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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Anti-gay legislation proposed in Northern Ireland

1457910

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No. It's also a poor representation of the situation, because for some reason you seem unable - or just unwilling - to grasp that the law distinguishes very clearly between what a person may do in his private life, and what commercial enterprise is allowed to do or not. It's not reserved to personal beliefs such as homophobia or SSM either - it's actually why there is a whole separate set of legislation known as commercial law. It's puzzling that you seem unaware of that.


    I'm aware of the law and very familiar with it, as I assume you're equally familiar with the law that prohibits same-sex marriage. People here are arguing as though SSM is a right, and that right overrides any other rights that anyone else thinks people are entitled to.

    Right now, neither right is recognised, so anyone can campaign for what right they think a person is entitled to, in order to have any laws they want changed, or any laws they want to remain the same. All they need is enough support to make it happen. That support won't happen if people try to force their ideas down other people's throats.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    ...

    I have no doubt this particular organisation knew that the business had a religious ethos, in the same way as the Jewish bakery in Dublin supplies only certain types of bread made a certain way, and nobody has ever complained. They just made their order elsewhere and got what they asked for without any fuss being made claiming discrimination against a person because the bakery had a problem with the order.

    That is YOUR assumption. It is not borne out by any evidence. Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions. No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery. Even the name, (later disclosed as a OT biblical reference) is as ambiguous as their later sproutings about political messages. You have based your entire argument on this supposition and on this it fails utterly.

    The facts are the Bakery took the order and then refused it. They then published the Equality Commisions letter and in conjunction with the anti gay Christian.org group produced a click video extolling their religous views. :rolleyes: It is fairly certain that every other business in NI is either owned, managed or staffed by individuals who hold religous beliefs. Your chance of going into any such establishment and meeting similar discrimination although thankfully rare is a real possibility especially with the fools who would seek to install a daft 'conscience clause'.

    The problem at present is there is no way of identifying businesses who choose to discriminate. Thankfully such behaviour is very rare because of the rule of law that prevents such behaviour and the decency of the majority of people who hold 'Christian' beliefs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    That is YOUR assumption. It is not borne out by any evidence. Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions. No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery. Even the name, (later disclosed as a OT biblical reference) is as ambiguous as their later sproutings about political messages.

    The facts are the Bakery took the order and then refused it. They then published the Equality Commisions letter and in conjunction with the anti gay Christian.org group produced a click video extolling their religous views. :rolleyes: It is fairly certain that every other business in NI is either owned, managed or staffed by individuals who hold religous beliefs. Your chance of going into any such establishment and meeting similar discrimination although thankfully rare is a real possibility especially with the fools who would seek to install a daft 'conscience clause'.

    The problem at present is there is no way of identifying businesses who choose to discriminate. Thankfully such behaviour is very rare because of the rule of law that prevents such behaviour and the decency of the majority of people who hold 'Christian' beliefs.

    So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?


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


    If LGBT organizations adopt the same tactics that didn't work for other organizations in the past, then they really shouldn't be surprised when people start to rebel against them, except it won't be the organization they take out their frustration on, it'll be the ordinary person on the street who just wants to go about their business will suffer, as has been seen in recent times with the number of LGBT people who have been assaulted.

    Please re read this sentence! Are you actually suggesting that physical attacks against LGBT people occur because of the 'frustration' that bigots feel due to the promotion of equal marriage? Please tell me you are not. Also 'recent' assaults? Ummmm so historically prior to the relatively recent political campaigns for equal marriage there were no physical assaults? It's only the frustration of the poor, discriminated against bigots that have caused this to occur in recent years right?

    Imagine a world where those who are bigoted due to their religious ideology were treated the way they currently treat others who don't fit with their interpretation of whatever religious ideas they follow. It causes outrage to even suggest that they do not discriminate against others. Because they interpret that their religion tells them to discriminate, it is discrimination against them when they are not allowed to do so. How does this make sense? Should we allow white supremacists to publicly follow and act on their beliefs also? Is it discrimination to prevent them from discriminating too?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    T when you have an Equality Commission that decides a bakery owner must allow themselves to be discriminated against when their religion means that they do not support SSM, that to me is the very same tyranny of the minority you're talking about.
    I simply cannot understand how you can come to this conclusion.

    It seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of anti-discrimination law.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?

    You are equating LGBT customers with paedophiles? Why?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Please re read this sentence! Are you actually suggesting that physical attacks against LGBT people occur because of the 'frustration' that bigots feel due to the promotion of equal marriage?


    Physical attacks against people who are LGBT are on the rise because some people are intimidated by people who are LGBT, that's a reality in society today that no amount of legislation is ever going to be able to counteract. It happens with any group that 'threatens' some people's traditional view of society. They don't like it, and as that element of society becomes more visible, so too do attacks against them begin to rise.

    Please tell me you are not. Also 'recent' assaults? Ummmm so historically prior to the relatively recent political campaigns for equal marriage there were no physical assaults? It's only the frustration of the poor, discriminated against bigots that have caused this to occur in recent years right?


