Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

Kiwi in IE

reprise wrote: »

Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

Here! Assault with intent to cause bodily harm.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0018.html#sec18

You will be prosecuted for same. Now can you show us where in the Statute book that it says it is illegal for gay people to marry, as opposed to unrecognised? Will jobbridge4life be prosecuted for having a humanist ceremony and broadcasting it publicly as he/she described above? Because as you can see for yourself you will be prosecuted for throwing your wife down the stairs.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

I'm overrated.

Not in my estimation.

but sure I'll engage with you

reprise wrote: »

Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

Tell you what, I've a little test we can try to see who is right.

You throw your wife down the stairs and I'll hold a marriage ceremony for me and my partner.

We'll see who ends up on the wrong side of the law shall we?

gozunda

reprise wrote: »

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.

It's amazing that some people appear not to be aware of the concept of context or relevancy in what they are posting as questions. That and fairly pathetic attempts at twisting what has been said.

reprise

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Here! Assault with intent to cause bodily harm.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0018.html#sec18

You will be prosecuted for same. Now can you show us where in the Statute book that it says it is illegal for gay people to marry, as opposed to unrecognised? Will jobbridge4life be prosecuted for having a humanist ceremony and broadcasting it publicly as he/she described above? Because as you can see for yourself you will be prosecuted for throwing your wife down the stairs.

So just because it doesn't specifically mention throwing my wife down a flight of stairs, I cannot claim that doing so is legal. We agree it is illegal.

So we have clarified that we don't have to circumscribe every permutation of what is illegal for something to be considered illegal.

jobbridge4life can pretend to get married, but I not sure what that has to do with the legality of same sex marraige.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

It's amazing that some people appear not to be aware of the concept of context or relevancy in what they are posting as questions. That and fairly pathetic attempts at twisting what has been said.

You read all your own meaning into my question and despite my explaining myself numerous times, are incapable of answering it without spinning the meaning to suit yourself.

You don't know how to handle the question and you are terrified to answer it. End of.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

You read all your own meaning into my question and despite my explaining myself numerous times, are incapable of answering it without spinning the meaning to suit yourself.

You don't know how to handle the question and you are terrified to answer it. End of.

Please consult the following...

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Tell you what, I've a little test we can try to see who is right.

You throw your wife down the stairs and I'll hold a marriage ceremony for me and my partner.

We'll see who ends up on the wrong side of the law shall we?

You are being utterly disingenuous.

gozunda

reprise wrote: »

You read all your own meaning into my question and despite my explaining myself numerous times, are incapable of answering it without spinning the meaning to suit yourself.You don't know how to handle the question and you are terrified to answer it. End of.

You appear to to process an uncanny knowledge of everyone else's motives and feelings :rolleyes:

It remains that your question apparently equated paedophilia with LGBT and discrimination. That's the way it reads.

You were asked to clarify your 'question' as it fell outside both what I was discussing and outside the context of the thread.

That request was not complied with, so I have not answered your 'question' (sic) as I have no idea what your question relates to. Therefore I'm neither 'incapable', nor 'don't know how to handle it' as there is no 'question' to answer imo.

You do appear to fail to realise the insulting nature of your 'question' and instead have inexplicably attempted to pass the responsibility of your insult to others.

You mentioned something about 'freedom of conscience' in a follow up post. And I suggested that perhaps you would be best asking One Eyed Jack about that as he was discussing that topic in his posts.

If you don't understand this I can't help you any further.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Tell you what, I've a little test we can try to see who is right.

You throw your wife down the stairs and I'll hold a marriage ceremony for me and my partner.

We'll see who ends up on the wrong side of the law shall we?

Wouldn't it be more realistic if I pretended to throw my wife down the stairs and then we compared outcomes?

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more realistic if I pretended to throw my wife down the stairs and then we compared outcomes?

:pac: You're on the run now.

That wasn't your argument was it?

reprise wrote: »

Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

No mention of pretension there... unless its the pretension of having a valid response.

Scrambling.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

You appear to to process an uncanny knowledge of everyone else's motives and feelings :rolleyes:

I didn't start linking paedophilia and LGBT - remember?

gozunda wrote: »

It remains that your question apparently equated paedophilia with LGBT and discrimination. That's the way it reads.

