As Christians how do people feel about David Quinn's response to yes vote?

silverharp

hinault wrote: »

There right to protection in law to not have to have dealings with homosexuals is a denial of their rights.

A sizeable constituency now do not wish to have any dealings with homosexuals. This constituency is entitled to seek legal protection of that right under a conscience clause in our Constitution

Proof? Some examples please ? And remember state employees and private sector employees have to follow their employers wishes so emploees thoughts on the subject are irrelevent

Nick Park

hinault wrote: »

There right to protection in law to not have to have dealings with homosexuals is a denial of their rights.

A sizeable constituency now do not wish to have any dealings with homosexuals. This constituency is entitled to seek legal protection of that right under a conscience clause in our Constitution

I don't for one moment believe that 'a sizeable constituency' do not wish to have any dealings with homosexuals. A tiny number of hateful people, maybe, but that's all.

You have no legal or moral right to avoid having dealings with homosexuals. For example, if a member of the gardai pulls you over to check your vehicle documents, and if that garda happens to be gay, then you have no right to avoid having dealings with him. And that is as it should be.

hinault

Nick Park wrote: »

You have no legal or moral right to avoid having dealings with homosexuals.

The bakers in the Northern Ireland case feel that they have a moral right to not be asked to make a cake which contains a message which they find offensive.

Are they not entitled to reject business which offends their morals?

Nick Park wrote: »

For example, if a member of the gardai pulls you over to check your vehicle documents, and if that garda happens to be gay, then you have no right to avoid having dealings with him. And that is as it should be.

That person is an officer of the state. One would have no way of knowing whether or not that person is a homosexual or not - and that is the way it should be.

Anyhow why would an employee, in the public sector or the private sector, need to disclose their sexual orientation in their working environment?

Nick Park

hinault wrote: »

The bakers in the Northern Ireland case feel that they have a moral right to not be asked to make a cake which contains a message which they find offensive.

Are they not entitled to reject business which offends their morals?

You are confusing two different things. The bakery case was actually where they refused to bake a cake that carried a specific political message.

If the bakers refused to deal with homosexuals, then that would be discrimination and would be both illegal and profoundly unchristian.

That person is an officer of the state. One would have no way of knowing whether or not that person is a homosexual or not - and that is the way it should be.

Anyhow why would an employee, in the public sector or the private sector, need to disclose their sexual orientation in their working environment?

That's exactly my point. Since you don't know who is homosexual or not, you can't avoid having dealings with them. You might as well withdraw from society altogether.

Or are you saying that you're fine with dealing with homosexuals when you are ignorant of their orientation, but that it only becomes a problem for you if you know they're gay?

hinault

Nick Park wrote: »

You are confusing two different things. The bakery case was actually where they refused to bake a cake that carried a specific political message.

If the bakers refused to deal with homosexuals, then that would be discrimination and would be both illegal and profoundly unchristian.



That's exactly my point. Since you don't know who is homosexual or not, you can't avoid having dealings with them. You might as well withdraw from society altogether.

Or are you saying that you're fine with dealing with homosexuals when you are ignorant of their orientation, but that it only becomes a problem for you if you know they're gay?

First of all, I haven't said that I personally have a difficulty with homosexuals.

I couldn't care less who is homosexual.

But I recognise that there are people, like the bakers in the North, who for moral reasons would not wish to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding for example.
Or a stationary supplier who would not want to create stationary for an invitation to a homosexual wedding.

Both the same baker and the same stationeer, would have no difficulty baking a cake or creating invitation cards for the wedding of a man and woman.

I'm suggesting that there should be a conscience clause to protect the baker and the stationeer, who on conscience grounds don't want to have to accept business which contradicts their moral viewpoint.

Nick Park

hinault wrote: »

First of all, I haven't said that I personally have a difficulty with homosexuals.

I couldn't care less who is homosexual.

But I recognise that there are people, like the bakers in the North, who for moral reasons would not wish to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding for example.
Or a stationary supplier who would not want to create stationary for an invitation to a homosexual wedding.

Both the same baker and the same stationeer, would have no difficulty baking a cake or creating invitation cards for the wedding of a man and woman.

I'm suggesting that there should be a conscience clause to protect the baker and the stationeer, who on conscience grounds don't want to have to accept business which contradicts their moral viewpoint.

