The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

silverharp · 20-04-2015 09:43AM

The way I'd look at it is that a business owner shouldn't refuse business to anybody as a general rule but even there I could think of exceptions but a business owner should have full editorial control over what they produce until the point that the product / service is picked up.
Some examples , a Jewish printer could refuse to print up a book that tries to disprove Judaism . a Christian cake shop can't refuse business to someone who is gay even if they know its for a gay wedding but they as the maker of the cake should be allowed to design it as they see fit or refuse the business if the customer won't budge.

shruikan2553 · 20-04-2015 09:59AM

J C wrote: »

It will be way too late then.
Lets have protection for conscience in the Constitution ... for everything ... and not just the issue of Gay Marriage.

That's actually what the constitution is for ... the establishment of broad principles ... and not narrow sectional interests ... that are best dealt with via legislation.

You are all of a sudden unconcerned about the unintended consequences of changing the constitution. Why can't we just get rid of the equality legislation?

Why dont the religious call it smarriage? If its good enough for the gays it's good enough for the religious. Smarriage is between a man and a woman. Sure it wont have legal recognition at the start but thats not even real marriage, only the god parts are important.

You appear to be only worried about discrimination against Christians. Are others not entitled to religious freedom too? Is it discrimination to not allow child marriages or stoning women? Will we allow that in our constitution too?

Also Im very interested in the bold question, if marriage is being redefined how will my marriage to my girlfriend change?

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The same reason as everyone else.

If me and my girlfriend marry tomorrow or in June what will be the difference in our marriage? Everyone's marriage will be the same except now a few more people can join in.

If civil partnerships will be the same as marriage why not just call it marriage? For civil partnerships to be equal they need to be added to the constitution anyway.

Why have any referendum?

The same people who are campaigning against SSM were also the people against civil partnerships and tried what they could to stop it.

The only vagueness are these consequences that luckily nobody has any idea of.

aloyisious · 20-04-2015 11:18AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Well lets see what happens if a case is taken. Its all a big IF at the moment, not enough of a reason to vote against ssm.

One does not have to prosecute a minister for not solemnizing a marriage by completing the HSE M.R.F requirements, just have the Registrar-General delete his/her name from the registrar-of-marriages list. The form can be completed by a HSE registrar and the couple, followed by a civil marriage ceremony in a HSE approved premises. That act wouldn't nullify any prior religious ceremony, or no priest could have volunteered to be a solemnizer on behalf of the HSE in the first place.

Without the completed M.R.F and registration by a solemnizer, the marriage is NOT recognized by the state, whether or not it is recognized by the church or religion and it's marriage-performing representative in/on it's premises.

steamengine · 20-04-2015 12:05PM

katydid wrote: »

It seems to most YES posters here are simply questioning the very idea that the Christian viewpoint has anything whatsoever to do with the upcoming referendum.

Well perhaps the 'Church' has got it right ! Anyone interested in listening to what a gay Christian has to say on the subject ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4iqhU24phs

Or does the forthcoming referendum just have two choices YES and YES, which appears to be the case even on a Christian forum ?

Benny_Cake · 20-04-2015 12:16PM

katydid wrote: »

Marriage is a sacrament - a sacrament is not an automatic right, it is a visible sign of God's grace. It is up to the minister to decide whether or not the couple who wish to be married truly wish to receive the sacrament. Are you suggesting that religious ministers should be taken to court for refusing to baptise a child, or for refusing to administer absolution, whatever we may think of their reasons for doing it? Priests refuse to marry couples where one of the couple is divorced, for example.

Exactly, it's a complete non-issue. There are all manner of circumstances where a minister could refuse to marry a couple. If they tried to take a case, I'd imagine the response would be to give them directions to the local HSE office. Quite rightly, too.

PopePalpatine · 20-04-2015 12:28PM

Ah, is this the same Paddy Manning who said he was OK with being the victim of a homophobic assault?

