Good News Everyone

Galvasean

Soon we will no longer have to sack over 95% of the teachers and hospital staff in Ireland.

A group of Labour TDs and Senators today published the Employment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2013, which will put an end to the situation where staff in educational or medical institutions can be discriminated against for having children outside marriage, being divorced, or for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). The Bill will be introduced under Private Members’ Business in the Seanad by the Labour group of Senators on Wednesday March 13th 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7f2vFJuo6rA#!

Dades

Stop the planet I want to get back on!

Sarky

Will John Waters have enough time to write a long rambling self-indulgent piece of **** to tell us all at length how this is a travesty of justice and something something mysteriousness of reality blahdeblahdeblah?

Paramite Pie

WOW! I had no idea that things were still so backward here regarding out of wedlock kids (I hate the term 'illegitimate') although I do remember a local teacher being fired because he entered Mr. Gay Ireland.:rolleyes:

Good news indeed, how long before it's called an 'attack' on Irish 'values'...

lazygal

Has David Iona Quinn tweeted about how its an attack on freedoms yet?

Gumbi

Sarky wrote: »

Will John Waters have enough time to write a long rambling self-indulgent piece of **** to tell us all at length how this is a travesty of justice and something something mysteriousness of reality blahdeblahdeblah?

"Piece of ****" Love it.

BTW, I wasn't even aware that such ridiculousness was enshrined in law up until recently.

Benny_Cake

Very welcome, and I hope it passes. No public servant should have their job threatened because of their sexual orientation, as for having a kid outside of marriage, I didn't know about that. Crazy stuff.

GLaDOS

Ridiculous that this is even necessary. Fair play to them for doing something about it though.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

Soon we will no longer have to sack over 95% of the teachers and hospital staff in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7f2vFJuo6rA#!

Jesus Christ, all of that was legal up to now? This is like finding out that North Carolina still has laws against petting donkeys.

Zombrex

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Very welcome, and I hope it passes. No public servant should have their job threatened because of their sexual orientation, as for having a kid outside of marriage, I didn't know about that. Crazy stuff.

Nor private employee.

Sarky

Ah, religion-inspired laws. Aren't they wonderful?

Morag

Pretty much if you live your life in a way the RC church disapproves of then you could be sacked from any place which is run with it's ethos, in the name of protecting that ethos.

ShooterSF

What next? Schools not being allowed to discriminate against kids due to their parent's religion? The end of society as we know it I tells ya!!!!11!

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Will John Waters have enough time to write a long rambling self-indulgent piece of **** [...]

Unfortunately, John always seems to have enough time to indulge himself that way.

PopePalpatine

Actually, I've just checked the IT website. It turns out he's whining about Cardinal O'Brien being "unfairly treated" by d'meedja. :rolleyes:

SebBerkovich

Does this bill include a provision for discrimination based on faith or lack their of?

sbsquarepants

Paramite Pie wrote: »

although I do remember a local teacher being fired because he entered Mr. Gay Ireland.:rolleyes:

The competition or the person?:eek:

sink

I can't help but read the thread title in Professor Farnsworths voice.

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

Soon we will no longer have to sack over 95% of the teachers and hospital staff in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7f2vFJuo6rA#!

Is the youtube facebook rape link just an aside then?

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

Pretty much if you live your life in a way the RC church disapproves of then you could be sacked from any place which is run with it's ethos, in the name of protecting that ethos.

How do the unions deal with that? I'm sure we all have tales of the crap teacher who could never be fired because of 'the union' from school. Have the teaching unions ever defended a teacher from being fired because of a breach of ethos?

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Soon we will no longer have to sack over 95% of the teachers and hospital staff in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7f2vFJuo6rA#!

Why is it only Educational and Medical institutions? Is this Labour looking after the public sector only again?

Tim Robbins

Morag wrote: »

Pretty much if you live your life in a way the RC church disapproves of then you could be sacked from any place which is run with it's ethos, in the name of protecting that ethos.

How many times has that happened?

And the real problem is not in sacking - it is in hiring. Teachers pretend they go to mass to get a job.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And the real problem is not in sacking - it is in hiring. Teachers pretend they go to mass to get a job.

I think that's still the elephant in the room, alright.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I think that's still the elephant in the room, alright.

It's half hearted legislation.

You can be discriminate when hiring but not firing.

Only in Ireland. Repeat: only in Ireland. And repeat one more time: Only in Ireland.

But it's a complete Labour solution. Look after the current public sector and paid up Union members. Who cares about the rest? Reminds of the way salaries for new teachers were cut by 10% but existing teachers untouched.

Galvasean

sink wrote: »

I can't help but read the thread title in Professor Farnsworths voice.

That's kinda the angle I was going for.

pH wrote: »

Is the youtube facebook rape link just an aside then?

That was a copy n' paste fail on my part. Makes you wonder how many people click OP links doesn't it?

Eramen

Galvasean wrote: »

Soon we will no longer have to sack over 95% of the teachers and hospital staff in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7f2vFJuo6rA#!