    Of course there were physical assaults and discrimination prior to recent political campaigns. But they weren't as visible in society simply because people who are LGBT weren't as visible in society. Those people at the top tier of society though will not face the same level of violence and discrimination as those people who are at the bottom tier of society, because those people who are LGBT who are at the top tier of society have much more protection from discrimination than those people who are LGBT who are at the bottom tier of society.

    By that I mean that people like Leo Vradkar and David Norris will never face the same level of discrimination and violence that a young person growing up in a socially deprived area will face. Those at the top tier campaigning for their rights, seem to have forgotten that they also have a responsibility towards those people at the bottom tier. The construction of a society is far more complicated than just single issues and people's rights, all the while ignoring that people should be socially responsible.

    When people in society feel that they are being ignored, that tends to cause frustration, and they'll take their frustrations out on the closest target that represents the source of their frustration.

    That's reality rather than the fluffy clouds and rainbows group think I've witnessed among some of these rights advocacy groups that tend to focus solely on their rights and have no interest in the rights of other people.

    Imagine a world where those who are bigoted due to their religious ideology were treated the way they currently treat others who don't fit with their interpretation of whatever religious ideas they follow. It causes outrage to even suggest that they do not discriminate against others. Because they interpret that their religion tells them to discriminate, it is discrimination against them when they are not allowed to do so. How does this make sense? Should we allow white supremacists to publicly follow and act on their beliefs also? Is it discrimination to prevent them from discriminating too?


    Freedom of conscience means the right to hold a belief and to discriminate against people who do not share that belief. We already live in a world where people discriminate against other people who do not share their beliefs, and no amount of legislation is going to change people's minds depending on how strongly they hold those beliefs. That's why there are riots in the UK and the US, because despite anti-discrimination legislation has proven utterly futile in forcing people to accommodate those people who are different from them in any way.

    Any way in which you force people to behave in a way that contradicts their freedom of conscience is discrimination, the only difference between them is that some discrimination is socially acceptable because a majority shares the same point of view, so that's why your white supremacists are allowed to hold their beliefs, but limited by legislation in how they express those beliefs, let alone act on them. It's also the reason why same-sex marriage is still prohibited in NI and in ROI, but at least down here we're soon to be offered the opportunity to change that. I can't see it wiping out discrimination against LGBT people overnight at the stroke of a pen.

    Society just doesn't work like that, because we don't live in the ideal world some people think we do, just because their position in society allows them to ignore uncomfortable truths.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,321 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    But is it Prod gays or Fenian gays we're chatting about here?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Physical attacks against people who are LGBT are on the rise because some people are intimidated by people who are LGBT, that's a reality in society today that no amount of legislation is ever going to be able to counteract. It happens with any group that 'threatens' some people's traditional view of society. They don't like it, and as that element of society becomes more visible, so too do attacks against them begin to rise.





    Of course there were physical assaults and discrimination prior to recent political campaigns. But they weren't as visible in society simply because people who are LGBT weren't as visible in society. Those people at the top tier of society though will not face the same level of violence and discrimination as those people who are at the bottom tier of society, because those people who are LGBT who are at the top tier of society have much more protection from discrimination than those people who are LGBT who are at the bottom tier of society.

    By that I mean that people like Leo Vradkar and David Norris will never face the same level of discrimination and violence that a young person growing up in a socially deprived area will face. Those at the top tier campaigning for their rights, seem to have forgotten that they also have a responsibility towards those people at the bottom tier. The construction of a society is far more complicated than just single issues and people's rights, all the while ignoring that people should be socially responsible.

    When people in society feel that they are being ignored, that tends to cause frustration, and they'll take their frustrations out on the closest target that represents the source of their frustration.

    That's reality rather than the fluffy clouds and rainbows group think I've witnessed among some of these rights advocacy groups that tend to focus solely on their rights and have no interest in the rights of other people.





    Freedom of conscience means the right to hold a belief and to discriminate against people who do not share that belief. We already live in a world where people discriminate against other people who do not share their beliefs, and no amount of legislation is going to change people's minds depending on how strongly they hold those beliefs. That's why there are riots in the UK and the US, because despite anti-discrimination legislation has proven utterly futile in forcing people to accommodate those people who are different from them in any way.

    Any way in which you force people to behave in a way that contradicts their freedom of conscience is discrimination, the only difference between them is that some discrimination is socially acceptable because a majority shares the same point of view, so that's why your white supremacists are allowed to hold their beliefs, but limited by legislation in how they express those beliefs, let alone act on them. It's also the reason why same-sex marriage is still prohibited in NI and in ROI, but at least down here we're soon to be offered the opportunity to change that. I can't see it wiping out discrimination against LGBT people overnight at the stroke of a pen.

    Society just doesn't work like that, because we don't live in the ideal world some people think we do, just because their position in society allows them to ignore uncomfortable truths.

    At what point do we decide that freedom of conscience has gone too far? When people are being killed or just when we have enough people leaving the area to somewhere they will be treated like people?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    You are equating LGBT customers with paedophiles? Why?

    You have made that massive leap, not me. I am making a point about freedom of conscience. You are avoiding the question.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    gozunda wrote: »
    That is YOUR assumption. It is not borne out by any evidence. Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions. No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery. Even the name, (later disclosed as a OT biblical reference) is as ambiguous as their later sproutings about political messages. You have based your entire argument on this supposition and on this it fails utterly.