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 01:26PM

silverharp wrote: »

The way I'd look at it is that a business owner shouldn't refuse business to anybody as a general rule but even there I could think of exceptions but a business owner should have full editorial control over what they produce until the point that the product / service is picked up.
Some examples , a Jewish printer could refuse to print up a book that tries to disprove Judaism . a Christian cake shop can't refuse business to someone who is gay even if they know its for a gay wedding but they as the maker of the cake should be allowed to design it as they see fit or refuse the business if the customer won't budge.

I agree (now there's a first!).

Common sense should apply here. For example, a republican owned printshop on the Falls Road in Belfast should have the right to refuse to print an election poster for a loyalist cause. Similarly, a gay printshop owner should not be forced to fulfill an order for a customer who wants him to print leaflets that oppose Same-Sex Marriage.

A Christian cake-shop should not have the right to refuse an order based on a customer's sexual orientation. For example, if someone wants to buy a generic wedding cake then the bakery should fulfill that order, irrespective of whether the cake is for a heterosexual wedding or a same-sex wedding. However, the same bakery should have the right to refuse an order for a cake that carries a slogan supporting same-sex marriage (as happened in Northern Ireland recently).

The only problem I see here is a scenario where such conscience-based exceptions leave someone with no-one to provide a service. For example, if every bakery for miles around was owned by Christians, then that would be unfair. However, in the vast majority of situations that is not the case. There are usually plenty of other bakeries and printers that people can choose to do their work instead.

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 01:32PM

J C wrote: »

... so I don't see any reason why a Minister could not be prosecuted ... or have his civil solemnising rights revoked.

Religious solemnisers are only authorised to marry people according to the rites of their own religion. Since, in most religions, those rites only provide for the marriage of a man and a woman, they would not be authorised to conduct a same-sex wedding - even if (or more probably when) the referendum is passed into law.

silverharp · 20-04-2015 01:46PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I agree (now there's a first!).

Common sense should apply here. For example, a republican owned printshop on the Falls Road in Belfast should have the right to refuse to print an election poster for a loyalist cause. Similarly, a gay printshop owner should not be forced to fulfill an order for a customer who wants him to print leaflets that oppose Same-Sex Marriage.

A Christian cake-shop should not have the right to refuse an order based on a customer's sexual orientation. For example, if someone wants to buy a generic wedding cake then the bakery should fulfill that order, irrespective of whether the cake is for a heterosexual wedding or a same-sex wedding. However, the same bakery should have the right to refuse an order for a cake that carries a slogan supporting same-sex marriage (as happened in Northern Ireland recently).

The only problem I see here is a scenario where such conscience-based exceptions leave someone with no-one to provide a service. For example, if every bakery for miles around was owned by Christians, then that would be unfair. However, in the vast majority of situations that is not the case. There are usually plenty of other bakeries and printers that people can choose to do their work instead.

its so rare for there to be a monopoly in any private sector business and these outfits tend to be mom and pop shops. I would suggest that such a business should make it obvious before you enter the business as they are putting the customer in an awkward position otherwise.
On the flip side I'd have a ruthless position on employees trying to exercise their beliefs in the workplace , be it Muslim employees not wanting to handle certain goods in supermarkets or Christian civil servants not wanting to provide certain services to certain people.

tommy2bad · 20-04-2015 02:00PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I kind of agree with this, to be honest. While I find the whole 'gay-cake' refusal scenario obnoxious on a personal level, I think forcing people to make/print/whatever items/slogans that go against their beliefs sets a fairly dangerous precedent.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire

marienbad · 20-04-2015 02:30PM

silverharp wrote: »

its so rare for there to be a monopoly in any private sector business and these outfits tend to be mom and pop shops. I would suggest that such a business should make it obvious before you enter the business as they are putting the customer in an awkward position otherwise.
On the flip side I'd have a ruthless position on employees trying to exercise their beliefs in the workplace , be it Muslim employees not wanting to handle certain goods in supermarkets or Christian civil servants not wanting to provide certain services to certain people.

