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
12357…17

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish. For hundreds of years countries have fought and millions have died for their religious beliefs. Equality legislation that erodes these rights is it not equality.


  • Options
    #123
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish. For hundreds of years countries have fought and millions have died for their religious beliefs. Equality legislation that erodes these rights is it not equality.

    Tell me sir, how is it eroding your beliefs to expect a non religious business to operate as any other business? A business is not a religious organisation.....


  • Options
    #124
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion

    No it's not. You can practice your religion but should not be expected to force your religious beliefs on anyone who does not follow your religion.


  • Options
    #125
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish. For hundreds of years countries have fought and millions have died for their religious beliefs. Equality legislation that erodes these rights is it not equality.

    Sure :-)

    Ahead of things like personal safety, access to food, reasonable freedom of movement, etc.


  • Options
    #126
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish. For hundreds of years countries have fought and millions have died for their religious beliefs. Equality legislation that erodes these rights is it not equality.

    I demand the government recognise my right to offer human sacrifices to Nyarlathotep. All those who are not believers serve only as fodder for the great Crawling Chaos. These are my religious beliefs and, as such, are both above reproach and supersede anyone else's rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish. For hundreds of years countries have fought and millions have died for their religious beliefs. Equality legislation that erodes these rights is it not equality.

    The right to practice and believe what you want is one thing, using that as a reason to exclude certain groups in society is not acceptable.


  • Options
    #128
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    Tell me sir, how is it eroding your beliefs to expect a non religious business to operate as any other business? A business is not a religious organisation.....

    If a person does not want to offer his/her services due to their religious convictions then that is something that should be protected and freedom of conscience is what this is about.
    Daith wrote: »
    No it's not. You can practice your religion but should not be expected to force your religious beliefs on anyone who does not follow your religion.

    No one is proselytizing here, this is about freedom of choice, the baker should be allowed to decline business if he/she wishes, Just like the customer is allowed to choose who bakes their cake.
    Bob24 wrote: »
    Sure :-)

    Ahead of things like personal safety, access to food, reasonable freedom of movement, etc.

    The right to life and the right to religion are the two most important human rights in the Western Developed World, the first Amendment of the US Constitution recognises the right to freedom of religion and the second amendment is the right to bear arms.
    Cuban Pete wrote: »
    I demand the government recognise my right to offer human sacrifices to Nyarlathotep. All those who are not believers serve only as fodder for the great Crawling Chaos. These are my religious beliefs and, as such, are both above reproach and supersede anyone else's rights.

    The right to life supersedes such beliefs and such an outrageous beleif system would be even classified as religion and would be more suited under the categorization of terrorism and mental illness.


  • Options
    #129
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Daith wrote: »
    No it's not. You can practice your religion but should not be expected to force your religious beliefs on anyone who does not follow your religion.


    By that same token, you as an individual should not be able to force your personal moral and ethical standards on anyone else, and if a person tells you that they have a personal religious, moral or ethical objection to providing you with a service you feel you should be entitled to, they're not breaking the law.

    Why would anyone want to support a business which they know would discriminate against them anyway? It's no different to suggesting that a person going where they know they're not welcome, is only inviting trouble on themselves.

    If enough people decide not to support the business, that would have them take a quicker look at their policy, than trying to force your will upon them to force them to change to suit you.


  • Options
    #130
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    By that same token, you as an individual should not be able to force your personal moral and ethical standards on anyone else

    We don't. That's why we have law in countries so everyone follows the same rules.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's no different to suggesting that a person going where they know they're not welcome, is only inviting trouble on themselves.


    Operating a business and not following the law is asking for trouble too. If you don't like the rules, don't open a business. Works both ways!


  • Options
    #131
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Gbear wrote: »
    Hair splitting? Jesus christ.:rolleyes:

    They're completely and totally different.

    you said
    Gbear wrote:
    You don't need to be a racist to oppose the state interfering in businesses right to choose their own clientèle.

    How is that even remotely related to "forcing everyone to be an alcoholic" as you detailed below for some strange reason?

    Laws that protect the rights of citizens force nothing. Such laws prevent illegal behaviour and activities such as discrimination
    Gbear wrote: »
    It's the difference between allowing the sale of alcohol, including to alcoholics, and forcing everyone to be an alcoholic.
    It's the difference between allowing the existence of private schools that teach climate change and evolution denial and enforcing bull**** like that in all public schools.That you can dismiss such a fundamental difference as hair splitting is simply unbelievable.

    If you wish to bring in paradoxical examples then that's you choice. It makes it no less hair splitting imo.
    Gbear wrote: »
    Your 2nd point is absolute bollocks.
    The civil rights movement won in spite of the government because it had popular support.

    Yes. The government really did a bang up job when it was coerced into giving black people their rights back.

