RoI rejects religion...

[Gasman77]

Gasman77,

One of the better aspects of this forum is to be able to debate issues and we have done so. Clearly, you and I are never going to agree on this issue.

I still maintain that the owner of a public house, hotel, bakery or whatever should have the option to refuse custom but I do see your point of view (whilst disagreeing with it - of course)

Discrimination - or whatever you wish to call it is all around us because all humans discriminate in one form or another. Some of it may be through prejudice (taught or experienced), some through fear and some through pure dislike but it is a fact of life.

I do agree that SOME laws relect public feeling but there are many laws which do not represent what we would term the majority public view.


Lastly -yes - I clearly do live in a vastly different world to you. At least, our social circles must be vastly different.

Well said. Whilst I may not agree with you, the irony is I would defend your right to say what you want...however there appears to be a tipping point at which ones own personal freedom encroaches on anothers freedom.

I personally would rather people were just decent human beings, rather than legislating in order to make people respectful of one another.

 

[AronSearle]

Like this, you mean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-7eNRB2_0Q&feature=player_detailpage

I for one am very glad that such abuses are now very much less acceptable

But, to Britain's shame, they are still present http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24372509[/QUOTE]

Yup, it should be allowed.

And it should be for society and people to pressure such actions out of existence, not government.

And don't spout any childish nonsense indicating I support such discrimination, I would rather have it out in the open and dealt with by society at large.

 

[JohnD]

I would rather have it out in the open and dealt with by society at large.

Society at large can deal with damaging and unacceptable behaviour by making it illegal.

For example if I choose to go around setting fire to Northerner's houses, Society determines that I have committed the crime of arson. There is no requirement that neighbours should form a debating society to attempt to persuade me to change my views, or should form a vigilante mob to lynch me out of existence.

 

[Norcon]

Why didn't they say they were too busy? If I don't like a customer or the look of a job I become too busy.

Yes and when the gays arrive at the church to arrange a wedding they should just say they are booked out.

 

[JBR]

I personally would rather people were just decent human beings, rather than legislating in order to make people respectful of one another.

Yes, and legislating to make people behave contrary to their opinions will never persuade people to change what they think.

Just another case of brushing problems under the carpet. Not only will it make people change their minds, it is likely to cause seething resentment and we can all imagine what that can result in.

 

[JohnD]

Yes, and legislating to make people behave contrary to their opinions will never persuade people to change what they think.

Curiously, that appears to be a mistaken belief of yours.

Since legalising homosexual acts and abortions, public opinion has become much more tolerant.

Since outlawing drink-driving, public opinion has become much less tolerant.

 

[Micilin]

Yes, and legislating to make people behave contrary to their opinions will never persuade people to change what they think.

Curiously, that appears to be a mistaken belief of yours.

Since legalising homosexual acts and abortions, public opinion has become much more tolerant.

Since outlawing drink-driving, public opinion has become much less tolerant.

Good point.

 

[jeds]

I'm fairly neutral on this whole thing but there's one thing that slightly troubles me; where does it leave the 'rights' of a person to hold a religious belief? I'm in no way religious myself - there is no doubt that religion and the bible are a man made thing from a time when people had little understanding of the natural World - but if I did hold a religious belief that marriage was sacred between a man and a woman I could easily see myself having trouble accepting the concept of gay marriage. Because of my belief I personally can't see what the fuss is all about and people should be left to get on and do what they want. But if my belief was different I'm not sure I'd think the same. So it seems to be gay rights versus religious rights. If I was a baker of a business established 30 years am I supposed to close down my business simply because somebody insist I bake a cake just to make a point - when there are dozens of other bakers that would be happy to oblige. It reminds me of a quote that I thought was apt; 'if you don't agree with gay marriage - don't marry a gay'. (can't remember who said it) That quote sums it up for me. If gay people want to marry get over it. But this cake situation isn't something I can walk away from and ignore. I'm forced to comply against my will.

