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
-
You could always answer my question.....
And the question was? But wait don't bother - you said you didn't want it to be answered anyway. So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
Best of luck ...0 -
And the question was? But wait don't bother - you said you didn't want it to be answered anyway. So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
Best of luck ...
I didn't want your version of it answered where you linked homosexuality with paedophilia. Sorry bout that.0 -
Fixed that for you.I didn't want your version of it answered where I linked homosexuality with paedophilia. Sorry bout that.
That's not what you said in your last post.reprise wrote:You could always answer my question.....
And previousreprise wrote:I've told you several times now you are not compelled to answer
A bit mixed up?
no worries - hope all is better soon
Anyway you forgot the second bit ...
So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
Best of luck ...0 -
That's not what you said in your last post.
And previous
Ah I get it - no worries I see you still have "homosexuality with paedophilia" on the brain. I hope it is treatable.
Anyway you deliberatly forgot the second bit ...
So how about you making a statement about how 'you' feel about the issue of the thread. It might make some sense to you then. If your lucky someone might even try and discuss it with you
Best of luck ...
You are repeating yourself now and pulling my quotes out of sequence. Maybe you should take a break, you seem very upset.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Anytime I hear of equality legislation I am always reminded of this story.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers
Instead of caring about innate human rights, modern progressive are more interested in dividing society up into little easy to pigeon hole pockets and confer more rights on some groups than others. The whole thing about this bakery is absurd beyond belief and frankly embarrassing that some are so hot and bothered about it.0 -
Anytime I hear of equality legislation I am always reminded of this story.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers
Instead of caring about innate human rights, modern progressive are more interested in dividing society up into little easy to pigeon hole pockets and confer more rights on some groups than others. The whole thing about this bakery is absurd beyond belief and frankly embarrassing that some are so hot and bothered about it.
Jank that 'story' is nothing only a sexist, racist, homophobic rant! Poor oppressed, heterosexual, able bodied, white, Christian people (males in particular)! The writer even has a pop a disabled people who use wheelchairs! Damn those wheelchair users and all the privileges and advantages society affords them! The whole 'article' is the height of ignorance.0 -
Anytime I hear of equality legislation I am always reminded of this story.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/16/gay-activists-have-met-their-match-with-muslim-barbers
Instead of caring about innate human rights, modern progressive are more interested in dividing society up into little easy to pigeon hole pockets and confer more rights on some groups than others. The whole thing about this bakery is absurd beyond belief and frankly embarrassing that some are so hot and bothered about it.
Which side are you talking about? If it wasn't you I would have assumed you were talking about the people who support people deciding which laws they follow.
In an incident involving a lesbian and a Muslim who is the victim? The Christians of course! It says a lot about a group when treating other people as equals is akin to themselves being persecuted.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Mod
Reprise, your contributions to this thread have consisted of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia, and of baiting other posters. You have been warned and banned for this kind of trolling before. If your posting style does not improve after your time off, you will be permabanned.0 -
On the Equal rights and same sex marriage
Dustin Lance Black speaking at the UCD Law society
0 -
I assume that all in this thread defending the right of religious shop owners to use their interpretations of whatever religion they follow to refuse to serve certain groups of customers, would also defend the Muslim employees in the subject of this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057109349
This would also be covered by the absolute right to freedom of religion I assume, and part of that right includes being free to act according to their conscience?
If this law is passed I guess that these M&S staff will be free to refuse to serve pork and alcohol in NI?0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »
In an incident involving a lesbian and a Muslim who is the victim? The Christians of course! It says a lot about a group when treating other people as equals is akin to themselves being persecuted.
Proves my point. Thank you. The incident in Toronto was resolved outside the court and the Muslim Barber was able to keep his premise, woman free.... meanwhile on this side of the world a stupid cake is now the latest example of the homophobic Christian society we live in....0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Jank that 'story' is nothing only a sexist, racist, homophobic rant! Poor oppressed, heterosexual, able bodied, white, Christian people (males in particular)! The writer even has a pop a disabled people who use wheelchairs! Damn those wheelchair users and all the privileges and advantages society affords them! The whole 'article' is the height of ignorance.
The author is not christian and the subject matter was about a Muslim man refusing to service a woman....but anyway...
He is very much correct to say that some minorities have been bestowed more rights than others. There is a pecking order and that case in same way is proof of it.0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »If this law is passed I guess that these M&S staff will be free to refuse to serve pork and alcohol in NI?
