simply cannot see their own double standard.

Pelican..I'm totally amazed that you cannot see how 'discriminating' against non Sikh's by allowing Sikhs to carry otherwise illegal weapons onto planes is an outrageous contradiction of the whole concept of human rights? Why should one persons religious 'right' be allowed to endanger and offend and outrage non Sikhs on a plane?

Don't people have a RIGHT to feel safe? Would you feel safe in a plane next to a Sikh who carried a large Kirpan... specially when you don't know if that person is truly a Sikh?

Polycarp “The local bakery refused to print the childs name "Adolph Hitler" on the cake.....that.. is discrimination”

I have mixed feelings on this.

I agree the actions of the bakery are discriminatory.

However, I would suggest we are all entitled to determine what we find intolerable and provided we respond in a non-participative manner, then so be it. The bakery are at liberty to decline doing the work but they would not be at liberty to prevent the customer seeking an alternative baker.

If it had been me, I would have taken the money and pocketed the profit, what do I care that someone wants to write “Adolph Hitler “ on a cake? Anymore, than if I were a chef and someone wanted their filet mangion done “extra well” with a fried egg on it, I do not have to consume it or live on with their bad taste / ignorance.

I have said before, accepting peoples’ right to express views which we may consider stupid, misguided and even dangerous is the better option to pushing such views underground, where they merely fester in the dark dank places and become excuses for ideas of martyrdom and worse.

I reckon he's got a point. I'm a bit fuzzy on what the difference is. I mean if a private bus company decided to not allow black passengers that would be frowned upon.

So what is the criteria? Obviously race and sex and religion cant be discriminated against, but names can. What if a cake company decided they would not sell any 'Mohammed' cakes?

Maybe if you're a private company not selling an essential service you can do what you like?

All this human rights stuff is very rubbery to me

Typical Porkycrap troll, in which he demonstrates yet again his total lack of understanding of human rights. Unsurprising though that he'd choose to defend some neo-Nazi child abusers in an effort to make his point - whatever it is.

"Pelican..I'm totally amazed that you cannot see how 'discriminating' against non Sikh's by allowing Sikhs to carry otherwise illegal weapons onto planes is an outrageous contradiction of the whole concept of human rights? Why should one persons religious 'right' be allowed to endanger and offend and outrage non Sikhs on a plane?

Don't people have a RIGHT to feel safe? Would you feel safe in a plane next to a Sikh who carried a large Kirpan... specially when you don't know if that person is truly a Sikh?"

It is interesting how you distort the meaning of another poster when you can provide no rational argument yourself Poly.

I was in fact arguing against anyone carrying knives on a plane as you well know, pointing out that this example has nothing to do with human rights as you narrowly define them.

Poly I am totally amzaed that you don't believe in human rights. "thou shalt not kill" - surely the right to life is one human right you believe in Poly.

Rights is sometimes a nebulous concept - does the baker have a right to say no to a client if he finds something offensive? Does the customer have a right to have his cake baked even if it is offensive to the baker?

I would think discrimination could be argued on both sides particularly if the baker was Jewish so this example you have proposed provides no meaningful addition to a larger debate on human rights.

Can you not see that Polycarp?

The UN is full of contradictions when it comes to human rights. Unborn babies are exempt from human rights in their eyes so that women can have sex with whomever they want without any responsibility. Many supporters of 'human rights' are really only interested in their humanistic dogma.

I ran into someone from Oxfarm the other day. They wanted me to sign a petition to reduce pollution in Australia by 40% by 2020. I asked the girl how does she propose this might happen. Predictably she had no idea.

Houellebecq “Maybe if you're a private company not selling an essential service you can do what you like?”

That is the concept of a ‘common carrier’ for which the USA has laws and UK likewise (as far back as 1830)
Whilst not a common carrier, certain provisions could still apply to the bakery

Re http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm
The USA rules
“For centuries, common carriage principles have played an important role in the infrastructure services of transportation and communications. They intended to guarantee that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against... The prohibition on unreasonable discrimination is the most important component of the common carrier obligation.”

“Refusal to carry” (aka justifiable discrimination) applies only when there is physical danger involved or when the contract would be in the facilitation of an illegal purpose.