It still doesn't no matter how many times you say. You have the two issues on the brain and keep making the link. Don't blame me.

gozunda wrote: »

You were asked to clarify your 'question' as it fell outside both what I was discussing and outside the context of the thread.

And I did.

gozunda wrote: »

That request was not complied with, so I have not answered your 'question' (sic) as I have no idea what your question relates to. Therefore I'm neither 'incapable', nor 'don't know how to handle it' as there is no 'question' to answer imo.

Suit yourself. I've told you several times now you are not compelled to answer. Would you like to be told again?

gozunda wrote: »

You do appear to fail to realise the insulting nature of your 'question' and instead have inexplicably attempted to pass the responsibility of your insult to others.

There was no insult. You decided to invent one. I cannot prevent you from insulting yourself and anyone else who isn't bored to tears with your repetition.

gozunda wrote: »

You mentioned something about 'freedom of conscience' in a follow up post. And I suggested that perhaps you would be best asking One Eyed Jack about that as he was discussing that topic in his posts.

So you were following my reason for the question despite your evasion. I thought as much.

gozunda wrote: »

If you don't understand this I can't help you any further.

You talking in riddles helps no-one.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

:pac: You're on the run now.

That wasn't your argument was it?



No mention of pretension there... unless its the pretension of having a valid response.

Scrambling.

You're losing me. Are you saying your pretend wedding is the same as a legal wedding or not?

One eyed Jack

shruikan2553 wrote: »

As far as I know there is no mention about not making cakes for gay people in the bible.

It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

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 ****"

I'm willing to stand corrected on the exact legalities of it, but off the top of my head, I remember reading that there are exemptions made in legislation for medical professionals who have a moral or ethical objection to performing certain medical procedures, that is - they cannot be forced to perform a medical procedure to which they have a moral objection.

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?

Of course I wouldn't support Sharia law, I'm not Muslim so therefore I wouldn't have to recognise Sharia law. If Muslims want to live by Sharia law themselves, that's their own business.

Or what happens when 2 conflicting religious beliefs meet?

Everything is open to negotiation, that's how progress is made. Progress is stunted when neither side is willing to negotiate.

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.

Freedom of conscience also applies to non-religious people? Anti-discrimination laws are there to protect people who are non-religious from persecution, and you'd have a point if the bakery owner gatecrashed the LGBT organisations party and laid it on thick with the bible bashing rhetoric. In that case I'd have no issue with the bakery owner being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He didn't though, it was a person from the LGBT organisation claimed persecution because they placed the order with the bakery which the bakery told them it could not fulfill.

Depends on your perspective really who's being persecuted by whom, and that's why a freedom of conscience clause is necessary so that the LGBT organisation cannot force a bakery owner to fulfill an order which conflicts with his religious beliefs, and by that same token, a bakery owner cannot gatecrash an LGBT organisations party and give it welly with the bible bashing rhetoric.

SpaceTime wrote: »

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.

I agree with some of what you say, and I can understand where you're coming from, but like I said above, conflict was never resolved without negotiation, and when the various political parties distanced themselves from their respective armed wings, and sat round the table and talked, and negotiated agreements, progress was made. LGBT lobby groups would do well to learn that forcing their agenda down people's throats is never going to work, and they're never going to have everything their own way, but through negotiation and conflict resolution techniques, they'll get a hell of a lot further with regard to fostering understanding and acceptance with people who disagree with them, or whom they disagree with.

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.

(6) For the purposes of this Article and Article 7 there is a legal impediment to a marriage if—

(a)that marriage would be void by virtue of Article 18 of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (NI 14) (prohibited degrees of relationship);
(b)one of the parties is, or both are, already married;
(c)one or both of the parties will be under the age of 16 on the date of solemnisation of the intended marriage;
(d)one or both of the parties is or are incapable of understanding the nature of a marriage ceremony or of consenting to marriage; or
(e)both parties are of the same sex.

The Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003


I think it would serve you better to dial back on the rhetoric yourself and instead do your research before you make assumptions limited by your own irrational thought.

U mad bro?

gozunda

reprise wrote: »

I didn't start linking paedophilia and LGBT - remember?