 

[JBR]

I'm fairly neutral on this whole thing but there's one thing that slightly troubles me; where does it leave the 'rights' of a person to hold a religious belief? I'm in no way religious myself - there is no doubt that religion and the bible are a man made thing from a time when people had little understanding of the natural World - but if I did hold a religious belief that marriage was sacred between a man and a woman I could easily see myself having trouble accepting the concept of gay marriage. Because of my belief I personally can't see what the fuss is all about and people should be left to get on and do what they want. But if my belief was different I'm not sure I'd think the same. So it seems to be gay rights versus religious rights. If I was a baker of a business established 30 years am I supposed to close down my business simply because somebody insist I bake a cake just to make a point - when there are dozens of other bakers that would be happy to oblige. It reminds me of a quote that I thought was apt; 'if you don't agree with gay marriage - don't marry a gay'. (can't remember who said it) That quote sums it up for me. If gay people want to marry get over it. But this cake situation isn't something I can walk away from and ignore. I'm forced to comply against my will.

Well said. Gay rights v. religious rights indeed.

But I would add a rider for clarification. Looking at recent events it appears that:
- gay rights trumps Christian rights; and
- muslim rights trumps Christian rights.

If and when the situation arises, I should be very interested to see which of gay rights and muslim rights comes out on top.

 

[JohnD]

I'm fairly neutral on this whole thing but there's one thing that slightly troubles me; where does it leave the 'rights' of a person to hold a religious belief?

Your rights to hold a religious belief are 100% unaffected.

 

[JBR]

I'm fairly neutral on this whole thing but there's one thing that slightly troubles me; where does it leave the 'rights' of a person to hold a religious belief?

Your rights to hold a religious belief are 100% unaffected.

But what if someone else's beliefs conflict with your religious belief? That's the whole point of the thread.

 

[JohnD]

Your rights to hold a religious belief are 100% unaffected.

For example, JBR might hold the belief that people whose ancestors lived in Northern England exactly 600 years ago are his god's chosen people and are entitled to seize land and homes from people whose ancestor's didn't, and some whose ancestors did.

Norcon might hold the belief that people whose ancestors lived in Northern Ireland exactly 300 years ago are his god's chosen people and are entitled to seize land and homes from people whose ancestor's didn't, and some whose ancestors did.

Breadnbutter might hold the belief that people who wear clothes made of mixed fibres or are romantically attracted to cattle should be put to death.

I might hold the belief that thunder is produced by a man with a big hammer who lives in an oak tree, or that the pain of childbirth is to punish women because one was once tricked by a magic talking snake.

People are perfectly free to hold these beliefs if they wish.

Beliefs are 100% unaffected.

 

[jeds]

It's not just a case of holding a belief, some people are compelled to also act on their beliefs. Take the wearing of a turban for religious reasons. An irrational concept in my opinion but nevertheless followed by millions of Sikhs. UK law takes account of this and does not require a Sikh wearing a turban to comply with the highway code. Allowance was made because it was recognised that Sikhs don't just hold the belief they are compelled to act on it.

 

[AronSearle]

For example if I choose to go around setting fire to Northerner's houses, Society determines that I have committed the crime of arson. There is no requirement that neighbours should form a debating society to attempt to persuade me to change my views, or should form a vigilante mob to lynch me out of existence.

Are you retarded?

Not allowing someone on your property, or refusing to perform a service to an individual or group is not comparable to physically assaulting another person or their property.

If an activity does not harm someone (other than their feelings), it should not be legislated against.

 

[JBR]

Your rights to hold a religious belief are 100% unaffected.

For example, JBR might hold the belief that people whose ancestors lived in Northern England exactly 600 years ago are his god's chosen people and are entitled to seize land and homes from people whose ancestor's didn't, and some whose ancestors did.

Norcon might hold the belief that people whose ancestors lived in Northern Ireland exactly 300 years ago are his god's chosen people and are entitled to seize land and homes from people whose ancestor's didn't, and some whose ancestors did.

Breadnbutter might hold the belief that people who wear clothes made of mixed fibres or are romantically attracted to cattle should be put to death.

I might hold the belief that thunder is produced by a man with a big hammer who lives in an oak tree, or that the pain of childbirth is to punish women because one was once tricked by a magic talking snake.

People are perfectly free to hold these beliefs if they wish.

Beliefs are 100% unaffected.

But you missed one out!

A Christian baker may hold the belief that same-sex marriage is contrary to what is written in his holy book and, for that reason, feels that he is morally unable to produce anything that questions or ridicules his religious beliefs.

Btw, yes, I do believe that my ancestors who lived in Yorkshire are God's chosen people, although I don't hold with seizing other people's land and houses in this day and age.

Your belief that thunder is produced by a man with a hammer who lives in an oak tree, however, is verging on the insane.