Gay mafia win again.

[Steven]

Gay rights V religious convinction.

The regulations make it possible for homosexual activists to sue people who disagree with a homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs

.

The counter argument was -

Conservative Lord Tebbit said: "Black is about being. Sexual orientation is about being.
"And we would not wish to discriminate against people for being black nor on grounds of their sexual orientation.

So it is now (in NI but coming to a city near you soon) illegal to discrimate against Gays no matter what your reasoning.

Guest houses must allow two gays to share a room, people renting halls and meeting rooms must allow gay weddings etc etc.

Critics of the regulations say that they will force guest houses, schools, churches, nursing homes, printers, adoption agencies and even wedding photographers to compromise on moral objections to homosexuality or face being sued.

Now the challenge to this new law was brought by Christian groups but was defeated in the Lords.

This bit has me wondering what would have happened if the people bringing the challenge had been muslim.

The regulations also had an exemption for doctrinal religious belief, he said

I had always thought that a buisness could refuse to serve someone and didn't have to give a reason?

If you don't want to let a couple of bufties in to your hotel then just tell them to get lost??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm

 

[Storeman Norman]

Apparently it's going to get worse - and the old joke about leaving before they make it compulsory actually begins to ring true - if you believe all you read in the Daily Mail....

New gay rights laws will force schools to teach homosexual equality, one of the country's most respected judges warned yesterday. Teachers who tell pupils homosexual sex is wrong will be guilty of breaking the law, former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern said.

ooo errr missus. Actually, I'm all for live and let live - just so long as nobody tries to stick their religious convictions, wayward sexual practices or anything else down my throat. This, however, is getting mighty close to postive discrimination and the very dodgy path that leads down.

 

[Vimeiro]

My understanding, there are three elements to a contract, an offer, acceptance and consideration. If you have a service and someone offers to use that service and pay a consideration, it is up to you if you wish to accept it. With or with out a reason.

 

[Vimeiro]

Apparently it's going to get worse - and the old joke about leaving before they make it compulsory actually begins to ring true - if you believe all you read in the Daily Mail....

New gay rights laws will force schools to teach homosexual equality, one of the country's most respected judges warned yesterday. Teachers who tell pupils homosexual sex is wrong will be guilty of breaking the law, former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern said.

ooo errr missus. Actually, I'm all for live and let live - just so long as nobody tries to stick their religious convictions, wayward sexual practices or anything else down my throat. This, however, is getting mighty close to postive discrimination and the very dodgy path that leads down.

Already happens. My wife is on a Sex Education forum for my kids school, which is a Catholic Primary. They have to teach that it is acceptable to have same sex parents.

 

[Agent_Smith]

Whilst i can understand that certain religious groups or individuals believe that homosexuality is agains their religion, if they are running a business, then they have no right to discriminate on grounds of sexuality.

Would it be right for them to discriminate against blacks or asians, or dare i say Muslims?

No, i think not, so why the hell should they be allowed to discriminate against gays?

PS, i'm not, never have been, and never plan to be an uphill gardner!

 

[hurryupandwait]

Typical, isn't it? The protest by the Christian groups outside Parliament was very dignified and, dare I say it, Christian, yet no joy for them. I bet if they started to chain themselves to railings and dyed their hair green and pink, they would have got somewhere!
No swearing, spitting at police, fighting, placards calling for the death of infidels etc etc; nothing like the usual conduct from certain other groups, yet the Notting Hill clique win the day again.
Did like the Scottish hotel owner on BBC News last night who was prosecuted for not allowing a gay couple to stay in a double bed in his hotel. Stuck to his guns and was willing to go to prison for his principles. Good on ya fella!

 

[Giblets]

If someone offers to plough a furrow in my soil, I shall have to respectfully decline.

If they should wish to force their tractor onto my field, this would be trespass. I would have to pursuade them with prejudicial force that this is not a good thing to do.

This new law states that, even though I disagree with them parking their tractors on the road opposite my gate, they have every right to do so.

What it does also mean, is that I now have to have dogs and lights to watch over my field, and cannot tell the driver of said tractor that he should bugger (scuse pun) off and find a field elsewhere because I don't like him ploughing.

