PDA

View Full Version : More religion induced madness



weezer 316
03-Sep-12, 13:41
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/02/christian-rights-cases-strasbourg-court

The two discrimation cases about gay couples is such a joke its untrue. They are complaining thery are being discrimated against because they are not being allowed to discriminate.

It's utter insanity. Infact its worse.

Gronnuck
03-Sep-12, 15:45
IMO we'll see a lot more of these sorts of cases so we should get use to them. In cases of this sort there are always going to be bigots on both side of the argument who will want to polarise the issue; whatever happened to ‘live and let live’ and mutual respect?
In the case of Lillian Ladele, a registrar of births, deaths and marriages; surely it’s not beyond the means of her employer to let her step aside and allow someone else from the office to officiate at ceremonies? The same can be argued in the case of Gary McFarlane, a Relate counselor. It sounds to me as if their employers are not prepared to make reasonable adjustments to the work Rota and are taking an unnecessary belligerent stand.
Believe it or not Christians and Muslims have rights too including the right to follow their religion. Before the PC brigade start getting their knickers in a twist they should perhaps be mindful of the old saying, ‘Rules are for the adherence of fools and guidance of wise men.’

RecQuery
03-Sep-12, 15:55
They're basically complaining that they don't have freedom to oppress other people. I predict this will be thrown out or rejected and is just being done for publicity.



Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.
- Christopher Hitchens

weezer 316
03-Sep-12, 15:56
Yeah fantastic. Unfortunately if you follow that then you have chaos. Its quite simple, nothing to do with PC. It violates gods law apparently.....yet there are christians out there who say it doesnt.

Religion is obviously absurd, but this absolute madness of letting poeple do stuff, or not do stuff, based on sincerly held beliefs is ridiculous. When was the last time you had to respect soemones sincerely held, but utterly lacking in factual basis, belief on anything other than religion? History teacher that wants to teach the nazis won the war? Chemistry teacher to teach alchemy perhaps? Would it be violating thier rights if they were fired for doing such based on a religious belief?

Madness. And its religion that's at the heart of it.

RecQuery
03-Sep-12, 16:00
As a counterpoint to those two stories which quite frankly are just an example of religious people getting butthurt because they can't oppress others. There are a ton of stories about supposed medical professionals refusing to provide contraceptives, evangelising to terminally ill patients, refusing to perform abortions etc.

Rheghead
03-Sep-12, 16:05
In the case of Lillian Ladele, a registrar of births, deaths and marriages; surely it’s not beyond the means of her employer to let her step aside and allow someone else from the office to officiate at ceremonies? The same can be argued in the case of Gary McFarlane, a Relate counselor. It sounds to me as if their employers are not prepared to make reasonable adjustments to the work Rota and are taking an unnecessary belligerent stand.
Believe it or not Christians and Muslims have rights too including the right to follow their religion. Before the PC brigade start getting their knickers in a twist they should perhaps be mindful of the old saying, ‘Rules are for the adherence of fools and guidance of wise men.’

That is actually what the point is all about. The fact that the system needs two persons to achieve equality is the same kind of discrimination which Rosa Parkes fought against in America where the system needed one bus to take the whites and one to take the niggers.

We live in one society and the fact that someone feels the need to stand aside and let someone else do the job because of their own prejudice against homosexuality is discriminatory.

brandy
03-Sep-12, 17:08
using rosa parks is a very poor example.. as the fact the wording you used is very poor choice. this is from an american that grew up in the states in a place where racism is rampant. however, that is racism not discrimination. there is a HUGE dif. a very simple metaphor is what is good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind. everyone has a right to thier own personal beliefs, and if it goes against those beliefs then as long as it is not harmful, then should they not be afforded the same respect as anyone else? if someone in a profession does not believe it is morally right to perform a duty, should they be forced to do it? it is not as far as i know, written into contracts that are signed that said persons have to perform such things as goes against certain beliefs. if it is, and that person knowingly agrees then it is a dif. situation again. if some one said to you, this is the status quo now, and regardless of your beliefs and thoughts you have to go along with it.. because the majority agrees.
it can go both ways.. and life is a two way street. there is always two sides and often more to every story

Rheghead
03-Sep-12, 17:17
using rosa parks is a very poor example.. as the fact the wording you used is very poor choice. this is from an american that grew up in the states in a place where racism is rampant. however, that is racism not discrimination. there is a HUGE dif. a very simple metaphor is what is good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind. everyone has a right to thier own personal beliefs, and if it goes against those beliefs then as long as it is not harmful, then should they not be afforded the same respect as anyone else? if someone in a profession does not believe it is morally right to perform a duty, should they be forced to do it? it is not as far as i know, written into contracts that are signed that said persons have to perform such things as goes against certain beliefs. if it is, and that person knowingly agrees then it is a dif. situation again. if some one said to you, this is the status quo now, and regardless of your beliefs and thoughts you have to go along with it.. because the majority agrees.
it can go both ways.. and life is a two way street. there is always two sides and often more to every story

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of whether one does it on race, religious beliefs, disability or sexual preference etc. You can talk all you want about the finer points of it but it all comes down to discrimination because of bigotry and I think my analogy was perfectly acceptable.

RecQuery
03-Sep-12, 17:45
using rosa parks is a very poor example.. as the fact the wording you used is very poor choice. this is from an american that grew up in the states in a place where racism is rampant. however, that is racism not discrimination. there is a HUGE dif. a very simple metaphor is what is good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind. everyone has a right to thier own personal beliefs, and if it goes against those beliefs then as long as it is not harmful, then should they not be afforded the same respect as anyone else? if someone in a profession does not believe it is morally right to perform a duty, should they be forced to do it? it is not as far as i know, written into contracts that are signed that said persons have to perform such things as goes against certain beliefs. if it is, and that person knowingly agrees then it is a dif. situation again. if some one said to you, this is the status quo now, and regardless of your beliefs and thoughts you have to go along with it.. because the majority agrees.
it can go both ways.. and life is a two way street. there is always two sides and often more to every story

Most of the things they're saying about homosexuals are the same things they were saying about ethnic minorities just with the words swapped out, this is recent history so feel free to look it up. You're right in that all tolerance means is that you tolerate someone not accept them or embrace them but part of the that toleration is, should you happen to be a public profession, to serve or treat them in a courteous and professional manner. You're working a public of customer facing body in many cases an individual employee doesn't have the right to refuse someone treatment etc.

Replace gay and black with women, would you still be okay with that?

pmcd
03-Sep-12, 18:12
" I have an opinion. You have an attitude. He is a moron". - A distillate of the current "discussion". Let's hear it for one-way argument! (And one way sensitivities). Do NOT participate in this "debate". The die is loaded: you are not allowed to have an opinion which differs from the "received logic" of the principal protagonists. Any attempt to have your own differing opinion will result in you being sneered at, which gets a bit boring in the end. And you need to get on with real life, which surprisingly doesn't work logically, unless you are the next correspondent, who will no doubt pick holes in this illogical/wrong/mutant/perverse/opinion. Tinfoil hats all round!

Gronnuck
03-Sep-12, 19:30
That is actually what the point is all about. The fact that the system needs two persons to achieve equality is the same kind of discrimination which Rosa Parkes fought against in America where the system needed one bus to take the whites and one to take the niggers.

Now you've got me confuddled - The bus Rosa Parks was travelling on carried both White and Black passengers. The transport authority didn't think it necessary to run two seperate busses. The problem arose because the Driver, who was responsible for the division and use of the seats, decided when the bus filled up to redesignate the section Rosa Parks was sitting on as 'White'. She refused to move and the rest is history.


We live in one society and the fact that someone feels the need to stand aside and let someone else do the job because of their own prejudice against homosexuality is discriminatory.
We live in one society but it has a myriad of diverse cultures and diverse communities, for us all to get along there has to be an element of 'give and take.'
You have your opinion and I respect that. However in many of these 'customer facing' posts there is often other staff who are available to take over. It already happens albeit surreptitiously.

My concern is that in the race to be PC we will end up in a society where people will try to use their right/belief/penchant to 'trump' someone else's right/belief/penchant and the whole kit and caboodle will degenerate into squabbling and worse. Then we'll all be watching our backs incase someone has got a long knife aimed at us.

Rheghead
03-Sep-12, 19:41
Now you've got me confuddled - The bus Rosa Parks was travelling on carried both White and Black passengers. The transport authority didn't think it necessary to run two seperate busses. The problem arose because the Driver, who was responsible for the division and use of the seats, decided when the bus filled up to redesignate the section Rosa Parks was sitting on as 'White'. She refused to move and the rest is history.

Fair enough, I stand corrected on the details if that is indeed the case, my point still stands though, seperate seats or seperate bus, but if you are saying that there was only one bus then the analogy follows on that it should be the one person who carries out the marriage ceremomies and marriage counselling. Otherwise they're in the wrong job.

Gizmo
03-Sep-12, 22:04
The sooner all religions become a thing of the past, the better for all of us.

joxville
03-Sep-12, 22:36
The sooner all religions become a thing of the past, the better for all of us.And the sooner 'gay' people give us back the word that meant happy the better the world will be too. They are homosexuals.

golach
03-Sep-12, 22:40
And the sooner 'gay' people give us back the word that meant happy the better the world will be too. They are homosexuals.

Hear Hear, cannot dance my favourite Scottish Country dance, The Gay Gordons, for the stigma.

theone
03-Sep-12, 23:25
This case is clear to me.

The woman was employed by the council as a registrar, employed to register births, deaths, and conduct civil ceremony marriages.

She refused to carry out her job if gays wished to carry out their legal right to a civil ceremony.

She failed to meet the requirements of her job as a registrar. She has not been sacked because of her views, she has been sacked because of her unwillingness to do what she is payed for.