    Your entire argument is based on assumptions. The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign. This is fact though. Your entire argument in this and the original thread is an incorrect assumption that discrimination based on sexual preferences took place. It's so frustrating.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    At what point do we decide that freedom of conscience has gone too far? When people are being killed or just when we have enough people leaving the area to somewhere they will be treated like people?


    I can only speak for myself as an individual, but I would say that point should be in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights charter, article 18 -

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    The point at which we as a society decide to place restrictions on a person's freedom of thought, conscience or religion is the point where it infringes on another person's right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion.

    A bakery owner who refuses to comply with a request which violates their basic human right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion is not a violation of another person's basic human rights. There are many other people who would be willing to fulfill such a request, so it's not as though there is any necessity to force the baker to comply with their request. They attempted to humiliate the baker, and that's the twisting of anti-discrimination laws right there in a way which was never intended.

    It's not like I can claim discrimination if I go into a bookstore I know sells religious books and they won't order me a copy of "Satan worshippers monthly" or some other nonsense scenario. The legislation was never intended to apply in the way this LGBT organization are using it, and that's why I'm so surprised at the Equality Commission stating that the bakery owner has a case to answer for. I think it's an utter piss take of legislation that was intended to protect people's freedoms, not choose which form of discrimination should take priority over another.


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



    When people in society feel that they are being ignored, that tends to cause frustration, and they'll take their frustrations out on the closest target that represents the source of their frustration.

    Funnily enough it is LGBT people who have been ignored and criminalised and are now protesting that treatment, yet you don't often hear about groups or individuals from that demographic violently attacking homophobes, religious people or burning down churches do you? Nor do you hear about families and individuals who have had to access abortion services in England doing same. Nor parents who feel ignored and frustrated that they have no choice but to send their child to a religious school. What you have written above seems to apply to only certain 'types' of people who resort to violence and/or discrimination when they feel society is evolving to withdraw the unwarranted special treatment and privilege they have historically enjoyed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I can only speak for myself as an individual, but I would say that point should be in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights charter, article 18 -





    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    The point at which we as a society decide to place restrictions on a person's freedom of thought, conscience or religion is the point where it infringes on another person's right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion.

    A bakery owner who refuses to comply with a request which violates their basic human right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion is not a violation of another person's basic human rights. There are many other people who would be willing to fulfill such a request, so it's not as though there is any necessity to force the baker to comply with their request. They attempted to humiliate the baker, and that's the twisting of anti-discrimination laws right there in a way which was never intended.

    It's not like I can claim discrimination if I go into a bookstore I know sells religious books and they won't order me a copy of "Satan worshippers monthly" or some other nonsense scenario. The legislation was never intended to apply in the way this LGBT organization are using it, and that's why I'm so surprised at the Equality Commission stating that the bakery owner has a case to answer for. I think it's an utter piss take of legislation that was intended to protect people's freedoms, not choose which form of discrimination should take priority over another.

    Its a complicated. Should businesses be allowed to refuse to serve Catholics or Jews or Blacks because of warped personal belief that they have?

    I certainly don't want to live in that kind of society. The only way to balance equality with freedom of conscience is through legislation that protects vulnerable groups but also allows get out clauses for instances where businesses are requested to do things that are unethical. We do this by defining limited grounds for discrimination.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Funnily enough it is LGBT people who have been ignored and criminalised and are now protesting that treatment, yet you don't often hear about groups or individuals from that demographic violently attacking homophobes, religious people or burning down churches do you? Nor do you hear about families and individuals who have had to access abortion services in England doing same. Nor parents who feel ignored and frustrated that they have no choice but to send their child to a religious school. What you have written above seems to apply to only certain 'types' of people who resort to violence and/or discrimination when they feel society is evolving to withdraw the unwarranted special treatment and privilege they have historically enjoyed.


    It's a good thing you included that qualifier word 'often' there, and while that might be true for you, I hear plenty about it. You'll hear plenty about it too when it affects you personally, like those people who are protesting against US foreign policy or those people that want immigration laws changed to discriminate against minority groups in the UK, or even here where people want laws changed to discriminate against travellers who are a protected ethnic minority group.

    Funny how you choose to ignore what doesn't affect you, or is it just human nature that you're oblivious to issues which don't affect you, yet you expect everyone else should be conscious of the issues that affect you and should accommodate you, while you would like laws introduced that would discriminate against other people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I can only speak for myself as an individual, but I would say that point should be in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights charter, article 18 -





    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    The point at which we as a society decide to place restrictions on a person's freedom of thought, conscience or religion is the point where it infringes on another person's right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion.

    A bakery owner who refuses to comply with a request which violates their basic human right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion is not a violation of another person's basic human rights. There are many other people who would be willing to fulfill such a request, so it's not as though there is any necessity to force the baker to comply with their request. They attempted to humiliate the baker, and that's the twisting of anti-discrimination laws right there in a way which was never intended.

    It's not like I can claim discrimination if I go into a bookstore I know sells religious books and they won't order me a copy of "Satan worshippers monthly" or some other nonsense scenario. The legislation was never intended to apply in the way this LGBT organization are using it, and that's why I'm so surprised at the Equality Commission stating that the bakery owner has a case to answer for. I think it's an utter piss take of legislation that was intended to protect people's freedoms, not choose which form of discrimination should take priority over another.