The UK rules are pretty much the same except better worded, having been written in 1830.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1830/cukpga_18300068_en_1

I would suspect any bakery, offering its services to the “world at large”, would be subject to a similar legal obligation against discriminating in the supply of services.

First my eye sees the well-known repeated...Then the self-deprecation: "I know...I---know..some will say same old same old... but wait.."

Then comes the UPPER CASE misleading trivia headline: COUPLE DENIED BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR 3 yr old SON...

And my heart sinks...ITS POLYCARP! At it again!

What does he want this time? To get us all to feel sorry for a guy who names his kids Adolph Hitler and Aryan Nation and can't get the local baker to write them or the swastika on a birthday cake.

Not because that's offensive to community standards - and to the cakeshop people - but...WAIT FOR IT...because it offends Poly's sense of 'human rights'. It's DISCRIMINATIOn, he wails.

To cap it all off, Polycarp wants us to believe that this moral twerp - the Nazi - provides us with a good 'hypocrisy' test. How ironic, knowing as we do (because Polycarp has told us repeatedly) what he thinks of 'human rights'.

To make his hypocritical point even more hypocritical Polycarp reintroduces his tired old story about 'dangerous' karpans and in the flicker of an eyelid he's got the Gaza crisis sorted out too. Oh, the power of a good local baker to clarify one's sense of morality!

I really should exercise more DISCRIMINATION when I choose which OLO threads to read. Sometimes with Polycarp I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Plucky... au contraire..I DO believe in human rights.. but the kind I believe in are like this "No Hamas Rockets/No Israeli bombs"...see it?

BALANCE... surely you have been around long enough to know what is behind a lot of what is termed 'human rights'? Surely?

They are applied in a very discriminatory manner by activists and activist Judges. They usually promote minotities at the expense of majorities.

I am NOT defending this morons name choice for his son.. I think its ugly, sick and could even be called child abuse. That's not my point.

My point is.... DISCRIMINATION based on selective understanding/application of laws about discrimination, by those who shout the loudest about TOLERANCE....

The Word "Tolerance" is often a weapon..a tool..in the vocabulary of people with a very negative agenda toward other Australians or citizens of their country.

It is used like 'Homophobia, Islamophobia' to seek to marginalize the views and persons of those not sharing the particular view.

In fact.. it could be said that many pushing this agenda are CHRISTAPHOBIC.....

If this bloke chose stupid and insulting names for his kids.. it doesn't matter..unless he breaks a law it's up to him.....

People name their children "Mohammad" knowing full well that this mad did despicable things including mass murder and mutilation of prisoners.. condoned rape of newly captive women... so I see absolutely no difference between a child named 'Mohammad' and one named "Adoph Hitler Campbell"

Do you? if so....why so?

The bakery discriminated against this man. They were not under any legal exemption as the Philip Island Bretho's are. The gar bar in Collingwood discriminated against straights.. no legal exemption there either.

More for Plucky.....

You said:

"I would think discrimination could be argued on both sides particularly if the baker was Jewish so this example you have proposed provides no meaningful addition to a larger debate on human rights."

Cols statement of the law helps clarify this situation. But no.. it cannot be argued that even if the baker was Jewish that he/she experienced discrimination. Insult maybe..but not discrimination.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says:

Article 2.

* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 3.

* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 2 is abundantly clear...that you canNOT discriminate against someone on the basis of their political ideas. OR... their naming choice for their children which might reflect those political ideas.

Article 3 relates directly to the feeling of safety on a Canadian plane which has an 'armed' Sikh or 3 on it.

NOW..that we've arrived at a point of clarity.. we can focus on the important core issue....which is...

The UN declaration is unworkable, contains inherent contradictions and is plain silly.

REASONS.

It does not take into consideration the 'human rights/political views' of one party which specifically declare that another person or class of persons should be destroyed.

What it SHOULD say is this.

ARTICLE 2 "Every person is entitled to the rights and freedoms....blah blah.. IN SO FAR AS they do NOT call for the harm of any other human being, in any way, economic, phyisical, spiritual or emotional.

