Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

jobbridge4life

suicide_circus wrote: »

The cake wasn't the problem, it was the socio political slogan that conflicted with their admittedly wacky beliefs

Ergo baking cake with a certain socio-political slogan was a big no no to the Ashers personal dictator in the clouds.

conorhal

Ah the Free Presbyterians, more Catholic then the feckin Papist's they proclaim to hate so much.

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

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"

That piece of proposed legislation is entirely farcical. Who will determine the validity of my claim to religious belief. If claim that my religious belief precludes me from letting a black man sit in my taxi who will interrogate me? How would the courts determine if I was telling the truth?

How pathetic these creationists are.

Karl Stein

Nodin wrote: »

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

What the north needs now is an openly gay SF deputy leader in Stormont.

That would be fabulous

suicide_circus

Karl Stein wrote: »

What the north needs now is an openly gay SF deputy leader in Stormont.

I read Stormont as Stormfront!

eviltwin

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Ergo baking cake with a certain socio-political slogan was a big no no to the Ashers personal dictator in the clouds.

Do you think the law should force retailers like Ashers to print these slogans?

jobbridge4life

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think the law should force retailers like Ashers to print these slogans?

Honestly I don't know. One side I say absoltuely yes. On the other I say absolutely no.

I do know however that creating exemptions based on religious belief to anti-discrimination laws or any other law would be shockingly wrong and beyond farcical.

Bob24

Daith wrote: »

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?

Pictures of same sex wedding clearly yes.

The rest is you speculating, and nothing I can see in the document indicates it would be the case.

But even looking at the marriage, the right to decline is described as being about the final product (picture of 2 men or two women getting married), not the customer. The way I read it, if two gay men were to ask for a picture of their adopted child, the photographer could not refuse unless the picture shows them around the child with signs saying "dad" and "dad".

Not saying I agree with that proposal ... but I am not sure it has been described accurately in this thread.

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

Pictures of same sex wedding clearly yes.

The rest is you speculating, and nothing I can see in the document indicates it would be the case.

But even looking at the marriage, the right to decline is described as being about the final product (picture of 2 men or two women getting married), not the customer. The way I read it, if two gay men were to ask for a picture of their adopted child, the photographer could not refuse unless the picture shows them around the child with signs saying "dad" and "dad".

So therefor this new legislation is in itself going to discriminate between religions.

mikeym

You can love Ulster but not your fellow man

Gotta love the Free Presbyterian Church.

gozunda

keano_afc wrote: »

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.

I already replied to this one but here goes again ... The bakery manager made a statement that they refused the 'order because it was against their religious beliefs' The 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.

Would you provide backup for your assertion that the bakery said the refused the order because they didn't wish to get involve in a political campaign. Thanks

keano_afc wrote: »

Again, the customers sexuality had nothing to do with the reason they were not served.

That is NOT what the Equality Commission in NI has clearly stated in their letter to the bakery.

keano_afc wrote: »

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

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. On the Bakery website, no where did it state they were a 'Christian' bakery. The bakery is one of a chain and had many outlets including Belfast city centre. They bakery took the order then refused it. And in fact it was the Bakery that publicised the whole issue by producing a slick video with a Christian Pressure group that actively campaign against LGBT rights and then publishing it and the the letter online. Of the bakery issue and equal rights - these already exist, the customer has the right not to be discriminated against.The businesses behaviour was scummy imo.

Bob24

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So therefor this new legislation is in itself going to discriminate between religions.

Actually not. If you look at the document they were careful to list examples related to Muslim and Jewish people.

But it does give religious people a right that non religious people would not have, and similarly to blasphemy laws it is impractical as it doesn't define what is considered a valid religious belief. Which is why I don't agree with it - but I don't think it is a right for people to make the document say things that it doesn't actually say (i.e. that a business could refuse to serve a gay or black customer purely based on their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin).

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

Actually not. If you look at the document they were careful to list examples related to Muslim and Jewish people.

Thanks for the assumption but I am not under informed I just disagree with you.

Bob24 wrote: »

But it does give religious people a right that non religious people would not have, and similarly to blasphemy laws it is impractical as it doesn't define what is considered a valid religious belief. Which is why I don't agree with it - but I don't think it is a ready to make it say things it doesn't (i.e. that a business could refuse to serve a gay or black customer purely based on their sexual orientation or the colour of their skin).

The bill and the pathetic attempt to paint it as anything other than farcical nonsense are laughable. If I maintain it is my sincere religious belief that all black people bear the sin and curse of Lot's daughters and that I must not interact with them under any condition should I have my religious beliefs protected?

What if I am the Westboro Baptist Church and I believe it is my religious duty to protest at dead soldiers funerals?

What if I own a 'christian wedding outfits' shop and I want to refuse a muslim man and woman who are to be married from using my shop because in my mind they a consecrating their marriage to a false God.

Open your eyes people this has nothing to do with gay people it is about privileging the religious and beyond that it is ludicrous.

Cuban Pete

Stinicker wrote: »

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.

You say xenophohic racist hate-group, they say religion.

Anyway, how can religious belief and practice be the most fundamental right when other rights supersede it?

Karl Stein

Hopefully The Alliance Party can grow their voter base among moderate Unionists.

shruikan2553

Stinicker wrote: »

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

As is discrimination.

By making human sacrifices illegal is that not the PC left thought police preventing people from not following their religious beliefs?

I have no idea where people get the idea that something has to be allowed because their religion says so and preventing them from persecuting others is persecuting them, if we let everyone do whatever they wanted there would be mayhem.

bodice ripper

Can athiests refuse to serve religious people on the grounds that they strongly believe what they are doing is wrong?