    As far as I know there is no mention about not making cakes for gay people in the bible.

    The whole they could have gone to another bakery is all well and good but what happens in a more serious situation such as a woman needs treatment to save her life? The doctor just says "lol, my religion says to avoid menstruating women, tough ****"

    If a group of Muslims wish to implement sharia law then you would support it, including killing people because to do otherwise would be to affect their right of freedom of religion?

    Or what happens when 2 conflicting religious beliefs meet?

    As we see here: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1525516.ece
    When a Christian does it it is freedom of conscience, when it happens against a Christian its persecution.

    Anti discrimination laws also protect people who a religion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    You have made that massive leap, not me. I am making a point about freedom of conscience. You are avoiding the question.

    Absulote Bollochs - you have evidently equated paedophilea with the discrimination of LGBT individuals.

    You said.
    reprise wrote:
    So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?
    .


    Explain exactly what point you "making a point about freedom of conscience" and someone 'might' attempt to make sense of your 'question'

    I believe your other friend was banging on about 'freedom of conscience' and the 'right' to discriminate. Maybe you should ask them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    Absulote Bollochs - you have apparently equated paedophilea with the discrimination of LGBT individuals.

    You said.
    .

    So again I ask why are you apparently equating peadophiles with LGBT customers?

    Explain that and someone 'might' attempt to make sense of your 'query' :rolleyes:

    I believe your other friend was banging on about 'freedom of conscience' and the 'right' to discriminate. Maybe you should ask them.

    I put forward a mythical scenario that involved no party from LGBT. It is you that is insisting on a link between paedophilia and LGBT. It is most revealing that you are more pre-occupied with your strawman than what I asked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    I put forward a mythical scenario that involved no party from LGBT. It is you that is insisting on a link between paedophilia and LGBT. It is most revealing that you are more pre-occupied with your strawman than what I asked.

    "A mythical scenario" concerning paedophilia - seriously what has that if anything to do with the actual subject of this thread.?

    Answer that.

    Your pathetic attempt to reassign your blatent assignation on someone else is most telling.

    Explain that

    If you wish to discuss about 'freedom of conscience' then why not ask a direct question of those discussing it?

    Answer that

    What 'strawman' are you referring - you asked the question about paedophilia. I gave no response to that puerile statement other than to ask you to clarify. You have failed to do so.

    Answer that

    Otherwise don't bother.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    "A mythical scenario" concerning paedophilia - seriously what has that if anything to do with the subject of this thread.?

    Answer that.

    Your pathetic attempt to reassign your blatent assignation on someone else is most telling.

    Explain that

    If you wish to discuss about 'freedom of conscience' then why not ask a direct question of those discussing it?

    Answer that

    What 'strawman' are you referring - you asked the question about paedophilia. I gave no response to that puerile statement other than to ask you to clarify. You have failed to do so.

    Answer that

    Otherwise don't bother.

    I already explained that my mythical scenario presented a freedom of conscience issue, albeit an extreme case.

    I really cannot stop you from trying to conflate paedophilia with LGBT, but I would suggest that it is discriminatory and offensive for you to continue to do so.

    Finally, you don't have to answer my question. It really doesn't bother me that you are being totally inconsistent and entirely discriminatory.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    reprise wrote: »
    So, if I want a cake that advocates the legalisation of adults having sex with pre-teen children, I should be welcomed with open arms?

    You did not fool anyone with the above despite the way you are now attempting to twist it. I chose to ignore because I am currently making dinner for my family and can't be arsed feeding anyone else today.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    You did not fool anyone with the above despite the way you are now attempting to twist it. I chose to ignore because I am currently making dinner for my family and can't be arsed feeding anyone else today.

    :confused:

    You are ignoring it by responding to it?

    Right so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Your entire argument is based on assumptions. The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign. This is fact though. Your entire argument in this and the original thread is an incorrect assumption that discrimination based on sexual preferences took place. It's so frustrating.

    No What I have said is based on present facts. I said
    gozunda wrote:
    Nowhere did the bakery advertise their religous pre sale terms and conditions.

    This is a fact.
    gozunda wrote:
    No where did they specify they were a 'Christian' bakery.

    This is a fact

    As for your reply above
    keano_afc wrote:
    [1]The Equality Commission haven't ruled yet but you've already assumed guilt on Ashers. [2] You argue with me for assuming Ashers didn't fulfill this order because they didn't agree with the campaign. This is fact though.

    [1] The EC have no remit to make any final ruling on this matter - the courts have. I have detailed this several times already. What is fact is that the EC have issued Ashers with a notice that they are in breach of anti discrimination legislation. I await the final determination of the courts.

    [2] The facts stand that Ashers initial statement clearly stated that they refused the order because of their religous beliefs. That they made a subsequent statement is also fact. However it stands that this second statement appears to be politically expedient on their part.

    I'm sorry you are frustrated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Would the DUP then like to take Northern Ireland out of the UK perhaps?

    This proposed legislation is 100% out of line with UK human rights laws and would go down like a lead balloon in mainstream Britain other than amongst supporters of some extremely obscure right wing politics.

    For a "unionist" party they're really going out of their way to make themselves as unpalatable as possible to the country/countries they're trying to be united with!

    How far would you take this freedom of conscience type debate though?

    There are followers of some religions who might decided that say "catholics" or "popery" was offensive, so might refuse to serve catholics.

    Catholics might refuse to serve protestants on similar grounds.

    Then, you'd have people refusing to serve atheists as they're "heathens"

    Then you might have some people who didn't agree with women being outside without a headscarf or a male so, they might refuse to serve normally dressed women.

    Would you refuse to serve unmarried mothers? Single parents? etc

    Then you'd have all sorts of other religions refusing to serve non-believers.

    Even outside of religion, a unionists/loyalist might be deeply offended by a republican. So, perhaps they could just refuse those too or visa versa.

    We live in a thing called a "society" or a "country" and there are certain rules and regulations and behavioural standards that are required for that society or country to function. If you start having a situation where people can just opt out of their obligations to treat people fairly when they're in a business which is providing a general, public service, then you'd very quickly have a situation where the society would melt down into a series of factions at each others' throats - i.e. where Northern Ireland has just come from.

    NI politicians need to get through their thick heads that Northern Ireland is a diverse place full of multiple religions, atheists, straight people, gay people, bi people, republicans, nationalists, unionists, loyalists, people born locally, people born abroad etc etc.

    To me this is just an extension of the age-old narrow minded gang/clan like in-fighting that gave Northern Ireland decades of bloody conflict. The only difference is that the outsider is now being defined in this case as gay people.

    Sadly, this is a terrible reflection on the state of NI politics and of the political and social thinking of a large part of NI society that is represented by the DUP.
    If this is the way people really think up there, I don't really see how the internal conflicts will ever be resolved.

    You'll rapidly find yourself in a situation where you're not wanted by either the UK or the Republic of Ireland and will end up as an isolated, social backwater.


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


    reprise wrote: »
    :confused:

    You are ignoring it by responding to it?

    Right so.

    Chose (past tense) as opposed to choose (present tense). I chose to ignore it initially before you attempted pretend that you were not comparing LGBT people to paedophiles and twist it around to imply that it was another poster who was making that comparison not you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Chose (past tense) as opposed to choose (present tense). I chose to ignore it initially before you attempted pretend that you were not comparing LGBT people to paedophiles and twist it around to imply that it was another poster who was making that comparison not you.

    Funny that, in my scenario, I never specifically mentioned anyone being a paedophile either.

    Amazing what people want to read into what I didn't ask.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    I'm aware of the law and very familiar with it, as I assume you're equally familiar with the law that prohibits same-sex marriage.

    This is a trope you've been repeating liberally in this thread, this notion that as you put it same-sex marriage is 'illegal' or 'prohibited'. Show me the law 'prohibiting' same-sex marriage, show me the legislation making it 'illegal'. You won't actually be able to so of course because the law neither prohibits nor makes same-sex marriage illegal. It simply doesn't recognize it. There is nothing to stop my partner and I holding an enormous humanist wedding ceremony for our selves and referring to each other as spouse/husband, inviting friends and receiving wedding presents. That is all perfectly legal. I could even have it televised for a documentary. You seem heavy on rhetoric and anger but limited on rational thought.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    This is a trope you've been repeating liberally in this thread, this notion that as you put it same-sex marriage is 'illegal' or 'prohibited'. Show me the law 'prohibiting' same-sex marriage, show me the legislation making it 'illegal'. You won't actually be able to so of course because the law neither prohibits nor makes same-sex marriage illegal. It simply doesn't recognize it. There is nothing to stop my partner and I holding an enormous humanist wedding ceremony for our selves and referring to each other as spouse/husband, inviting friends and receiving wedding presents. That is all perfectly legal. I could even have it televised for a documentary. You seem heavy on rhetoric and anger but limited on rational thought.

    Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

    :pac:

    Ah now Reprise you are better than that...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    :pac:

    Ah now Reprise you are better than that...

    I'm overrated.


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


    reprise wrote: »
    Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

    Here! Assault with intent to cause bodily harm.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0018.html#sec18

    You will be prosecuted for same. Now can you show us where in the Statute book that it says it is illegal for gay people to marry, as opposed to unrecognised? Will jobbridge4life be prosecuted for having a humanist ceremony and broadcasting it publicly as he/she described above? Because as you can see for yourself you will be prosecuted for throwing your wife down the stairs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I'm overrated.

    Not in my estimation.

    but sure I'll engage with you
    reprise wrote: »
    Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

    Tell you what, I've a little test we can try to see who is right.

    You throw your wife down the stairs and I'll hold a marriage ceremony for me and my partner.

    We'll see who ends up on the wrong side of the law shall we?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    Funny that, in my scenario, I never specifically mentioned anyone being a paedophile either.Amazing what people want to read into what I didn't ask.

    It's amazing that some people appear not to be aware of the concept of context or relevancy in what they are posting as questions. That and fairly pathetic attempts at twisting what has been said.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Here! Assault with intent to cause bodily harm.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0018.html#sec18

    You will be prosecuted for same. Now can you show us where in the Statute book that it says it is illegal for gay people to marry, as opposed to unrecognised? Will jobbridge4life be prosecuted for having a humanist ceremony and broadcasting it publicly as he/she described above? Because as you can see for yourself you will be prosecuted for throwing your wife down the stairs.

    So just because it doesn't specifically mention throwing my wife down a flight of stairs, I cannot claim that doing so is legal. We agree it is illegal.

    So we have clarified that we don't have to circumscribe every permutation of what is illegal for something to be considered illegal.

    jobbridge4life can pretend to get married, but I not sure what that has to do with the legality of same sex marraige.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    It's amazing that some people appear not to be aware of the concept of context or relevancy in what they are posting as questions. That and fairly pathetic attempts at twisting what has been said.

    You read all your own meaning into my question and despite my explaining myself numerous times, are incapable of answering it without spinning the meaning to suit yourself.

    You don't know how to handle the question and you are terrified to answer it. End of.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    You read all your own meaning into my question and despite my explaining myself numerous times, are incapable of answering it without spinning the meaning to suit yourself.

    You don't know how to handle the question and you are terrified to answer it. End of.

    Please consult the following...
    Tell you what, I've a little test we can try to see who is right.

    You throw your wife down the stairs and I'll hold a marriage ceremony for me and my partner.

    We'll see who ends up on the wrong side of the law shall we?

    You are being utterly disingenuous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    You read all your own meaning into my question and despite my explaining myself numerous times, are incapable of answering it without spinning the meaning to suit yourself.You don't know how to handle the question and you are terrified to answer it. End of.

    You appear to to process an uncanny knowledge of everyone else's motives and feelings :rolleyes:

    It remains that your question apparently equated paedophilia with LGBT and discrimination. That's the way it reads.

    You were asked to clarify your 'question' as it fell outside both what I was discussing and outside the context of the thread.

    That request was not complied with, so I have not answered your 'question' (sic) as I have no idea what your question relates to. Therefore I'm neither 'incapable', nor 'don't know how to handle it' as there is no 'question' to answer imo.

    You do appear to fail to realise the insulting nature of your 'question' and instead have inexplicably attempted to pass the responsibility of your insult to others.

    You mentioned something about 'freedom of conscience' in a follow up post. And I suggested that perhaps you would be best asking One Eyed Jack about that as he was discussing that topic in his posts.

    If you don't understand this I can't help you any further.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Tell you what, I've a little test we can try to see who is right.

    You throw your wife down the stairs and I'll hold a marriage ceremony for me and my partner.

    We'll see who ends up on the wrong side of the law shall we?

    Wouldn't it be more realistic if I pretended to throw my wife down the stairs and then we compared outcomes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be more realistic if I pretended to throw my wife down the stairs and then we compared outcomes?

    :pac: You're on the run now.

    That wasn't your argument was it?
    reprise wrote: »
    Where does the law specifically say I cannot throw my wife down a flight of stairs?

    No mention of pretension there... unless its the pretension of having a valid response.

    Scrambling.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    You appear to to process an uncanny knowledge of everyone else's motives and feelings :rolleyes:

    I didn't start linking paedophilia and LGBT - remember?
    gozunda wrote: »
    It remains that your question apparently equated paedophilia with LGBT and discrimination. That's the way it reads.

    It still doesn't no matter how many times you say. You have the two issues on the brain and keep making the link. Don't blame me.
    gozunda wrote: »
    You were asked to clarify your 'question' as it fell outside both what I was discussing and outside the context of the thread.

    And I did.
    gozunda wrote: »
    That request was not complied with, so I have not answered your 'question' (sic) as I have no idea what your question relates to. Therefore I'm neither 'incapable', nor 'don't know how to handle it' as there is no 'question' to answer imo.

    Suit yourself. I've told you several times now you are not compelled to answer. Would you like to be told again?
    gozunda wrote: »
    You do appear to fail to realise the insulting nature of your 'question' and instead have inexplicably attempted to pass the responsibility of your insult to others.

    There was no insult. You decided to invent one. I cannot prevent you from insulting yourself and anyone else who isn't bored to tears with your repetition.
    gozunda wrote: »
    You mentioned something about 'freedom of conscience' in a follow up post. And I suggested that perhaps you would be best asking One Eyed Jack about that as he was discussing that topic in his posts.

    So you were following my reason for the question despite your evasion. I thought as much.
    gozunda wrote: »
    If you don't understand this I can't help you any further.

    You talking in riddles helps no-one.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    :pac: You're on the run now.

    That wasn't your argument was it?



    No mention of pretension there... unless its the pretension of having a valid response.

    Scrambling.

    You're losing me. Are you saying your pretend wedding is the same as a legal wedding or not?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,361 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    As far as I know there is no mention about not making cakes for gay people in the bible.


    It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

    The whole they could have gone to another bakery is all well and good but what happens in a more serious situation such as a woman needs treatment to save her life? The doctor just says "lol, my religion says to avoid menstruating women, tough ****"


    I'm willing to stand corrected on the exact legalities of it, but off the top of my head, I remember reading that there are exemptions made in legislation for medical professionals who have a moral or ethical objection to performing certain medical procedures, that is - they cannot be forced to perform a medical procedure to which they have a moral objection.