Whether her views are based on religion, which she claims, or bigotry and prejudice as I suspect, or anything else is irrelevant. State law first, beliefs after.

I hope she hasn't been granted legal aid.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 05:00
It would seem that its ok to persecute Christians, but its not ok for Christians to be allowed to stand up for their beliefs. Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of a Christian, and forcing a Christian to participate in a ceremony that they are opposed to is a bit like asking a muslim to eat pork.

squidge
04-Sep-12, 07:38
I absolutely believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry however the registrar and the counsellor could argue that this is a change to their terms and conditions - when they started their jobs the marriage/ civil partenrship of gay couples wasnt an issue. In a tolerent society we should be able to accommodate deeply held religious beliefs - if we dont then are we going to lock up someone for refusing to do something their religion doesnt agree with? And where does that stop?

The banning of people wearing crosses at work is a stupid rule and a fight not worth having. If all jewellery is banned then they should not wear it and if jewellery is allowed then they should be allowed to wear them.

There are different types of christian and different types of church but if someone has a deeply held Religious belief they should not be asked to carry out duties which conflict with those beliefs. My sister was married in a Church of England Church but her husband had been married before and she had to find a church with a minister who would carry out the ceremony and it took a wee while. If we want a tolerent society then we have to be a tolerent society. IT may be that we need these cases to define what is meant by a holding a deeply felt religious belief - do they need to be practicing regularly for example or is a none practicing beleiver able to hold these deeply held beleifs? If they are a member of the Church of the spaghetti monster does that religion count - we probably need the courts to help to decide what is deeply held religious belief and what is bigotry and discrimination.

The bed and breakfast is different - the people who run a bed and breakfast chose to do so and surely knew that they may have gay couples ask to stay. Although it is often their home and their own business they have agreed to provide a service and so they should not be allowed to discriminate.

RecQuery
04-Sep-12, 07:53
It would seem that its ok to persecute Christians, but its not ok for Christians to be allowed to stand up for their beliefs. Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of a Christian, and forcing a Christian to participate in a ceremony that they are opposed to is a bit like asking a muslim to eat pork.

Curiously it's the old testament that has something to say about homosexuality and that same book bans a lot of other things Christians seem to be okay with. The Bible is in favour of many things and opposed to others that just aren't accepted now, as just one example it endorses slavery. I wonder when we'll see Christians on TV and in the news complaining that they can't keep slaves.

You're quite free to believe what you want provided you don't go against the law of the land. How would you feel if a doctor who happened to be a member of another religion refused to provide you with treatment or service.

weezer 316
04-Sep-12, 08:51
It would seem that its ok to persecute Christians, but its not ok for Christians to be allowed to stand up for their beliefs. Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of a Christian, and forcing a Christian to participate in a ceremony that they are opposed to is a bit like asking a muslim to eat pork.

What comes first, law of the land, or a made up gods law that most christains ignore almost all the time?

midi2304
04-Sep-12, 08:54
Homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of a Christian, and forcing a Christian to participate in a ceremony that they are opposed to is a bit like asking a muslim to eat pork.

No it's not. It's like asking a Muslim to eat pork when he works in a premises which changed from a 'beef-eating shop' to a 'pork-eating shop'. The registrar knew about the change in law I am sure and must have been well aware that she was likely to come up with this situation at some point yet chose not to leave when the law was enacted.

I am a Christian for what it's worth and I agree that she should have been sacked. I wouldn't expect a Muslim to work at Danepak and I wouldn't expect a Christian to work somewhere where they may have to carry out something against their beliefs.

Gronnuck
04-Sep-12, 09:03
How would you feel if a doctor who happened to be a member of another religion refused to provide you with treatment or service.

They would refer you/advise you of another practitioner who would accommodate you. Circumcision (on religious grounds) and abortion are amongst medical interventions that some medical practitioners are not comfortable with and liable to refer on. It happens - it's not rocket science.

RecQuery
04-Sep-12, 09:43
They would refer you/advise you of another practitioner who would accommodate you. Circumcision (on religious grounds) and abortion are amongst medical interventions that some medical practitioners are not comfortable with and liable to refer on. It happens - it's not rocket science.

This bending over backwards to accomodate the discriminatory beliefs of some is just stupid. There are many variables in that admittedly throwaway example: What if the doctor is the only specialist in area, the only doctor in a small town, what if the doctor doesn't refer the case on religious grounds, what if it's a time sensitive issue (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/31/oklahoma-rape-victim-denied-emergency-contraceptives-doctor-cites-religious-objection-as-reason/). You're still refusing treatment and making someone jump through needless hoops because you don't agree with them.

In my example the person agreed to become a doctor and as far as I'm concerned that means you have to treat all provided it doesn't violate accepted medical ethics and practises. Same if you're a registrar. If you don't want to deal with people who might offend your sensibilities then quit.

You can't give special dispensation to the religious to refuse treating certain people or dealing with certain members of the public. What if I didn't particularly like stupid people or fans of certain music I wouldn't be allowed to refuse dealing with them.

Rheghead
04-Sep-12, 10:34
I'm of the mind that says that people should be able to run their lives in any manner which they wish and that includes them having the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities as everybody else so long as it does not harm anybody and stop them living the life that they wish to lead.

If gay people want to marry and live a nice life together, what is the loss to anyone else? Gays aren't stopping them getting married.

squidge
04-Sep-12, 10:36
This is another one of the religious threads going nowhere.

People who dont beleive in god will never understand the depth of faith. RecQuery demonstrates that by saying "what if I didnt particularly like..." and equate that with religious faith. They will never understand how faith can be so powerful that it changes lives or it makes some things undoable. I dont have faith but I try to respect those who do. On these threads you see religious faith dismissed as stupid and ignorant and deluded. And yet they turn their noses up at christians specifically who do the same thing.

If someone is in a job where the conditions change and create a moral or religious dilemma then the person who is already in that job should be able to refuse to do that particular aspect of the job. If a person applies for a job which has these conditions already then they cannot refuse to do that aspect of the job.

This happened when the law was changed to allow shops to open on a Sunday - they could not force people to work on a sunday if it infringed their religious beliefs. The Doctor issue is well established and there are systems in place to ensure that patients are not disadvantaged by a particular Doctors beliefs. For example a doctor could refer someone to another doctor for a particular procedure like abortion, but cannot refuse a patient the right to an abortion. Just like the registrar should be able to ask that someone else carries out a civil partnership but cannot refuse a couple the right to a civil partnership.

When i was pregnant and working in a government office I was particularly nauseaous. It was particularly smelly people who made me sick - not just nauseous - I would throw up. It was therefore reasonable to ask someone else to deal with the smelly people whilst i did something else.

Rheghead
04-Sep-12, 10:40
It was therefore reasonable to ask someone else to deal with the smelly people whilst i did something else.

Oh brother,

RecQuery
04-Sep-12, 11:09
People who dont beleive in god will never understand the depth of faith. RecQuery demonstrates that by saying "what if I didnt particularly like..." and equate that with religious faith. They will never understand how faith can be so powerful that it changes lives or it makes some things undoable. I dont have faith but I try to respect those who do. On these threads you see religious faith dismissed as stupid and ignorant and deluded. And yet they turn their noses up at christians specifically who do the same thing.

Religious and spiritual people need to realise that their beliefs, what they call faith to try and elevate it above a belief, is nothing special. You are nothing special or exceptional just another person. Just because lots of people believe the same thing that doesn't make it something special. It's still a belief. Someone who believes in a god and someone who believes in alien abductions and government conspiracies should have their belief treated the same.

The problem with faith is it engenders a mindset of "Screw everything else I know I'm right, end of story" which is very dangerous.

Gronnuck
04-Sep-12, 11:18
This bending over backwards to accomodate the discriminatory beliefs of some is just stupid.
As stupid (your word not mine) as adhering to politically correct dogma that attempts to pidgeon hole anyone and anything into neat little boxes. However life is not like that.


There are many variables in that admittedly throwaway example: What if the doctor is the only specialist in area, the only doctor in a small town, what if the doctor doesn't refer the case on religious grounds, what if it's a time sensitive issue (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/31/oklahoma-rape-victim-denied-emergency-contraceptives-doctor-cites-religious-objection-as-reason/). You're still refusing treatment and making someone jump through needless hoops because you don't agree with them.

I can see in your drive to adhere to this dogma you're quoting extreme examples. However most people, including Doctors can be flexible if and when the need arises.


In my example the person agreed to become a doctor and as far as I'm concerned that means you have to treat all provided it doesn't violate accepted medical ethics and practises.

You must be aware that the issue of abortion (particularly as a form of contraception) and week old infant circumcision (for religious reason) cannot be so easily 'pidgeon holed.' Many would not regard these issues as treatment and recognise that hard and fast rules cannot be enforced.


Same if you're a registrar. If you don't want to deal with people who might offend your sensibilities then quit.

Why must people be so entrenched in their dogmatic view? Most people learn to innovate, adapt and overcome in a team environment. It seems some extremists are determined to create problems where usually there isn't one.


You can't give special dispensation to the religious to refuse treating certain people or dealing with certain members of the public. What if I didn't particularly like stupid people or fans of certain music I wouldn't be allowed to refuse dealing with them.

My point is that with some 'give and take', a little tolerance and perhaps good humour there really is no need for extremists on both sides to take to their respective doctrinal trenches.

Rheghead
04-Sep-12, 11:28
How many times through history have we seen people of faith use some kind of extract from the Bible as an excuse to oppress and subjugate others on account of their race, culture, religion, sex, sexual preference etc? It is teeming with intolerance and violence to others and they say it is the good book.