This has got to be the worst, most stupid, moronic analogy I've come out with yet, and that takes some doing.

 

[flipflop]

Whilst homosexuality does not float my boat, I object to anyone being discriminated on the basis of what is writen an unsubstantiated, incoherent and as yet unproven collection of ancient rambling bound together in a book. If simpletons want to worship their imaginary friend, then let them, but no-one should be discriminated against because they don't subscribe to the same belief or interpretation.

 

[Agent_Smith]

If someone offers to plough a furrow in my soil, I shall have to respectfully decline.

If they should wish to force their tractor onto my field, this would be trespass. I would have to pursuade them with prejudicial force that this is not a good thing to do.

This new law states that, even though I disagree with them parking their tractors on the road opposite my gate, they have every right to do so.

What it does also mean, is that I now have to have dogs and lights to watch over my field, and cannot tell the driver of said tractor that he should bugger (scuse pun) off and find a field elsewhere because I don't like him ploughing.

This has got to be the worst, most stupid, moronic analogy I've come out with yet, and that takes some doing.

NO, it doesn't!

This new law makes it illegal to offer a service, but to refuse that service to someone on the grounds of their sexuality.

Again, i will make the point that why should someone be allowed to discriminate against gays, when it's unacceptable to discriminate against blacks, asians, muslims, jews, etc etc...?

 

[floppyjocky]

Whilst homosexuality does not float my boat, I object to anyone being discriminated on the basis of what is writen an unsubstantiated, incoherent and as yet unproven collection of ancient rambling bound together in a book. If simpletons want to worship their imaginary friend, then let them, but no-one should be discriminated against because they don't subscribe to the same belief or interpretation.

Spot on.

And lets face it, who takes ANY god botherers seriously (this doesn't count in the US of A)

 

[Steven]

If someone offers to plough a furrow in my soil, I shall have to respectfully decline.

If they should wish to force their tractor onto my field, this would be trespass. I would have to pursuade them with prejudicial force that this is not a good thing to do.

This new law states that, even though I disagree with them parking their tractors on the road opposite my gate, they have every right to do so.

What it does also mean, is that I now have to have dogs and lights to watch over my field, and cannot tell the driver of said tractor that he should bugger (scuse pun) off and find a field elsewhere because I don't like him ploughing.

This has got to be the worst, most stupid, moronic analogy I've come out with yet, and that takes some doing.

NO, it doesn't!

This new law makes it illegal to offer a service, but to refuse that service to someone on the grounds of their sexuality.

Again, i will make the point that why should someone be allowed to discriminate against gays, when it's unacceptable to discriminate against blacks, asians, muslims, jews, etc etc...?

I understand your reasoning but what about the rights of the religious believers?

Why should they be forced to allow something that they devoutly disagree with?

Whose rights take precedence?

 

[Giblets]

I have to disagree wth you on this one to a certain degree.

If I don't like the practices or inclinations of someone, I don't have to offer them a service (scuse pun). I should be able to deny my service to anyone I like, for whatever reason I choose, though I should not perhaps be allowed to voice prejudicial reasons for my denial of service.

What I'm saying is that if I don't like pooftas, and don't want them creaming up my guesthouse, I should reserve the right to refuse entry, but not have to give a reason.

If I refuse to service someone because they smell, and their hygiene standards offend my sensibilities, I should not be forced to accept this on the grounds that it is somebody's inaliable right to stink like a sewer.

The right to refuse to serve someone is as inaliabe as that of someone to make a tradesman's entrance package delivery. What the law allows for is the discretion of the person refusing te service. If you think about it, you don't need to say 'your morality and sexual deviance upsets and offends me, and therefore I will not serve you' and in so doing open yourself up to the full fury of the thought-police. You could simply say 'listen up, I'm not serving you, leave please'. If the offending folks question you as to your reasoning, you simply reply that you reserve the right to refuse service on whatever grounds you like, and your reasoning is not there concern. They would then have to either start a fight with you, or start a fight in the courts to prove that in actual fact you were being anti-homo. You could just as easily stand up in court and say 'I refused service because I didn't like his moustache, or quiff, or he smelled bad, he looked just like someone who abused me as a kid and it was bringing back memories of unhappy times etc.