If the owners of M&S are OK with it then I have no problem with it. You are mistaking the owner of a business with an employee in this case. You do know that I would have no problem with a LGBT cake shop owner refusing to make a cake for a christian bible basher. Instead we have to engage in stupid low brow ambulance chasing.0 -
Proves my point. Thank you. The incident in Toronto was resolved outside the court and the Muslim Barber was able to keep his premise, woman free.... meanwhile on this side of the world a stupid cake is now the latest example of the homophobic Christian society we live in....
What point?
You can support discrimination all you want but thankfully the law and the likes of the UN view us all as equal so you won't get your world where you can lord over the lesser people.0 -
If the owners of M&S are OK with it then I have no problem with it. You are mistaking the owner of a business with an employee in this case.
Ah, but it is being argued that the refusal to make the cake, and conscientious objection on religious grounds in general, are part of the human right to freedom of religion. If this is the case then it must apply to both employers and their employees, including civil servants no? If it is covered by a human right it cannot apply only to private business owners.0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »What point?
You can support discrimination all you want but thankfully the law and the likes of the UN view us all as equal so you won't get your world where you can lord over the lesser people.
^^ This and the very real concern that belief systems, religous and otherwise have no place in wider society. In places of worship and homes people are free to hold as many diverse / spiritual beliefs they like and can do so in freedom as long as any such religous practises themselves are not illegal ie goat sacrifice in the bathroom, child marriage et etc and do not impact on individual rights.
We have spent decades in this country attempting to stuff the ogre of religous tyranny on civil life back in to its bottle and welding the cork firmly back on. Just as it appeared we were making some progress, militant religionists are now increasingly demanding their 'rights' to force belief systems on others. Imo if we have any lesson from our own history it is that Religious dogma has no place in a civil society.0 -
Advertisement
-
Proves my point. Thank you. The incident in Toronto was resolved outside the court and the Muslim Barber was able to keep his premise, woman free.... meanwhile on this side of the world a stupid cake is now the latest example of the homophobic Christian society we live in....
So...people should be free to exercise their bigotry, is that your message from this?0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »They werent expected to go against their religious beliefs, just to make a cake as they would for any other customer.
They absolutely were expected to fulfill an order which conflicted with their religious beliefs, and secondly, given the fact that they would not produce that design for ANY customer, means that they were not discriminating against the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This was the original claim put forward by the Equality Commission, who are a publicly funded body, supposed to be independent in these matters, yet who are promoting same-sex marriage themselves. After taking legal advice from one of the top barristers in the UK, the Equality Commission changed their claim from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to discrimination on the grounds of political opinion!
To answer the question of whether the customer knew or not the ethos of the bakery was religious, well, a quick skim of their website -Why Ashers? Well, contrary to popular opinion we are not called Mr & Mrs Asher. Our name comes from the Bible. Asher was a tribe of Israel who had many skilled bakers and created bread fit for a king.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.
Like I previously mentioned in the thread, I'm sure they had fulfilled orders previously for customers who are LGBT, but those customers were unlikely to be asking for a bespoke cake which was promoting a political message which conflicted with the owners religious beliefs. The owners of the bakery are entitled to their religious beliefs and to force them to comply with an order which conflicts with their religious beliefs is not just a breach of their human rights, but also could easily qualify as harassment. Their religious beliefs mean they would treat every person the same, but their religious beliefs would not say they should have to support same-sex marriage which would be contradictory to their religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You and I may not agree with their opinion which is based on their religious beliefs, but that doesn't give us the right to harass the owners of the bakery into complying with an order that would mean they would be forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs. That's exactly the purpose of the Equality Commission, to protect people from harassment and discrimination based on any of the nine grounds, and yet here they are taking a case against a bakery which explained to the customer why they could not fulfill the order.Does that mean legalised discrimination freedom of conscience no longer applies when the person isnt a part of your religion?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but in just the same way as other people are entitled to their freedom of conscience, I am entitled to mine. Freedom of conscience is a two-way street, just like equality is a two-way street, and if we are interested in treating all people equally based on the nine grounds on which they can be discriminated against, then sexual orientation has no more priority over religion - a person who is LGBT cannot be forced to comply with an order which would violate their freedom of conscience, and a person with a religious belief cannot be forced to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience, nor can a person force their political views upon another person in violation of their freedom of conscience.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.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about people here who are LGBT, or people who have a religious belief. It looks to me like both parties in this case are claiming they are being persecuted. Clearly 'negotiation' is a word neither party are familiar with.They're to prevent ALL discrimination.
Including discrimination and harassment against people who have religious beliefs, right? Just because you don't particularly regard religious beliefs as worthy of any respect, doesn't mean that those people serving the public interest have the luxury of discriminating in the same fashion as you do.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.
