West Ham Online

"There is a very good section on GB news where the ludicrous idiocies of Wokeness are looked at I thought we would should have one for WHO. I'll start with Baptiste on BBC: In Hungary,an ambassador's family are kidnapped by Islamic terrorists and carry out atrocities. At the end of the last episode Baptiste finds out that it is a false flag operation and conveniently, the real culprits are white supremacists who want to stop all immigration. Coronation Street ITV a gay black footballer is stopped by the police, because he is driving an expensive car. He is pushed to the ground during an altercation, and damages his leg threatening his career. Could have been written by Dawn Butler or a BLM activist."

For the record - that was not me chipping away at Gill the paedophile's statue outside broadcasting house today. It was probably BLM or stinky rebellion.

Don't want no kapusta sandłycz - want kajk from mimmler's Jesuit Handlers.

Hammer and Pickle 10:14 Thu Jan 6 ok at bench you bring wodka i bring cabbige sandwijj

Sub-Saharan militant Christians bajk kajks and intymidajt homo aktywysta? Tell me more!

"Mad Dog, you can refuse service to whoever you want and you do not have to give an explanation. However, if a customer could prove that the refusal was motivated by your ""protected characteristic"" eg sex, race, religion, sexual orientation etc then it is unlawful whether or not you've got any disclaimer displayed. Of course whether you could prove it is another matter."

"Hammer and Pickle 9:54 Thu Jan 6 Re: Woke watch Oh yeah? What manner of ""militant Christians"" do these nasty bullies who want to have a cake baked not pick on? is arnser ""sub saharan militant Christians""?"

"Hammer and Pickle 9:54 Thu Jan 6 Re: Woke watch Oh yeah? What manner of ""militant Christians"" do these nasty bullies who want to have a cake baked not pick on? is arnser ""sub saharan militant Christians""?"

"The best bit of this story is that the Equality Commission picked up this prick's legal bill of over £250,000. That is our taxpayer's money used to fund yet another legal misadventure."

Can you read?

"They didn't want to have a cake baked, they wanted attention, so they picked on an easy target."

"Oh yeah? What manner of ""militant Christians"" do these nasty bullies who want to have a cake baked not pick on?"

"Mad Dog 5:14 Thu Jan 6 They never try this sort of stunt with Muslims, only Christians. And never the proper militant sort of Christians either. It's just a very pathetic type of bullying, if we're being honest."

I thought management reserves the right to refuse service without even giving a reason in many cases. This was my understanding. I however don't work I retail and have not bothered to obtain a law qualification. I could well be wrong.

"Mad Dog Noone has the legal right to refuse service based on 9 legally protected characteristics. You can say ""I won't serve you because you're black/gay/a woman etc"". Having a disclaimer is legally meaningless in that context. You can't opt out of the law. But then in this case they refused to ice a cake with a, message expressing a belief they disagreed with and not because of who was asking them to make the cake. And you can't be forced to express a belief that you disagree with in law. Hence them clearly not breaking the law in this case."

"Err... possibly because of the subject matter? ""Bent on"" actually sounds even funnier in isolation."

"Yes Robson. I used “bent on”, which is a verb, while you seem for some reason to be fixated with the adjective. One tends to wonder why."

guess that makes two of us then.

"That was @Robson Not you goose. You're not funny. Well, not intentionally."

lol

Imagine throwing such a hissy fit over a bloody cake.

"Ha ha you said ""bent"""

"Has the ECHR thrown out the case because the British courts have not had the opportunity to rule? Oh dear oh dear, I do wish this international court would make up its mind on whether it is a nasty liberal conspiracy full of hostile aliens bent on undermining national sovereignty and persecuting uptight homophobic Catholic bakers or not."

Just another “ look at me” member of the gay mafia trying to destroy the lives of decent hard working people who happen to disagree with gay marriages.

They refused to make the cake because of the subject matter of the cake. They didn't refuse to serve the customers because they were gay. If a straight person had requested the same cake the refusal would have been the same.

My issues with the bakery case are 1) surely management has the right to refuse a service for any reason. Whether I or you agree with it or not. Most places have that disclaimer. If they don't then they're idiots. 2) my limited understanding of this case is that the bakers were Catholic and this goes against their beliefs. I wonder if the couple had tried to get this cake made by any bakers of any other religious beliefs and it were turned down it would have such uproar.