hypochondriac

Indeed they do and fantastic workers they are too. The fact their numbers are low isn't due to some matriarchal conspiracy though, men and women on average just make different choices partly due to culture but mostly due to differences in the sexes.

I won't be happy until they solve the gender representation gap on oil rigs and the shocking lack of females who work as bin men ffs.

Maybe they didn't want a promotion? Maybe they preferred a good work life balance? Maybe they didn't work as hard? Maybe they just weren't particularly good at their job? Or you know maybe it's just racism.

That would surprise me tbf. I expect the likes of June Sarpong would have to pay to be on it.

If you can pay black people less then why would you not just hire a team of black people and save a load of money?

In all seriousness though, presumably the BBC wants to give different perspectives but why would you invite complete thickies on like George the poet, David lammy or June Sarpong? There's a ton of intelligent and articulate black people from all different political persuasions. If you have to choose guests using a racial quota- preferably you wouldn't but then this is the BBC- then for goodness sake choose some better ones.

Ticks a diversity box though.

I would say it's a bit premature to call it a blow to "me too". The bigger blow to that is how leniently Asia Argento has been treated despite being a predator purely because she is female.

Ha good point. In all seriousness though, aintforever seems to be supporting baking a cake arguing a pro paedophile position. My question would be is there any limit in his view to something that shouldn't be baked on a cake?

Probably best to discuss Donald trump things on the Donald trump thread. This is the gay cake thread.

Because the victory being celebrated is nothing to do with homophobic nutjobs.

What about one that called for far left antifa violence?

What if someone wanted to bake a cake that called for a change in the law to allow adults to sleep with children? Do you think they should just respect the fact that people have different views and bake the cake then? Of course homosexuality and paedophilia are not the same thing but the point being made is the same.

We will have to fundamentally disagree with this one then. I don't believe anyone should be forced to support a cause they disagree with and thankfully the high court recognised this as well. Not baking the cake isn't denying someone the right to think differently. The rights and wrongs of Christianity and religion in general are an irrelevance to the case.

How have they alienated anyone? The bakers have served the customers before this cake and said they were happy to serve them again in the future for other cakes. Presumably you would feel the same way about someone baking a cake supporting sharia law in the UK? Or forcing someone to say they support the death penalty if they oppose it? The potential homophobic views of a Christian couple are irrelevant to the case and as stated earlier, it appears that even renowned gay rights activist Peter tatchell supports this decision because it isn't about gay people.

Yep and he's a buffoon as I've already said. Both sides screaming at each other is idiocy which is basically what is happening.

Because the point of equality law is to protect people from discrimination, not to force individuals to promote ideas they disagree with. That was the point of the case and it should be celebrated regardless of if you support the message on the cake or not. I'm glad common sense has prevailed over regressive views like yours.

That's good to know. It seems like quite a few people are supporting this from a number of different political positions which is really encouraging and surprising.

Not sure. I think it was by chance after a few days the owners contacted them to say they wouldn't be baking it.

What we need is the revival or SISA and Richard chorley. No doubt about it.

Yep. The people buying the cake wasn't the issue, it was the content on the cake they had a problem with.

Not allowed to hold that opinion mate. He's clearly the worst person who has ever walked the Earth and America will surely be in flames by the end of his presidency.

So you can't envisage any scenario where a woman would be happy for someone to engage in sexual acts like the ones described? He may well have been guilty of sexual assault, my only contention was that that bragging statement alone isn't proof of that. The fact you're trying to equate that statement with someone who has clearly raped and assaulted scores of women tells its own story. Tell me again how a bragging statement spoken in private about women letting you touch them sexually is comparable to a flimsy defence formulated after dozens of female victims have come forward speaking of horrifying stories of rape. But as you say its basically identical.

Soggy was absolutely desperate for me to comment on that alt right thread he created. He's clearly crushed that I saw through him and didn't bother.

I'm not liable to collapse into hysterics about him if that's what you mean. It's quite normal for the usual posters to write things like "speaks volumes" because I don't think Trump is literally Hitler. He's not someone I'd ever want to meet and he's an arrogant a*sehole with terrible rhetoric but he's not lucifer in human form as some like to make out. As I already said, he will likely be hugely weakened after the mid terms and will most likely lose after one term anyway.