But then you had the case in the UK when the B&B refused the gay couple , and it is not that long ago the unmarried couples in this jurisdiction were refused double rooms . Is that Ok ?

silverharp · 20-04-2015 03:00PM

marienbad wrote: »

But then you had the case in the UK when the B&B refused the gay couple , and it is not that long ago the unmarried couples in this jurisdiction were refused double rooms . Is that Ok ?

It depends , id expect the local tourist agencies to delist them or at a push make sure they are listed in a subsection.
If they offered a gay couple single rooms and demonstrated that they asked to see wedding rings of hetro couples then so be it. I would trust the market to keep the number of these businesses at a minimum as many people would be put off by their stance.

marienbad · 20-04-2015 03:08PM

silverharp wrote: »

It depends , id expect the local tourist agencies to delist them or at a push make sure they are listed in a subsection.
If they offered a gay couple single rooms and demonstrated that they asked to see wedding rings of hetro couples then so be it. I would trust the market to keep the number of these businesses at a minimum as many people would be put off by their stance.

What if they refused to admit Jews ? Would you trust the market then ?

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 03:33PM

marienbad wrote: »

What if they refused to admit Jews ? Would you trust the market then ?

I think that's a false analogy. What silverharp is, in effect, suggesting is that Christian bed and breakfast owners should operate as part of a niche market. A niche market provides a particular experience.

So, for example, there are bed and breakfasts that cater solely for vegetarians, for naturists, or for Jews.

A kosher bed and breakfast, which clearly markets itself as such, would not prevent Gentiles from staying as guests, but they would ask them to be aware that staying in the place entails restrictions that are part of Judaism. So guests should not expect bacon for breakfast, or indeed a cooked breakfast on the Sabbath. It would also be reasonable for such an establishment to have a house rule that requires guests not to bring pork products into the premises.

Similarly, a Christian bed and breakfast, marketed as such, might have Scripture texts hanging on the walls, might have evening Bible studies in the lounge, and might have rules against guests cursing. I don't see that should be any problem if it's clearly marketed as such. It would certainly be wrong to prohibit anyone staying because of their sexual orientation, but it would be reasonable to state that there is a house rule that no unmarried couples or same-sex couples share rooms.

Of course these kind of guidelines require common sense and toleration all round. They would probably be unacceptable to the kind of zealots who want to pick fights for the sake of it.

marienbad · 20-04-2015 04:06PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I think that's a false analogy. What silverharp is, in effect, suggesting is that Christian bed and breakfast owners should operate as part of a niche market. A niche market provides a particular experience.

So, for example, there are bed and breakfasts that cater solely for vegetarians, for naturists, or for Jews.

A kosher bed and breakfast, which clearly markets itself as such, would not prevent Gentiles from staying as guests, but they would ask them to be aware that staying in the place entails restrictions that are part of Judaism. So guests should not expect bacon for breakfast, or indeed a cooked breakfast on the Sabbath. It would also be reasonable for such an establishment to have a house rule that requires guests not to bring pork products into the premises.

Similarly, a Christian bed and breakfast, marketed as such, might have Scripture texts hanging on the walls, might have evening Bible studies in the lounge, and might have rules against guests cursing. I don't see that should be any problem if it's clearly marketed as such. It would certainly be wrong to prohibit anyone staying because of their sexual orientation, but it would be reasonable to state that there is a house rule that no unmarried couples or same-sex couples share rooms.

Of course these kind of guidelines require common sense and toleration all round. They would probably be unacceptable to the kind of zealots who want to pick fights for the sake of it.

Thankfully the equality agencies in the UK didn't agree with you and that B&B was found in breach of the law .

Incidentally are you in favour of the 'conscience clause being enacted in some states in the USA ?

The scenario you give above is just ridiculous in the extreme . Next we would be back to this :

silverharp · 20-04-2015 04:16PM

marienbad wrote: »

What if they refused to admit Jews ? Would you trust the market then ?