What you actually said was that there was a sizeable constituency that 'didn't want to deal with homosexuals'. I would suggest that you think very carefully about the language you use, as you are creating the impression of being homophobic.

I see that Asher's Bakery has now made the decision not to bake any custom-designed wedding cakes at all. In the circumstances, that is probably a wise decision. Of course they will still 'deal with homosexuals' - so, for example, if two gay men want to purchase a generic wedding cake from Asher's they are perfectly free to do so.

The issue of printers is a little less black and white (no pun intended). Should a private printing company be allowed to refuse an order that they find morally objectionable?

For example, if the Westboro Baptist Church bigots were to ask a gay printer in Ireland to print invitations to their rallies, then the printer, if they refuse, risk prosecution on the grounds of religious discrimination. That, I think, demonstrates the absurdity of current legislation.

horseburger

Nick Park wrote: »

What you actually said was that there was a sizeable constituency that 'didn't want to deal with homosexuals'. I would suggest that you think very carefully about the language you use, as you are creating the impression of being homophobic.

I see that Asher's Bakery has now made the decision not to bake any custom-designed wedding cakes at all. In the circumstances, that is probably a wise decision. Of course they will still 'deal with homosexuals' - so, for example, if two gay men want to purchase a generic wedding cake from Asher's they are perfectly free to do so.

The issue of printers is a little less black and white (no pun intended). Should a private printing company be allowed to refuse an order that they find morally objectionable?

For example, if the Westboro Baptist Church bigots were to ask a gay printer in Ireland to print invitations to their rallies, then the printer, if they refuse, risk prosecution on the grounds of religious discrimination. That, I think, demonstrates the absurdity of current legislation.

Yes, the Drogheda Beulah Print case is a different case because the printer was simply asked to print out civil partnership invitations. There was no message in the invitations about campaigning for same sex marriage.

So, I saw a huge contradiction in David Quinn's argument, for example in his articles where he referenced that case, and on the edition of Prime Time from a few weeks ago, 5th May, where he made a comment about the Drogheda printer at the 43.39 minute mark. He's arguing that businesses should have the right not to serve customers items, based on the owners religious beliefs in relation to the item being served.

http://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2015/0506/699046-prime-time-05-05-2015/


On the one hand he says that civil partnerships should be retained instead of bringing in civil marriage for gay and lesbian people, even though he argued against civil partnerships in 2010, and used the same arguments against civil partnerships as he did for opposing civil marriage in this referendum.

On the other hand, he defends the idea that businesses could, through a conscience clause, refuse to provide services related to civil partnerships or civil marriages for gay and lesbian people.

That's what happened in the Beulah Print case. The Beulah Print owners, in defending their decision not to print out the civil partnership invites, said they didn't agree with same sex marriage.

So presumably, they don't accept either civil partnerships or civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples. So, where would a conscience clause end?

B_Wayne

Hinault, so a conscience clause for those opposed to interracial marriages? It's the logical conclusion, there are individuals who view it as an issue of conscience. They're obviously not right but they believe that.

horseburger

hinault wrote: »

How many Oireachtas seats does this party hold?
How many local council seats does this party hold?

Fine Gael party campaigned for a YES vote.
The Labour Party campaigned for a YES vote.
Fianna Fail campaigned for a YES vote.
Sinn Fein campaigned for a YES vote.
The Socialist Party campaigned for a YES vote.
People before profit campaigned for a YES vote.
Workers and Unemployed Action group campaigned for a YES vote.
The majority of independent TD's and senators campaigned for a YES vote.



There right to protection in law to not have to have dealings with homosexuals is a denial of their rights.

A sizeable constituency now do not wish to have any dealings with homosexuals. This constituency is entitled to seek legal protection of that right under a conscience clause in our Constitution




The consequences of the decision to redefine marriage in the Constitution will derive legal consequences as regards "perceived discrimination" in other sectors of society.

Time will tell.




The State could well decide to force the issue.

Again time will tell.

You are still incorrect in your assertion that all political parties called for a Yes vote. It is irrelevant how many elected representatives that any party has.

If the church organisations ever decide to officiate marriages for gay and lesbian couples, it will be as a result of a decision taken by those churches. They have changed their stance on many issues over the years.

It was emphasised throughout this referendum campaign, by groups like Marriage Equality, that this referendum was about civil marriage, and that Yes campaigners were not trying to force churches to officiate civil marriages.