Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland
Options
Comments
-
No. It's also a poor representation of the situation, because for some reason you seem unable - or just unwilling - to grasp that the law distinguishes very clearly between what a person may do in his private life, and what commercial enterprise is allowed to do or not. It's not reserved to personal beliefs such as homophobia or SSM either - it's actually why there is a whole separate set of legislation known as commercial law. It's puzzling that you seem unaware of that.
I'm aware of the law and very familiar with it, as I assume you're equally familiar with the law that prohibits same-sex marriage. People here are arguing as though SSM is a right, and that right overrides any other rights that anyone else thinks people are entitled to.
Right now, neither right is recognised, so anyone can campaign for what right they think a person is entitled to, in order to have any laws they want changed, or any laws they want to remain the same. All they need is enough support to make it happen. That support won't happen if people try to force their ideas down other people's throats.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »...
I have no doubt this particular organisation knew that the business had a religious ethos, in the same way as the Jewish bakery in Dublin supplies only certain types of bread made a certain way, and nobody has ever complained. They just made their order elsewhere and got what they asked for without any fuss being made claiming discrimination against a person because the bakery had a problem with the order.
That is YOUR assumption. It is not borne out by any evidence. Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions. No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery. Even the name, (later disclosed as a OT biblical reference) is as ambiguous as their later sproutings about political messages. You have based your entire argument on this supposition and on this it fails utterly.
The facts are the Bakery took the order and then refused it. They then published the Equality Commisions letter and in conjunction with the anti gay Christian.org group produced a click video extolling their religous views. :rolleyes: It is fairly certain that every other business in NI is either owned, managed or staffed by individuals who hold religous beliefs. Your chance of going into any such establishment and meeting similar discrimination although thankfully rare is a real possibility especially with the fools who would seek to install a daft 'conscience clause'.
The problem at present is there is no way of identifying businesses who choose to discriminate. Thankfully such behaviour is very rare because of the rule of law that prevents such behaviour and the decency of the majority of people who hold 'Christian' beliefs.0 -
That is YOUR assumption. It is not borne out by any evidence. Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions. No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery. Even the name, (later disclosed as a OT biblical reference) is as ambiguous as their later sproutings about political messages.
The facts are the Bakery took the order and then refused it. They then published the Equality Commisions letter and in conjunction with the anti gay Christian.org group produced a click video extolling their religous views. :rolleyes: It is fairly certain that every other business in NI is either owned, managed or staffed by individuals who hold religous beliefs. Your chance of going into any such establishment and meeting similar discrimination although thankfully rare is a real possibility especially with the fools who would seek to install a daft 'conscience clause'.
The problem at present is there is no way of identifying businesses who choose to discriminate. Thankfully such behaviour is very rare because of the rule of law that prevents such behaviour and the decency of the majority of people who hold 'Christian' beliefs.
So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »If LGBT organizations adopt the same tactics that didn't work for other organizations in the past, then they really shouldn't be surprised when people start to rebel against them, except it won't be the organization they take out their frustration on, it'll be the ordinary person on the street who just wants to go about their business will suffer, as has been seen in recent times with the number of LGBT people who have been assaulted.
Please re read this sentence! Are you actually suggesting that physical attacks against LGBT people occur because of the 'frustration' that bigots feel due to the promotion of equal marriage? Please tell me you are not. Also 'recent' assaults? Ummmm so historically prior to the relatively recent political campaigns for equal marriage there were no physical assaults? It's only the frustration of the poor, discriminated against bigots that have caused this to occur in recent years right?
Imagine a world where those who are bigoted due to their religious ideology were treated the way they currently treat others who don't fit with their interpretation of whatever religious ideas they follow. It causes outrage to even suggest that they do not discriminate against others. Because they interpret that their religion tells them to discriminate, it is discrimination against them when they are not allowed to do so. How does this make sense? Should we allow white supremacists to publicly follow and act on their beliefs also? Is it discrimination to prevent them from discriminating too?0 -
I simply cannot understand how you can come to this conclusion.One eyed Jack wrote: »T when you have an Equality Commission that decides a bakery owner must allow themselves to be discriminated against when their religion means that they do not support SSM, that to me is the very same tyranny of the minority you're talking about.
It seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of anti-discrimination law.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Please re read this sentence! Are you actually suggesting that physical attacks against LGBT people occur because of the 'frustration' that bigots feel due to the promotion of equal marriage?
Physical attacks against people who are LGBT are on the rise because some people are intimidated by people who are LGBT, that's a reality in society today that no amount of legislation is ever going to be able to counteract. It happens with any group that 'threatens' some people's traditional view of society. They don't like it, and as that element of society becomes more visible, so too do attacks against them begin to rise.Please tell me you are not. Also 'recent' assaults? Ummmm so historically prior to the relatively recent political campaigns for equal marriage there were no physical assaults? It's only the frustration of the poor, discriminated against bigots that have caused this to occur in recent years right?
Of course there were physical assaults and discrimination prior to recent political campaigns. But they weren't as visible in society simply because people who are LGBT weren't as visible in society. Those people at the top tier of society though will not face the same level of violence and discrimination as those people who are at the bottom tier of society, because those people who are LGBT who are at the top tier of society have much more protection from discrimination than those people who are LGBT who are at the bottom tier of society.
By that I mean that people like Leo Vradkar and David Norris will never face the same level of discrimination and violence that a young person growing up in a socially deprived area will face. Those at the top tier campaigning for their rights, seem to have forgotten that they also have a responsibility towards those people at the bottom tier. The construction of a society is far more complicated than just single issues and people's rights, all the while ignoring that people should be socially responsible.
When people in society feel that they are being ignored, that tends to cause frustration, and they'll take their frustrations out on the closest target that represents the source of their frustration.
That's reality rather than the fluffy clouds and rainbows group think I've witnessed among some of these rights advocacy groups that tend to focus solely on their rights and have no interest in the rights of other people.Imagine a world where those who are bigoted due to their religious ideology were treated the way they currently treat others who don't fit with their interpretation of whatever religious ideas they follow. It causes outrage to even suggest that they do not discriminate against others. Because they interpret that their religion tells them to discriminate, it is discrimination against them when they are not allowed to do so. How does this make sense? Should we allow white supremacists to publicly follow and act on their beliefs also? Is it discrimination to prevent them from discriminating too?
Freedom of conscience means the right to hold a belief and to discriminate against people who do not share that belief. We already live in a world where people discriminate against other people who do not share their beliefs, and no amount of legislation is going to change people's minds depending on how strongly they hold those beliefs. That's why there are riots in the UK and the US, because despite anti-discrimination legislation has proven utterly futile in forcing people to accommodate those people who are different from them in any way.
Any way in which you force people to behave in a way that contradicts their freedom of conscience is discrimination, the only difference between them is that some discrimination is socially acceptable because a majority shares the same point of view, so that's why your white supremacists are allowed to hold their beliefs, but limited by legislation in how they express those beliefs, let alone act on them. It's also the reason why same-sex marriage is still prohibited in NI and in ROI, but at least down here we're soon to be offered the opportunity to change that. I can't see it wiping out discrimination against LGBT people overnight at the stroke of a pen.
Society just doesn't work like that, because we don't live in the ideal world some people think we do, just because their position in society allows them to ignore uncomfortable truths.0 -
But is it Prod gays or Fenian gays we're chatting about here?0
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Physical attacks against people who are LGBT are on the rise because some people are intimidated by people who are LGBT, that's a reality in society today that no amount of legislation is ever going to be able to counteract. It happens with any group that 'threatens' some people's traditional view of society. They don't like it, and as that element of society becomes more visible, so too do attacks against them begin to rise.
Of course there were physical assaults and discrimination prior to recent political campaigns. But they weren't as visible in society simply because people who are LGBT weren't as visible in society. Those people at the top tier of society though will not face the same level of violence and discrimination as those people who are at the bottom tier of society, because those people who are LGBT who are at the top tier of society have much more protection from discrimination than those people who are LGBT who are at the bottom tier of society.