Is that actually a problem in Ireland or England? I'd expect any business that was so off the scale to be reviewed out of business and otherwise restricted from operating on a high street or commercial area as it would affect other retailers.
And even if you have laws it doesn't mean it's advisable for every minority to have a drink in the hundred roughest establishment one could find in england say. The owner will let you in but the clientele will make the visit uncomfortable or dangerous.
Do you not think equity and anti discrimination legislation has gone too far when religious people can sue their employers because they want to bring their religion to work and expect special treatment?

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 04:21PM

marienbad wrote: »

Thankfully the equality agencies in the UK didn't agree with you and that B&B was found in breach of the law .

No, the equality agencies didn't address the issue of niche marketing at all. So they neither agreed with me nor disagreed with me.

Incidentally are you in favour of the 'conscience clause being enacted in some states in the USA ?

That would depend on how the conscience clauses are worded. For example, a conscience clause that allowed a business to simply discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation would be abhorrent to me. I have been the victim of discrimination and know how horrible and dehumanising it can feel.

But I would be in favour of conscience clauses that were reasonable. For example, one that protected a bakery like the one in Belfast from being prosecuted for refusing to put a political slogan on a cake, or one that protected a church from being prosecuted because they refused to ordain a practising homosexual as a pastor.

The scenario you give above is just ridiculous in the extreme . Next we would be back to this :

And it is because of people like you, and their inability to seek reasonable accommodation with those of different views, that I included my final paragraph:

Of course these kind of guidelines require common sense and toleration all round. They would probably be unacceptable to the kind of zealots who want to pick fights for the sake of it.

marienbad · 20-04-2015 04:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

And it is because of people like you, and their inability to seek reasonable accommodation with those of different views, that I included my final paragraph:

Of course these kind of guidelines require common sense and toleration all round. They would probably be unacceptable to the kind of zealots who want to pick fights for the sake of it.

The equality agency in the UK did rule against that B&B . No if ands or buts about it.

As for the above - the mind boggles ! The only reason there is an issue at all is the inability of some to mind their own business as to what others might get up to in the bedroom !

It is so ironic that people get irked and feel discriminated against when they are not allowed to discriminate themselves . If only they could apply some common sense and stop acting like zealots .

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 04:49PM

marienbad wrote: »

The equality agency in the UK did rule against that B&B . No if ands or buts about it.

But that wasn't you said. You responded to comments I made about niche marketing, and said the equality agencies didn't agree with me. Since the B&B wasn't engaged in niche marketing, it is false to say that they disagreed with me.

It would be helpful, and facilitate better discussion, if you remembered what you posted.

As for the above - the mind boggles ! The only reason there is an issue at all is the inability of some to mind their own business as to what others might get up to in the bedroom !

Maybe if you broadened your mind it wouldn't get so boggled. People can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms. I couldn't care less about that. The issue here is whether elderly owners of a bed and breakfast should have any control over what happens in their own bedrooms. It would seem reasonable to me to try to accommodate (no pun intended) them. Your dogged insistence to make everyone conform to what you want is really quite interesting.

Live and let live. If people want to run a Christian B&B then let them do so. So long as the people who book with them are aware of that, then it's difficult to see why reasonable people would want to stop them.

It is so ironic that people get irked and feel discriminated against when they are not allowed to discriminate themselves . If only they could apply some common sense and stop acting like zealots .

I don't think someone operating a niche market bed and breakfast can really be described as zealots. If we're talking about a tiny section of the market, and if there is an abundance of alternative accommodation, then nobody is harmed by a bit of live and let live.

marienbad · 20-04-2015 05:02PM

Nick Park wrote: »

But that wasn't you said. You responded to comments I made about niche marketing, and said the equality agencies didn't agree with me. Since the B&B wasn't engaged in niche marketing, it is false to say that they disagreed with me.