Same again, not sure who you're talking about here - an LGBT lobby group wants to treat people with religious belief as second class citizens and force them to comply with a request that conflicts with their religious beliefs, and now the Equality Commission, a publicly funded body set up to prevent exactly this type of discrimination and harassment, is supporting the LGBT lobby group in taking a case against the owners of the bakery for breaching anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds that the bakery discriminated against the customer on the grounds of their political opinion. Something tells me the Equality Commission has been spending public money to get advice from Lionel Hutz!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?
Of course I can, and some of them are fairly well articulated here -
http://eile.ie/2014/12/23/opinion-the-dup-conscience-clause-and-its-implications/
But we're not talking about the vast majority of the population being able to ignore any laws they want, we're talking here about people being allowed to refuse to be coerced into supporting a political opinion in violation of their freedom of conscience. Can you see the problem with forcing people to comply with laws which violate their freedom of conscience? Isn't that what LGBT lobby groups are campaigning against when they are campaigning for marriage equality? There are laws which allow them to express their political opinion, but LGBT groups and the Equality Commission are now using those same laws in a way in which they were never intended to be used. That's unfortunately now why a 'conscience clause' needs to be introduced, to prevent this sort of subversive coercion and clarify the circumstances under which a person can refuse to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience.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.
It's not my version of legal discrimination at all, it's recognition of a person's basic human right to freedom of conscience. LGBT lobby groups are still free to campaign for marriage equality, but they are not free to coerce people who disagree with their political opinion into supporting them, in violation of their religious beliefs, their freedom of conscience.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?
Of course they're not, and I wouldn't support them, but I also would not support people trying to force their political opinions on other people either, and I wouldn't support people who try to interfere with the lives of people who are religious in order to rob them of their livelihoods. That, to me at least, is not within the spirit of equality and treating all people with respect and dignity regardless of how their opinion differs from our own. I don't support any form of bigotry, and that includes bigotry against a person based on their religious beliefs. Most people who are religious, also want to go about their business and live their lives as an equal person where no section of society has any special privileges over another and all people are free from being harassed by people who do not share their views or think the same way they do.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
Of course they're not, and I wouldn't support them
With your stance you are supporting them.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don't support any form of bigotry, and that includes bigotry against a person based on their religious beliefs.
Requiring somebody to not exercise bigotry is not a form of bigotry.One eyed Jack wrote: »Most people who are religious, also want to go about their business and live their lives as an equal person where no section of society has any special privileges over another and all people are free from being harassed by people who do not share their views or think the same way they do.
Throughout history it has been the religious people who have exercised oppression and bigotry against minorities, now that they aren't allowed to do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed, it'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous.0 -
^^ This and the very real concern that belief systems, religous and otherwise have no place in wider society. In places of worship and homes people are free to hold as many diverse / spiritual beliefs they like and can do so in freedom as long as any such religous practises themselves are not illegal ie goat sacrifice in the bathroom, child marriage et etc and do not impact on individual rights.
We have spent decades in this country attempting to stuff the ogre of religous tyranny on civil life back in to its bottle and welding the cork firmly back on. Just as it appeared we were making some progress, militant religionists are now increasingly demanding their 'rights' to force belief systems on others. Imo if we have any lesson from our own history it is that Religious dogma has no place in a civil society.
To make it even stranger the likes of jank were giving out about the police not going after Muslims who broke the law in England and how they shouldnt be above the law and then comes here and goes the opposite way. One minute worried about the religious thinking they can do whatever they want and then complaining that they cant. Highlights my theory on how recently there has been an increase of right wing posters who only care about complaining about whatever is seen as liberal.One eyed Jack wrote: »They absolutely were expected to fulfill an order which conflicted with their religious beliefs, and secondly, given the fact that they would not produce that design for ANY customer, means that they were not discriminating against the customer on the grounds of their sexual orientation. This was the original claim put forward by the Equality Commission, who are a publicly funded body, supposed to be independent in these matters, yet who are promoting same-sex marriage themselves. After taking legal advice from one of the top barristers in the UK, the Equality Commission changed their claim from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to discrimination on the grounds of political opinion!