By that I mean that people like Leo Vradkar and David Norris will never face the same level of discrimination and violence that a young person growing up in a socially deprived area will face. Those at the top tier campaigning for their rights, seem to have forgotten that they also have a responsibility towards those people at the bottom tier. The construction of a society is far more complicated than just single issues and people's rights, all the while ignoring that people should be socially responsible.
When people in society feel that they are being ignored, that tends to cause frustration, and they'll take their frustrations out on the closest target that represents the source of their frustration.
That's reality rather than the fluffy clouds and rainbows group think I've witnessed among some of these rights advocacy groups that tend to focus solely on their rights and have no interest in the rights of other people.
Freedom of conscience means the right to hold a belief and to discriminate against people who do not share that belief. We already live in a world where people discriminate against other people who do not share their beliefs, and no amount of legislation is going to change people's minds depending on how strongly they hold those beliefs. That's why there are riots in the UK and the US, because despite anti-discrimination legislation has proven utterly futile in forcing people to accommodate those people who are different from them in any way.
Any way in which you force people to behave in a way that contradicts their freedom of conscience is discrimination, the only difference between them is that some discrimination is socially acceptable because a majority shares the same point of view, so that's why your white supremacists are allowed to hold their beliefs, but limited by legislation in how they express those beliefs, let alone act on them. It's also the reason why same-sex marriage is still prohibited in NI and in ROI, but at least down here we're soon to be offered the opportunity to change that. I can't see it wiping out discrimination against LGBT people overnight at the stroke of a pen.
Society just doesn't work like that, because we don't live in the ideal world some people think we do, just because their position in society allows them to ignore uncomfortable truths.
At what point do we decide that freedom of conscience has gone too far? When people are being killed or just when we have enough people leaving the area to somewhere they will be treated like people?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
That is YOUR assumption. It is not borne out by any evidence. Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions. No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery. Even the name, (later disclosed as a OT biblical reference) is as ambiguous as their later sproutings about political messages. You have based your entire argument on this supposition and on this it fails utterly.
Your entire argument is based on assumptions. The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign. This is fact though. Your entire argument in this and the original thread is an incorrect assumption that discrimination based on sexual preferences took place. It's so frustrating.0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »At what point do we decide that freedom of conscience has gone too far? When people are being killed or just when we have enough people leaving the area to somewhere they will be treated like people?
I can only speak for myself as an individual, but I would say that point should be in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights charter, article 18 -Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
The point at which we as a society decide to place restrictions on a person's freedom of thought, conscience or religion is the point where it infringes on another person's right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion.
A bakery owner who refuses to comply with a request which violates their basic human right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion is not a violation of another person's basic human rights. There are many other people who would be willing to fulfill such a request, so it's not as though there is any necessity to force the baker to comply with their request. They attempted to humiliate the baker, and that's the twisting of anti-discrimination laws right there in a way which was never intended.
It's not like I can claim discrimination if I go into a bookstore I know sells religious books and they won't order me a copy of "Satan worshippers monthly" or some other nonsense scenario. The legislation was never intended to apply in the way this LGBT organization are using it, and that's why I'm so surprised at the Equality Commission stating that the bakery owner has a case to answer for. I think it's an utter piss take of legislation that was intended to protect people's freedoms, not choose which form of discrimination should take priority over another.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
When people in society feel that they are being ignored, that tends to cause frustration, and they'll take their frustrations out on the closest target that represents the source of their frustration.
Funnily enough it is LGBT people who have been ignored and criminalised and are now protesting that treatment, yet you don't often hear about groups or individuals from that demographic violently attacking homophobes, religious people or burning down churches do you? Nor do you hear about families and individuals who have had to access abortion services in England doing same. Nor parents who feel ignored and frustrated that they have no choice but to send their child to a religious school. What you have written above seems to apply to only certain 'types' of people who resort to violence and/or discrimination when they feel society is evolving to withdraw the unwarranted special treatment and privilege they have historically enjoyed.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I can only speak for myself as an individual, but I would say that point should be in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights charter, article 18 -
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
The point at which we as a society decide to place restrictions on a person's freedom of thought, conscience or religion is the point where it infringes on another person's right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion.
