The comparison was inane and lacking in any reality. No business has any legal right to refuse business on the basis of their chosen beliefs, if it is a rightfully protected characteristic. We do legislate for equality, what are the equality laws about in your mind? ISIS are proscribed, so I wish her good luck with that bit of stupidity. I would doubt she even understands what that means. I assume she knows nothing about hate law etc. and protected characteristics which prevent the crap she was inferring by her illegal and disgraceful comparison. No-one can demand any old depiction on a cake! If she doesn't agree with this judgement and wants religion to ursurp the law, I wish her good luck with that, but that would mean all religions. There's a worrying thought to ponder. How far back in history does she want to drag everyone? Pointless thought as it's all above her head. Everything she said was factually wrong and all she did was spout nonsensical sensationalist clap trap. There is nothing new in this case, no precedent set and nothing sinister. The existing laws were upheld, which this supposed and post the event, "Christian" baker (whatever that's supposed to mean) broke in spectacular fashion. Shooting himself in the foot in the media and months later sticking a Biblical Jewish reference to their company name on his website for good but ineffective measure. He's a fundamentalist homophobic bigot. I think they wanted to try to change the existing laws, probably hoping to establish a new conscience clause, with the full financial backing of the evangelical Christian Institute. That is their agenda. They're just about equal to the Westboro Baptists in attitude. Homosexuals are not asking for anything other than the equal rights afforded to the rest of society.
As for JSP, completely lost in la la land. Obviously even less research from her, if that's possible. She hadn't the first clue what any of this was about and got it all spectacularly wrong.
The whole thing was false, irresponsible broadcasting and why should they be allowed to do that? Is the minimum of research not required of any of them? They're just allowed to spout ignorant nonsense to the viewing public.

ok she has killed someone with her words, there are alot more worse things in this world,than what she said.

This sounds like TiBB :conf2:

Get rid of the middle aged hags trying to force their opinions about.

Yea get rid, dusty muffed old woman moaning on they give me nose bleeds x

I wonder how many people commenting in this thread actually watched the show where she made the comments as opposed to the sensationalist headlines and drivel spouted by newspapers? :hee:

Bang On Right Marsh

I watched the segment and I've also followed the case closely.

But they say they are Good at Sex still?

Not necessarily, it should just pay women with a bit of sense and experience with social/political issues instead of tired old hags with a music career decades ago.