To answer the question of whether the customer knew or not the ethos of the bakery was religious, well, a quick skim of their website -
Like I previously mentioned in the thread, I'm sure they had fulfilled orders previously for customers who are LGBT, but those customers were unlikely to be asking for a bespoke cake which was promoting a political message which conflicted with the owners religious beliefs. The owners of the bakery are entitled to their religious beliefs and to force them to comply with an order which conflicts with their religious beliefs is not just a breach of their human rights, but also could easily qualify as harassment. Their religious beliefs mean they would treat every person the same, but their religious beliefs would not say they should have to support same-sex marriage which would be contradictory to their religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You and I may not agree with their opinion which is based on their religious beliefs, but that doesn't give us the right to harass the owners of the bakery into complying with an order that would mean they would be forced to support something which conflicts with their religious beliefs. That's exactly the purpose of the Equality Commission, to protect people from harassment and discrimination based on any of the nine grounds, and yet here they are taking a case against a bakery which explained to the customer why they could not fulfill the order.
I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but in just the same way as other people are entitled to their freedom of conscience, I am entitled to mine. Freedom of conscience is a two-way street, just like equality is a two-way street, and if we are interested in treating all people equally based on the nine grounds on which they can be discriminated against, then sexual orientation has no more priority over religion - a person who is LGBT cannot be forced to comply with an order which would violate their freedom of conscience, and a person with a religious belief cannot be forced to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience, nor can a person force their political views upon another person in violation of their freedom of conscience.
I'm not sure whether you're talking about people here who are LGBT, or people who have a religious belief. It looks to me like both parties in this case are claiming they are being persecuted. Clearly 'negotiation' is a word neither party are familiar with.
Including discrimination and harassment against people who have religious beliefs, right? Just because you don't particularly regard religious beliefs as worthy of any respect, doesn't mean that those people serving the public interest have the luxury of discriminating in the same fashion as you do.
Same again, not sure who you're talking about here - an LGBT lobby group wants to treat people with religious belief as second class citizens and force them to comply with a request that conflicts with their religious beliefs, and now the Equality Commission, a publicly funded body set up to prevent exactly this type of discrimination and harassment, is supporting the LGBT lobby group in taking a case against the owners of the bakery for breaching anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds that the bakery discriminated against the customer on the grounds of their political opinion. Something tells me the Equality Commission has been spending public money to get advice from Lionel Hutz!
Of course I can, and some of them are fairly well articulated here -
http://eile.ie/2014/12/23/opinion-the-dup-conscience-clause-and-its-implications/
But we're not talking about the vast majority of the population being able to ignore any laws they want, we're talking here about people being allowed to refuse to be coerced into supporting a political opinion in violation of their freedom of conscience. Can you see the problem with forcing people to comply with laws which violate their freedom of conscience? Isn't that what LGBT lobby groups are campaigning against when they are campaigning for marriage equality? There are laws which allow them to express their political opinion, but LGBT groups and the Equality Commission are now using those same laws in a way in which they were never intended to be used. That's unfortunately now why a 'conscience clause' needs to be introduced, to prevent this sort of subversive coercion and clarify the circumstances under which a person can refuse to comply with an order which violates their freedom of conscience.
It's not my version of legal discrimination at all, it's recognition of a person's basic human right to freedom of conscience. LGBT lobby groups are still free to campaign for marriage equality, but they are not free to coerce people who disagree with their political opinion into supporting them, in violation of their religious beliefs, their freedom of conscience.
Of course they're not, and I wouldn't support them, but I also would not support people trying to force their political opinions on other people either, and I wouldn't support people who try to interfere with the lives of people who are religious in order to rob them of their livelihoods. That, to me at least, is not within the spirit of equality and treating all people with respect and dignity regardless of how their opinion differs from our own. I don't support any form of bigotry, and that includes bigotry against a person based on their religious beliefs. Most people who are religious, also want to go about their business and live their lives as an equal person where no section of society has any special privileges over another and all people are free from being harassed by people who do not share their views or think the same way they do.
I dont really care about the bakery, I dont know how anyone was meant to know the owners were prejudiced based on its name just as people dont assume a guy called Matthew will start throwing stones at them.
What this comes down to is allowing the prejudiced minority to discriminate against other groups who committed the crime of existing. Something which the laws already tries to limit. To make it even more a joke its called "freedom", its as much freedom as religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, pretty good if you are a Muslim, **** if you arent.
Its like making pickpocketing legal to suit thieves but keeping armed mugging illegal. We know stealing is wrong but its ok if you just do it a little to people you dont like.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »With your stance you are supporting them.
No, I am not, I am refusing to support an organisation which, from the way I see it, engaged in a campaign to harass a business owner and used a twisted interpretation of the anti-discrimination laws when the bakery owner explained to the customer that his request was in conflict with the ethos of the business. Tolerance, respect and understanding goes both ways, and if you're not prepared to practice it yourself, you shouldn't expect it from others. It wasn't because the customer may have been LGBT that the order could not be fulfilled, it was because the political message the customer wanted to promote was in conflict with the bakery's religious ethos.Requiring somebody to not exercise bigotry is not a form of bigotry.