    If a group of Muslims wish to implement sharia law then you would support it, including killing people because to do otherwise would be to affect their right of freedom of religion?


    Of course I wouldn't support Sharia law, I'm not Muslim so therefore I wouldn't have to recognise Sharia law. If Muslims want to live by Sharia law themselves, that's their own business.

    Or what happens when 2 conflicting religious beliefs meet?


    Everything is open to negotiation, that's how progress is made. Progress is stunted when neither side is willing to negotiate.

    As we see here: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1525516.ece
    When a Christian does it it is freedom of conscience, when it happens against a Christian its persecution.

    Anti discrimination laws also protect people who a religion.


    Freedom of conscience also applies to non-religious people? Anti-discrimination laws are there to protect people who are non-religious from persecution, and you'd have a point if the bakery owner gatecrashed the LGBT organisations party and laid it on thick with the bible bashing rhetoric. In that case I'd have no issue with the bakery owner being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He didn't though, it was a person from the LGBT organisation claimed persecution because they placed the order with the bakery which the bakery told them it could not fulfill.

    Depends on your perspective really who's being persecuted by whom, and that's why a freedom of conscience clause is necessary so that the LGBT organisation cannot force a bakery owner to fulfill an order which conflicts with his religious beliefs, and by that same token, a bakery owner cannot gatecrash an LGBT organisations party and give it welly with the bible bashing rhetoric.

    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Would the DUP then like to take Northern Ireland out of the UK perhaps?

    This proposed legislation is 100% out of line with UK human rights laws and would go down like a lead balloon in mainstream Britain other than amongst supporters of some extremely obscure right wing politics.

    For a "unionist" party they're really going out of their way to make themselves as unpalatable as possible to the country/countries they're trying to be united with!

    How far would you take this freedom of conscience type debate though?

    There are followers of some religions who might decided that say "catholics" or "popery" was offensive, so might refuse to serve catholics.

    Catholics might refuse to serve protestants on similar grounds.

    Then, you'd have people refusing to serve atheists as they're "heathens"

    Then you might have some people who didn't agree with women being outside without a headscarf or a male so, they might refuse to serve normally dressed women.

    Would you refuse to serve unmarried mothers? Single parents? etc

    Then you'd have all sorts of other religions refusing to serve non-believers.

    Even outside of religion, a unionists/loyalist might be deeply offended by a republican. So, perhaps they could just refuse those too or visa versa.

    We live in a thing called a "society" or a "country" and there are certain rules and regulations and behavioural standards that are required for that society or country to function. If you start having a situation where people can just opt out of their obligations to treat people fairly when they're in a business which is providing a general, public service, then you'd very quickly have a situation where the society would melt down into a series of factions at each others' throats - i.e. where Northern Ireland has just come from.

    NI politicians need to get through their thick heads that Northern Ireland is a diverse place full of multiple religions, atheists, straight people, gay people, bi people, republicans, nationalists, unionists, loyalists, people born locally, people born abroad etc etc.

    To me this is just an extension of the age-old narrow minded gang/clan like in-fighting that gave Northern Ireland decades of bloody conflict. The only difference is that the outsider is now being defined in this case as gay people.

    Sadly, this is a terrible reflection on the state of NI politics and of the political and social thinking of a large part of NI society that is represented by the DUP.
    If this is the way people really think up there, I don't really see how the internal conflicts will ever be resolved.

    You'll rapidly find yourself in a situation where you're not wanted by either the UK or the Republic of Ireland and will end up as an isolated, social backwater.


    I agree with some of what you say, and I can understand where you're coming from, but like I said above, conflict was never resolved without negotiation, and when the various political parties distanced themselves from their respective armed wings, and sat round the table and talked, and negotiated agreements, progress was made. LGBT lobby groups would do well to learn that forcing their agenda down people's throats is never going to work, and they're never going to have everything their own way, but through negotiation and conflict resolution techniques, they'll get a hell of a lot further with regard to fostering understanding and acceptance with people who disagree with them, or whom they disagree with.

    This is a trope you've been repeating liberally in this thread, this notion that as you put it same-sex marriage is 'illegal' or 'prohibited'. Show me the law 'prohibiting' same-sex marriage, show me the legislation making it 'illegal'. You won't actually be able to so of course because the law neither prohibits nor makes same-sex marriage illegal. It simply doesn't recognize it. There is nothing to stop my partner and I holding an enormous humanist wedding ceremony for our selves and referring to each other as spouse/husband, inviting friends and receiving wedding presents. That is all perfectly legal. I could even have it televised for a documentary. You seem heavy on rhetoric and anger but limited on rational thought.

    (6) For the purposes of this Article and Article 7 there is a legal impediment to a marriage if—

    (a)that marriage would be void by virtue of Article 18 of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (NI 14) (prohibited degrees of relationship);
    (b)one of the parties is, or both are, already married;
    (c)one or both of the parties will be under the age of 16 on the date of solemnisation of the intended marriage;
    (d)one or both of the parties is or are incapable of understanding the nature of a marriage ceremony or of consenting to marriage; or
    (e)both parties are of the same sex.


    The Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003


    I think it would serve you better to dial back on the rhetoric yourself and instead do your research before you make assumptions limited by your own irrational thought.