Gizmo
04-Sep-12, 11:37
How many times through history have we seen people of faith use some kind of extract from the Bible as an excuse to oppress and subjugate others on account of their race, culture, religion, sex, sexual preference etc? It is teeming with intolerance and violence to others and they say it is the good book.

Very well said.

RecQuery
04-Sep-12, 11:48
As stupid (your word not mine) as adhering to politically correct dogma that attempts to pidgeon hole anyone and anything into neat little boxes. However life is not like that.

I can see in your drive to adhere to this dogma you're quoting extreme examples. However most people, including Doctors can be flexible if and when the need arises.

What Dogma? You can have any political leaning from across the spectrum and not be in favour of religious supremacy. I don't align 100% with any party or political system and suspect most don't. In my case I'd have thought it would be clear by now that I am far from politically correct. Incidentally you throw around that term like some would throw around the term heretic or witch.


You must be aware that the issue of abortion (particularly as a form of contraception) and week old infant circumcision (for religious reason) cannot be so easily 'pidgeon holed.' Many would not regard these issues as treatment and recognise that hard and fast rules cannot be enforced.

As far as I'm concerned circumcision - even male circumcision - for anything other than legitimate medicial reasons, like the foreskin being too tight, should be classed as genital mutilation and child abuse. Now if someone who was an adult made the decision to have it done, that's a different matter.


Why must people be so entrenched in their dogmatic view? Most people learn to innovate, adapt and overcome in a team environment. It seems some extremists are determined to create problems where usually there isn't one.

My point is that with some 'give and take', a little tolerance and perhaps good humour there really is no need for extremists on both sides to take to their respective doctrinal trenches.

See my Hitchens quote, the history of religion and even religion in contemporary times regarding that statement. I'm stopping short of categorising it as full of hypocrisy.

I'm all for tolerating someone or something and ignoring the odd thing here and there, the problem is most religious people seem to view this as a one-way system in their favour. This mindset seems to go out the window for a lot of them when it's something they don't like or oppose.

Don't take advantage of anyone, don't hurt anyone who doesn't want to be hurt and keep your belief/religion as private as possible, within your group or out of public life and I couldn't care less.

squidge
04-Sep-12, 11:48
Oh brother,

Lol - I am serious - I was soooooo sick!!!! the pint is that my workmates and my manager made adjustments for me which meant I could stay at work and not be off sick.


How many times through history have we seen people of faith use some kind of extract from the Bible as an excuse to oppress and subjugate others on account of their race, culture, religion, sex, sexual preference etc? ,

You are absolutely right and thats why the individuals running bed and breakfast must not be allowed to discriminate. However the registrar, and the doctor for that matter, are not trying to prevent civil marriages or to deny the individual from having a civil marriage or a medical procedure, they are simply excercising their own freedoms. If the registrar was telling couples they were not ALLOWED to have a civil marriage, or had been seen to try to persuade them otherwise then that is not on and they should be sacked but if they are only exercising their own rights to hold and practice particular religious beliefs then it is surely permissable.

Gronnuck
04-Sep-12, 11:56
How many times through history have we seen people of faith use some kind of extract from the Bible as an excuse to oppress and subjugate others on account of their race, culture, religion, sex, sexual preference etc? It is teeming with intolerance and violence to others and they say it is the good book.

In virtually all historical cases the 'people of faith' you speak of picked and mixed parts of the bible to promote their own disreputable political dogma. This had more to do with the type of people they were than it had to do with the religion they purported to follow.

Rheghead
04-Sep-12, 12:11
In virtually all historical cases the 'people of faith' you speak of picked and mixed parts of the bible to promote their own disreputable political dogma. This had more to do with the type of people they were than it had to do with the religion they purported to follow.

I'd wholly agree that it is a negatively indicative of the nature that person who discriminates on grounds of race, culture, sex, sexual preference and disability etc. They aren't execising their freedom to express themselves, they are just being mean.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 12:14
What comes first, law of the land, or a made up gods law that most christains ignore almost all the time?I would accept that God's law was in existence before there were any laws in the British isles.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 12:19
Curiously it's the old testament that has something to say about homosexuality and that same book bans a lot of other things Christians seem to be okay with. The Bible is in favour of many things and opposed to others that just aren't accepted now, as just one example it endorses slavery. I wonder when we'll see Christians on TV and in the news complaining that they can't keep slaves.

You're quite free to believe what you want provided you don't go against the law of the land. How would you feel if a doctor who happened to be a member of another religion refused to provide you with treatment or service. I am free to believe what I want and if my belief's are in conflict with the law of the land then so be it.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 12:27
No it's not. It's like asking a Muslim to eat pork when he works in a premises which changed from a 'beef-eating shop' to a 'pork-eating shop'. The registrar knew about the change in law I am sure and must have been well aware that she was likely to come up with this situation at some point yet chose not to leave when the law was enacted.

I am a Christian for what it's worth and I agree that she should have been sacked. I wouldn't expect a Muslim to work at Danepak and I wouldn't expect a Christian to work somewhere where they may have to carry out something against their beliefs. sorry I don't agree with you, forcing a person to do something that they believe to be wrong and then sacking them for it is not right either.

Rheghead
04-Sep-12, 12:31
It would have been strange at first but I'm sure if she did it a couple of times then she'd have gotten used to the idea.

squidge
04-Sep-12, 12:33
What would we not do then - what is so morally or ethically abhorrent to us non religious people that we wouldn't do it?

midi2304
04-Sep-12, 12:41
forcing a person to do something

Who forced anyone? She continued to remain at her job knowing a law had been enacted that may require her, in the course of her job, to marry gay men. She was not forced to remain in her position. She could have left as soon as the law was enacted. She wasn't forced to do anything.

Actually, you could make a reasonable argument that given she knew that this situation may come up, it was her Christian duty to leave as soon as the law was enacted.

weezer 316
04-Sep-12, 12:50
I would accept that God's law was in existence before there were any laws in the British isles.

I should rephrase the question. If "gods law", a ludicrous term that can mean anything the believer wants to mean, is in violation of the law of the lands, which has primacy?

Think carefully. There is a gigantic black hole in front of you that would will fall into if your not careful.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 12:57
I should rephrase the question. If "gods law", a ludicrous term that can mean anything the believer wants to mean, is in violation of the law of the lands, which has primacy?

Think carefully. There is a gigantic black hole in front of you that would will fall into if your not careful. I feel that the only person who is in danger of falling into a black hole is yourself, my only concern is falling from grace, a concept I believe you have little understanding of.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 13:00
Who forced anyone? She continued to remain at her job knowing a law had been enacted that may require her, in the course of her job, to marry gay men. She was not forced to remain in her position. She could have left as soon as the law was enacted. She wasn't forced to do anything.

Actually, you could make a reasonable argument that given she knew that this situation may come up, it was her Christian duty to leave as soon as the law was enacted. I believe the law did.

weezer 316
04-Sep-12, 14:05
I feel that the only person who is in danger of falling into a black hole is yourself, my only concern is falling from grace, a concept I believe you have little understanding of.

Fantatstic. Care to answer the question? Who wins in a conflict between gods law and the law of the land??

midi2304
04-Sep-12, 14:09
I believe the law did.

The 'law', which was enacted several weeks beforehand, asked her to carry out a task she knew she may to do as soon as the law became legislation. She knew the law was in place and that she may be asked to carry out this task.

She has a time period of several weeks where one could argue that as a Christian, it was her responsibility to leave her position as she may be asked to carry out something against her beliefs. She elected not to then was asked to carry out something she knew she may be asked to do in the course of her job. She was then sacked for not doing something she had known for weeks she may be asked to carry out.

The law forced her to do nothing. The law was enacted and she was given a decision - either leave because you may be asked to carry out something against your faith or stay and carry out your job as dictated by law. This wasn't a decision forced upon her with no notice. She had weeks and weeks.

As I stated previously, it could be argued that the best thing to do in regards to her faith was to leave as soon as the law fell in to place.

The law or anyone else forced her to do nothing. She was given a decision and chose her faith over a law she believes was against her faith. As a Christian I consider this entirely commendable but for her to try and launch a legal case on the back of it is farcical.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 17:52
Fantatstic. Care to answer the question? Who wins in a conflict between gods law and the law of the land?? Why do you need me to answer a question that you have already made your mind up about? To do so would be a waste of my time and yours.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 17:53
The 'law', which was enacted several weeks beforehand, asked her to carry out a task she knew she may to do as soon as the law became legislation. She knew the law was in place and that she may be asked to carry out this task.

She has a time period of several weeks where one could argue that as a Christian, it was her responsibility to leave her position as she may be asked to carry out something against her beliefs. She elected not to then was asked to carry out something she knew she may be asked to do in the course of her job. She was then sacked for not doing something she had known for weeks she may be asked to carry out.

The law forced her to do nothing. The law was enacted and she was given a decision - either leave because you may be asked to carry out something against your faith or stay and carry out your job as dictated by law. This wasn't a decision forced upon her with no notice. She had weeks and weeks.

As I stated previously, it could be argued that the best thing to do in regards to her faith was to leave as soon as the law fell in to place.

The law or anyone else forced her to do nothing. She was given a decision and chose her faith over a law she believes was against her faith. As a Christian I consider this entirely commendable but for her to try and launch a legal case on the back of it is farcical. As a Christian do you believe that the Bible is the finished work of God ?

midi2304
04-Sep-12, 18:18
Why do you choose to answer every question you clearly don't have an answer to in this thread with another question?

Alrock
04-Sep-12, 18:51
As a Christian do you believe that the Bible is the finished work of God ?