A bakery owner who refuses to comply with a request which violates their basic human right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion is not a violation of another person's basic human rights. There are many other people who would be willing to fulfill such a request, so it's not as though there is any necessity to force the baker to comply with their request. They attempted to humiliate the baker, and that's the twisting of anti-discrimination laws right there in a way which was never intended.
It's not like I can claim discrimination if I go into a bookstore I know sells religious books and they won't order me a copy of "Satan worshippers monthly" or some other nonsense scenario. The legislation was never intended to apply in the way this LGBT organization are using it, and that's why I'm so surprised at the Equality Commission stating that the bakery owner has a case to answer for. I think it's an utter piss take of legislation that was intended to protect people's freedoms, not choose which form of discrimination should take priority over another.
Its a complicated. Should businesses be allowed to refuse to serve Catholics or Jews or Blacks because of warped personal belief that they have?
I certainly don't want to live in that kind of society. The only way to balance equality with freedom of conscience is through legislation that protects vulnerable groups but also allows get out clauses for instances where businesses are requested to do things that are unethical. We do this by defining limited grounds for discrimination.0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Funnily enough it is LGBT people who have been ignored and criminalised and are now protesting that treatment, yet you don't often hear about groups or individuals from that demographic violently attacking homophobes, religious people or burning down churches do you? Nor do you hear about families and individuals who have had to access abortion services in England doing same. Nor parents who feel ignored and frustrated that they have no choice but to send their child to a religious school. What you have written above seems to apply to only certain 'types' of people who resort to violence and/or discrimination when they feel society is evolving to withdraw the unwarranted special treatment and privilege they have historically enjoyed.
It's a good thing you included that qualifier word 'often' there, and while that might be true for you, I hear plenty about it. You'll hear plenty about it too when it affects you personally, like those people who are protesting against US foreign policy or those people that want immigration laws changed to discriminate against minority groups in the UK, or even here where people want laws changed to discriminate against travellers who are a protected ethnic minority group.
Funny how you choose to ignore what doesn't affect you, or is it just human nature that you're oblivious to issues which don't affect you, yet you expect everyone else should be conscious of the issues that affect you and should accommodate you, while you would like laws introduced that would discriminate against other people.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I can only speak for myself as an individual, but I would say that point should be in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights charter, article 18 -
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
The point at which we as a society decide to place restrictions on a person's freedom of thought, conscience or religion is the point where it infringes on another person's right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion.
A bakery owner who refuses to comply with a request which violates their basic human right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion is not a violation of another person's basic human rights. There are many other people who would be willing to fulfill such a request, so it's not as though there is any necessity to force the baker to comply with their request. They attempted to humiliate the baker, and that's the twisting of anti-discrimination laws right there in a way which was never intended.
It's not like I can claim discrimination if I go into a bookstore I know sells religious books and they won't order me a copy of "Satan worshippers monthly" or some other nonsense scenario. The legislation was never intended to apply in the way this LGBT organization are using it, and that's why I'm so surprised at the Equality Commission stating that the bakery owner has a case to answer for. I think it's an utter piss take of legislation that was intended to protect people's freedoms, not choose which form of discrimination should take priority over another.
As far as I know there is no mention about not making cakes for gay people in the bible.
The whole they could have gone to another bakery is all well and good but what happens in a more serious situation such as a woman needs treatment to save her life? The doctor just says "lol, my religion says to avoid menstruating women, tough ****"
If a group of Muslims wish to implement sharia law then you would support it, including killing people because to do otherwise would be to affect their right of freedom of religion?
Or what happens when 2 conflicting religious beliefs meet?