Now..IF..it said that...it would be workable and we would not have idiots who defend those who call for the destruction of other races/creeds based on their own creed. (Hamas Charter/Quran 9:30)

If it said those things.. it would immediately mean a direct challenge to Islamic political agenda's and the Hindu persecution of Christians in Orissa, not to mention that 'multi-culturalism' will be out the window in a flash.

I think I can see what question Poly is offering for debate....

Maybe it could be better asked in this context, could a person a town a country name a street Adolf Hitler St... or could a university present Hitler in the context of a freedom fighter...

What is good for the goose is good for the gander etc?

Sorry I only saw the 1st page of this thread where people were arguing the credibility of this as a debate topic...

I think this is an important question and where ever it is applied.

I think the essence of this question is the problem a lot of people have with political correctness...

'Political correctness.'

This is often used as a smear against the 'left', but what is 'political correctness' if not, quite literally, a term for shared societal attitudes and expectations that sometimes go overboard?

In which case, it can just as easily be applied to both ends of the political spectrum. The over-stated fear of pedophiles and of the 'evil-money grubbing mass-media' are also forms of political correctness.

To get back to the point, I think that those parents have the 'right' to name their kid whatever they want.
They have the 'right' to ask the cake shop to make them the cake. The cake shop has the 'right' to tell them to jam it up their aryan rectums.

Seems like everybody's 'rights' are in order here.

Next please.

TRTL,

There's a thing in the news a bit atm, some shopkeepers don't want burkas worn in their shops.. so can they tell the Muslim women to shove it up their Islamic rectums as well?

If your ok with that, then yeh, I agree.. no ones rights are crapped on.

When politics dictates what is correct it's propaganda really.

Like the wood chipping company suing protesters for loss of revenue. Your politics dictates whether you are on the side of the protesters and their right to protest, or the company and it's right to do lawful business. Ha ha, I like the irony of the righties using the lefties' civil liberties against them.

What do people think of the debate about placing a ban on the niqab by retailers? Remember bike riders are forced to remove their helmets when entering a store or bank. Or what about banning sunglasses, baseball caps and hoodie-style tops? In London they've banned 'hoodies' from a lot of shops. I remember a mate of mine who went to a catholic school and was forced to get a hair cut too.

I suppose it all goes in hand with religion being a sacred cow. Private stores can ban people for all sorts of dress, but once that dress is linked to religion it's suddenly not PC, and denying people their rights. Yet religios institutions can reject people from their private premises who don't share their ideals, or make kids get a hair cut.

I think what we need to do is create an organised religion with beliefs that let you get away with murder. As a start, in my new religion, I would think clothes are the work of the devil. God made us without clothes and wearing them is an insult to the beauty of the body that god created. Would shops then have to let me in naked?

BTW: Polycarp, what do you think of Mary and Jesus appearing in that lava lamp? Or maybe that's one for Gibo.

I don't have an issue with the banning of the burkha in shops, but I suppose I am skeptical about the motivation.

Before I would side with the shopkeepers, I would ask if there have been any instances of people robbing a store, using a burkha as cover.

If there have been cases, then yes it seems eminently reasonable. There have been cases of people using motorcycle helmets.

However, I've not heard of any burkha robberies. I imagine that if somebody did, they would spark quite the controversy and if caught, perhaps they would earn themselves a higher profile than they desire.

So yes, I can understand the shops wanting to ban the burkha, though I don't have a lot of patience for people using that as a cover to harass them, in much the same way that polycarp uses ancient scriptural texts as a cover to attack a rival religion.

Eminently sensible as usual from TRTL

TRTL,

Yep, fair enough, but did you check to see if the guy had killed any Jews or done any Nazi crimes before you labeled him an rectum...

Personally I think both ideologies are vile, and I don't want to censor criticism of the Nazis at all, but yeh, why should the Muslim rectums be offered a chance to prove they are ok when the Ayrian rectums arn't.

Is it rude for me to call people Muslim rectums and ok for you to call people Ayrian rectums? This seems to be the general assumption.

This is the kind of stuff I just genuinely find so fake and cannot take seriously.

