Christian Family face possible legal action

J in the real world as well as on GN there are lots of strands to discussions.
My questions to petra continued along one of those strands - out of curiosity and in no way aggressive, so hardly deserving of accusations of gestapo treatment.
You frequently accuse posters of unpleasantness and aggression but a quick trawl through many, many GN threads indicates that you don't hold back when it comes to being very assertive.
If you look hard enough you'll find something to complain about ( you usually do) so why not let petra decide for herself if she feels a) picked on, or b) perfectly able to answer a question if she so chooses.
I have a genuine interest in this thread and frankly have had enough of your dismissive comments.

mcem, thank you.

"a quick trawl through many, many Gransnet threads"!

Enjoy, if you're that bored.

Thanks, Jings. I was going to give an example of this in my own family. But I won't bother. It could drag on and on.

You've really been going through loads of old threads checking me out?!

Unbelievable.

Always the usual suspects.

Please don't worry about my boredom threshold. No need to waste time tracking your vitriol. Having been around since day 1, I am only too well aware of the abundance of your consistently petulant or aggressive contributions. Perhaps I'm not alone in that although I'm wondering who are being accused of being 'the usual subjects'.
Maybe you mean anyone who doesn't agree with you. So be it. I can live with that.

It's a pity that petra felt unable to post on her own behalf as I was genuinely interested in what she might have said. I feel it would have been more enlightened than your standard short-tempered posts.

Once someone uses the phrase 'usual suspects' you know they've lost the argument.

I can't help but wonder however what circles some posters move in where they regularly come across gay people being used as fashion accessories.

I have actually come across one or two people who seemed to be just lying in wait for the next bandwagon to come along so they could leap on it, e.g. claiming that some of their best friends were gay/black/disabled or whatever issue was causing controversy in the media at the time.

One of them was an old school friend, and I know her claims were tenuous to say the least.

jinglbellsfrocks--the gay uncle theory may sound far fetched to you, but it is a well accepted theory. Go and look it up. Sorry if it does not fit in with the way you see the world, but I expect a lot of things do not fit. And modern day nutrition etc has nothing to do with why post menopausal live past thier child bearing days. Many woman, once safely past the terrors of child birth, lived long lives. Nothing to do with better health, everything to do with evolution. Also nothing to do you liking the theory or not!!!!

And could someone please tell me who has a gay friend as a fashion accessory?? Really rude!

Surely, if someone regards any other person of whatever sexuality – gay man or much younger trophy blonde – as a fashion accessory, this does not constitute friendship.

Well I am delighted to say that I have never never ever known anyone who would behave as the 'one or two people' you have come across Ana. But even if I had had that misfortune, what on earth does that prove in the context of this discussion?

Vitriol?

Yes. Bandwaggoning. That's exactly what it is.

ohdear, it's a theory.

I wasn't setting out to 'prove' anything, GrannyTwice.

Just because you've never come across that type of person doesn't mean they don't exist.

I havent got time to read all the posts from today.
But I see my name mentioned by Ohdear. 14.55 First paragraph.
If the law has changed, then businesses of all the faiths will have to decided how they proceed. Some if not many would close.

4th paragraph. No one can be forced into a faith.
The law takes care of certain things. I think that answers that part.

There are thousands and thousands of businesses owned by people of many faiths.
They always have the choice to close their businesses.

ohdear re your 'theory', wouldn't 'nature' have simply created these nursemaid creatures with very low sex drives? Less convoluted than creating them to be homosexuals, I would have thought.

Or even no sex drives at all.

Before opening this thread I noticed that it had reached 444 posts. Do you think it will go on long enough to reach 666?

absent but it has now been devalued to 616 , not nearly as dramatic.

That's very interesting, Elegran, particularly the part about Revelation actually being a thinly disguised political tract. They were at it even in those days...

As a generally left-leaning non-believer it's not often that I find myself on the side of a fundamentalist Northern Irish protestant!

Obviously the judge knows the law better than I do but still think that they didn't discriminate against a gay customer - refusing to add a slogan that you don't agree with is/should not be against the law IMO.

Kosher/Halal butchers are rightly not expected to provide pork products to Christians - one could argue that if you operate a meat business in the high street then you should offer pork or you're discriminating against a large section of the population who are being denied an everyday product.

The words kosher and halal describe those meat sellers as meat sellers who don't sell pork. A bakery that advertises itself as producing decorated cakes and cakes with words iced onto them is not the same at all. It has not specified certain words or phrases it won't do so customers are entitled to expect it to do whatever is required.

I wonder if the baker could redefine himself in some way to provide a get out?