    Society get's less ignorant and then drags archaic laws, kicking and screaming, into modernity.
    It does not work the other way around.

    You're always going to have a few outlier racist dickheads but such is life. A few dopes aren't a good reason to keep the progress of civil society shackled to a plodding monolith like our legal system.

    And how is the civil rights movement for LGBT rights any different? What is different is that the perpetrators of discrimination by reason of sexual orientation are breaking the law. The Equality Commission have taken up this case. What is being fought is the rise of bigots who would assert their 'rights' to discriminate against others whilst claiming 'religious belief' as an excuse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    eviltwin wrote: »
    The bakers didn't refuse to deal with the customers, they just refused to make the cake they wanted. Its totally different.

    Actually I think they were happy to provide a the cake, they only refused to write the message on it.

    If I go into a bakery and ask for a cake with "Save Ulster from Sodomy" written on it, must the bakery write this?


  • Options
    #133
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish. For hundreds of years countries have fought and millions have died for their religious beliefs. Equality legislation that erodes these rights is it not equality.

    Hence why it's removal from the public sphere is essential to the progress of a modern, equal society.


  • Options
    #134
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    md23040 wrote: »
    Not that I agree with this nonsense but why don't you go onto a Muslim cafe and demand a bacon buttie or else go into a kosher bakery and ask for a National Front style cake with a big swastika on it and see how far you get in Liberal UK or anywhere else for that matter.

    If the Muslim Cafe actually kept bacon in stock, cooked it and added it to the Menu then you'd actually have a comparable argument. Not stocking a product is not discrimination.

    The National Front Cake is a better argument but the bakery itself could be heavily fined or even shut down for putting an illegal symbol on the cake.

    However writing a slogan on a cake is not the same as endorsing it. It really shouldn't matter if they disagree with the slogan or not.
    There are many bakeries in Belfast and I do wonder if this bakery was chosen intentionally to make a point. Their website mentions that their name is derived from the bible (from a tribe of Israel of something). It's not unknown for some activists in general to stir the pot & seek persecution to highlight an issue. It's rare (i hope!) but it happens.


  • Options
    #135
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Actually I think they were happy to provide a the cake, they only refused to write the message on it.

    If I go into a bakery and ask for a cake with "Save Ulster from Sodomy" written on it, must the bakery write this?

    I agree with you. I'm sure if a gay person went in to buy an eclair they would serve them no problem. The issue was the message on the cake, not the customer and while I don't agree with them I defend their right to do it otherwise you set a precedent where retailers have to create any message their customers want.


  • Options
    #136
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The right to life supersedes such beliefs and such an outrageous beleif system would be even classified as religion and would be more suited under the categorization of terrorism and mental illness.

    Who are you to declare what is and is not a religion? Much less classify my beliefs as "mental illness". These are my religious beliefs and I expect them to be respected.

    If, as you say, "The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish" then why does the right to life supersede this, when religious belief and practice is the most fundamental right?


  • Options
    #137
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I agree with you. I'm sure if a gay person went in to buy an eclair they would serve them no problem. The issue was the message on the cake, not the customer and while I don't agree with them I defend their right to do it otherwise you set a precedent where retailers have to create any message their customers want.

    I'd agree with that also! The issue is with the slogan whereas the proposed bill is about the customer.


  • Options
    #138
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Daith wrote: »
    We don't. That's why we have law in countries so everyone follows the same rules.


    You're forcing your personal moral and ethical standards on other people when you demand that because their personal moral and ethical standards differ from your own, that their opinion has less validity in society than your own opinion.

    Operating a business and not following the law is asking for trouble too. If you don't like the rules, don't open a business. Works both ways!


    Yes it does, so I assume that rather than campaigning for a change in the law to legislate for marriage equality, you'll be moving to a country where same-sex marriage is already legal, right?

    Of course you wouldn't, because that would be silly, just as silly as suggesting that a private company should not be allowed to choose who they provide their services to.


  • Options
    #139
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Of course you wouldn't, because that would be silly, just as silly as suggesting that a private company should not be allowed to choose who they provide their services to.

    Private businesses are already constrained from being allowed to choose who they provide their services to. There is nothing remotely silly about it.

    Also private businesses like private individuals operate in the public sphere and as such are subject to the law that governs interpersonal contact.


  • Options
    #140
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Nee naw nee naw the thought police are on their way!


  • Options
    #141
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You're forcing your personal moral and ethical standards on other people when you demand that because their personal moral and ethical standards differ from your own, that their opinion has less validity in society than your own opinion.

    Utter nonsense. You're asking a business to follow the law. It's not about opinion. It's about following the law.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes it does, so I assume that rather than campaigning for a change in the law to legislate for marriage equality, you'll be moving to a country where same-sex marriage is already legal, right?

