Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

Nevermind this nonsense

We now have a printer shop in Drogheda

Daith if I may ask, do you like it when people point fingers at you and think of you as a lesser person based on the fact you identify as homosexual?

Because what you're doing there is no different to those people.

What do you do when you meet someone who is transgender and religious such as a friend of mine who every time we meet up for a coffee she says she'll pray for me?

Do you ever give any thought to the fact that people are more than just the labels you apply to them, and they don't all fit in the boxes you think they should, based on your own prejudices?

shruikan2553

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Daith if I may ask, do you like it when people point fingers at you and think of you as a lesser person based on the fact you identify as homosexual?

Because what you're doing there is no different to those people.

What do you do when you meet someone who is transgender and religious such as a friend of mine who every time we meet up for a coffee she says she'll pray for me?

Do you ever give any thought to the fact that people are more than just the labels you apply to them, and they don't all fit in the boxes you think they should, based on your own prejudices?

There's no difference between disliking someone for no reason and disliking someone who dislikes you for no reason?

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Daith if I may ask, do you like it when people point fingers at you and think of you as a lesser person based on the fact you identify as homosexual?

Because what you're doing there is no different to those people.

What do you do when you meet someone who is transgender and religious such as a friend of mine who every time we meet up for a coffee she says she'll pray for me?

Do you ever give any thought to the fact that people are more than just the labels you apply to them, and they don't all fit in the boxes you think they should, based on your own prejudices?

Hi there. I'm reporting a news story of the same type as the thread except it's happening in Ireland. Not entirely sure why you think I'm pointing fingers at anyone? Exactly what label did I apply to them or what box did I put them in?

Perhaps quit with the idea that you know what I'm thinking? Cheers!

In fact I stated on several occasions that I don't think Ashers were in the wrong. I guessed you glossed over those posts.

One eyed Jack

shruikan2553 wrote: »

There's no difference between disliking someone for no reason and disliking someone who dislikes you for no reason?

Daith is pointing fingers at people who do not support marriage equality and their reason is based on their religious beliefs. That's no different to people pointing fingers at Daith for being homosexual.

It's prejudice in both directions, but I think Daith is failing to understand that not all religious people are against same-sex marriage. Daith's prejudice is based on his dislike of religion. It's understandable, but then I also understand that not all people who are LGBT are anti-religion either.

Anyway, feel free to answer the same question I asked Daith if you like?

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Daith is pointing fingers at people who do not support marriage equality

No I'm not. I reported a story

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

Hi there. I'm reporting a news story of the same type as the thread except it's happening in Ireland. Not entirely sure why you think I'm pointing fingers at anyone? Exactly what label did I apply to them or what box did I put them in?

Perhaps quit with the idea that you know what I'm thinking? Cheers!

In fact I stated on several occasions that I don't think Ashers were in the wrong. I guessed you glossed over those posts.

I never claimed to know what you were thinking at all, I based my opinion on your post. I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable conclusion to draw from your post. If however you want to be obtuse about it, I'm fine with that too. It's not very clever, in fact it's quite transparent, but if that's the way you want to play it, that's fine. I won't bother asking for clarification.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never claimed to know what you were thinking at all, I based my opinion on your post. I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable conclusion to draw from your post. If however you want to be obtuse about it, I'm fine with that too. It's not very clever, in fact it's quite transparent, but if that's the way you want to play it, that's fine. I won't bother asking for clarification.

Hi again. I don't think Ashers bakery were in the wrong. I posted a news story about something similar happening in Ireland without mentioning anything else.

I think your ability to draw conclusions needs some work.

shruikan2553

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Daith is pointing fingers at people who do not support marriage equality and their reason is based on their religious beliefs. That's no different to people pointing fingers at Daith for being homosexual.

It's prejudice in both directions, but I think Daith is failing to understand that not all religious people are against same-sex marriage. Daith's prejudice is based on his dislike of religion. It's understandable, but then I also understand that not all people who are LGBT are anti-religion either.

