No Irish no dogs no outspoken people :nono:

No white men who are straight as they have not suffered in life

:nono:

My point was indeed biological women are now having to prove they are biological women, all in the name of keeping biological women, which makes zero sense.

Women having to show men they have breasts to keep themselves safe from men because they don't fit societies version of what a woman should look like all because of societies obsession with a group of people who make up 1% of the population is bizarre and ugly.

I get what you're saying, but it also puts me in the position to also look at the situation more logically and fairly compared to anyone that is personally involved in this debate.

That's just my belief anyway.

And I do support Misandrists having the right to spew their crap too, because I then exercise my right to humble the idiots on places like YouTube and Twitter.

Imo it's a healthier society than trying to silence people (which is ultimately what happens,) and then they end up going more extreme against the group that they don't like by the end of the process.

To go off-topic, I feel like we have a lot of messed up people with really messed up views because society is broken, and we can never have healthy exchanges with people who hold these views and hopefully try and pull them back from the dark mindset that they have gotten themselves into, because "punishments" will be handed out to the person.

We're going to keep having our society be broken if people can't air out their opinions, no matter how controversial or wrong these opinions are.

Tbf, I understand BBXX's point to some extent.

Freedom of speech/censorship arguments are stuff that I'm incredibly passionate about though because it affects everyone, regardless of the topic.

I don't want us to really have anything politically in common with countries like China, who love to execute "consequences for using speech" quite often in their country.

The poor Dogs.:bawling::laugh:

do you think that people showed this type of "freedom" to the baker who refused to bake the "gay" cake?

I'm going to use the same point that I have said to BBXX about Nigel Farage.

If the customer isn't breaking any rules within the establishment then you serve them, I don't support refusing to serve people for petty reasons in this particular case.

I would say to an extent yes, but you also lack the experience and personal risk involved.

That's not to say you can't have an opinion on those things, but you have to understand when your rights are never, have never and will never been truly under treat it's extremely easy to say things like 'it's a slippery slope'.

A slippery slope towards authoritarianism and a slippery slope towards allowing people in power to embolden hatred towards minorities are both bad things, but you are mainly bothered by the first one because it will affect you while the second one doesn't.

I don't mean to say you are FOR hatred towards minorities, but you are underestimating how much confidence the words of people in power give to those who need an excuse to be hateful and discriminatory.

Forcing a gay private business owner to serve someone who is instrumental is promoting hate, even though legal, is quite gross.

If someone doesn't want to make a wedding cake for gay wedding because they're against gay marriage I don't believe they should be forced to.

Would I kick up a fuss and demand to be served? No. Would I protest or try and sue them? No. Would I ensure my friends knew they refused service because I was gay? Hell yah. :laugh:

I can see that view, yes

That's fair enough.

Tbf it's one of those topics where I think that it's incredibly hard to please everyone.

And I freely admit that I am very anti-Authoritarian policies in general, even if they're banning or punishing things that I personally don't like either (including things like Homophobia and racism etc,) I've never really understood why anyone would be disliked based on their sexuality or race, as a grown adult anyway.

Fair play for keeping a consistent viewpoint I guess.:laugh:

I do personally disagree with you on the worker refusing the customer's order based on his or her prejudice though.

I do feel like the worker should do their job.

Now I think that's a different conversation altogether.

As a business owner, I set the standards of who our customers are and the service we provide. If I ran a printing business and someone wanted me to print pro-Farage signs I would refuse their custom.

If I was FINE with printing Farage signs but someone I employed refused, there is a difference.

I'm talking about business owners deciding what they do with their own business, rather than employees deciding what to do with someone else's business based off their own opinions. I think that's a far more complex situation but one that ultimately doesn't have a black and white answer.

As someone who is an employee, if a client was to say some pretty anti-gay stuff to me not realising I was gay, and then wanted me to provide them with the services we offer, I would open up a discussion with my directors about perhaps moving them to a different team member to work with.

If I was made to service them I would, because that's what I'm paid for. But would I probably also look for another job? Yah, because the idea of my lifestyle being attacked meaning little to the people I would for is a fundamental clash of principles and isn't good for long-term partnership.

NICOLA Sturgeon has said she does not agree with Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes being banned from a major venue at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

The former SNP leader told reporters in Edinburgh that she disagreed with cancel culture.

It comes amid a row over the Summerhall venue’s decision not to have Forbes back at any future events following a fringe show organised by The Herald.

The venue has reportedly suggested that John Swinney’s deputy posed a safety and wellbeing risk to its staff over her views on trans rights.

Forbes is a devout Christian and a member of the socially conservative Free Church of Scotland.

She was criticised during her SNP leadership battle for her stance on gay marriage, abortion and trans rights.

Sturgeon, who appointed Forbes as finance secretary while she was first minister, was asked whether she agreed with Summerhall’s decision.


“I don’t agree with cancel culture and I don’t agree with that,” she said.

She added that she took no responsibility for the venue’s decision.

Summerhall, which has received more £600,000 in government funding, previously held Herald Unspun live events with Swinney and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, the latter of whom has U-turned over his stance on gender self-ID.

Forbes expressed disappointment at the venue and said she “fervently” believes in freedom of speech.

“Any effort to cancel people, especially politicians, undermines democracy,” she said.

“Many people attended the Herald event and it is important that we could freely discuss and debate matters in a respectful manner.

“I respect and acknowledge the fact that, in a liberal democracy, there are people who will agree with me and others who will disagree with me.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nicola-stu...072340101.html


At least you know where you stand with Kate Forbes, unlike some politicians who chop and change depending on what they think the public want to hear

The stage is for art, not for platforming prejudice.

“Any effort to cancel people, especially politicians, undermines democracy,” she said."

Very telling!

Fair enough.