    Of course you wouldn't, because that would be silly, just as silly as suggesting that a private company should not be allowed to choose who they provide their services to.

    Not at all. They're campaigning to have a bill to do what they want. I've no problem with them wanting to get a bill passed. I've a problem with the bill though.

    I can't get married until the law changes.
    I can't discriminate against customers based on my moral beliefs until the law changes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Nee naw nee naw the thought police are on their way!

    Its funny anti-discrimination gets referred to as the thought police, the mystical sky friend who apparently determines what cakes one can bake and what ones will land you in eternal hell fire meanwhile....


  • Options
    #143
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You're still mixing up public sector and private sector provided services. If a person is employed in the public service providing services to the public, they may raise their objections with their employer, but they themselves are not entitled to discriminate against anyone if there is a policy in place which says they cannot discriminate against a person. The same rules do not apply to service providers in the private sector.

    There was no mix up. But I do think your argument is confused. Regarding public and private sector - The Anti Discrimination laws remain the same. It is illegal for any business or service to discriminate against people on a range of characteristics including sexual orientation.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    A business' ethos could discriminate against a person for any particular reason, and employees of that business would have to abide by the business' ethos or could face disciplinary action or dismissal.

    Ashers had no 'business ethos' one way or the other. They are obliged by law to provide their goods and services without discrimination.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Seriously though, that sort of pronouncement could easily be turned against you in that I could just as handy say to you that what you want is immaterial... but it's no way to conduct a discussion, is it?

    It related only to your pronouncement that you didn't like the current set up of the anti discrimination laws. Well tough that's the way they are. That is not up for debate.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Actually, my wants are protected under what are called 'personal liberties', and your personal liberties don't trump my personal liberties, nor does your perceived entitlement to what you see as your civil rights trump my constitutionally protected fundamental rights. Discrimination in and of itself isn't terrible either, in fact in some cases it's absolutely necessary, and in other cases, such as 'positive discrimination' public policies, it's absolutely futile.
    Let's deal with the present case any perceived 'civil liberties' do not trump anti discrimination laws.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes? Not sure what other answer you were expecting there? In the same way as you would travel to avail of a better quality of service regardless of the fact whether they be a chemist, bakery, shop, etc. That's people's personal choice to travel. It's an inconvenience, and nothing more, and no private services provider is obligated to provide a person with services just because that person feels they are entitled to a service.

    It's nothing to do with 'entitlement' but it is everything to do with businesses providing goods and services without discrimination as laid out in law.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    They are there to provide a service to whomever they choose to provide that service to. The money they make from providing that service is obviously a secondary concern if they are prepared to deny their services to certain people. They are operating within the law already, and the law protects their right to choose who they will provide their services to, and also their right to choose what services they will provide to whomever they choose.

    Not according to the Equality Commission they ain't ...
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    If they do not want to provide their services to a person, that person is entitled to choose to take their business elsewhere. If I go into the local convenience store run by Muslims and I'm told they don't stock ham, then there's nothing I can do as there's no law that says convenience stores have to stock ham. There's also no law that says a bakery providing customised cakes has to provide a service to a person who wants a political message on a cake which contravenes their personal and religious beliefs.

    That type of ridiculous argument has already been debunked many times. See the Gay Cake thread for full details...
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    All you're doing by trying to force the issue is giving private businesses a reason to refuse business that's going to be an issue for them. It's no different to publicans that close their businesses when there's a traveller wedding in town rather than have to deal with the potential fallout that could lose them a lot more business.

    And your point is?


  • Options
    #144
    keano_afc
    Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    gozunda wrote: »
    A That is YOUR interpretation and is unsupported by the evidence to date

    Ashers have said this is the reason the customer wasnt served. I see no reason to disbelieve them. If a gay person entered the shop and ordered a croissant or a rock bun or whatever they would have been served.
    B Again that is your supposition on the issue and interestingly is at odds to what the NI anti discrimination authority has found and which looks likely to go before the courts

    Again, the customers sexuality had nothing to do with the reason they were not served.
    C So as detailed previously would you hold that the civil rights movement in the US should have shut up and put up with discrimination?

    Nasty 'noisy' minorities actually speaking up and seeking the same rights as everyone else? Shame on them you say?' -shame on you!

    Same rights as everyone else? They deliberately targetted an establishment for publicity purposes. Pretty scummy way to go about getting equal rights.


  • Options
    #145
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Its funny anti-discrimination gets referred to as the thought police, the mystical sky friend who apparently determines what cakes one can bake and what ones will land you in eternal hell fire meanwhile....
    The cake wasn't the problem, it was the socio political slogan that conflicted with their admittedly wacky beliefs


  • Options
    #146
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Daith wrote: »
    I'd agree with that also! The issue is with the slogan whereas the proposed bill is about the customer.

    I finally found the proposal of legislation: http://dev.mydup.com/images/uploads/publications/Freedom_of_Conscience_Consultation_Document_Final.pdf

    Looking at it, I don't think what you are saying is correct. The following section seems clearly to contradict the argument saying that the bill would allow to discriminate a gay customer just on the basis that they are gay:

    "Mindful of this my Draft Bill:
    - Would not mean that a n Evangelical grocer would be able to refuse to sell apples to a gay man.
    The selling of apples would not involve the Evangelical grocer being required to
    endorse, promote or facilitate a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his/her faith identity so there is no conflict.
    - Would not mean that a Muslim printer could refuse to print a brochure publicising coffee tables made by a lesbian cabinet maker.
    The printing of a brochure outlining different coffee table designs would not involve the Muslim printer being required to endorse, promote or facilitate same-sex sexual relationships in violation of his faith identity so there is no conflict.
    - Would not mean that a Catholic photographer could refuse to take a photograph of recipes created by a bisexual chef.
    Taking such photographs would not have the effect of endorsing, promoting or facilitating a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his or her faith identity so there is no conflict"


  • Options
    #147
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    It's going to be blocked, afaik, so no need to panic.


  • Options
    #148
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    Bob24 wrote: »
    - Would not mean that a Catholic photographer could refuse to take a photograph of recipes created by a bisexual chef.
    Taking such photographs would not have the effect of endorsing, promoting or facilitating a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his or her faith identity so there is no conflict"[/I]

    The photographer could refuse to take pictures of a same sex wedding.

    Would it be okay for a photographer to refuse to take pictures of an interracial wedding? Or at a children's party where the child has a single parent?


  • Options
    #149
    keano_afc
    Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Daith wrote: »
    I think you're getting mixed up.

    The bill would allow you not to serve a customer because of your religious beliefs. So you could refuse a customer because they were gay or black or a single mother.

    It actually has nothing to do with the slogan or message printing.

    I think the thread topic is fine but the original post should be less about Ashers and more about the actual bill.

    I fail to see the connection here, can you explain it to me?


  • Options
    #150
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    no_car wrote: »
    ok , we are now debating the proposed bill , i was refering to the bakers who refused to contribute to a political campaign

    i still dont have a problem with private business refusing to serve certain people , i dont believe the state can perfect society and that this kind of ( over reach ) will completely eradicate prejudice

    ive no desire to impose my will upon people who have a different outlook , the likes of the christian bakery did not go looking for confrontation , confrontation came looking for them

    Well there you are. Your starting point is already flawed. The bakery management refused to bake the cake as the 'order was against their religious beliefs'

    This statement was openly and clearly made by the manager of the bakery in the video carefully put together by a well publicised Christian institute. They make no mention of any 'political campaign' in their statement whatsoever.


    Regarding the second point, the state does have a problem with "private business refusing to serve certain people". Hence why the bakery is in trouble.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    Cuban Pete wrote: »
    Who are you to declare what is and is not a religion? Much less classify my beliefs as "mental illness". These are my religious beliefs and I expect them to be respected.

    If, as you say, "The most fundamental human right has been the right to religion and to practice and believe as you wish" then why does the right to life supersede this, when religious belief and practice is the most fundamental right?


    Because human sacrifice is illegal and murder, read the laws.

    The right to life supersecdes religion because you cannot have a situation like where the ISIS are killing all non-beleivers in the name of Islam. The Islamic Koran instructs its followers to kill the infedel, I do not consider this as religion but rather a xenophobic racist hate-group.
    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Hence why it's removal from the public sphere is essential to the progress of a modern, equal society.

    The removal of Religion is the removal of ethics and morals from our society and not something to be encouraged or applauded. Should we have a poltiically correct society like in Sweden where they are rewarding Jihadists with Civil Service jobs for killing Christians? Should we accommodate pedophiles?

    The Frankfurt school of Cultural Marxism is responsible for this in an attempt to destroy western society with political correctness and to introduce a left-wing anarchical society in an attempt to finally succeed in their failed global revolution.

    Over the years we have seen this with leftwing idealogies of political correctness, abortion on demand, massive immigration into Europe, declining morals of society, persecution of Judeo-Christian beliefs, feminsim, contraception leading to a demographic crisis, a self-centered greed-driven society, the homosexual agenda, destruction of the core family unit. Masive welfare states leading to dependency.

    I could go on and on but what is the point? People have their beliefs and I might not like them but I respect them and support their right to express their opinions no matter how contradictory to what I myself believe in. All of this is part of a greater decline in Western Society which unless there is major changes soon will see the collapse of Western values and the future in 100 years will be alot different to today unless some strong political figures emerge soon. Ironically it is in the East where Marxism once thrived that the very future of Western Society now lies.


Advertisement