Jump to content
Donations towards site upkeep will be thankfully received and faithfully applied....
Sign in to follow this  
Lord Punkape

Gay cake appeal

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Lord Punkape said:

Hee Hee... 🚁 🚁 🚁 

 

Fuck off.

Did the helicopter emoji come in an add-on pack for retards? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One hearing in hundreds goes the way of common sense, this hasnt't set the benchmark for us proper, red-blooded Englishmen to expect from those in higher places. 

Far from it, the army of the hard done by are drawing up carefully calculated plans to slip arse over tit on a banana skin in the high street, get the wheels of their mobility scooter jammed in an automatic door and build a dossier of it and slap it in front of a solicitor, legally aided of course, and off they scoot to the county court with a sporting chance of cleaning up.

The bent arseholes in the establishment - them a slice of cake or a poof pastry will not sway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Iam Ape said:

Did the helicopter emoji come in an add-on pack for retards? 

🛒🛒🛒🛒🛒🛒every little helps 🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ape asked:

50 minutes ago, Iam Ape said:

Did the helicopter emoji come in an add-on pack for retards? 

Pukeape replied:

1 minute ago, Lord Punkape said:

🛒🛒🛒🛒🛒🛒every little helps 🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁🚁

Ape’s question has been answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Punkape said:

I shall now find a gay cake shop and ask for Dachau to be created on top of the cake with figures in striped pyjamas and pink triangles being fed into an oven...

Fucking hell, is it rattys birthday already? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scotty said:

Fucking hell, is it rattys birthday already? 

 

1 hour ago, scotty said:

Fucking hell, is it rattys birthday already? 

November 9th coming up soon, the most important day in the Ratsfuhrer’s calendar. He runs his cattle truck train, full of Airfix plastic Jews up the Hornby single track to the model of Auschwitz hidden in his rock garden, a la Tracy Island. The he beats the plastic Jews with his little plastic horsewhip before burning the cunts.

The evening is spent watching “Triumph of the Will”, eating bratwurst in pumpernickel and downing bottle after bottle of Paulaner.

Marvellous day! I wouldn’t miss it for the world.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, judgetwi said:

 

November 9th coming up soon, the most important day in the Ratsfuhrer’s calendar. He runs his cattle truck train, full of Airfix plastic Jews up the Hornby single track to the model of Auschwitz hidden in his rock garden, a la Tracy Island. The he beats the plastic Jews with his little plastic horsewhip before burning the cunts.

The evening is spent watching “Triumph of the Will”, eating bratwurst in pumpernickel and downing bottle after bottle of Paulaner.

Marvellous day! I wouldn’t miss it for the world.

QKvQrFQZzvt3NObBTygYRXI-Y8EPq04JXSWl8Hfd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more things change the more they stay the same. This “triumph of common sense” will cause more problems than it solves because it purports to enshrine the idea that you cannot tell someone else what they should believe or think ....... (tumbleweed) ....... which is precisely what the ill starred race relations act was seen as doing all those years ago. It appears that the law wants the penny and the bun. Whilst all these decisions are doubtless made to address difficult issues and improve things overall, all I see is groups of dissident and mutinous “dyed in the wool”  bigots using this decision  to foment unpleasantness and strife to make their point and get their own way. I understand ( but don’t agree) why this man, supported by his chums, brought this action and am glad (in a way) that it failed. But now , someone has to try and explain exactly why the action was overturned and precisely how and why this applies in this case and why it is different from others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

The more things change the more they stay the same. This “triumph of common sense” will cause more problems than it solves because it purports to enshrine the idea that you cannot tell someone else what they should believe or think ....... (tumbleweed) ....... which is precisely what the ill starred race relations act was seen as doing all those years ago. It appears that the law wants the penny and the bun. Whilst all these decisions are doubtless made to address difficult issues and improve things overall, all I see is groups of dissident and mutinous “dyed in the wool”  bigots using this decision  to foment unpleasantness and strife to make their point and get their own way. I understand ( but don’t agree) why this man, supported by his chums, brought this action and am glad (in a way) that it failed. But now , someone has to try and explain exactly why the action was overturned and precisely how and why this applies in this case and why it is different from others.

My simpleton understanding of it is as follows.

The huns didn't want anything to do with bum banditry or any connotations therein. They declined a business transaction, that if they had accepted, would have implied they are not objecting to or are supportive of bum banditry. The supreme court has stated they have not acted illegally by adhering to their religious beliefs.

There was a similar case where a B&B owner declined the custom of a couple of botters. Not sure where it went or the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Beast said:

My simpleton understanding of it is as follows.

The huns didn't want anything to do with bum banditry or any connotations therein. They declined a business transaction, that if they had accepted, would have implied they are not objecting to or are supportive of bum banditry. The supreme court has stated they have not acted illegally by adhering to their religious beliefs.

There was a similar case where a B&B owner declined the custom of a couple of botters. Not sure where it went or the outcome.