This is referred to as context. You brought up paedophilia. This thread is about LGBT and discrimination. And yes that's how your 'question' read.

reprise wrote: »

It still doesn't no matter how many times you say. You have the two issues on the brain and keep making the link. Don't blame me.

You directed your 'question at me for no explained reason. Stop and think about the what and the where (context) of the question before posting. That should help.

reprise wrote: »

And I did.

Evidently not

reprise wrote: »

Suit yourself. I've told you several times now you are not compelled to answer. Would you like to be told again?

For someone who doesn't 'want' an answer (even though the subject of question remains unclarified) you sure as hell are keeping on about it

reprise wrote: »

There was no insult. You decided to invent one. I cannot prevent you from insulting yourself and anyone else who isn't bored to tears with your repetition.

That's how it reads. I'm not the only poster that commented on the insulting wording of that 'question'. Drop the shovel and stop digging.

Live and learn.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

This is referred to as context. This thread is about LGBT and discrimination. And yes that's how your 'question' read.

When you injected your new meaning. I got that.

gozunda wrote: »

You directed your 'question at me for no explained reason. Stop and think about the what and the where (context) of the question before posting. That should help.

I try limit my discussions to the posters on the thread. You can put me on ignore if that helps.

gozunda wrote: »

For someone who doesn't 'want' an answer (even though the subject of question remains unclarified) you sure as hell are keeping on about it

You seem to want to tell me umpteen times why you shouldn't answer the question I didn't ask. It's no wonder you are confused.

gozunda wrote: »

That's how it reads. I'm not the only poster that commented on the insulting wording of that 'question'. Drop the shovel and stop digging.

I must have missed the crowds. So are you going to answer the question now or write another meandering essay explaining why you won't.

reprise

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

This, gozunda ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the point.

Kiwi in IE

reprise wrote: »

This, gozunda ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the point.

No Reprise that is nothing like the point. 'Your mother takes it up the arse' has absolutely no relevance to any of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited by law.

reprise

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No Reprise that is nothing like the point. 'Your mother takes it up the arse' has absolutely no relevance to any of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited by law.

What if it was a gay man looking for the cake and his friends muslim mother (who is black) actually does take it up the ass with a strapon wielding lesbian?

shruikan2553

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

They werent expected to go against their religious beliefs, just to make a cake as they would for any other customer.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm willing to stand corrected on the exact legalities of it, but off the top of my head, I remember reading that there are exemptions made in legislation for medical professionals who have a moral or ethical objection to performing certain medical procedures, that is - they cannot be forced to perform a medical procedure to which they have a moral objection.

But what abut their human rights? We can hardly expect them to treat everyone the same if their religious beliefs say otherwise. We cant limit such things.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't support Sharia law, I'm not Muslim so therefore I wouldn't have to recognise Sharia law. If Muslims want to live by Sharia law themselves, that's their own business.

Does that mean legalised discrimination freedom of conscience no longer applies when the person isnt a part of your religion?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Everything is open to negotiation, that's how progress is made. Progress is stunted when neither side is willing to negotiate.

We are dealing with people who view being treated as equals as themselves being persecuted. I doubt negotiation is a word they are familiar with.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Freedom of conscience also applies to non-religious people? Anti-discrimination laws are there to protect people who are non-religious from persecution, and you'd have a point if the bakery owner gatecrashed the LGBT organisations party and laid it on thick with the bible bashing rhetoric. In that case I'd have no issue with the bakery owner being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He didn't though, it was a person from the LGBT organisation claimed persecution because they placed the order with the bakery which the bakery told them it could not fulfill.

They're to prevent ALL discrimination.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Depends on your perspective really who's being persecuted by whom, and that's why a freedom of conscience clause is necessary so that the LGBT organisation cannot force a bakery owner to fulfill an order which conflicts with his religious beliefs, and by that same token, a bakery owner cannot gatecrash an LGBT organisations party and give it welly with the bible bashing rhetoric.

Perspective? One group wants to treat a group as lesser to themselves. The other wants to be able to go about their business without being treated like second class citizens.

Can you really not see problems arising from the vast majority of a population being able to ignore any laws as long as they wave an old book around?