The Bible is an inaccurately translated work of fiction by man that is also incomplete as the early catholic church ditched all the bits that did not tie in with what they wanted it to say.

oldmarine
04-Sep-12, 19:04
To each his own to believe whatever they wish to believe.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 20:06
The Bible is an inaccurately translated work of fiction by man that is also incomplete as the early catholic church ditched all the bits that did not tie in with what they wanted it to say.you have the right to believe that and I respect your right, but I have to disagree with your statement.

billmoseley
04-Sep-12, 20:31
the only time this argument will be solved is when we cast off this mortal coil and see what happens. but if there is a god and he is all forgiving none of us have anything to worry about. true?

joxville
04-Sep-12, 20:57
you have the right to believe that and I respect your right, but I have to disagree with your statement. So you disagree with Alrock saying that the bible is inaccurate and that the Catholic church left out bits of it? The Bible as we know it, the King James version, was first published in 1611, centuries after Jesus was said to have lived, so how can it be accurate? Also, it's well documented by historians that the Catholic Church did leave out what didn't suit their dogma, so I guess you doubt them too? Historians who've spent years researching are now wrong are they? I'll leave you to believe what you want, I'll go with Alrock on this one. :-)

Gizmo
04-Sep-12, 20:58
but if there is a god and he is all forgiving none of us have anything to worry about. true?

Which of course means that there can't possibly be a Hell, as every forgiven soul will reside in Heaven. Or do Christians believe that hell is empty?

rich62_uk
04-Sep-12, 21:21
It seems to be stooping into 'mock the Christian' time ....

If the word Christian was changed to Muslim this thread would cause uproar.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 21:58
So you disagree with Alrock saying that the bible is inaccurate and that the Catholic church left out bits of it? The Bible as we know it, the King James version, was first published in 1611, centuries after Jesus was said to have lived, so how can it be accurate? Also, it's well documented by historians that the Catholic Church did leave out what didn't suit their dogma, so I guess you doubt them too? Historians who've spent years researching are now wrong are they? I'll leave you to believe what you want, I'll go with Alrock on this one. :-)Yes I do indeed disagree with both your and alrock's statements, we who are Christian believe in divine intervention, I believe that what is in the bible is what God intended to be there and even the Catholic Church cannot stand against the will of God.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 22:05
Which of course means that there can't possibly be a Hell, as every forgiven soul will reside in Heaven. Or do Christians believe that hell is empty? Christians do not believe Hell to be empty, in fact your statement could not be further from the truth. To become a Christian there are 3 things you need to know and 1 thing you must do.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 22:08
the only time this argument will be solved is when we cast off this mortal coil and see what happens. but if there is a god and he is all forgiving none of us have anything to worry about. true? Yes God is forgiving but you must first seek forgiveness.

Gizmo
04-Sep-12, 22:36
Yes I do indeed disagree with both your and alrock's statements, we who are Christian believe in divine intervention, I believe that what is in the bible is what God intended to be there and even the Catholic Church cannot stand against the will of God.

Can you back up that belief with any evidence that would support it?

bcsman
04-Sep-12, 22:38
why doesnt god forgive satan and invite him back to heaven instead of sending him to the naughty step and everything will be hunky dory again! right???
Yes God is forgiving but you must first seek forgiveness.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 22:41
Can you back up that belief with any evidence that would support it? Can you disprove it?

maverick
04-Sep-12, 22:45
why doesnt god forgive satan and invite him back to heaven instead of sending him to the naughty step and everything will be hunky dory again! right???Probably because satan does not want to be forgiven.

*Martin*
04-Sep-12, 23:10
You are absolutely right and thats why the individuals running bed and breakfast must not be allowed to discriminate. However the registrar, and the doctor for that matter, are not trying to prevent civil marriages or to deny the individual from having a civil marriage or a medical procedure, they are simply excercising their own freedoms. If the registrar was telling couples they were not ALLOWED to have a civil marriage, or had been seen to try to persuade them otherwise then that is not on and they should be sacked but if they are only exercising their own rights to hold and practice particular religious beliefs then it is surely permissable.

Are you serious? There is absolutely no difference between a hotelier not wanting to be part of letting two men share a bed and a registrar wanting to be part of two men getting married! Both the registrar and the hotelier are ignorant fools! As has been pointed out throughout this thread, the registrar knew full well a law had come into effect and they may have to now perform civil ceremonies. If they wont perform the full duties of their job they should expect to be disciplined!



It seems to be stooping into 'mock the Christian' time ....

If the word Christian was changed to Muslim this thread would cause uproar.

Statements like this are utter bull! Who would it cause uproar with? It's a cop out used by predjudiced idiots that want to shift the focus from their group to a group that isn't their own!


I am free to believe what I want and if my belief's are in conflict with the law of the land then so be it.

Lets say for instance my religion is that off Sockness and my religion calls for me to throw rocks at you because your socks are not pulled to equal heights below your knee. What law would be more important? The law of my god or the law of the land? I'm pretty sure that you'll agree that in this case (and lets be honest, every case) The law of the land wins. Hands down!

And whilst I'm on you, rationalising your thoughts by asking others to disprove you is ridiculous! I believe I can hold your head in a sink full of water for 1 hour and 17 minutes and you'll be ok. Now I know that if I did it to any other human being in this world they'd die, but I believe if I do it to you, you'll be ok! Would you like to disprove that for me?


Religion is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever come across! There's a Facebook page called Justifying Completely Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviour as Banter I'm thinking of starting a group called Justifying Completely Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviour as Religion!

People think that they can do whatever they want and treat people however they want and it's ok because it's part of their belief system. I ask the question Why believe in something that doesn't treat everyone regardless of race/colour/nationality/gender/sexuality/height/sock choice the same?

Gizmo
04-Sep-12, 23:13
Can you disprove it?

And there we have the typical religious persons response to a question like that. There is a wealth of documented evidence out there that supports what Joxville and Alrock stated. I'm not an expert in the matter, but I've watched enough religion based documentaries to come to the same conclusion that they did. So how about you actually answer a question instead of just replying with another question?

It really does fascinate me that in these modern times, mature adults can actually still be gullible enough to believe in such a ludicrous concept as God.

maverick
04-Sep-12, 23:50
And there we have the typical religious persons response to a question like that. There is a wealth of documented evidence out there that supports what Joxville and Alrock stated. I'm not an expert in the matter, but I've watched enough religion based documentaries to come to the same conclusion that they did. So how about you actually answer a question instead of just replying with another question?

It really does fascinate me that in these modern times, mature adults can actually still be gullible enough to believe in such a ludicrous concept as God.you have reached your conclusion and I have reached mine, you have no religious faith or belief's and I have no problem with that, I on the other hand have and its not a problem for me, and your right you are not an expert on the matter, so how can I posibly expect you to understand something you know nothing about.

pmcd
05-Sep-12, 00:00
Actually, Maverick, having belief in God really gets up the noses of these "liberal" atheistic fascists. It makes their blood boil. They cannot stand others having differing opinions to their own. So I guess, despite my rather laconic suggestion on page one of the "Assorted Rantings of the Ungodly", there IS some mileage in stating your beliefs as very different to theirs, and of some value to you! Stand by for more "logic"!

joxville
05-Sep-12, 00:02
Are you an expert on God? Simply having a belief doesn't make you an expert. I believe man is doing sever damage to the earth but it doesn't make me an expert. Ministers/vicars/preachers study at Uni to become a person of the cloth, which to me is a huge waste of time, that they actually need a Doctorate to confirm their belief! You have your beliefs and I have mine but you can't prove God exists and I can't disprove it, but please don't pass yourself off as an expert, we could all read The Bible, it wouldn't qualify us as experts any more than reading a Haynes manual would make us a car mechanic.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 00:12
Are you serious? There is absolutely no difference between a hotelier not wanting to be part of letting two men share a bed and a registrar wanting to be part of two men getting married! Both the registrar and the hotelier are ignorant fools! As has been pointed out throughout this thread, the registrar knew full well a law had come into effect and they may have to now perform civil ceremonies. If they wont perform the full duties of their job they should expect to be disciplined!




Statements like this are utter bull! Who would it cause uproar with? It's a cop out used by predjudiced idiots that want to shift the focus from their group to a group that isn't their own!



Lets say for instance my religion is that off Sockness and my religion calls for me to throw rocks at you because your socks are not pulled to equal heights below your knee. What law would be more important? The law of my god or the law of the land? I'm pretty sure that you'll agree that in this case (and lets be honest, every case) The law of the land wins. Hands down!

And whilst I'm on you, rationalising your thoughts by asking others to disprove you is ridiculous! I believe I can hold your head in a sink full of water for 1 hour and 17 minutes and you'll be ok. Now I know that if I did it to any other human being in this world they'd die, but I believe if I do it to you, you'll be ok! Would you like to disprove that for me?


Religion is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever come across! There's a Facebook page called Justifying Completely Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviour as Banter I'm thinking of starting a group called Justifying Completely Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviour as Religion!

People think that they can do whatever they want and treat people however they want and it's ok because it's part of their belief system. I ask the question Why believe in something that doesn't treat everyone regardless of race/colour/nationality/gender/sexuality/height/sock choice the same?you have formed an opinion on this thread based on what you believe, you believe that you have a right to reply to this thread as you see fit, you believe you are entitled to call people ignorant fools based on what you believe , you believe that you should start a group and I am sure you will have thousands of followers. Good luck to you on your endevour I wish you well on your Journey, I am sure that by the end of it you will know who is the ignorant fool..

cptdodger
05-Sep-12, 00:13
And there we have the typical religious persons response to a question like that. There is a wealth of documented evidence out there that supports what Joxville and Alrock stated. I'm not an expert in the matter, but I've watched enough religion based documentaries to come to the same conclusion that they did. So how about you actually answer a question instead of just replying with another question?