If atheists feel that they have to 'jump on the bandwagon' and go on these little escapades, correcting these 'social-ills' for the good of godknowswho, courageously championing (or being used?) the LGBT and other hapless people's cause and so forth, then we really have little relevance as a group of people don't we?

This has nothing to do with atheism. To be an atheist is to not to be theist. *Gasp* who would have thought?! Atheism should have nothing to do with the political meanderings of 'mass-equality', that is, unless we are struggling to find the basis for own personal intellectual existence & sovereignty.

Yeah, I implied that.

Dades

Eramen wrote: »

If atheists feel that they have to 'jump on the bandwagon' and go on these little escapades, correcting these 'social-ills' for the good of godknowswho, courageously championing (or being used?) the LGBT and other hapless people's cause and so forth, then we really have little relevance as a group of people don't we?

Sorry, who's we?

I assume this thread was directed at, not atheists, but people who like to see existing inequalities righted. If that's not your bag, there's plenty of other threads to read.

sink

Eramen wrote: »

If atheists feel that they have to 'jump on the bandwagon' and go on these little escapades, correcting these 'social-ills' for the good of godknowswho, courageously championing (or being used?) the LGBT and other hapless people's cause and so forth, then we really have little relevance as a group of people don't we?

This has nothing to do with atheism. To be an atheist is to not to be theist. *Gasp* who would have thought?! Atheism should have nothing to do with the political meanderings of 'mass-equality', that is, unless we are struggling to find the basis for own personal intellectual existence & sovereignty.

Yeah, I implied that.

I would consider religious influenced discrimination to be pertinent to those who reject said religion. You may feel differently but that is your prerogative and will have no baring on what I and other like-minded persons deem important.

Eramen

sink wrote: »

I would consider religious influenced discrimination to be pertinent to those who reject said religion. You may feel differently but that is your prerogative and will have no baring on what I and other like-minded persons deem important.

It seems 'modern atheism' has had to adopt 'equality for all' as a truism because they really stand for nothing in the practical sphere of life anymore. 'Atheism' - to be a non-theist seems to have lost its value.

This is the reason bandwagon atheists feel its their solemn duty to help every poor ol' sod to 'gain the equality that's rightfully theirs'. Like they're on some sort of holy mission. It's pathetic. Everyone is not equal, we have our personality, talents, abilities, biology and thoughts, all of these have genuine and differing value. This is what makes us human. Inequality is a part of nature and it what makes us diverse as a species.

Science doesn't prove any equality between all people. This kind of chatter in the AA forum is nonsense, it is political science and should be posted in that forum. Egalitarian progressivism and the mere 'feelings' its based on has nothing to do with us. Politics is not = AA.

In respectable and intelligent company I'd never call myself an atheist because of all the baggage that 'atheists' themselves have attached to the word. Today 'atheists' insist on building their worldview not around non-theism but around a purely nominal, intellectually mediocre, progressive-elgalitarian, pseudo-scientific framework.

In the push for 'total equality' there now exists more discrimination than ever.. 'atheists' have attached themselves to this for no other reason than to seem relevant.

You're all very quick to point this out about 'religion' and their charity and involvement within international humanitarian efforts, but you are pulling the exact same crap - except your efforts don't have any shred of positive result.

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

[...] your efforts don't have any shred of positive result.

Well, the nation's kids aren't expected to eat fish on Fridays.

I think that's a major step forward.

sink

Eramen wrote: »

It seems 'modern atheism' has had to adopt 'equality for all' as a truism because they really stand for nothing in the practical sphere of life anymore. 'Atheism' - to be a non-theist seems to have lost its value.

This is the reason bandwagon atheists feel its their solemn duty to help every poor ol' sod to 'gain the equality that's rightfully theirs'. Like they're on some sort of holy mission. It's pathetic. Everyone is not equal, we have our personality, talents, abilities, biology and thoughts, all of these have genuine and differing value. This is what makes us human. Inequality is a part of nature and it what makes us diverse as a species.

Science doesn't prove any equality between all people. This kind of chatter in the AA forum is nonsense, it is political science and should be posted in that forum. Egalitarian progressivism and the mere 'feelings' its based on has nothing to do with us. Politics is not = AA.

In respectable and intelligent company I'd never call myself an atheist because of all the baggage that 'atheists' themselves have attached to the word. Today 'atheists' insist on building their worldview not around non-theism but around a purely nominal, intellectually mediocre, progressive-elgalitarian, pseudo-scientific framework.

In the push for 'total equality' there now exists more discrimination than ever.. 'atheists' have attached themselves to this for no other reason than to seem relevant.

You're all very quick to point this out about 'religion' and their charity and involvement within international humanitarian efforts, but you are pulling the exact same crap - except your efforts don't have any shred of positive result.

I think you're mixing up discrimination based on class or category with discrimination based on individual merit. I think you'll find the majority of us would be in favor of the latter and those in favor of the former are in the company of the khmer rouge.