More religion induced madness

[weezer 316]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/s...rasbourg-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

" 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]

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]

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]

The sooner all religions become a thing of the past, the better for all of us.

[joxville]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?