Personally I'd prefer we (politely) judge as we see fit with out being hauled over the coals for it. Including the untouchable Islam.

Polycarp,

You're wasting everyone's time.

No human right (or any legal) is involved in a baker refusing to ice a cake with words or symbols that are offensive to him or her or to other customers. What would your reaction be if the baker had refused a request to add "Jesus sux" or to draw a penis? Would the baker be required to do in the interests of 'BALANCE' or be a 'hyyyypocrit'?

Even you could put your mind to the rights of the baker to refuse to provide obnoxious services. Your thread here is not about discrimination or human rights. The tabloid item you manipulated is about a decent man refusing an order by a moron.

It's all a fabrication of your over-excited imagination - and of course it gave you another oblique opportunity to introduce some of your old fear and smear symbols. The kirpan, yet again. I'm still waiting for you to tell us about any event involving human assault with the Sihk ceremonial 'weapon'

Someone please advise Foxy how to extend her lines right across the page. She does the same thing on the real OLO.

Polycarp: ‘right’s are mere conceptions, not existing in fact

Dear Leigh,

I do that on purpose as a result of a
previous thread where it was suggested
that having the lines cropped made the
post easier to read.

But if it's annoying, I'll happily post
right across the page as I initially used to.

By the way, in future, if you want to
say something to me, you can do it directly.
I'm quite approachable.

Foxy,

For every Leigh, I'l wager there are ten who like your format. It makes it easier to read particularly for older people like me. It's also a well-known concept in publishing known as white space which research shows makes the densely printed page more accessible.

So don't change your style.

If I knew how you do it I'd do it too. (Is that another song?)

Dear Spikey,

Thanks.

I was a bit worried, because I meant
well. However, I thought, if it annoys
people - I'll stop.

Anyway, Leigh doesn't post here all that often,
so I won't worry too much about it.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 29.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Is it moral to promote Adolf Xitler?
Is it moral to promote swastica?
do neo-nazio respect the rights and freedoms of others?
Are not Neo-nazi dangerous for the public order, social understanding and cooperation and social peace?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

I agree with Polycarp.

If the baker is justified in declining service because he/she has bad associations with the word Hitler, or even Adolf Hitler, ( names used for ages in Austria, most carriers of which were good moral citizens) Then how about extending the net further.

Hitler is hardly the only name one could take offence at, try Khan ( popular in parts of the subcontinent )or , Attila (popular with Hungarians) or , Saddam ( popular with Palestinians ) and, of course… Mohammed .All have a bloody history.
How do you feel about denying service to bearers of these names?

Someone asked: “Since when has the right to a decorated birthday cake become a ‘human right’?"It will become a -major human rights issue- the moment someone walks into a shop, baker or otherwise, and is denied service because the owner has bad associations with the name Mohammed.

I recall a recent event in a western Sydney public school where administrators initially refused a female pupil the permission to wear a head scarf while at school. After a lot of grandstanding by HR groups & the girl, the state govt (predictably) went weak kneed and ruled in her favour .A victory for common sense/human rights/ anti-discrimination –hardly! The same school still bans other forms of head scarf’s

Well put Horus, why do some offensive things have more rights than other offensive things.

My Only point here..is NOT the specific rights or wrongs of an idea...

it is the DISCRIMINATORY application of so called 'human rights' law incldding discrimation laws.

Spikey, Horus said it all. If you run a business for the public.. then you cannot deny them service unless you have a lawful exemption.
I am not aware of any lawful exemption for a bakery on the issue cited.

The HUMAN RIGHT here is 'not to be disciminated against'....

ANTONIOS.."is it moral to promote ANY symbol of mass murder or torture or mistreatment of people?"

I say it is not 'moral'...but unless it is UNIVERSALLY illegal... then you cannot squash the swastika or images of hitler.

Universally would mean no

-Crosses (Crusades/Inquisition)
-Hijabs/Islamic clothing. (Mass murder of Jews)
-Yamulka's (genocides of Canaanites)
-Hindu temples. (Persecution of Christians right now)
etc.

Here is where the idea of 'human rights' law comes unstuck...it always ends up being a chunk of 2 x 4 in someone's hand to use against others.

