The problem is, if you date someone in the public arena and you cheat on them you are going to be called out on your shiz in front of 1 million people.
(C) TODRICK HALL / INSTAGRAM
Todrick Hall is on the warpath after calling out a cheating ex-bf on Instagram and a million people just saw it. But to be fair, judging by Todrick’s note the ex, sounds like a right cock.
Taking to Instagram stories the star wrote, “Sh*t is about to get real,” before adding a seven-point note for any possible future partners.
It read:
Now accepting applications for role of boyfriend:
Must be able to maturely express themselves and not hold in their feelings and assume that I know how they feel because that’s how 9-year-olds act.
Must not come on tour with me, meet other guys, start sleeping with them and give comp tickets to my show particularly on days when I’m burying my relatives.
Must not lie to me about what they’re doing when they’re sleeping with me when they’re new secret fling isn’t around.
Must mention to me that they have “boyfriend” after hanging only out with them for a week before engaging in intimate activities with me again.
Must not allow me to fly them all over the world so that they can do jobs and make money while sneaking away multiple times to go “not hang out with their ex” while he’s conveniently in town and then crawl back into the house looking shady and guilty as fuck at 6 AM.
Must not have the audacity to question what I’m doing and who I’m doing it with when they are a manipulative, lying immature, asshole.
Must not ever underestimate me.
Wow.
Then speaking directly to his ex-bf Todrick said,
“I blocked you already, but I’m sure you’ll find some way to see this, I just want to let you know that you are shady boots. You used me, made me feel like shit. Allowed me to fly you all over the world and then snuck out to see your ex on my dime. I did everything I could to be honest with you since day one and I will not ever apologise for getting massages and going on dates with guys when I’m single have been waiting for your sketchy ass to wake up and realise that you have made a huge mistake. I’m done talking to you and dealing with people who want to date me but don’t the time or willingness to earn my trust”.
Damn.
Then he gave the ex a stark warning, saying “give me one reason, ONE REASON and I will annihilate you. I have zero skeletons in my closet but you’ve got a lot in yours”.
The law concerning same-sex marriage and divorce in England and Wales still isn’t equal as statistics show same-sex divorce is on the rise.
CREDIT: dolgachov bigstock
Same-sex marriage may only have been legal for four years but divorces have taken a sharp increase, according to a new report from the Office of National Statistics released this month. James Perrett dives into the data and chats to three law firms to find out what we know so far.
There’s a little-documented fact about divorce that may come as a surprise to the LGBTQ+ community. Despite same-sex marriages being introduced into law in England and Wales in 2014, adultery cannot be used as grounds for divorce of a same-sex couple because the law defines adultery as “sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex.”
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) shows the number of divorces between same-sex couples in England and Wales last year was 338, more than three times the number in 2016 which was 112.
“Adultery” doesn’t legally count for same-sex divorce
Unreasonable behaviour was the most common reason that same-sex couples gave for divorcing, accounting for 83% of divorces among women and 73% among men. But how many of those divorces cited unreasonable behaviour because adultery was not an option?
Helen Habershon, senior associate at Barlow Robbins in Woking, told me it may not be that simple.
“A key fault in the system is that not only can you not petition for your own adultery, you also have to get the person who committed adultery to admit it.
“They don’t have to name who the other person is, but they do have to admit it on the form that the court sends them.
“Many times, if there’s any worry or risk that the other person won’t admit the adultery, I always advise that they proceed on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.
“So, although in a same-sex marriage they can’t use adultery as a reason, I’m not sure how significant that actually is.
“Because of everything that has to go with adultery, you’re invariably in some way or another going to submit an unreasonable behaviour petition.”
But she added: “It is ridiculous that it’s limited to what the law says, in that it must be intercourse with the opposite sex, because it’s still the affair, the lack of intimacy, the breach of trust.”