Anyway, feel free to answer the same question I asked Daith if you like?

All he did was link a story. As you say people who are religious manage to treat others as equal no problem, the problem with them is that they are prejudiced, not their religion. What did the homosexuals do to the religious? Exist?
The people who are prejudiced are the people with the problem, they are the ones who have an issue with someone who is doing nothing to them. Is a black person not liking the KKK prejudiced as well? Or Jews who didnt like the Nazis?

I have asked variations of this multiple times and have yet to get an answer.
What is it that homosexuals have done to make discrimination against them ok?

Magico Gonzalez

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never claimed to know what you were thinking at all, I based my opinion on your post. I don't think it was an entirely unreasonable conclusion to draw from your post. If however you want to be obtuse about it, I'm fine with that too. It's not very clever, in fact it's quite transparent, but if that's the way you want to play it, that's fine. I won't bother asking for clarification.

That's an awful lot to derive from:

"We now have a printer shop in Drogheda refusing to print same sex wedding invitations"

Followed by a direct quote from the print shop involved.

One eyed Jack

shruikan2553 wrote: »

All he did was link a story. As you say people who are religious manage to treat others as equal no problem, the problem with them is that they are prejudiced, not their religion. What did the homosexuals do to the religious? Exist?

Nail on the head right there. That's exactly the problem - people. Religion isn't the problem. Religion is nothing more useful than any other tool a person will use to justify their own prejudices. I'm not really sure how to answer your question because I know plenty of people who are LGBT and religious, and I never really questioned the dissonance, I just accepted them as they are, as people, not label x, y, z or whatever. I think it's simply that some people don't like people who are LGBT, and they use religion to justify their prejudices. Then there are people who are anti-religion who use all the abuse, corruption, x, y, z, to justify their prejudices against people who are religious.

One form of intolerance is no different than the other, they just have different underlying motivations that people use to justify their prejudices.

The people who are prejudiced are the people with the problem, they are the ones who have an issue with someone who is doing nothing to them. Is a black person not liking the KKK prejudiced as well? Or Jews who didnt like the Nazis?

Well they are, but that prejudice like I said is completely understandable. If they were prejudiced against all white people, or if a Jew was prejudiced against all Germans, I would see that as irrational. Now you reminded me of it, I used work with a Hungarian girl and a number of Polish people. This girl had a particularly nasty attitude towards her Polish workmates. I asked her what was that about? I'm not a historian so it kinda went over my head but basically she claimed that she hated Polish people because they invaded Hungary at some stage? I just thought "You're 23, you weren't even alive then, and none of your co-workers were responsible for that?", but there you go - understandable, sort of, but completely irrational.

I have asked variations of this multiple times and have yet to get an answer. What is it that homosexuals have done to make discrimination against them ok?

Fannyadams IMO, but that's people for you. Haters be hatin' :rolleyes:

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fannyadams IMO, but that's people for you. Haters be hatin' :rolleyes:

Which is why we have equality laws and so on so haters can't always be hating much to their annoyance.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

Which is why we have equality laws and so on so haters can't always be hating much to their annoyance.

Equality laws aren't worth the paper they're printed on Daith when the reality is very different from the most well intentioned laws. Depending on how strongly they feel they're entitled to, people will either bend those laws, break them, find another way around them, or ignore them completely, as they feel their behaviour justifies the means to an end. It's a bit short sighted, as they're not thinking of other people who are affected by their actions, and unless you want to enforce a dystopian "Minority Report" thought police sort of society, you're unlikely ever to create a society where everyone feels they are treated equally, let alone fairly, because human beings aren't naturally conscious of other people's needs beyond their own.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. Depending on how strongly they feel they're entitled to, people will either bend those laws, break them, find another way around them, or ignore them completely, as they feel their behaviour justifies the means to an end.

Haters going to hate!

osarusan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A law which IMO should be changed if it appears to place what I believe are the rights of one person over another.