If the Campbells want to offend one and all with their child naming choices.. it's up to them. (to also live with the consequences)
If Muslims want to wear Burkah's..it's up to them.

THE PROBLEM is...some see the name Adolph Hitler as bannable..but Muslims do not see Burkah's as so.

Yet to many in the community.. (specially Jews) they mean the same thing!

'No Discrimination' simply does not work.

Wecome back BOAZ_David, Polycarp has been getting a bit of a thrashing lately.

Let's see how your recycled alias fares.

"it is the DISCRIMINATORY application of so called 'human rights' law incldding discrimation laws." . Duh?.

"If you run a business for the public.. then you cannot deny them service unless you have a lawful exemption." Shallow knowledge. Lots of circumstances over-ride the Equal Opportunity Act without exemption.

For example if you refuse to open your bags when you enter a store, the storekeeper can refuse to serve you. A shopkeeper can refuse to serve unaccompanied children (must do so if it involves cigarettes or alcohol). If a customer is creating a nuisance or acting in an offensive manner or asking you to do something which is offensive to you, the shopkeeper can call the police or require the customer to leave.

I notice David that Polycarp has no opinion on my example of someone asking a cake decorator to write 'Jesus Sux' or to draw a penis. I would find that offensive and would not serve the customer with that request. And I'm 100% confident that I am within my rights legally to refuse.

You are "...not aware of any lawful exemption for a bakery on the issue cited." That's obvious - the baker doesn't need one. Just as a hotelier can refuse so serve a black, disabled, lesbian who is already too much under he influence of alcohol. Triple discrimation, on your argument. But perfectly within the law.

"...but unless it is UNIVERSALLY illegal... then you cannot squash the swastika or images of hitler." You miss the point by a mile. The baker wasn't squashing an image. He was refusing to provide it. World of difference.

And in your cake shop example, the problem is NOT "...some see the name Adolph Hitler as bannable..but Muslims do not see Burkah's as so." No one has argued that a parent can't call a child 'Hitler'. The problem is that Hitler's father wanted the shopkeeper to write the name on a cake. World of difference.

Dear Spikey....(and all)

I think the thread has become a bit blurred with all this logic etc.

All I'm saying in a nutshell is that 'Human Rights' law seems to me to be applied from a 'protection of minorities' standpoint, in which often the majority is penalized or their freedom curtailed in the name of 'human rights' which are applied in a discriminatory manner.

I could scrounge up many examles..but I think minds are fixed here :)

Seeing truth is not the same as accepting it. (hence my repeated reference to the importance of the 9th surah of the Quran :)

Annnnyway.. for your example.. I thought I responded to that.

Is it not discrimination for the Baker to withold that decoration service simply because they don't personally like it?

If you look at case law, and the actual laws.. I'm fairly confident you cannot deny a service on grouds of... a) b) c) etc.. but there are specific things mentioned.. Let's use a real world one.. ACCOMODATION.

Now..if we change the bakery into a Hotel..and the mans name is "Adolph Hitler Cambell" and he was refused accomodation because the Hotelier didn't like his name (Maybe the Hotelier was Jewish?)
Well... that is discrimination smack on. The background to these laws though..is usually something to do with the Gay lobby.. and it is sexual orientation rather than political view that is at the root of the law.

My point though..is that IF... you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation..then you also cannot discriminate on the grounds of name choice :)
Hence.. a lot of very ugly things will get by the keeper in the name of 'tolerance'.

Polycarp/BD :) no one lays a glove on me- trust me. but I'm withdrawing for now because though I've received no email to inform me..I'm pretty sure I'm officially banned (for calling Bruce Haigh an idiot)
Enjoy a BD/POLYCARP free OLO for a season :)
Grace..Peace.. blessings and cheers.

David,

Stick around and post occasionally!

Polycarp,

Why don't you wait and see, you may not
get that email.

Calling someone an idiot, is allowed, I would
have thought. There's been worse labelling
on OLO, by so many people. If everyone was
banned - they'd lose so many subscribers.

BOAZ_David,

You ask: "Is it not discrimination for the Baker to withold that decoration service simply because they don't personally like it?" It is discrimination, but on the facts of the case, it is not unlawful discrimination.