It really does fascinate me that in these modern times, mature adults can actually still be gullible enough to believe in such a ludicrous concept as God.

I think that is a bit harsh, I am not religious, never have been, but my in-laws were and are. My late sister in law was the first Professor of Contextual Theology, at New College, University of Edinburgh, and was also a published author of theology based books. Even though our views differed, we got on fine. My sister in law died of cancer three and a half years ago. Her faith brought her great comfort, in what, was an awful time for her. She was a lot of things, lovely, caring and highly intelligent, one thing she was not Gizmo, was gullible.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 00:37
Are you an expert on God? Simply having a belief doesn't make you an expert. I believe man is doing sever damage to the earth but it doesn't make me an expert. Ministers/vicars/preachers study at Uni to become a person of the cloth, which to me is a huge waste of time, that they actually need a Doctorate to confirm their belief! You have your beliefs and I have mine but you can't prove God exists and I can't disprove it, but please don't pass yourself off as an expert, we could all read The Bible, it wouldn't qualify us as experts any more than reading a Haynes manual would make us a car mechanic.Is this question directed at me? If it is I will say that I am not an expert on God, I believe that Jesus Christ was the only expert on God. Along with my belief's I also have faith, I do not profess to be an expert at anything. My religious belief's teach me that Homosexuality is a sin, which was the gist of this thread. Homosexuals just like the rest of us are sinners, the bible teaches us to hate the sin not the sinner, so I also believe that it is wrong to persecute a person for their gender, I aslo believe that same sex marriage is wrong and to ask a Christian to conduct such a ceremony regardless of their employment status is also wrong. Society has seen fit to legalise same sex marriage and thats that, and some people within society are opposed to same sex marriage. Christianity is more than belief's or faith, for me its a revelation based on experiences that I have personally had. Life is all about choices and being a Christian is a path of my own choosing, I am not asking you to walk that path but if you chose to I would gladly walk it with you as would many others. thank you for your post joxville it has been most enlightening..

maverick
05-Sep-12, 00:59
I received a message saying that there is nothing wrong with a loving couple wanting to be married. So this is my reply to that. I knew a hetrosexual couple who were very much in love both were of consentual age, they met at college they were from different parts of the country( I think but am not sure that they were student nurses) any way they had been going out for about 3 years and decided that they would get engaged and soon after set a date to be married, so the young lad eventually plucked up the courage to finally go and meet her parents and to cut a long story short it turns out that the betrothed couple were brother and sister, same father different mothers. So I believe that loving couples just should not be allowed to marry.

joxville
05-Sep-12, 01:03
Doesn't it all come down to, (some would call it being pc), live and let live? We may not share the same beliefs but I'd still defend you're right to have those beliefs. I have two relatives, both lesbians that are in civil partnerships, and while I don't agree with their way of life, (I too see same sex relationships as wrong), I'd still defend their right to live together. They are as God or nature intended. Who am I or anyone else to say they can't be together just because we don't agree with it? Likewise, as it's an act of Parliament that same sex partnerships are legal, then the registrar as an official of the Government must put their beliefs aside.

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 01:33
Imagine a world where male mechanics refused to fix cars for female drivers and they had to let a female mechanic to fix the car.

joxville
05-Sep-12, 01:37
Imagine the conversation, "Does my bum look big in this boiler suit?" :-)

joxville
05-Sep-12, 01:38
And don't ever mention anything about big ends!

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 02:00
Imagine the conversation, "Does my bum look big in this boiler suit?" :-)

It is the only question which is never spoken which I've spent my whole working life trying to answer.

squidge
05-Sep-12, 07:44
Are you serious? There is absolutely no difference between a hotelier not wanting to be part of letting two men share a bed and a registrar wanting to be part of two men getting married! Both the registrar and the hotelier are ignorant fools! As has been pointed out throughout this thread, the registrar knew full well a law had come into effect and they may have to now perform civil ceremonies. If they wont perform the full duties of their job they should expect to be disciplined!



Religion is the biggest load of nonsense I've ever come across! There's a Facebook page called Justifying Completely Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviour as Banter I'm thinking of starting a group called Justifying Completely Inappropriate and Unacceptable Behaviour as Religion!

People think that they can do whatever they want and treat people however they want and it's ok because it's part of their belief system. I ask the question Why believe in something that doesn't treat everyone regardless of race/colour/nationality/gender/sexuality/height/sock choice the same?

I absolutely DO think it is different. There is absolutely NO room for discrimination in society however there has to be a space for personal beliefs. That is why the two are different as I explained. The registrar is not preventing the couples getting married - she is not preventing them accessing the service and she isnt, I assume, telling them they are unnatural and going to hell. The hotelier is preventing the couples accessing a service full stop. This, for me is a key difference.

Where there is a change in your conditions of work which goes against a deeply held religious belief and you are incumbent in the post then we should be able to accommodate that. If we do not then we are in danger of effectively dismissing people because of their religious beliefs which is also AGAINST THE LAW. This conflict in the law has to be resolved hence the court case.

People can stamp their feet and throw their hands up and throw around words like ignorant and stupid and fools as much as they want but if we expect tolerance in society then we have to BE tolerant. A fact many of you seem to forget when religion is mentioned and you start frothing at the mouth.

Alrock
05-Sep-12, 07:53
I received a message saying that there is nothing wrong with a loving couple wanting to be married. So this is my reply to that. I knew a hetrosexual couple who were very much in love both were of consentual age, they met at college they were from different parts of the country( I think but am not sure that they were student nurses) any way they had been going out for about 3 years and decided that they would get engaged and soon after set a date to be married, so the young lad eventually plucked up the courage to finally go and meet her parents and to cut a long story short it turns out that the betrothed couple were brother and sister, same father different mothers. So I believe that loving couples just should not be allowed to marry.

If they love each other & they want to get married then why not let them? It's their choice, respect it.

RecQuery
05-Sep-12, 08:11
Actually, Maverick, having belief in God really gets up the noses of these "liberal" atheistic fascists. It makes their blood boil. They cannot stand others having differing opinions to their own. So I guess, despite my rather laconic suggestion on page one of the "Assorted Rantings of the Ungodly", there IS some mileage in stating your beliefs as very different to theirs, and of some value to you! Stand by for more "logic"!

LOL, you are of course aware that a belief in religion or spirituality is not linked to a particular part of the political spectrum. Feel free to harp on though, who am I to attempt to interrupt your reality distortion field. The issue isn't belief but using that belief as a justification for oppressing people and denying them access to services.

One does wonder though how many other dicussions you can bring back to you're hatred of a certain political ideaology and a certain type of person you just don't approve of.


you have reached your conclusion and I have reached mine, you have no religious faith or belief's and I have no problem with that, I on the other hand have and its not a problem for me, and your right you are not an expert on the matter, so how can I posibly expect you to understand something you know nothing about.

What - I imagine - most people here have a problem with is your impliciation that your beliefs are a valid justification for oppressing others and denying them access to services. That they should be given more prominence than the freedom and beliefs of others.


As a Christian do you believe that the Bible is the finished work of God ?

Would you consider the Bible to be literal, figurative or a mix of both. Is it a collection of actual events or just a series of fictional stories and metaphors? If it's a mix how do you tell one type apart from the other?

maverick
05-Sep-12, 08:33
LOL, you are of course aware that a belief in religion or spirituality is not linked to a particular part of the political spectrum. Feel free to harp on though, who am I to attempt to interrupt your reality distortion field. The issue isn't belief but using that belief as a justification for oppressing people and denying them access to services.

One does wonder though how many other dicussions you can bring back to you're hatred of a certain political ideaology and a certain type of person you just don't approve of.



What - I imagine - most people here have a problem with is your impliciation that your beliefs are a valid justification for oppressing others and denying them access to services. That they should be given more prominence that the freedom and beliefs of others.



Would you consider the Bible to literal, figurative or a mix of both. Is it a collection of actual events or just a series of fictional stories and metaphors? If it's a mix how do you tell one type apart from the other?you say my belief's justify oppression. should we lower the age for consentual sex to accomodate child molesters or should we oppress that? should we allow serial killers to murder because they believe they have the right to or should we oppress that? I believe the bible to be a devine work.

bcsman
05-Sep-12, 08:35
its possible but how do you know? are we not meant to forgive our enemies even though they do not ask for forgivness?

Probably because satan does not want to be forgiven.

RecQuery
05-Sep-12, 08:50
you say my belief's justify oppression. should we lower the age for consentual sex to accomodate child molesters or should we oppress that? should we allow serial killers to murder because they believe they have the right to or should we oppress that?

I'm saying the mainstream interpretation of your beliefs seem to justify oppression. That's pretty self evident given the court case that prompted this discussion and combined with the fact that no other religious group or organisation has denounced the case.

Comparing the rights of same sex consenting adults to marry and use public services to serial killers and child molestors seems like an extreme example also. Or would you classify all three of those under the same category?


I believe the bible to be a devine work.

Okay but what does that mean exactly? Basically I'm wondering if you think it's a log of actual events? or a collection of stories and metaphors? or a mix? and if it's a mix how does tell one type of story/book from the other?

midi2304
05-Sep-12, 08:57
Honestly, I think this thread is going nowhere now. While I am all for open discourse on these sorts of subjects, this is one of those pointless threads where people argue the same things on both sides over and over again and the end result is nothing because no-one is going to change their base opinion. It may be worth considering locking this thread now tbh.

weezer 316
05-Sep-12, 10:10
This has went totally of the rails. I was the OP so Ill try and get it back on track.

The ludicrousness of religion isnt up for debate, or atleast that want what i was trying to get a conversation started on. I was trying to ask, and have been unsuccessful in getting an answer from the likes of Maverick, if gods law, however you perceive it or have come across it, conflicts with the law of the land what rule do you follow. I dont think its a hard question to answer. Its simply one or the other. Failure to answer it or a nod in gods favour will lead to the obvious unanswerable rebuttal. But I will try again....