You would b a fool to explain in a manner that opened you up (scuse pun) to accusations of law breaking.

 

[brighton hippy]

mindless bigotry is mindless bigotry even if backed up by a book.
if you want to advertise yourself a a faith based business most gays will avoid you along with the majority of the population
personally I belive the internet is run by tiny japanese fighting robots that bring you free pizza if you worship them apprantly this is irrational.
but jc feeds 500o with can of sardines and a loaf of bread isn't
or mohameed made it into orbit on a horse isn't either
maybe we could compromise as long as the business that want to discriminate because of what they read in a book have a large poster of alf garnet in the window the rest of the population can avoid them

 

[RABC]

[
I understand your reasoning but what about the rights of the religious believers?

Why should they be forced to allow something that they devoutly disagree with?

Whose rights take precedence?

Religious believers still have the right to worship whatever God they like however they please. What this law means is they do not have the right to impose their views on anyone else. Seems fair enough

 

[eveyoz]

If it's gonna be compulsary eventually bagsey being the buck not the doe.

 

[Giblets]

Yeah, you over there, you worship away son, and you over there, you furrow as many soilly fields as takes your pleasure, but neither you or you will get me into your church, or into your bed, and no, you are not planting a cross on my counter, nor sailors in my tradesmen.

 

[Bat_Crab]

First up stop the comments of 'I bet if Muslims had complained this wouldn't have happened', that's balls and you know it (awaiting response from stoatman!).

Secondly any individual in this country has to weigh up their beliefs (religious or otherwise) with the law of the land and the law takes precedence. All major relgions advocate obeyance to national law above religious obligation (yes Islam included, although the usual outspoken minority would have you believe otherwise).

Any provider of a service reserves the right to refuse that service to an individual and need not specify a reason. Discrimination arises where an individual is denied a service they are entitled to or where a service is routinely denied to a particular section of society. In practice I believe this will operate in the same way as Religious Schools (technically discriminatory) and the like where there are enough other options available to prevent it being an issue.

 

[CRmeansCeilingReached]

If someone offers to plough a furrow in my soil, I shall have to respectfully decline.

If they should wish to force their tractor onto my field, this would be trespass. I would have to pursuade them with prejudicial force that this is not a good thing to do.

This new law states that, even though I disagree with them parking their tractors on the road opposite my gate, they have every right to do so.

What it does also mean, is that I now have to have dogs and lights to watch over my field, and cannot tell the driver of said tractor that he should bugger (scuse pun) off and find a field elsewhere because I don't like him ploughing.

This has got to be the worst, most stupid, moronic analogy I've come out with yet, and that takes some doing.

NO, it doesn't!

This new law makes it illegal to offer a service, but to refuse that service to someone on the grounds of their sexuality.

Again, i will make the point that why should someone be allowed to discriminate against gays, when it's unacceptable to discriminate against blacks, asians, muslims, jews, etc etc...?

I understand your reasoning but what about the rights of the religious believers?

Why should they be forced to allow something that they devoutly disagree with?

Whose rights take precedence?

do you extend this to include extremist muslims living in the UK, who follow the Koran?

 

[Dilfor]

Personally, I think I would probably prefer the 'gay mafia' to triumph over the 'religious mafia'. The former tend to be less concerned with forcibly imposing their own prejudices on others than the latter. Gays have never promoted laws saying everyone must mince about, adore Kylie Minogue or dress in feather boas, whereas religious types are for ever trying to tell us what to do - witness abortion/stem cell research/Mohammed cartoons/Jerry Springer - the Opera/fatwas etc etc.

Plus I quite fancy Kylie.

 

[Giblets]

Are you a poof? Kylie?

Given a choice, I'd rather be slapped by an offended gay than burned at the stake or subjected to an inquisition.

I'd much rather be forced to discuss the merits of pink than various religious texts.

A poofta is not going to sermonise me, tell me I'm going to hell, burn me at the stake (though that is open to debate ).

A poof is not ecessarily afraid of scientific progress, nor will a group of poofs have held back science and medicine for a thousand odd years religion has done.

A poof will not tell me that I am born in the wrong, that my whole existance is to be spent kissing his arse and going to gay bars before it is right again.