I believe the said B&B owners lost their case for banning sausagers, had to pay compo and eventually sold up due to mounting legal costs and abuse from the bender community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 10:45 AM, Lord Punkape said:

The Christian owners of a Northern Ireland bakery have won their appeal in the so-called "gay cake" discrimination case. Hurrah !

The UK's highest court ruled that Ashers bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.

The five justices on the Supreme Court were unanimous in their judgement. 

The high-profile dispute began in 2014 when the bakery refused to make a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage".

The customer, gay rights activist Gareth Lee, sued the company for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and political beliefs.

Ashers lost the case and the subsequent appeal, but on Wednesday the firm won its appeal at the Supreme Court.

Christians 1 Buggers 0

lol.

I didn’t know they played football now the gays. Fuck me women will be playing it next. What’s the world coming to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cuntspotter said:

The more things change the more they stay the same. This “triumph of common sense” will cause more problems than it solves because it purports to enshrine the idea that you cannot tell someone else what they should believe or think ....... (tumbleweed) ....... which is precisely what the ill starred race relations act was seen as doing all those years ago. It appears that the law wants the penny and the bun. Whilst all these decisions are doubtless made to address difficult issues and improve things overall, all I see is groups of dissident and mutinous “dyed in the wool”  bigots using this decision  to foment unpleasantness and strife to make their point and get their own way. I understand ( but don’t agree) why this man, supported by his chums, brought this action and am glad (in a way) that it failed. But now , someone has to try and explain exactly why the action was overturned and precisely how and why this applies in this case and why it is different from others.

It seemed an intractable moral and legal dilemma to resolve. Which takes precedence, gay rights or religious freedom? The answer in this case is neither. The Supreme Court's resolution was brilliant in its simplicity. The bakers could not refuse to bake a cake for a customer who is gay (which they didn't). Instead the court focused on a fundamental common law principle in that no-one should be forced to promulgate or assist in promoting someone else's belief or opinion, that is, the message on the cake. The Supreme Court judges were unanimous in their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking cunt cakes the lot of em, if i went to a bakery and asked for a cake to be made with the slogan...Crack chavs heads wide open and watch their tiny brains fall out, with a claw hammer drippings with blood and skull (for decoration) and the cunts said no. I would say fine mate, your funeral and go somewhere else as there are plenty of bakeries.

 As i left, i would crack their skulls open with said hammer, nice doing business with you and fuck off on my merry way. No need for time and money wasting doing that.

But let's forget about that and remember this is a complete pile of modern society shit, you only have to look the wrong way now to be branded a racist, sexist, bigot or whatever some illogical nonsense that some half-wit butt screamer wants to throw at you...

Fuck off with this putrid sewage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

It seemed an intractable moral and legal dilemma to resolve. Which takes precedence, gay rights or religious freedom? The answer in this case is neither. The Supreme Court's resolution was brilliant in its simplicity. The bakers could not refuse to bake a cake for a customer who is gay (which they didn't). Instead the court focused on a fundamental common law principle in that no-one should be forced to promulgate or assist in promoting someone else's belief or opinion, that is, the message on the cake. The Supreme Court judges were unanimous in their decision.

Yes, to me, it is clear too. But it is apparent from the welter of spiteful and jeering postings on social media/fora all around T’interweb that  there is a general lack of understanding of the bases on which this ruling was made. Hardly surprising in some ways as many people are only motivated by their dislike/disapproval of others and have little or no restraint or inhibition about expressing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cuntspotter said:

Yes, to me, it is clear too. But it is apparent from the welter of spiteful and jeering postings on social media/fora all around T’interweb that  there is a general lack of understanding of the bases on which this ruling was made. Hardly surprising in some ways as many people are only motivated by their dislike/disapproval of others and have little or no restraint or inhibition about expressing it.

Spotto, I worry you may be losing your sense of humour.  Never lose your laugh, mate, it's vital.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wizardsleeve said:

Spotto, I worry you may be losing your sense of humour.  Never lose your laugh, mate, it's vital.  

Sound advice Wizza. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuntspotter said:

Yes, to me, it is clear too. But it is apparent from the welter of spiteful and jeering postings on social media/fora all around T’interweb that  there is a general lack of understanding of the bases on which this ruling was made. Hardly surprising in some ways as many people are only motivated by their dislike/disapproval of others and have little or no restraint or inhibition about expressing it.

Less botting, more chuffing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

Less botting, more chuffing. 

One of the less popular slogan suggestions for Jimmy Savile's British Rail campaign.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lord Punkape said:
9 hours ago, Eric Cuntman said:

One of the less popular slogan suggestions for Jimmy Savile's British Rail campaign.

Speak up punkers, we can't hear you at the back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scotty said:

Speak up punkers, we can't hear you at the back. 

I expect he was attempting to report the post, but was entered by Mtembe just as he was about to type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Iam Ape said:

I expect he was attempting to report the post, but was entered by Mtembe just as he was about to type.

I did regret my reference to "at the back", dapps. Could be misconstrued. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 20 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×