Nor would it unlawful discrimination for the baker to refuse to put 'Jesus sux' or draw a penis on the customer's cake.

It's as simple as that and no amount of misrepresentation of human rights or equal opportunity or anti-discrimination law will change the fact. Not even if you morph back into your alter ego, Polycarp.

Human right is right in which man can live without any abjection .they can live independent.they can put his right above the government such as their right. Many violations of human rights take place because one group of people feels superior to another. This often results in discrimination - the decision to exclude, restrict, marginalize or humiliate people because of their race, color, religious beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, or other characteristics. Such discrimination is a denial of human dignity and of equal rights for those who are discriminated against.

.....................................
ranjeet

....................................

[url=http://www.drug-intervention.com/north-carolina-drug-intervention.html ] Drug Intervention North Carolina [/url]-Drug Intervention North Carolina

Forgive me for not joining the "don't go, don't go..." brigade.

>>...I'm withdrawing for now... Enjoy a BD/POLYCARP free OLO for a season<<

It will be pleasant to be free - even if only for a while, as he has threatened - from the master of whack-a-mozzie.

Having deeply-felt opinions does not exempt anyone from employing at least a modicum of thought in the presentation and justification of those opinions.

And the argument "I'm right because my God says I'm right" gets extraordinarily wearing after a few years.

Have a good long rest, Boaz.

Pericles,

I know Boaz posts a lot of religious stuff and debates the theology of Islam and Christianity... To me and you, meaningless most likely as we aren't religious.

What you seem to miss is his un-relgious stuff, logical reasons, thoughts experiences that also lead him to think as he does.

D'you know, meredith, I really wish that were true.

>>What you seem to miss is his un-relgious stuff, logical reasons, thoughts experiences that also lead him to think as he does.<<

I cannot recall a single post that Boaz has written that does not:

i) directly target Muslims for abuse

ii) indirectly target Muslims for abuse

iii) directly incite others to target Muslims for abuse

iv) indirectly incite others to target Muslims for abuse

v) slant an otherwise unrelated topic towards a point where he can introduce i) - iv)

vi) initiate a topic that - while ostensibly entirely unrelated - is in fact specifically designed to lead towards i) - iv)

Ultimately, his answer to everything is Christianity. Which I have no problem with, at a personal level. I have been around long enough to know that religion is an important emotional crutch for many people.

But also, I have a number of Christians friends who live happy and fulfilled lives without feeling the need to constantly denigrate those who do not believe as they do. They represent my "control group", as it were. Unfortunately, Boaz has for some time represented to me all that is corrupting about a belief system that is impervious to both reason and compassion.

The only aspects of his posts that I shall miss, is his pathological ability to grasp, firmly and with unbridled enthusiasm, the wrong end of almost any stick that comes within his grasp. It has been a constant pleasure to point out these slip-ups to him, and then to watch his predictable series of reactions: first, denial; followed shortly by the introduction of a red herring; then a clumsy attempt to pretend he meant something else again; and when there remains no place to hide... silence.

But even the curtailment of this pleasure is supportable, given the opportunity for a Boaz-free forum.

It will be fun, though, to spot his return.

I wonder whether he will take up either of his existing noms-de-plume, or whether he will try to slip under the radar with a new disguise?

Pericles. Obsessed much? I think you looove him.

He's not actually rude though, he just dislikes the religion and states why, I do that too, we all do for our likes n dislikes. I find him courteous and religious stuff aside, a good solid debater.

Anyway each to their own, hey.

But yeh, like I can't bear some stuff on here either... There are a couple of posters who, regardless of "side", for want of a better word, just come up with some really retarded facts... One is lead to think they believe crazy stuff like aliens are running the planet and will want that as a legitimate point in the debate, I find them soooo draining

Not really, Houellebecq

>> Obsessed much? I think you looove him.<<

Only if you consider a visceral reaction to incessant patronizing religionism, knee-jerk mozzie-bashing and mindless rabble-rousing, to be an obsession.

And only if you put a mild form of distaste in the same category as "looove"

I'm pretty certain I can live without both, quite happily.