Same way surely that some people don't like the scenario that they feel the State is discriminating against them for not legislating for marriage equality, and they want that law changed, other people are entitled to campaign for a change in the law which they don't like.

I asked you this in an earlier post, but you never replied.

If you are in favour of allowing people to discriminate against others based on their personal moral or ethical convictions, do you feel that there should be any limits on this?

You mentioned to another poster "what have black people got to do with anything?" or words to that effect, but my interpretation of your argument is that, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you would believe someone should be allowed to discriminate against black people (and anybody else) if they have a personal moral or ethical conviction for doing so.

Is that a correct interpretation of your position?

bodice ripper

Daith wrote: »

Haters going to hate!

All we ask is that bakers also bake.

bodice ripper

Maybe a silly question, but are businesses allowed to refuse custom if they simply refuse to give a reason why not

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

I asked you this in an earlier post, but you never replied.

If you are in favour of allowing people to discriminate against others based on their personal moral or ethical convictions, do you feel that there should be any limits on this?

Sorry oranusan, I meant to try and cover it in one of my replies but no, I don't think there should be any limits on it in private businesses providing their services to the public. I'm not suggesting the same principle applies to employment law or the public sector.

You mentioned to another poster "what have black people got to do with anything?" or words to that effect, but my interpretation of your argument is that, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, you would believe someone should be allowed to discriminate against black people (and anybody else) if they have a personal moral or ethical conviction for doing so.

Is that a correct interpretation of your position?

Yeah that's a fair assessment. But from my perspective, and why I believe this is a good thing, is because it allows the consumer then to make the decision on whether they will choose to give the particular business their custom or not.

You'll see on the other thread about the printer that refused to print the marriage invitations for a customer that Links gave a story about a restaurant, and how two people were kicked out for kissing each other (now whether they were kicked out for being gay, or whether they were kicked out for PDA, I'm not sure, I got refused service once because the girl behind the bar thought the girl I was with was under age, and she probably didn't like the fact we were wearing the faces off each other five minutes before that ), but anyway, point being -

Links then went on to say how she and her friends did all the social media thing and told their friends about it and so on, and people just didn't really care all that much! What I'm getting at is that people will decide for themselves really when it comes to these things, and the business owners will either find themselves losing business and change their policy, or they'll stick by their principles and the business goes under, maybe the business improves, who knows? But forcing people to do anything just fosters resentment, it does the opposite of building respect and understanding.

If people truly want to promote understanding and respect for each other, then the best place to start with is themselves, and that's why I believe that even though the owners of the bakery or the printers are behaving like a pack of assholes, the people badmouthing them all over social media and taking cases against them and so on, are equally behaving like assholes. That's just my perspective, I don't see either party acting in any sort of dignified manner here.

jobbridge4life

jank wrote: »

A nice straw man but the law or should I say the protection of an individuals right to believe what they want and to act in accordance with their own beliefs in a private setting be it religous/non-religious should be neutral. One is not equating anything in equal measure just that one is giving an example that someone can refuse service if they so wish.

With respect, you did draw an equivalence between a message supporting recognition of secular civic gay marriage under the law with one supporting 'biblical slavery' and the extermination of gay people when you suggested you'd object to them equally. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, if so clarify your point further, denying it makes it seem only more likely that this was your original intention.

jobbridge4life

jank wrote: »

What about the one legged left handed albino who's name is Rickey?

Indeed what of him? Or does his rarity mean he is beneath equal protection under the law. Meanwhile your flippancy with regard to the scenarios suggested to you is noted and telling.

jank

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect, you did draw an equivalence between a message supporting recognition of secular civic gay marriage under the law with one supporting 'biblical slavery' and the extermination of gay people when you suggested you'd object to them equally. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, if so clarify your point further, denying it makes it seem only more likely that this was your original intention.

Extermination?...
Anyway, I already addressed this point in the thread, no point going back over it.