Ah Dick Dastartly and Mutley. Nice of you to turn up together

Rather sneering remarks from Stonewall in the article. The appeal was always going to fail.

Agreed. It is a middle path that allows the two different lifestyles to co-exist.

This is the point really...and a good quote to end any other arguments

There's no need for a middle path. If you don't want to drink coffee or have bum sex don't do it, no one's saying you have to.

BBC News
The case in the Supreme Court is only the latest by British courts in which Christians have pitted their right to behave in accordance with their religious beliefs against the right of other people not to face discrimination and lost.

Defeat in court has been compounded in some cases by the remarks of senior judges, making clear that their job is no longer to enforce morality, and that religious beliefs will not be given more weight than secular values.

The Bulls had argued that what they claimed was only indirect discrimination against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy was justified in law by their rights to "manifest their religion" under the European Convention on Human Rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed.

It makes their case another milestone in the waning influence of Christian teaching in British society and its laws, although the exact nature of that teaching is increasingly contested as many Christians reinterpret traditional beliefs in the light of contemporary experience.

This is from the bbc and is a good summary and it boils down to religious convictions vs discrimination in society

I had termed it 'individual vs collective' rights. In other words what the state considers to be 'the greater good'. In this event, predictably, religion lost out

My point, playing devil's advocate, has always been that this was not all that clear cut, that it was not about being anti-homosexual, as most posters on this thread would infer, BUT that there are two sides to the story

And as has been pointed out, the appeal was doomed from the start.

Religion should always lose out. A "religious conviction" that requires that anyone other than the person holding the conviction do, or not do, anything is just an excuse for bullying.

That is another opinion, and may be as valid as others, or not.

I wanted to show on this thread that there are two sides to the story, as opposed to discussing whether it was blatant discrimination which, from society's point of view, it clearly is.

It is an opinion and in rational terms it is more valid than the alternative. If my religion demands that people not ride bicycles and members of my religion gain power then bicycling will be stamped out because I, as the prophet of my religion, turned against bicycles. The bicyclists inconvenienced can only defend themselves with rationality; they were doing no harm, they don't subscribe to the religion, their bicycling should not be any of my business.

Gays, bicyclists, women, religions choose their targets whimsically. Their positions can only be justified by reference to non-existent authorities.

There isn't "two sides to the story". The story is about society's point of view (one side) and only that. The religious couple's preferences, rationale, POV are irrelevant. What are the "two sides" you are banging on about?

The bolded bit is a reminder of the vacuousness of religious texts. This is something adherents will not admit to. Their books were written 2000 years ago (well, with Mormons it was about a 100 years ago) and, wouldn't you know, they start to show their datedness and irrelevance. For the followers, instead of admitting it's all a big fiction, they re-interpret what were previously divine edicts to suit their own needs. Talk about moving the goalposts! At least the Muslims have the integrity to not question their religious texts (their are disincentives in doing otherwise!) and in that sense are consistent.

Their license can just be revoked, with a caveat put in by the city as to what running that sort of business requires in order to get a license.

See if they still want to run the business then....

It will be akin to having grocery stores have disable parking spots close to the entrance in numbers that don't even get used at any one time...yes we've all seen those.

I think it's worth mentioning that not all Christians think homosexuality is a sin. We have very good friends who are gay, male, married and Christian. They practise the good bits of Christianity, tolerance, understanding, charity, kindness, compassion. How do those practices get overlooked by the Bible thumpers?

The good bits of christianity, like the good bits of all Beliefs and Religous thoughts,
Their books a n d Bibles, do quote, you get there by accepting that certain acts, are
not to be tolerated or cordoned...10 commandments for example.
So to their credit the so called Bible thumpers do try and keep to "their faith"
Something that I find strange...though I am an agnostic,
If you are a believer in a particular faith and its teachings,
then ...so shouldnt non believers
Be able to see that ALL is entwined in politics, land law, and everyday life, there is no
Seperation...in fact Christian based countries, their laws are sworn in by...
""""In God we trust"""" or swearing on the Bible.
As Societies, we still havent got it right....hey before somebody jumps down my throat
I aint preaching, just threw some thought into the ring.
My faith...is the NATURE, Budhist ways, without bowing to Buddah,
Islam ways, without bowing to mohammed, christianity, without bowing to christ,
Sikism, without, following a guru, Hinduism without bowing to its deities,
And I allow myself in times of stress or frustration to shout out "oh God"
In gay relationships we have come far relevant to acceptance tolerance and law,
But think this...if we were all homosexual...human life wo u ldnt go on,
But I would jump in a trench to fight their rights

Are you a human or some kind of chat-bot ?