When you petition for divorce, you’re required to prove your marriage has suffered an irretrievable breakdown and then give one of the following reasons: adultery (in heterosexual marriages); unreasonable behaviour; desertion; separation of two years without consent or separation of five years, for which no consent is required. You also have to have been married for more than one year before petitioning for divorce.
According to the ONS statistics, the average (median) number of years of a same-sex marriage before divorce in 2017 was 3.5 years for men and 2.8 years for women.
“It could be that some people have been together a long time and they get married so that they can have children.” Helen suggested. “Things like IVF and adoption can put a strain on a relationship.”
“Law is based on 1973 legislation”
But for Zahra Pabani, partner and family law expert at Shakespeare Martineau, the current law isn’t just discriminatory to same-sex relationships.
“I would say it’s as frustrating for heterosexual couples as it is for homosexual couples,” she said. “Our law is based on 1973 legislation, it has not moved with the times for same-sex or opposite-sex couples.
“It’s frustrating for everybody, not just the gay community – maybe more so because they can never claim for adultery but it’s frustrating for everybody.”
She added that the high numbers for same-sex divorce may be down to the excitement around the law finally coming to pass, after many years of hard campaigning.
“Everybody got terribly excited that they could get married,” she said. “So I think sometimes the relationship might not have been great but you try to salvage it by getting married.
“I see that in opposite-sex couples who have been living together for a really long time then try to refresh the relationship by getting married and the relationship breaks down quickly. It doesn’t matter what sexual orientation you are, lots of people do that.
“There was a flurry of gay marriage but it wasn’t always for the right reasons, not because they’re gay; everybody does it.”
Where the law is discriminatory, she argues, is when it comes to single people trying to become a parent.
“It’s much harder to apply for a parental order if you’re single, gay or straight,” she said. “As a woman, you could try to get yourself pregnant but if you’re a man and you do it by getting a friend pregnant it’s much, much harder for you because the law will always favour the person carrying the child.
“Even harder if you were a gay woman who couldn’t carry a baby so you used a surrogate, because you’re not the person carrying it.”
Zahra is a Resolution lawyer, part of a body that advocates a non-confrontational approach to divorce, and said people petitioning for divorce should first try to reach a settlement out-of-court, either directly through their partner, or through a good solicitor.
*Divorce statistics from ONS are derived from information recorded by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service during the divorce process
A bonkers performance by the cast of Told by an Idiot and the Birmingham Rep. I am not sure how to describe this show, other than trippy?
It was a historical, educational, thought-provoking play through deranged comedy and insane multi-part playing, with hallucinogenic elements.
Turns out that LSD is the least dangerous form of abuse with alcohol being number 1, so you can imagine that this performance was a socialist fete where politics around drugs took a lead role. The constant changing of characters with accents and costumes was formidable, a very dextrous cast. Especially, Jack Hunter who must have spoken with the greatest number of accents, that I was not sure what Jack’s native accent was. George Potts was insanely brilliant, with effervescent energy with speech, movement and action – playing Doctor Who was genius, and that was when this show really picked up. Even though I am not a Doctor Who fan, it was great to see the portrayal by George. Annie Fitzmaurice played the author Leo Butler with such relish that when she spoke it was just comedy gold. My favourite line was: “If tripping off your tits is a sin, let him cast the first stone.”
Sophie Mercell did a great job at playing Dr Hoffman the creator of LSD, who happened to come about it by accident. Her Helen Mirren impersonation was outstanding too.
What was really fresh about this production was the gender-neutral casting, almost intentionally the opposite – dad was played by a female actor and mother played by male actor, and so on. It was great to delve deep into your imagination to see this as a possibility and it was a great achievement.
I’ve never done hard drugs, but this was a very good sell – my plus one had actually tried LSD and said it was very relatable what he saw on stage.
The UK’s highest court has ruled that Ashers Bakery did not discriminate against a customer because of his sexuality.
(C) Londondeposit Depositphoto
Speaking on the ruling President Lady Brenda Hale said, “It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics, but that is not what happened in this case.”
“The bakers did not refuse to fulfil his order because of his sexual orientation. They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation.”
“The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”
‘We thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs, certainly was in contradiction with what the Bible teaches.’
Queer Space is an organisation, which seeks to increase the visibility of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Community in a positive manner to counteract the disregard, and negative images presented to the general public.
“Discrimination Clash”
Rhian Radia is a leading lawyer who specialises in discrimination cases, and a Director at Vardags. She said today, “A judgment of the Supreme Court today has found that a bakery in Northern Ireland did not discriminate against a gay man by refusing to bake him a cake with a message supporting gay marriage.
“The bakers oppose the introduction of gay marriage on religious grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision found that the refusal to bake the cake was because of the message on the cake rather than the sexual orientation of the customer or his association with Queerspace, a volunteer-led organisation for the LGBT community. Sexual orientation and support of gay marriage were viewed to be two separate things. The judges decided that people of all sexual orientations can and do support gay marriage.
“The judgment is being touted as a victory for free speech by those who believe that the bakers should not have been forced to bake a case with a message they disagreed with.
“This is the latest in a line of employment law cases where types of protection from discrimination clash with each other, in this case religious belief and sexual orientation and political belief. But is baking a cake as part of providing a service to a customer really about free speech where the rights of a business beat those of an individual?”
Time Line:
JULY 2014: Gareth Lee reports that Ashers Bakery refused to bake him a gay which said “Support Gay Marriage”. The Christian Institute provided the bakery with legal support.
MAY 2015: A UK court found in 2015 that Ashers Bakery had been unlawful in refusing to bake a cake for Gareth Lee. The bakery owners were ordered to pay £500 in damages.
JUNE 2015: The bakery announces its outline for appeal
OCTOBER 2016: Ashers loses it appeal at the Court of Appeal, which upheld the original judgement that the bakers had acted unlawfully.
NOVEMBER 2016: Ashers announce it is to appeal again
OCTOBER 2018: Ashers wins its case in the UK Supreme Court
The McArthurs, who own the company, have insisted that the issue was never with Mr Lee’s sexuality, but with the message that he had requested on the cake.
Leading human rights activist has said that verdict that the Ashers Bakery did not discriminate in refusing to make a “gay cake” is a victory for freedom of expression.
Peter Tatchell has described the act of same-sex marriage as a “political idea” and that no business should be forced to produce a product that they have a ‘conscientious objection” to. He stated that the verdict that the Ashers Bakery did not discriminate in refusing to honour an hour for a cake which had “Although I profoundly disagree with Asher’s opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose”.
He added, “Businesses can now lawfully refuse a customer’s request to emblazon a political message if they have a conscientious objection to it. This includes the right to refuse messages that are sexist, xenophobic or anti-gay, which is a good thing”.
Appeal after appeal
The Asher’s Bakery row has rolled on since 2014 when the Christian run Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused to make a pro-gay marriage cake, which featured a slogan “Support Gay Marriage – Queer Space Born 1998” with a picture of Sesame Street characters Ernie and Bert, because it says it clashed with the ethos of their company, saying,
‘We thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs, certainly was in contradiction with what the Bible teaches.’
Queer Space is an organisation, which seeks to increase the visibility of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Community in a positive manner to counteract the disregard, and negative images presented to the general public.
They didn’t discriminate because the customer was gay…
Tatchell continued, “Ashers did not discriminate against the customer, Gareth Lee, because he was gay. They objected to the message he wanted on the cake: ‘Support gay marriage.’
“Discrimination against LGBT people is wrong. But in a free society, people should be able to discriminate against ideas that they disagree with. I am glad the court upheld this important liberal principle.
“If the original judgement against Ashers had been upheld it would have meant that a Muslim printer could be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be forced to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial. It could have also encouraged far right extremists to demand that bakers and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim opinions.
“That would have set a dangerous, authoritarian precedent that could have been open to serious abuse.
“Discrimination against people should be illegal but not discrimination against ideas and opinions,” said Mr Tatchell.