People can be as racist or homophobic as they want but as a society we recognise the right to equality. In your version of legal discrimination you are only as free as the people you deal with allow.
The only people who benefit from this kind of crap are racists, homophobes, sexists, bigots etc. Are these really the people you want to support as the expense of people trying to just live their lives as an equal person?

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They werent expected to go against their religious beliefs, just to make a cake as they would for any other customer.

I am not going to address your points as they are directed at Jack, but this is a ridiculous response and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue whatsoever, whether you agree or not.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

I am not going to address your points as they are directed at Jack, but this is a ridiculous response and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue whatsoever, whether you agree or not.

Ridiculous? People are arguing over a ****ing cake. The point we reached ridiculous is long gone. The people could have went elsewhere and the woman didnt have to write a meaningless message on a cake as a tear fell with each letter added, rosary beads in her hand as she begs Jesus' forgiveness and a crucifix on the wall with a disappointed Jesus staring down at her. Jesus didnt die for this!


Should we really let people ignore any laws because their religion says so? BUT THE CAKE!!

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Ridiculous? People are arguing over a ****ing cake. The point we reached ridiculous is long gone. The people could have went elsewhere and the woman didnt have to write a meaningless message on a cake as a tear fell with each letter added, rosary beads in her hand as she begs Jesus' forgiveness and a crucifix on the wall with a disappointed Jesus staring down at her. Jesus didnt die for this!

Bolded - agreed.

Kiwi in IE

reprise wrote: »

What if it was a gay man looking for the cake and his friends muslim mother (who is black) actually does take it up the ass with a strapon wielding lesbian?

reprise wrote: »

I am not going to address your points as they are directed at Jack, but this is a ridiculous response and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue whatsoever, whether you agree or not.

:P

Frank O. Pinion

Has anybody else had enough gay cake? I've had my fill. It must be all they sell up in NI. Gay cake this, gay cake that.

reprise

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

:P

Were there smilies in shruikan2553's post?

Musta missed that :rolleyes::o:mad::)

AlanS181824

God I dislike Northern Ireland...

gozunda

reprise wrote: »

When you injected your new meaning. I got that.

No that's HOW it read. I wasn't the only poster tbh. Stick you head in the sand if you wish.

reprise wrote: »

I try limit my discussions to the posters on the thread. You can put me on ignore if that helps.

Stay within context and you should be ok.

reprise wrote: »

You seem to want to tell me umpteen times why you shouldn't answer the question I didn't ask. It's no wonder you are confused.

Unless you clarify what your 'question was' that's never going to be possible

reprise wrote: »

I must have missed the crowds. So are you going to answer the question now or write another meandering essay explaining why you won't.

See above.

Tbh your endless deliberate misdirection and attempts at puerile argument really are ridiculous.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote:

It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

reprise wrote: »

This, gozunda ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the point.

reprise wrote: »

What if it was a gay man looking for the cake and his friends muslim mother (who is black) actually does take it up the ass with a strapon wielding lesbian?

Reprise - I didn't think it was possible however your level of contribution has just hit a new all time low. From what I've seen you havn't added a single coherent argument to the entire thread and you now appear to be spending your time making trashy adolescent comments. Tbh they suit you.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

Reprise - I didn't think it was possible however your level of contribution has just hit a new all time low. From what I've seen you havn't added a single coherent argument to the entire thread and you now appear to be spending your time making trashy adolescent comments. Tbh they suit you.

I tried to engage my dear, but you were too busy being wildly offended by phantom discrimination and imaginary slights. Shame you are humourless and dour as well as highly strung. You're not actually from NI by chance, are you?

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Reprise - I didn't think it was possible however your level of contribution has just hit a new all time low. From what I've seen you havn't added a single coherent argument to the entire thread and you now appear to be spending your time making trashy adolescent comments. Tbh they suit you.

reprise wrote: »

I tried to engage my dear, but you were too busy being wildly offended by phantom discrimination and imaginary slights. Shame you are humourless and dour as well as highly strung. You're not actually from NI by chance, are you?

A simple discussion of the topic might be more productive. Resorting to insults again I see. :rolleyes: QED.

reprise

gozunda wrote: »

A simple discussion of the topic might be more productive. Resorting to insults again I see. :rolleyes: QED.

You could always answer my question.....