As we see here: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1525516.ece
When a Christian does it it is freedom of conscience, when it happens against a Christian its persecution.
Anti discrimination laws also protect people who a religion.0 -
You have made that massive leap, not me. I am making a point about freedom of conscience. You are avoiding the question.
Absulote Bollochs - you have evidently equated paedophilea with the discrimination of LGBT individuals.
You said.
.reprise wrote:So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?
Explain exactly what point you "making a point about freedom of conscience" and someone 'might' attempt to make sense of your 'question'
I believe your other friend was banging on about 'freedom of conscience' and the 'right' to discriminate. Maybe you should ask them.0 -
Absulote Bollochs - you have apparently equated paedophilea with the discrimination of LGBT individuals.
You said.
.
So again I ask why are you apparently equating peadophiles with LGBT customers?
Explain that and someone 'might' attempt to make sense of your 'query' :rolleyes:
I believe your other friend was banging on about 'freedom of conscience' and the 'right' to discriminate. Maybe you should ask them.
I put forward a mythical scenario that involved no party from LGBT. It is you that is insisting on a link between paedophilia and LGBT. It is most revealing that you are more pre-occupied with your strawman than what I asked.0 -
I put forward a mythical scenario that involved no party from LGBT. It is you that is insisting on a link between paedophilia and LGBT. It is most revealing that you are more pre-occupied with your strawman than what I asked.
"A mythical scenario" concerning paedophilia - seriously what has that if anything to do with the actual subject of this thread.?
Answer that.
Your pathetic attempt to reassign your blatent assignation on someone else is most telling.
Explain that
If you wish to discuss about 'freedom of conscience' then why not ask a direct question of those discussing it?
Answer that
What 'strawman' are you referring - you asked the question about paedophilia. I gave no response to that puerile statement other than to ask you to clarify. You have failed to do so.
Answer that
Otherwise don't bother.0 -
"A mythical scenario" concerning paedophilia - seriously what has that if anything to do with the subject of this thread.?
Answer that.
Your pathetic attempt to reassign your blatent assignation on someone else is most telling.
Explain that
If you wish to discuss about 'freedom of conscience' then why not ask a direct question of those discussing it?
Answer that
What 'strawman' are you referring - you asked the question about paedophilia. I gave no response to that puerile statement other than to ask you to clarify. You have failed to do so.
Answer that
Otherwise don't bother.
I already explained that my mythical scenario presented a freedom of conscience issue, albeit an extreme case.
I really cannot stop you from trying to conflate paedophilia with LGBT, but I would suggest that it is discriminatory and offensive for you to continue to do so.
Finally, you don't have to answer my question. It really doesn't bother me that you are being totally inconsistent and entirely discriminatory.0 -
Advertisement
-
So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?
You did not fool anyone with the above despite the way you are now attempting to twist it. I chose to ignore because I am currently making dinner for my family and can't be arsed feeding anyone else today.0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »You did not fool anyone with the above despite the way you are now attempting to twist it. I chose to ignore because I am currently making dinner for my family and can't be arsed feeding anyone else today.
You are ignoring it by responding to it?
Right so.0 -
Your entire argument is based on assumptions. The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign. This is fact though. Your entire argument in this and the original thread is an incorrect assumption that discrimination based on sexual preferences took place. It's so frustrating.
No What I have said is based on present facts. I saidgozunda wrote:Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions.
This is a fact.gozunda wrote:No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery.
This is a fact
As for your reply abovekeano_afc wrote:[1]The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. [2] You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign. This is fact though.
[1] The EC have no remit to make any final ruling on this matter - the courts have. I have detailed this several times already. What is fact is that the EC have issued Ashers with a notice that they are in breach of anti discrimination legislation. I await the final determination of the courts.
[2] The facts stand that Ashers initial statement clearly stated that they refused the order because of their religous beliefs. That they made a subsequent statement is also fact. However it stands that this second statement appears to be politically expedient on their part.
I'm sorry you are frustrated.0 -
Would the DUP then like to take Northern Ireland out of the UK perhaps?