It would be helpful, and facilitate better discussion, if you remembered what you posted.

Maybe if you broadened your mind it wouldn't get so boggled. People can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms. I couldn't care less about that. The issue here is whether elderly owners of a bed and breakfast should have any control over what happens in their own bedrooms. It would seem reasonable to me to try to accommodate (no pun intended) them. Your dogged insistence to make everyone conform to what you want is really quite interesting.

Live and let live. If people want to run a Christian B&B then let them do so. So long as the people who book with them are aware of that, then it's difficult to see why reasonable people would want to stop them.

I don't think someone operating a niche market bed and breakfast can really be described as zealots. If we're talking about a tiny section of the market, and if there is an abundance of alternative accommodation, then nobody is harmed by a bit of live and let live.

This is just your usual equivocating blather , with all the semantics and pathos thrown in simply to justify a license to discriminate .

The only reason we have such legislation is that that ''the live and let live '' approach you so espouse never seemed to work now did it , and so we had the ''no blacks no jews no irish no catholics '' etc need apply signs .

No thank you , I think I will go with legal approach , even if from time to time it can appear ridiculous , but at least every one has a chance at redress , rather than your so called 'reasonable people'' making it up as they go along.

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 05:05PM

marienbad wrote: »

This is just your usual equivocating blather , with all the semantics and pathos thrown in simply to justify a license to discriminate

Ah marienbad, you are so predictable. You can't help yourself, can you?

Don't you get the idea of people with different viewpoints having a civil discussion and trying to see if we can't get along?

marienbad · 20-04-2015 05:24PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah marienbad, you are so predictable. You can't help yourself, can you?

Don't you get the idea of people with different viewpoints having a civil discussion and trying to see if we can't get along?

Yep predictable indeed , anytime anyplace I see the face of intolerance I will try to do my little bit to confront it .

Whereas you while seeking the maximum legal protection ( as is your right) for your beliefs and lifestyle seek to deny those same protections to someone else you just don't agree with.

That is the issue in a nutshell , and none of your sugar-coating will conceal it .

katydid · 20-04-2015 05:37PM

aloyisious wrote: »

One does not have to prosecute a minister for not solemnizing a marriage by completing the HSE M.R.F requirements, just have the Registrar-General delete his/her name from the registrar-of-marriages list.

And why would you do that, since the only solemnising such a person would be doing would be in the context of a religious ceremony, which means you'd have to penalise them for not carrying out a religious ceremony.

A very dangerous road to go down.

katydid · 20-04-2015 05:46PM

steamengine wrote: »

Well perhaps the 'Church' has got it right ! Anyone interested in listening to what a gay Christian has to say on the subject ?
Or does the forthcoming referendum just have two choices YES and YES, which appears to be the case even on a Christian forum ?

Eh yes, there can be only two choices if the question is "do you agree"...

I'm not sure what relevance the opinion of one gay Christian is above the opinion of any other citizen.

steamengine · 20-04-2015 06:21PM

katydid wrote: »

Eh yes, there can be only two choices if the question is "do you agree"...

I'm not sure what relevance the opinion of one gay Christian is above the opinion of any other citizen.

Paddy has walked the walk, that's why I listen to him, in fact I found the video most impressive, in particular his concern for the children of SSM and the perceived mess that will be walked into by voting YES. Frankly, I had not considered that angle.

We both more or less have the same points of view, but I was interested to hear it from a gay point of view. The gay views to date have been 'If you vote NO, your discriminating against us', which i don't accept.

Paddy is advocating a NO vote, so not all gays are singing from the the same hymn sheet, which appears to be a standard issue repetitively banging home the same message.

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 06:24PM

marienbad wrote: »

Yep predictable indeed , anytime anyplace I see the face of intolerance I will try to do my little bit to confront it .

Whereas you while seeking the maximum legal protection ( as is your right) for your beliefs and lifestyle seek to deny those same protections to someone else you just don't agree with.