Bible says you should do one thing, Law of the land says you cant and must do another thing or nothing at all. What do you do? And maverick, before you come back with some of the childish responses you have thus far, its irrelevant what I believe, what do YOU believe??

*Martin*
05-Sep-12, 10:19
I absolutely DO think it is different. There is absolutely NO room for discrimination in society however there has to be a space for personal beliefs. That is why the two are different as I explained. The registrar is not preventing the couples getting married - she is not preventing them accessing the service and she isnt, I assume, telling them they are unnatural and going to hell. The hotelier is preventing the couples accessing a service full stop. This, for me is a key difference.

Where there is a change in your conditions of work which goes against a deeply held religious belief and you are incumbent in the post then we should be able to accommodate that. If we do not then we are in danger of effectively dismissing people because of their religious beliefs which is also AGAINST THE LAW. This conflict in the law has to be resolved hence the court case.

People can stamp their feet and throw their hands up and throw around words like ignorant and stupid and fools as much as they want but if we expect tolerance in society then we have to BE tolerant. A fact many of you seem to forget when religion is mentioned and you start frothing at the mouth.

The hotelier is not stopping that couple from sleeping in every hotel, just his. He wants them to say with someone who doesnt have his beliefs! If you can't see that as being the same as the registrar you need your head testing! The registrar is not stopping that couple from getting married. She just wants them to be wed by someone who doesn't have her beliefs!

midi2304
05-Sep-12, 10:30
This has went totally of the rails. I was the OP so Ill try and get it back on track.

The ludicrousness of religion isnt up for debate, or atleast that want what i was trying to get a conversation started on. I was trying to ask, and have been unsuccessful in getting an answer from the likes of Maverick, if gods law, however you perceive it or have come across it, conflicts with the law of the land what rule do you follow. I dont think its a hard question to answer. Its simply one or the other. Failure to answer it or a nod in gods favour will lead to the obvious unanswerable rebuttal. But I will try again....

Bible says you should do one thing, Law of the land says you cant and must do another thing or nothing at all. What do you do? And maverick, before you come back with some of the childish responses you have thus far, its irrelevant what I believe, what do YOU believe??

You are looking for a black and white answer to a question which is about as grey as you can get. It's an incredibly loaded question. Either he answers 'God' and you nail him for breaking the law or he answers 'Law of the land' and you nail him for not being secure in his faith. Comments like 'The ludicrousness of religion isnt up for debate' is pretty much baseline trolling and I would hope for better from these threads. Even if you do believe that to be the case, stating it with that wording is going to put people's backs up. If you are genuinely after serious and thoughtful discourse and conversation, it's a pretty awful way to kick things off.

I'm going to reiterate what I said earlier - this thread is going nowhere fast and should be locked.

Saveman
05-Sep-12, 11:19
I'll answer you Weezer.

Acts 5:29 - "Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!""

If the law of the land conflicted with God's laws, then a Christian would follow the example of the apostles and obey God.

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 11:27
Yes weezer, it is written in the Bible, so it has been written so it shall be done. No questions, just obey or you'll fry for eternity!!

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 11:33
you say my belief's justify oppression. should we lower the age for consentual sex to accomodate child molesters or should we oppress that? should we allow serial killers to murder because they believe they have the right to or should we oppress that? I believe the bible to be a devine work.

So you obviously need to read the bible and that is fine by me but I'm sure most folk don't need to keeping topping up on their moral grounding to prevent them from raping a child.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 12:04
So you obviously need to read the bible and that is fine by me but I'm sure most folk don't need to keeping topping up on their moral grounding to prevent them from raping a child. that may be the case, the question was should we lower the age for consentual sex to accomodate child molesters or should it be oppressed? I believe that child rape as you put it should be oppressed and I feel that I would be justified in my conviction to do so.

midi2304
05-Sep-12, 12:05
So you obviously need to read the bible and that is fine by me but I'm sure most folk don't need to keeping topping up on their moral grounding to prevent them from raping a child.

So you are implying that Maverick needs to read the Bible to avoid raping children? Seriously?!

Dearie me people, are all of you so obtuse (and I am including Maverick here) that you all can't see these things without imposing a black and white, right or wrong morality to it all? This thread makes for some very depressing reading.

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 12:07
that may be the case, the question was should we lower the age for consentual sex to accomodate child molesters or should it be oppressed? I believe that child rape as you put it should be oppressed and I feel that I would be justified in my conviction to do so.

Oh I see, you think child rape can simply be prevented by oppressing it.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 12:12
Oh I see, you think child rape can simply be prevented by oppressing it. I certainly do not want people to think its right to do it.

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 12:15
So you are implying that Maverick needs to read the Bible to avoid raping children? Seriously?!

Dearie me people, are all of you so obtuse (and I am including Maverick here) that you all can't see these things without imposing a black and white, right or wrong morality to it all? This thread makes for some very depressing reading.

I wasn't implying anything but I'm sure that there are people out there who need to read the Bible regularly as an emotional and moral crutch to keep them on the straight and narrow. Strange that the Bible doesn't expressly forbid child molestation though. I guess with all this literal reading of the Bible, it is no wonder that so many churchmen indulge in it.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 12:40
This has went totally of the rails. I was the OP so Ill try and get it back on track.

The ludicrousness of religion isnt up for debate, or atleast that want what i was trying to get a conversation started on. I was trying to ask, and have been unsuccessful in getting an answer from the likes of Maverick, if gods law, however you perceive it or have come across it, conflicts with the law of the land what rule do you follow. I dont think its a hard question to answer. Its simply one or the other. Failure to answer it or a nod in gods favour will lead to the obvious unanswerable rebuttal. But I will try again....

Bible says you should do one thing, Law of the land says you cant and must do another thing or nothing at all. What do you do? And maverick, before you come back with some of the childish responses you have thus far, its irrelevant what I believe, what do YOU believe?? ok weezer if my responses are so childish why are you interested in what I believe. My answer to you is this, if the law of the land required me to do something that I believe to be wrong, then I would challenge the law in court, if the court decided that I had a case for relegious persecution then I would be vindicated by the court if it did not then I wouldn't change my belief and I believe that I would be vindicated by Jesus.

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 12:49
I certainly do not want people to think its right to do it.

Well therein lies the subtle but all too powerful difference between us. I believe that better things can be achieved and maintained by getting people to know 'how' to think rather than 'what' to think.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 13:06
Well therein lies the subtle but all too powerful difference between us. I believe that better things can be achieved and maintained by getting people to know 'how' to think rather than 'what' to think.what to think is the choices that we make, how to think is others making choices for us, from your statement I can see how that concept would be appealling to someone like you..

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 13:15
Going back to the OP, :roll:

I think it daft that those religious persons who think they have the monopoly on what a marriage should consist of are the ones who are not promoting marriage or civil partnerships. I think a marriage or civil partnership is one of the main foundations of a relationship both legal and emotional. It promotes stability in the home which is essential for bringing up a child.

squidge
05-Sep-12, 13:48
The hotelier is not stopping that couple from sleeping in every hotel, just his. He wants them to say with someone who doesnt have his beliefs! If you can't see that as being the same as the registrar you need your head testing! The registrar is not stopping that couple from getting married. She just wants them to be wed by someone who doesn't have her beliefs!

You think I need my head testing because i dont agree with YOU? Your opininon- hmmmmm seems to be par for the course these days around here. The Law treats these two things differently Martin -

It says

Service providers are not allowed to discriminate unlawfully when providing goods or services to people. Discrimination when providing services means:


refusing to provide a service
providing a lower standard of service
offering a service on different terms than you would to other people.

It is unlawful to discriminate in providing goods, facilities or services to the public on the grounds of sex, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and religion or belief.

This is what applies to the Hotelier. Black and white - no conflict - no question.

However Employment Law says the following......

Direct discrimination means that workers or job applicants
must not be treated less favourably than others because they
follow, are perceived to follow, or do not follow a particular (or any)
religion or belief.
For example it is unlawful to:
• decide not to employ someone
• dismiss them
because they follow, or do not follow, a particular religion or belief.

and

It is unlawful to discriminate indirectly against anyone. That is, to apply a criterion,
provision or practice which disadvantages people of a particular
religion or belief unless it can be objectively justified;

And so we need the courts to decide whether it is justifiable to dismiss someone who is already employed if the law changes and means that she cannot carry out part of her duties because of her religious beliefs. Whether expecting her to do so can be "objectively justified".

It is treated differently because it is different.

rob1
05-Sep-12, 14:14
Many Christians including some here and two in the attached article, have voiced their opposition towards same sex relationships presumably based on their religious beliefs. Now I respect their right to have that view. However there are many thing in the bible that these Christian do not follow. The bible advocate slavery, says that a woman who is raped should be married to her attacker for 50 silver pieces, should not eat shellfish, wear clothes made of two fabrics, sow two different crops in the same field. i could go on. The point I am trying to make is that Christianity seem so desperate to prevent two men or two women from marrying (which the bible says nothing about btw) they forgetting about very specific rules that god has laid down. That to me stinks of hypocrisy and does not deserve a single shred of my respect. Either follow the bible as it is written, or accept that times have changed and that you just don't like the idea of two men getting it on....

RecQuery
05-Sep-12, 14:33
Stupid me, I just remembered why I don't get into discussions that are remotely related to religion or spirituality anymore. It's because no matter how understanding, reasonable and tolerant you try to be the same sentiment isn't reciprocated from the other side. Many people here have presented arguments about why requiring religious and spiritual people to obey the law is not unreasonable and yet their still being hypocritical and screaming intolerence when even the remotest of controls or laws are applied to them.

weezer 316
05-Sep-12, 14:45
ok weezer if my responses are so childish why are you interested in what I believe. My answer to you is this, if the law of the land required me to do something that I believe to be wrong, then I would challenge the law in court, if the court decided that I had a case for relegious persecution then I would be vindicated by the court if it did not then I wouldn't change my belief and I believe that I would be vindicated by Jesus.

Right well the most obvious rebuttal is.......Why do you follow the bible at all? You ignore it where it doesn't fit with our view of the world, yet use it as support when it does. You seemed to, at some point, decide that your more moral than the god you partially follow and to then make up your own mind. You ignore Jesus when it suits you then seem to seek his approval when you need support. Why? What on earth can cause such double standards? The bible says you shoudl kill non-believers, in violation of this countries law. Do you believe that or are you more moral?

And before you main you can believe what you want, you can. But the minute your double standards are allowed to dictate peoples way of lives there is chaos, and you would be the first person to complain if they were affecting you.

weezer 316
05-Sep-12, 14:47
Stupid me, I just remembered why I don't get into discussions that are remotely related to religion or spirituality anymore. It's because no matter how understanding, reasonable and tolerant you try to be the same sentiment isn't reciprocated from the other side. Many people here have presented arguments about why requiring religious and spiritual people to obey the law is not unreasonable and yet their still being hypocritical and screaming intolerence when even the remotest of controls or laws are applied to them.

LOL!

Dont even bother trying to get religious people to see the hypocrisy of their actions. Its pointless. As generations pass the effect gets less and less. All you can do is wait it out and argue your point.

*Martin*
05-Sep-12, 14:47
Service providers are not allowed to discriminate unlawfully when providing goods or services to people. Discrimination when providing services means:


refusing to provide a service
providing a lower standard of service
offering a service on different terms than you would to other people.



So the registrar isn't refusing to provide a service or offering a service on different terms than she would to other people (i.e. asking a colleague to marry a homosexual couple)?

Because it looks to me like she is but you think it's OK because it's in her religion.

I refer you to my comment earlier

Lets say for instance my religion is that off Sockness and my religion calls for me to throw rocks at you because your socks are not pulled to equal heights below your knee.
Lets pretend I work in Tesco. You come in to do your shopping and I notice that your socks are at different heights. Following my religous doctrine, I proceed to throw rocks at you. My manager immediately comes over and fires me (rightfully so). Is the act I carried out OK because I'm following my beliefs?

squidge
05-Sep-12, 15:08
No - I dont think it is "ok" I think it is allowed because she is protected by employment law.

Your sock analogy is not valid actually but because you asked so nicely I will use it for clarification.

If your sock religion was recognised in law and if your employer changed your conditions of work to mean you had to deal with non sockist people where you didnt have to before then I would argue that you were not allowed to be dismissed if you asked for someone else to deal with non sockist people like me. You would be protected under employment law.

You are however not allowed to throw rocks at me or abuse me tell me to get out of the shop because i am a non sockist person. Just like had the registrar thrown rocks at the gay couple or abused them or told them they were not allowed to have a civil partnership then she wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Do you disagree that she is protected by law? Do you think the law is different in some way? I might agree with you that the law is an ass and as such needs clarification that is why these issues are being decided in COURT and not by posts on a message board. Thank.....erm ..... goodness? lol

Rheghead
05-Sep-12, 15:24
No - I dont think it is "ok" I think it is allowed because she is protected by employment law.

That is misuse of the interpretation of employment law. I agree that religion should be no barrier but where it falls down is where those persons judge other people on the basis of their own religion. The law doesn't judge and discriminate so neither should they. They should do their job and carry out their duties dispassionately and fairly. It is not their place to judge other people.

I thought you were the sentinel of fairness?

squidge
05-Sep-12, 15:42
Im not a sentinel of anything lol. I'm just ordinary and trying to make sense of things - just like you. I think she is allowed to ask for adjustments to be made for her on this issue because she was already employed in a post where this hadnt been expected of her before. I would not think any NEW employee would be allowed to ask for the same adjustments because the terms on which they would be employed would include carrying out civil partnerships. You may not recognise religious beliefs as sensible, valid or an intelligent thing to hold but the law does. It needs to be clarified so I am glad that the woman is taking this as far as she is.

maverick
05-Sep-12, 17:18
Right well the most obvious rebuttal is.......Why do you follow the bible at all? You ignore it where it doesn't fit with our view of the world, yet use it as support when it does. You seemed to, at some point, decide that your more moral than the god you partially follow and to then make up your own mind. You ignore Jesus when it suits you then seem to seek his approval when you need support. Why? What on earth can cause such double standards? The bible says you shoudl kill non-believers, in violation of this countries law. Do you believe that or are you more moral?

And before you main you can believe what you want, you can. But the minute your double standards are allowed to dictate peoples way of lives there is chaos, and you would be the first person to complain if they were affecting you.I have never heard so much rubbish in a long time, you are the one who is using the bible to set your point , what I suggest that you do is go and read it again, because you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

rob1
05-Sep-12, 17:47
Of course weezer is using the bible to set their point. It is the best source to show the hypocricy of christians! Bible has no mention of same sex marraige but has plenty of stuff stoning for petty "crimes". When was the last time you carried out the law of the "lord" and throw a rock at someones head for blaspheming? Go on, you're only doing what god has commanded!

Religion - you couldn't make it up.......oh wait... they already did!

Gizmo
05-Sep-12, 21:59
Her faith brought her great comfort, in what, was an awful time for her.

That's all religion/faith is, a comfort blanket. People turn to it as they are scared of death, and believing in something like God and Heaven makes death easier to deal with. It's also the easiest thing to tell children about why Granny and Grandad won't be around anymore, because telling them the truth that no one, absolutely no one, knows what really happens when we die, as no one has ever come back from the dead to tell us, is just too difficult for most people to do. If that's as far as religion went, I'd have no problem with it, but it's not, far far from it. Religion causes as much pain and suffering as it does comfort, and I'm not ok with that.

weezer 316
06-Sep-12, 08:52
I have never heard so much rubbish in a long time, you are the one who is using the bible to set your point , what I suggest that you do is go and read it again, because you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

Did you actually bother readi what I wrote? Ill ask again, why do you only follow some bits of the bible and nto all of it? As rob has asked, when was the last time you stoned someone?

*Martin*
06-Sep-12, 08:58
You are however not allowed to throw rocks at me or abuse me tell me to get out of the shop because i am a non sockist person. Just like had the registrar thrown rocks at the gay couple or abused them or told them they were not allowed to have a civil partnership then she wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

You missed my point that my religious doctrine means I have to throw these rocks just like the registrars bible states she cannot marry two people of the same sex. For you to say I'm not allowed to throw these rocks is discriminating against me and my religion (can you see how ridiculous this is?)

I believe that everyone should be protected by employment law. However, I do not believe this warrants a case for unfair dismissal on religous grounds. Had she have been fired for wearing a cross I would say she should have the full power of the law behind her. She's choosing to discriminate against a couple (just like the hotelier did) and citing her religion as the reason (just like the hotelier did). She deserved the sack!

The sooner this is dealt with the better.

squidge
06-Sep-12, 10:16
The sooner this is dealt with the better.

Well Martin I will agree with you on that!!!!

maverick
06-Sep-12, 13:11
Did you actually bother readi what I wrote? Ill ask again, why do you only follow some bits of the bible and nto all of it? As rob has asked, when was the last time you stoned someone?I did read your post, the bible prohibits me from stoning anyone, the laws of the old testament say that it is wrong to do many things and the punishment for those transgressions was death. The new testament of the bible tells us of the teachings of Jesus, whereby the laws of the old testament still stand but the punishment for these crimes is no longer death. Jesus says that we are to hate the sin not the sinner, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as we are all born of sin stoning is out of the equation. Vengeance will be mine sayeth the Lord. The law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth shall no longer be instead we are to love one an other. Christians are taught that it is ok to be angry but not to sin in anger. What you started in this thread was a Christian woman was wrong to refuse to marry a gay couple. Ok I can see how that might upset some people, it has been said that she openly discriminated against this gay couple, which the law of the land says is wrong, for that she was sacked. She is disputing this sacking in court based on what she believes, if she has a case she will be vindicated if not she will remain sacked. So what this woman believes is that every single person on this planet has an eternal soul, that we are all born of sin, that the wages of sin is death not physical death but spiritual death and that God demonstrated his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. then she put her trust in Christ, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall belive in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with thy mouth confession is made unto salvation. whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved. now that this woman is saved, she knows that homosexuality is a sin, the bible says mankind shall not lie with mankind as you would with womankind, the punishment for this sin unless the sinners repent is eternal damnation of the soul, no Christian wants that for believers and non believers alike. for her to perform the ceremony she would believe that she would be condemning everyone concerned to eternal damnation. She also knows that mankind has been given free will to make choices, if the gay couple want to get married they will , their choice, the law of the land permits it. Her Christian faith tells her for her to be involved would be a sin. that is what she believes.

weezer 316
06-Sep-12, 13:52
First on a google search.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

List of violence, beatings and death sentences condoned by jesus in the new testamanet for a multitude of incredible and imaginary things, like witchcraft.

Now.....Why do you ignore these teachings. Why is discriminating against a gay couple ok in your book and activly encouraged, yet not death for any ignoring of the Old testaments teachings (point 89 on that link above). Can you explain why please? How do you seperate these in your mind

rob1
06-Sep-12, 14:12
I did read your post, the bible prohibits me from stoning anyone, the laws of the old testament say that it is wrong to do many things and the punishment for those transgressions was death. The new testament of the bible tells us of the teachings of Jesus, whereby the laws of the old testament still stand but the punishment for these crimes is no longer death. Jesus says that we are to hate the sin not the sinner, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as we are all born of sin stoning is out of the equation. Vengeance will be mine sayeth the Lord. The law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth shall no longer be instead we are to love one an other. Christians are taught that it is ok to be angry but not to sin in anger. What you started in this thread was a Christian woman was wrong to refuse to marry a gay couple. Ok I can see how that might upset some people, it has been said that she openly discriminated against this gay couple, which the law of the land says is wrong, for that she was sacked. She is disputing this sacking in court based on what she believes, if she has a case she will be vindicated if not she will remain sacked. So what this woman believes is that every single person on this planet has an eternal soul, that we are all born of sin, that the wages of sin is death not physical death but spiritual death and that God demonstrated his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. then she put her trust in Christ, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall belive in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with thy mouth confession is made unto salvation. whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved. now that this woman is saved, she knows that homosexuality is a sin, the bible says mankind shall not lie with mankind as you would with womankind, the punishment for this sin unless the sinners repent is eternal damnation of the soul, no Christian wants that for believers and non believers alike. for her to perform the ceremony she would believe that she would be condemning everyone concerned to eternal damnation. She also knows that mankind has been given free will to make choices, if the gay couple want to get married they will , their choice, the law of the land permits it. Her Christian faith tells her for her to be involved would be a sin. that is what she believes.

Ok. I agree that the bible says "mankind shall not lie with mankind as you would with womankind". However that passage does not say that a man can not have romantic feelings for another man. It is an assumption to say it does and a rather large one at that. It does not say that it is a vice versa scenario, that is also an assumption. It is a further assumption that the "lie" part is about sex - it could be about not telling the truth! I could argue that a man can not have sex with another man as he would a woman as men don't have a vagina! It is also assumed that these words are what god said and not just added in by some homophobe. So to deny someone the liberty to enter a marriage with the person they love based on an assumption based on another assumption etc etc, is just plain crackers.

Take it you don't think rape victims should marry their attacker?

maverick
06-Sep-12, 14:30
Ok. I agree that the bible says "mankind shall not lie with mankind as you would with womankind". However that passage does not say that a man can not have romantic feelings for another man. It is an assumption to say it does and a rather large one at that. It does not say that it is a vice versa scenario, that is also an assumption. It is a further assumption that the "lie" part is about sex - it could be about not telling the truth! I could argue that a man can not have sex with another man as he would a woman as men don't have a vagina! It is also assumed that these words are what god said and not just added in by some homophobe. So to deny someone the liberty to enter a marriage with the person they love based on an assumption based on another assumption etc etc, is just plain crackers.

Take it you don't think rape victims should marry their attacker? I was explaining what this woman believed as a Christian, she hates the sin not the sinners, she would not want their souls condemned. Does she not have the right to believe that. to answer your second question I believe that many rape victims are already married to their attackers.

maverick
06-Sep-12, 14:33
First on a google search.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

List of violence, beatings and death sentences condoned by jesus in the new testamanet for a multitude of incredible and imaginary things, like witchcraft.

Now.....Why do you ignore these teachings. Why is discriminating against a gay couple ok in your book and activly encouraged, yet not death for any ignoring of the Old testaments teachings (point 89 on that link above). Can you explain why please? How do you seperate these in your mind Matthew 24:4 and Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

oldmarine
06-Sep-12, 14:33
It has been a long time since I've been to Scotland. I understand Christianity is in decline being replaced by the Muslim religion. Can any one tell me I am wrong on my views? The last time I was there Christianity was the main religion.

oldmarine
06-Sep-12, 14:35
I am observing the decline of Christianity in the USA.

theone
06-Sep-12, 14:37
........ if the gay couple want to get married they will , their choice, the law of the land permits it. Her Christian faith tells her for her to be involved would be a sin. that is what she believes.

She is a bigot, plain and simple, it's only because she hides behind her religion that it is somehow deemed to be acceptable bigotry.


If she doesn't want to be involved in civil ceremonies in accordance with the law of the land, why is she going to court to fight her right to do so?


Someone claiming discrimination because she is not allowed to illegally discriminate. Madness.

gleeber
06-Sep-12, 14:50
It has been a long time since I've been to Scotland. I understand Christianity is in decline being replaced by the Muslim religion. Can any one tell me I am wrong on my views? The last time I was there Christianity was the main religion.
Britains become much more secular over the past 50 years oldmarine and some would say thats not a bad thing. Religions under the microscope but thats a good thing too. Theres a lot of good in religion and it seems compatable with something deep in the human psyche. I was going to say soul but that concieves religous connotations and I dont want to get my head chewed off by the anti-religious. :lol:

Gizmo
06-Sep-12, 14:57
It has been a long time since I've been to Scotland. I understand Christianity is in decline being replaced by the Muslim religion. Can any one tell me I am wrong on my views? The last time I was there Christianity was the main religion.

Christianity isn't being replaced with Islam, it's just that fewer and fewer young people have any religious beliefs. As the older generation die off, church attendance isn't being replaced by a younger generation.

rob1
06-Sep-12, 16:44
I was explaining what this woman believed as a Christian, she hates the sin not the sinners, she would not want their souls condemned. Does she not have the right to believe that. to answer your second question I believe that many rape victims are already married to their attackers.

Of course she has the right to have her views, just like I have the right to the view that religion is a waste of space. What I don't have the right to do is to discriminate against someone for being religious ie refusing to surve this women in a cafe because she is part of an organisation that I don't agree with - I would rightly be sacked. She has the right to her views, but she does not have the right use her personal views to deny civil liberties to others.
You did not answer my 2nd question at all. There are still the woman that are not married - you sidestep this and it give the impression that you can't defend what the bible says and don't want to sound bypocritcal by backing one part of the bible and ignoring others. Secondly the bible says that a woman should be submissive and submit to thier husbands wishes and if they don't they should be stoned. It could therefore be argued that rape cannot exist in a christian marriage in the first place as a husband is following the "law of the lord". I certainly don't agree with that and I guess you don't either.
Again it is about backing one part of the bible and ignoring others without any perticular reason. Admit it - you just find the idea of two men having sex repulsive - its ok to have that view but please don't hide behind religion

maverick
06-Sep-12, 18:26
Of course she has the right to have her views, just like I have the right to the view that religion is a waste of space. What I don't have the right to do is to discriminate against someone for being religious ie refusing to surve this women in a cafe because she is part of an organisation that I don't agree with - I would rightly be sacked. She has the right to her views, but she does not have the right use her personal views to deny civil liberties to others.
You did not answer my 2nd question at all. There are still the woman that are not married - you sidestep this and it give the impression that you can't defend what the bible says and don't want to sound bypocritcal by backing one part of the bible and ignoring others. Secondly the bible says that a woman should be submissive and submit to thier husbands wishes and if they don't they should be stoned. It could therefore be argued that rape cannot exist in a christian marriage in the first place as a husband is following the "law of the lord". I certainly don't agree with that and I guess you don't either.
Again it is about backing one part of the bible and ignoring others without any perticular reason. Admit it - you just find the idea of two men having sex repulsive - its ok to have that view but please don't hide behind religion First of all I am a Christian, I don't hide behind my faith , its part of my life. Women do not need to be submissive to their husbands when it would be morally incorrect to do so, and the teaching of Jesus was that it was no longer acceptable to put people to death. let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Vengeance will be mine sayeth the Lord, I am not repulsed by 2 men having sex. I just believe it to be wrong. Even if I were not a Christian, I would still believe same sex marriage to be wrong. Thats my view, you do not have to agree with it. I personally believe that to deliberately inflict harm on someone is wrong, thats not a religious view its mine, You by your admission are not a Christian or even religious, but you still have your belief's as I have mine. We are not going to agree on this subject so we will have to agree on disagreement.

weezer 316
06-Sep-12, 18:57
Jesus you couldnt make this up.

Maverick, I and Rob has asked you umpteen times now why do you cite the bible and its teachings as being in support of your points, yet you ignore its other teahcings that you dont agree with? Then you hold it as being divine and above human law. Why? Do you not understand the questio or are you ignoring it? We dont care what quotes you pluck or what views you have on them, we are asking why you have the bible as an authourity on homosexuality and preach its words, yet dont in almost everything else it preaches. Does that make sense?


This question is at the root of the issue.

Gizmo
06-Sep-12, 19:16
Jesus you couldnt make this up.

Maverick, I and Rob has asked you umpteen times now why do you cite the bible and its teachings as being in support of your points, yet you ignore its other teahcings that you dont agree with? Then you hold it as being divine and above human law. Why? Do you not understand the questio or are you ignoring it? We dont care what quotes you pluck or what views you have on them, we are asking why you have the bible as an authourity on homosexuality and preach its words, yet dont in almost everything else it preaches. Does that make sense?


This question is at the root of the issue.

You're wasting your time. Religious people, like Politicians, simpy can't answer the difficult questions that are put to them.

Kevin Milkins
06-Sep-12, 19:52
It's all about a point of view.

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/538965_10151416771392178_761823660_n.jpg

maverick
06-Sep-12, 21:30
Jesus you couldnt make this up.

Maverick, I and Rob has asked you umpteen times now why do you cite the bible and its teachings as being in support of your points, yet you ignore its other teahcings that you dont agree with? Then you hold it as being divine and above human law. Why? Do you not understand the questio or are you ignoring it? We dont care what quotes you pluck or what views you have on them, we are asking why you have the bible as an authourity on homosexuality and preach its words, yet dont in almost everything else it preaches. Does that make sense?


This question is at the root of the issue. could you tell me specifically which other teachings I ignore?