This proposed legislation is 100% out of line with UK human rights laws and would go down like a lead balloon in mainstream Britain other than amongst supporters of some extremely obscure right wing politics.
For a "unionist" party they're really going out of their way to make themselves as unpalatable as possible to the country/countries they're trying to be united with!
How far would you take this freedom of conscience type debate though?
There are followers of some religions who might decided that say "catholics" or "popery" was offensive, so might refuse to serve catholics.
Catholics might refuse to serve protestants on similar grounds.
Then, you'd have people refusing to serve atheists as they're "heathens"
Then you might have some people who didn't agree with women being outside without a headscarf or a male so, they might refuse to serve normally dressed women.
Would you refuse to serve unmarried mothers? Single parents? etc
Then you'd have all sorts of other religions refusing to serve non-believers.
Even outside of religion, a unionists/loyalist might be deeply offended by a republican. So, perhaps they could just refuse those too or visa versa.
We live in a thing called a "society" or a "country" and there are certain rules and regulations and behavioural standards that are required for that society or country to function. If you start having a situation where people can just opt out of their obligations to treat people fairly when they're in a business which is providing a general, public service, then you'd very quickly have a situation where the society would melt down into a series of factions at each others' throats - i.e. where Northern Ireland has just come from.
NI politicians need to get through their thick heads that Northern Ireland is a diverse place full of multiple religions, atheists, straight people, gay people, bi people, republicans, nationalists, unionists, loyalists, people born locally, people born abroad etc etc.
To me this is just an extension of the age-old narrow minded gang/clan like in-fighting that gave Northern Ireland decades of bloody conflict. The only difference is that the outsider is now being defined in this case as gay people.
Sadly, this is a terrible reflection on the state of NI politics and of the political and social thinking of a large part of NI society that is represented by the DUP.
If this is the way people really think up there, I don't really see how the internal conflicts will ever be resolved.
You'll rapidly find yourself in a situation where you're not wanted by either the UK or the Republic of Ireland and will end up as an isolated, social backwater.0 -
You are ignoring it by responding to it?
Right so.
Chose (past tense) as opposed to choose (present tense). I chose to ignore it initially before you attempted pretend that you were not comparing LGBT people to paedophiles and twist it around to imply that it was another poster who was making that comparison not you.0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Chose (past tense) as opposed to choose (present tense). I chose to ignore it initially before you attempted pretend that you were not comparing LGBT people to paedophiles and twist it around to imply that it was another poster who was making that comparison not you.
Funny that, in my scenario, I never specifically mentioned anyone being a paedophile either.
Amazing what people want to read into what I didn't ask.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm aware of the law and very familiar with it, as I assume you're equally familiar with the law that prohibits same-sex marriage.
This is a trope you've been repeating liberally in this thread, this notion that as you put it same-sex marriage is 'illegal' or 'prohibited'. Show me the law 'prohibiting' same-sex marriage, show me the legislation making it 'illegal'. You won't actually be able to so of course because the law neither prohibits nor makes same-sex marriage illegal. It simply doesn't recognize it. There is nothing to stop my partner and I holding an enormous humanist wedding ceremony for our selves and referring to each other as spouse/husband, inviting friends and receiving wedding presents. That is all perfectly legal. I could even have it televised for a documentary. You seem heavy on rhetoric and anger but limited on rational thought.0 -
jobbridge4life wrote: »This is a trope you've been repeating liberally in this thread, this notion that as you put it same-sex marriage is 'illegal' or 'prohibited'. Show me the law 'prohibiting' same-sex marriage, show me the legislation making it 'illegal'. You won't actually be able to so of course because the law neither prohibits nor makes same-sex marriage illegal. It simply doesn't recognize it. There is nothing to stop my partner and I holding an enormous humanist wedding ceremony for our selves and referring to each other as spouse/husband, inviting friends and receiving wedding presents. That is all perfectly legal. I could even have it televised for a documentary. You seem heavy on rhetoric and anger but limited on rational thought.
Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement