Search results

Agreed, but we are nowhere near destroying it, and that's why we need the law - in my opinion.

Interesting argument. One they should have made if that's what this was about. I seem to recall them specifically saying they were anti-gay marriage. I work in a design agency. We refuse to work with tobacco firms. We were approached recently and declined. We withheld services based on the...

Did YOUGOV say what the remaining 72% were? E.g highly intelligent, a bit dim etc. etc. ?

Now you are abnormal! Regards Hamilton

Methinks you are seriously deluded.

Diego, I think Alfred has found himself in a dead end and is too proud to admit he's got it wrong. Best leave him alone methinks and let him crawl out when we've all gone.

To use teenage vernacular, OMG! You really are being stupid.

You can't select the parts you want! If you could, then I could freely call you an idiot and not worry about it. Idiot: a stupid person. (you are all the things I've highlighted) Please prove to me that I don't have to highlight the middle word as well.

Rosa Parks didn't see it that way though did she? She was offered a seat on the bus, but just not a seat which was reserved for whites only. Same difference surely?

No. I granted you the fact that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That is fact. What we are taking issue with you over is your use of the word 'abnormal'. I think you just need to admit that you used it incorrectly and then we can all move on.

Can I just check then, this is your understanding of the word abnormal as recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary? Abnormal: deviating from the ordinary type, esp. in a way that is undesirable or prejudicial; contrary to the normal rule or system; unusual, irregular, aberrant.

I reveal the fact that you don't know what the word 'abnormal' means. If you can't be bothered to master the English language then don't blame me if I take what you say at face value. So, do you mean 'abnormal', or do you mean that homosexuality is not as prevalent in society as...

You are right, but what if we look at this from the grounds for refusal angle. I have no right to the cake if I am unreasonable in my requests, or if the supplier can not deliver to my time, price or location. Also, if I were to use the product or service to break the law, then that is good...

Oh. In that case, I'll leave you to your bigotry and we'll part. Perhaps one day a relative will let you know that they are gay and you'll see it as less worrying and undesirable.

I disagree. In this case the passive act is in a very active act. The act of refusal on the grounds of sexuality is denying that person a freedom that would otherwise be extended to someone else. That is something which we can, and should legislate against in order to advance a free society for...

Abnormal? You find homosexuality worrying? There may well be more heterosexuals than homosexuals I grant you, but it is not abnormal.

But it is. The message that person is sending out is one of intolerance towards something which wider society has said is normal. It sends out a poor message. The impact on the individual denied the cake, and the wider message to society - which in this case is basically trying to reinforce...

Coming soon. Legal protection to those that oppose the existence of black people. UKIP, the peoples' party (as long as you're prepared to overlook the fact that we're financed by rich white blokes and run by a career politician - alright, anyone for a pint ha ha ha ha!)

I am a Jedi. Will they be creating laws to protect me so that I may carry my light sabre?