That is the issue in a nutshell , and none of your sugar-coating will conceal it .

That is simply not true. I am not trying to deny any protections to anyone. I am simply engaging in a discussion on an internet forum, one devoted to the subject of Christianity, and I am suggesting a path of reasonable accommodation whereby no-one should get discriminated against and where people with sincere and deeply held beliefs can practise them in a context and setting where no-one gets hurt.

The idea of niche marketing would appear to protect everybody. You have an extremely small number of Bed & Breakfasts that cater to a minority group (people who want to read the Bible together etc). If you would drop your hostility for a moment and reflect on this, you would see that it is extremely unlikely that any gay couple would ever want to stay at such a bed and breakfast (I'm heterosexual, and I wouldn't want to stay in such a setting!). And if a gay couple, knowing that it is clearly advertised as belonging to a niche market, try to book in for the express purpose of kicking up a storm, then they should be treated exactly the same as I would if I tried to BBQ steaks in the back garden of a vegetarian hotel, or hand out bacon sandwiches in a bed and breakfast that caters for a niche market of orthodox Jews.

It seems like the minority of extremists on either side want to keep turning these issues into battles, but I think there is a majority of people - an excluded middle - who would be much happier to seek paths of reasonable accommodation by which we have a diversity of opinions and treat one another with civility and respect.

shruikan2553 · 20-04-2015 06:27PM

steamengine wrote: »

Paddy has walked the walk, that's why I listen to him, in fact I found the video most impressive, in particular his concern for the children of SSM and the perceived mess that will be walked into by voting YES. Frankly, I had not considered that angle.

We both more or less have the same points of view, but I was interested to hear it from a gay point of view. The gay views to date have been 'If you vote NO, your discriminating against us', which i don't accept.

Paddy is advocating a NO vote, so not all gays are singing from the the same hymn sheet, which appears to be a standard issue repetitively banging home the same message.

How does the referendum affect the children and family relationships bill?

Nick Park · 20-04-2015 06:34PM

steamengine wrote: »

Paddy is advocating a NO vote, so not all gays are singing from the the same hymn sheet, which appears to be a standard issue repetitively banging home the same message.

Not all gays sing from the same hymn sheet, nor do all Christians. And the frustrating thing is that the debate is being dominated by those with extreme views who have turned it into a Punch and Judy Show.

Evangelical Alliance Ireland has recently published a book, entitled "Who Owns Marriage?",where people of various opinions discuss issues of religion, homosexuality, civil marriage and religious marriage. A couple of the contributors were fairly partisan, but most were able to engage in a civil discussion where they listened to each other and expressed a surprising diversity of views. I contributed to it (and edited it) and other contributors included theologians, Christian leaders, LGBT activists (including my own daughter, and also Brian Finnegan, editor of Gay Community News) David Quinn of the Iona Institute, and Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland.

Unfortunately this kind of interaction is all too rare, and so what most people hear on this issue is increasingly angry activists talking past each other without listening to each other.

steamengine · 20-04-2015 06:35PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

How does the referendum affect the children and family relationships bill?

I don't know anything about it. I'm listening to Paddy Manning though and he's making a lot of sense.

You're free to fill in the gaps in my knowledge though, somehow I feel point scoring is the object of the exercise, but you're free to rid me of that notion too.

shruikan2553 · 20-04-2015 06:44PM

steamengine wrote: »

I don't know anything about it. I'm listening to Paddy Manning though and he's making a lot of sense.

You're free to fill in the gaps in my knowledge though, somehow I feel point scoring is the object of the exercise, but you're free to rid me of that notion too.

If it is in here http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf

then the result of the referendum has no affect on it. As it is called the children and family relationships bill you can probably guess it involves lots of things involved with children and families, including civil partnerships being allowed to adopt.

The referendum is about allowing 2 people of any gender to get married. There are couples of both sexuality raising children now and their will be couples of both sexuality raising children in the future be the result yes or no.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments