Religious Discrimination is Legal

[tobyjugg2]

So who would think it right for a Christian or Muslim or whatever church, with strong beliefs on the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, to be forced to hold a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple?

 

Now I think that same sex couple, like everyone else, have the right to make their own lives however they see fit ....

as long as it doesn't negatively impact others lives, and gay, straight or whatever, no-one should be forced to serve others in ways that offend their own sensibilities. We can all take our business elsewhere.

Forcing service makes resentment, not compassion.

 

(LOL I just noticed that my spell checker flagged muslim (without capitalisation) as an error, but not christian)

[tobyjugg2]

Did Spock say 'The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many...?

Now we know bankers and politicians adhere to that belief, do we really want the list to grow?

 

Live and let live is a philosophy which can only come from within, and does need to be mutual.

[tobyjugg2]

Again where do you draw the line?

 

That also goes both ways

 

I also remind you that "Marrage" predates the church.

 

How can marriage in a church predate the church?

I'm not saying they shouldn't celebrate or mark their partnership, just that they should not be able to force others to celebrate it against their beliefs.

Where would that end?

 

I don't believe the same sex couples' rights should be impacted, but neither should that of the church (in this example) else the same sex couple (or their pressure groups) is imposing the same sort of forced behavior that they have MOSTLY rightly complained about for so long.

To use your words - where does it end.

 

YOU sabresheep are demonstrating the ones sided fanatical thinking and twisting of speech which causes these problems in all areas, not resolves them.

[tobyjugg2]

Now if we are going to discuss marriage we should do so properly. You should not twist this to "Marriage in a church"

 

Marriage in a church was exactly the moral question I raised, which you have twisted into something else.

You even quoted me in post 20 here before ranting off at a tangent.

 

I'll copy again the exact words for you (no doubt to squirm away from again)

 

"So who would think it right for a Christian or Muslim or whatever church, with strong beliefs on the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, to be forced to hold a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple?"

[tobyjugg2]

Can I just pop in here to lay out my understanding of this issue.

 

So in answer to your question, no they cannot be forced.

 

With due respect silverfox, that wasn't my question, although its an excellent point that in this particular case they should not be forced, but in the case of the cake they can.

I wasn't looking for interpretations on the law, but to peoples beliefs on whether it was right.

 

It seems to me that sabresheep, despite TALKING about peoples rights, is only interested in gay rights no matter the impact to others.

Now to me, that seems to be the exact opposite of what is actually right. NOT because it is gay people, but because it is a minority enforcing their wishes on others.

I would feel the same way no matter who the 'group was'

 

(and to clarify I would have baked a cake for them and wished them all happiness in their future - UNTIL they tried to force their wishes on others, at which stage I would appose them with my best endeavours)

[tobyjugg2]

I wonder if this could be 'the law of unintended consequences'? I can imagine when the anti discrimination laws came into effect, the lawmakers didn't investigate properly.

 

My own take on this is, of course anyone can refuse to do anything on the grounds of religious beliefs however, they run the risk of being ostracised by the offended people as well as a possible conviction.

 

In business, you follow the laws of the land. In private you can do what you want. I don't believe in any deity but if I worked in a cake shop would I refuse to decorate a card with religious symbolism or words. Of course not and that is how it should be.

 

No one should be saying that this couple are being religiously persecuted because they placed their religious beliefs above the business requirements and the law.

 

Paragraph 1 - I agree.

Paragraph 2 - I agree except that there should be no prosecution in the case of personal choices as apposed to major corporate or governmental policy.

Paragraph 3 - I would phrase it:

I don't believe in any deity but if I worked in a cake shop would I refuse to decorate a card with religious symbolism or words? I would NOT but others, for example those with strong religious convictions may do.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to state in the last paragraph silverfox.

 

 

Lets be clear that we are NOT talking about people being attacked here.

Anyone arguing that the refusal is an attack should ALSO consider that the refusers moral beliefs are being attacked, something I consider far more important than any desire for a cake, whether I believe in those morals or not.

[tobyjugg2]

For the record, I am not "only for gay rights" I think you find I support EQUALITY I think you will find posts in this thread form me supporting Female Equality, Racial equality as well.

 

No you haven't, the way you have presented them appears to be that you have simply used those to accuse others here of prejudice.

 

and since when has baking a cake been a public service you keep shouting about?

as I have said 'we are not talking about governmental or major institution policy here, just people passively adhering to their beliefs.

 

Def:

A public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services.

[tobyjugg2]

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

 

Refers to consumer discrimination

 

Minimally.

 

Yet page 2

"harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

It would seem that perhaps the law thinks (and interprets) that only people with a 'protected characteristic' can have their dignity violated or have an offensive environment created for them by behavior which is simply UNWANTED?

That sounds like a very discriminatory statement to me.

Surely its everyone, or its discriminatory by its very nature?

[tobyjugg2]

You have added that bit to the original wording.

 

http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2015/Lee-v-Ashers_Judgement.pdf

 

I have not added anything silverfox, simply re-arranged the words to make clearer a valid, and clearly USED, perspective on the meaning'

It does quite clearly say "harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

it does NOT say "harassment - unwanted behaviour that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them"

 

It is discriminatory by definition.

 

Re-reading the judgement simply reinforces in my mind that the judgement was wrong.

I am not religious in any way, I simply believe that laws should be for ALL, without discrimination or favour.

[tobyjugg2]

In the same judgement, a reference was made of a gay baker who refused to bake a cake for a Christian. This is also discriminatory and the Christian would have had the right to challenge by virtue of the discrimination.

 

In the case in question here, the verdict was utterly wrong in my view, including any suggestion of delivering a similar verdict with a Gay baker in similar circumstances, or a Muslim baker being asked to write (for example) 'Jesus is the one true prophet'.

 

BUT If ANY of them refused to write Happy Birthday (for example) just because the requester was Gay/Christian/Black/white/disabled/etc, then they should be prosecuted.

 

The right to challenge is a different matter.

But in the cases exampled in para 1, these perhaps should have resulted in fines for wasting the courts time at the very least.

 

I firmly believe that it is a miscarriage of justice and the absolute opposite of the judgement that should have been given.

[tobyjugg2]

What is so threatening about two people spending their lives together? What makes me, as a heterosexual, married man any different to a homosexual man in terms of our desire to choose a life partner and have that partnership recognised? Nothing, remember that these passages in the bible sit alongside those that justify genocide and the repression of women but not so many people choose to quote those ones...

 

At what stage has ANYONE, even the bakery in question if you read the link, objected to any couple of whatever sexual orientation celebrating their partnership?

I certainly haven't.

 

A more relevant simile than those you use would be the Nirenberg trials where soldiers said they were ordered to do it, but that would be used against your stance, not for it.

 

Surely it is one of the most basic rights - the right to act according to your conscience.

Even if you don't agree with that, and I could understand that, surely you agree that the right NOT to act AGAINST your conscience is fundamental?

[tobyjugg2]

The law is quite clear in this area and it has spoken..end of.

Just like a bakery isnt a public service, a judgement isn't a LAW, despite the rather foolish statements which I am surprised to find on this site, let alone site staff..

 

Here is a one which i am sure you will find a better example of its implementation rather than the questionable one which is the porigin of this thread. How the law should be implemented.

 

 

 

and here is one you undoubtedly wont like so much, but is another I broadly agree with, as I do the one above.

Edited June 2, 2015 by citizenB
links to USA websites removed