You might have a point if there weren't such a thing as different forms of bigotry -Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigotryThroughout history it has been the religious people who have exercised oppression and bigotry against minorities, now that they aren't allowed to do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed, it'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous.
People have used politics a lot longer than religion to exercise oppression and bigotry against anyone who disagreed with them, and now they aren't allowed do so with impunity they start complaining that they are being oppressed. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ludicrous, but at least "2,000 years of persecution" is new, as opposed to the usual bleating about "800 years...".
Either you want to work towards a progressive society where all people are treated equally with dignity and respect, or you just want a society where some people are more equal than others, and the second class citizens will be made to make reparations for historical events in which they played no part. Which is it?
I would urge you not to let that little bit of power you now feel you have over other people go to your head, or else you're no different to the people you despise. You have the choice to use it for good, or you can continue the cycle of promoting bitterness and discrimination against other people who don't think the same way you do.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Either you want to work towards a progressive society where all people are treated equally with dignity and respect, or you just want a society where some people are more equal than others, and the second class citizens will be made to make reparations for historical events in which they played no part. Which is it?
The second is wwhat you are arguing for. One side is saying not being able to discriminate is not discrimination while the other is saying they have to be allowed to discriminate or its discrimination.
If we say that someone has to be discriminated with it becomes a choice between:
People who exist
People who are prejudiced
The prejudiced can change, the other people cant change that they exist.0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »The second is wwhat you are arguing for. One side is saying not being able to discriminate is not discrimination while the other is saying they have to be allowed to discriminate or its discrimination.
You are discriminating against people who are religious if you're arguing that they should not be allowed to live according to their religious beliefs. How far you should be allowed to push that though should be what's open to negotiation, as everyone faces discrimination in one way or another, and that's where this whole hierarchy of discrimination comes from.
A bakery promoting their religious beliefs is no different to Queerspace promoting their political opinion. The Equality Commission could have justified their existence by acting as mediator between the two parties involved, but they chose to advocate for one party over the other. You'd know it wasn't their own money they were using to pay their legal fees for this farce.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You are discriminating against people who are religious if you're arguing that they should not be allowed to live according to their religious beliefs. How far you should be allowed to push that though should be what's open to negotiation, as everyone faces discrimination in one way or another, and that's where this whole hierarchy of discrimination comes from.
A bakery promoting their religious beliefs is no different to Queerspace promoting their political opinion. The Equality Commission could have justified their existence by acting as mediator between the two parties involved, but they chose to advocate for one party over the other. You'd know it wasn't their own money they were using to pay their legal fees for this farce.
Plenty of religious people live fine without feeling the urge to treat others as lesser. Its "discriminating" against prejudiced religious people and its not the religious part thats the problem.0 -
shruikan2553 wrote: »Plenty of religious people live fine without feeling the urge to treat others as lesser. Its "discriminating" against prejudiced religious people and its not the religious part thats the problem.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If we're both agreed that religion isn't the problem, but how it's used by people who are prejudiced towards other people, then we could apply that same principle to any ideology. It isn't the ideology that's the problem, it's people.
People who will use any ideology to humiliate or exploit other people who do not think the same way they do, should be prevented from doing so. Those same methods of prevention should also apply to non-religious people who would seek to impose their ideology on religious people.
Nobody will ever have everything their own way if everyone in society is supposed to be treated equally, we all have to learn to compromise, and that includes religious people, and non-religious people, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or even their politics (can't remember the rest of the grounds, but you get the idea).0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If we're both agreed that religion isn't the problem, but how it's used by people who are prejudiced towards other people, then we could apply that same principle to any ideology. It isn't the ideology that's the problem, it's people.
People who will use any ideology to humiliate or exploit other people who do not think the same way they do, should be prevented from doing so. Those same methods of prevention should also apply to non-religious people who would seek to impose their ideology on religious people.
Nobody will ever have everything their own way if everyone in society is supposed to be treated equally, we all have to learn to compromise, and that includes religious people, and non-religious people, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or even their politics (can't remember the rest of the grounds, but you get the idea).
And that compromise is people are allowed to practice their religion as long as it is not affecting others negatively. That means no stoning, sacrificing your neighbors dog etc.
Equality legislation is for everyone, a non religious person cant discriminate against a religious person and a religious person cant discriminate against a non religious person. Of course given that religion was given a higher place in the past it was allowed to get away with things and anything that attempts to bring everyone to the same level is responded to with cries of discrimination. Legalizing homosexuality and contraception were seen as attacks against religion.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m-ELWr8dRo
Advertisement