PopePalpatine

Stinicker wrote: »

The real bigots here are those opposed to the DUP's legislation, people have a right to make decisions and hold beliefs, this is really a case of the thought police at work. Not everybody is in favor of homosexuality or gay marriage and they are entitled to hold those beliefs and not be bullied by anyone who thinks otherwise. The liberals here really show their hypocrisy on this issue.

Is it Opposite Day today?

One eyed Jack

bodice ripper wrote: »

Can athiests refuse to serve religious people on the grounds that they strongly believe what they are doing is wrong?

I don't see any reason why they couldn't. Again it goes back to your own personal moral and ethical standards, and if you're providing a service to the public, you have every right to choose who you will provide your services to, or not, whichever the case may be.

shruikan2553

bodice ripper wrote: »

Can athiests refuse to serve religious people on the grounds that they strongly believe what they are doing is wrong?

Im sure people will say its ok, as long as the atheists doing that arent a majority. Then it becomes bad.

PopePalpatine

Stinicker wrote: »

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.

Oh, don't tell me you're another fan of that fascist Putin.

Bob24

bodice ripper wrote: »

Can athiests refuse to serve religious people on the grounds that they strongly believe what they are doing is wrong?

I think a good question to ask the people who support the bill is "can an atheist baker refuse to make a cake saying 'I believe in god'". Would be curious to hear their answer.

keano_afc

gozunda wrote: »

I already replied to this one but here goes again ... The bakery manager made a statement that they refused the 'order because it was against their religious beliefs' The 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.

Would you provide backup for your assertion that the bakery said the refused the order because they didn't wish to get involve in a political campaign. Thanks

From Daniel McArthur, manager of Ashers:

‘As we don’t believe in gay marriage, and did not want to be associated with a politicised campaign, mum phoned the customer to explain politely that we could not accept the order, and would be returning his deposit.

Taken from the below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698005/Half-baked-bigotry-These-family-bakers-persecuted-refusing-make-cake-celebrating-gay-marriage-Here-insist-s-bullies-intolerant-not-us.html

Bob24

keano_afc wrote: »

From Daniel McArthur, manager of Ashers:

‘As we don’t believe in gay marriage, and did not want to be associated with a politicised campaign, mum phoned the customer to explain politely that we could not accept the order, and would be returning his deposit.

Taken from the below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698005/Half-baked-bigotry-These-family-bakers-persecuted-refusing-make-cake-celebrating-gay-marriage-Here-insist-s-bullies-intolerant-not-us.html

Ah - don't start quoting what people actually said rather than what everyone wants them to have said. You bigot! :-)

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

Ah - don't start quoting people actually said rather than what everyone wants them to have said. You bigot! :-)

Oh you got us there. You so funny, so funny.:pac:

gozunda

Stinicker wrote: »

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.

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.

Well there you are now. Cake and the decline of Western Civilisation :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, many people are capable of understanding and applying ethics to their lives without the scaremongering of hellfire and eternal damnation. There would appear to be many religious that hold power and authority over and above ethical behaviour.

From the highlighted bit I will take it that you would prefer a right wing totalitarian state, with a dominant Christian theology. A society where child abuse, prevalent stigmatisation of illegitimacy and single parents is accepted. Oh an the banning of all contraceptives (because they are evil and against the Christian value that women should breed until they die or their wombs fall out). That no pain relief should be given during childbirth because an OT god insisted that women had sinned they should endure pain. Oh and lock up gay people in mental instructions like they used to ...

That's not a world I would ever wish to live in. Thanks but no thanks.

jobbridge4life

Bob24 wrote: »

I think a good question to ask the people who support the bill is "can an atheist baker refuse to make a cake saying 'I believe in god'". Would be curious to hear their answer.

Or any other example of any other individual claiming a sincere religious belief as a justification to discriminate against another person on any basis. Several examples of which I provided that you have yet to respond to.

jobbridge4life

keano_afc wrote: »

From Daniel McArthur, manager of Ashers:

‘As we don’t believe in gay marriage, and did not want to be associated with a politicised campaign, mum phoned the customer to explain politely that we could not accept the order, and would be returning his deposit.

Taken from the below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698005/Half-baked-bigotry-These-family-bakers-persecuted-refusing-make-cake-celebrating-gay-marriage-Here-insist-s-bullies-intolerant-not-us.html

And the reason they chose to not get involved in that particular political campaign would be? As it certainly can't have been that they have a thing against campaigning in general as they have made themselves the show pony of this one.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

Well there you are now. Cake and the decline of Western Civilisation :rolleyes:

From the highlighted bit I will take it that you would prefer a right wing totalitarian state, with a dominant Christian theology. A society where child abuse, prevalent stigmatisation of illegitimacy and single parents is accepted. Oh an the banning of all contraceptives (because they are evil and against the Christian value that women should breed until they die or their wombs fall out). That no pain relief should be given during childbirth because an OT god insisted that women had sinned they should endure pain. Oh and lock up gay people in mental instructions like they used to ...

That's not a world I would ever wish to live in. Thanks but no thanks.

Will you please stop presuming you know what people think, and instead listen to what they're saying. It may prevent you from jumping to all manner of ridiculous conclusions and wedging in completely irrelevant nonsense that make it that much harder to take your opinion seriously.

There's enough strawmen in what you've written, that it's not even worth addressing, let alone refuting what was never put forward by anyone else but yourself.

keano_afc

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And the reason they chose to not get involved in that particular political campaign would be? As it certainly can't have been that they have a thing against campaigning in general as they have made themselves the show pony of this one.

I dont agree, they are not guilty of making a big issue out of this. You may have a polar opposite view of their beliefs, but do you think a business should be forced under threat to support a political campaign it disagrees with?