The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's like you're answering completely different comments to the ones you're quoting.
You literally said the same words as me and yet you think you're disagreeing, for some reason. Weird.

Is that really what I think? How fascinating.
 
I'm not struggling at all. Watching you flounder is a piece of piss. <ok>
You can't grasp the issue at all, which is why you can't answer basic questions and keeping flying off on tangents.
It's pretty typical for you, unfortunately, much like your call for peace, just before you start insulting everyone.
 
You can't grasp the issue at all, which is why you can't answer basic questions and keeping flying off on tangents.
It's pretty typical for you, unfortunately, much like your call for peace, just before you start insulting everyone.

What, like the Ku Klux Klan hotel chain? :emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
And when did I say such a thing existed?
Yet another attempt to go off on a tangent and claim something that nobody's said. There's a shock.

Right, so you want a discussion about non-existent hotel chains, to shift the topic from the young lass in the wrong job. Because you DID say about them, despite you now trying to deny it.
 
Did I say I disagreed? Or was it more about the emphasis given the earlier conversation?
It can't have been emphasis, as you quoted me saying the exact same thing.
The earlier conversation wasn't about sex (gender) either, so it definitely wasn't that.
 
It can't have been emphasis, as you quoted me saying the exact same thing.
The earlier conversation wasn't about sex (gender) either, so it definitely wasn't that.

So single sex groups isn't about sex or gender. Righty ho. As long as it's clear where you're trying to head. :emoticon-0105-wink:
 
Right, so you want a discussion about non-existent hotel chains, to shift the topic from the young lass in the wrong job. Because you DID say about them, despite you now trying to deny it.
When did I say that I wanted a conversation about hotel chains, existent or not?

The conversation wasn't about the woman being in the wrong or right job, either.
Nobody agreed with her stance, based upon her religious beliefs.
It was about the difference between what she was doing and what the Christian B&B couple did.
 
So single sex groups isn't about sex or gender. Righty ho. As long as it's clear where you're trying to head. :emoticon-0105-wink:
No, it's not about gender. It's about sexuality. The B&B couple explicitly stated that's why they blocked the gay couple.
 
When did I say that I wanted a conversation about hotel chains, existent or not?

The conversation wasn't about the woman being in the wrong or right job, either.
Nobody agreed with her stance, based upon her religious beliefs.
It was about the difference between what she was doing and what the Christian B&B couple did.

You mentioned black people being refused a hotel room on religious grounds, and gave the KKK as an example. Have you forgotten already, or are you hoping everyone else won't notice?
 
No, it's not about gender. It's about sexuality. The B&B couple explicitly stated that's why they blocked the gay couple.

It was a response to you saying it was against the law to refuse people of the same sex.
 
You mentioned black people being refused a hotel room on religious grounds, and gave the KKK as an example. Have you forgotten already, or are you hoping everyone else won't notice?
I asked if you'd be ok with black people being refused service based upon the religion of the business owners.
You asked for an example of a religion that discriminated against black people and I offered two.
I didn't suggest that either ran hotel chains in England. That's just another one of your deflections, unsurprisingly.
 
I asked if you'd be ok with black people being refused service based upon the religion of the business owners.
You asked for an example of a religion that discriminated against black people and I offered two.
I didn't suggest that either ran hotel chains in England. That's just another one of your deflections, unsurprisingly.

The deflection is all yours. You couldn't offer anything valid to elaborate on your ridiculous claim.
 
I asked if you'd be ok with black people being refused service based upon the religion of the business owners.
You asked for an example of a religion that discriminated against black people and I offered two.
I didn't suggest that either ran hotel chains in England. That's just another one of your deflections, unsurprisingly.

So why mention something that has nothing to do with the UK, you have hotels in the ME that only accept Muslims, in fact you cant enter Mecca unless you are one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.