    U mad bro? :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    reprise wrote: »
    I didn't start linking paedophilia and LGBT - remember?

    This is referred to as context. You brought up paedophilia. This thread is about LGBT and discrimination. And yes that's how your 'question' read.
    reprise wrote: »
    It still doesn't no matter how many times you say. You have the two issues on the brain and keep making the link. Don't blame me.

    You directed your 'question at me for no explained reason. Stop and think about the what and the where (context) of the question before posting. That should help.
    reprise wrote: »
    And I did.

    Evidently not
    reprise wrote: »
    Suit yourself. I've told you several times now you are not compelled to answer. Would you like to be told again?

    For someone who doesn't 'want' an answer (even though the subject of question remains unclarified) you sure as hell are keeping on about it
    reprise wrote: »
    There was no insult. You decided to invent one. I cannot prevent you from insulting yourself and anyone else who isn't bored to tears with your repetition.

    That's how it reads. I'm not the only poster that commented on the insulting wording of that 'question'. Drop the shovel and stop digging.

    Live and learn.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    gozunda wrote: »
    This is referred to as context. This thread is about LGBT and discrimination. And yes that's how your 'question' read.

    When you injected your new meaning. I got that.
    gozunda wrote: »
    You directed your 'question at me for no explained reason. Stop and think about the what and the where (context) of the question before posting. That should help.

    I try limit my discussions to the posters on the thread. You can put me on ignore if that helps.
    gozunda wrote: »
    For someone who doesn't 'want' an answer (even though the subject of question remains unclarified) you sure as hell are keeping on about it

    You seem to want to tell me umpteen times why you shouldn't answer the question I didn't ask. It's no wonder you are confused.
    gozunda wrote: »
    That's how it reads. I'm not the only poster that commented on the insulting wording of that 'question'. Drop the shovel and stop digging.

    I must have missed the crowds. So are you going to answer the question now or write another meandering essay explaining why you won't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

    This, gozunda ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the point.


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


    reprise wrote: »
    This, gozunda ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the point.

    No Reprise that is nothing like the point. 'Your mother takes it up the arse' has absolutely no relevance to any of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited by law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    No Reprise that is nothing like the point. 'Your mother takes it up the arse' has absolutely no relevance to any of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited by law.

    What if it was a gay man looking for the cake and his friends muslim mother (who is black) actually does take it up the ass with a strapon wielding lesbian? :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    It wasn't a question of making a cake for a person who may or may not have been LGBT though, it was a question of the nature of the cake design and whether the bakery should have to fulfill the order. They chose not to because they felt that the message in support of same-sex marriage conflicted with the owner of the bakerys religious beliefs. I would also expect that they would refuse to decorate a cake with the words "Your mother takes it up the arse", nature of the business means that the bakery should have control over it's own work and should not be faced with having breached anti-discrimination legislation for refusing to decorate a cake to a customers specifications.

    They werent expected to go against their religious beliefs, just to make a cake as they would for any other customer.
    I'm willing to stand corrected on the exact legalities of it, but off the top of my head, I remember reading that there are exemptions made in legislation for medical professionals who have a moral or ethical objection to performing certain medical procedures, that is - they cannot be forced to perform a medical procedure to which they have a moral objection.

    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.
    Of course I wouldn't support Sharia law, I'm not Muslim so therefore I wouldn't have to recognise Sharia law. If Muslims want to live by Sharia law themselves, that's their own business.

    Does that mean legalised discrimination freedom of conscience no longer applies when the person isnt a part of your religion?
    Everything is open to negotiation, that's how progress is made. Progress is stunted when neither side is willing to negotiate.

    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.
    Freedom of conscience also applies to non-religious people? Anti-discrimination laws are there to protect people who are non-religious from persecution, and you'd have a point if the bakery owner gatecrashed the LGBT organisations party and laid it on thick with the bible bashing rhetoric. In that case I'd have no issue with the bakery owner being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. He didn't though, it was a person from the LGBT organisation claimed persecution because they placed the order with the bakery which the bakery told them it could not fulfill.

    They're to prevent ALL discrimination.
    Depends on your perspective really who's being persecuted by whom, and that's why a freedom of conscience clause is necessary so that the LGBT organisation cannot force a bakery owner to fulfill an order which conflicts with his religious beliefs, and by that same token, a bakery owner cannot gatecrash an LGBT organisations party and give it welly with the bible bashing rhetoric.

    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.

    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?

    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.
    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    They werent expected to go against their religious beliefs, just to make a cake as they would for any other customer.

    I am not going to address your points as they are directed at Jack, but this is a ridiculous response and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue whatsoever, whether you agree or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    I am not going to address your points as they are directed at Jack, but this is a ridiculous response and shows you have absolutely no understanding of the issue whatsoever, whether you agree or not.

    Ridiculous? People are arguing over a ****ing cake. The point we reached ridiculous is long gone. The people could have went elsewhere and the woman didnt have to write a meaningless message on a cake as a tear fell with each letter added, rosary beads in her hand as she begs Jesus' forgiveness and a crucifix on the wall with a disappointed Jesus staring down at her. Jesus didnt die for this!


    Should we really let people ignore any laws because their religion says so? BUT THE CAKE!!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement