Muslim and Jews join gay-laws protest
BY STEVE DOUGHTY Last updated at 22:00pm on 3rd January 2007
Prominent Muslims and Jews united with Christians yesterday to voice concern at laws boosting gay rights.
Churches are organising demonstrations next week against the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which are due to come into force in April.
Campaigners claim the rules will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights in contradiction to their teachings and could persecute those who disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds.
Dr Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, yesterday urged Muslims to join protests against the "unjust" laws, including a torchlight parade in Westminster to coincide with a Lords debate next Tuesday.
And for the first time the Board of Deputies of British Jews voiced concern over the legislation.
The regulations, which are in line with EU requirements, will punish businesses and organisations which discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.
Hotels which refuse to let double rooms to gay couples could, for example, be taken to court.
Christian campaigners fear churches which refuse to let out parish halls or conference centres to gay groups would face legal action, as could schools which fail to teach that homosexuality is equal to marriage.
The Church of England has complained that vicars who refuse to bless civil partnerships may be also targeted. And the Roman Catholic church has threatened to close its nine adoption and fostering agencies if they are forced to place children with homosexual couples.
The outcry has piled pressure on Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly - a devout Roman Catholic who is thought to have approved the regulations reluctantly - to rethink the legislation.
Dr Katme made his plea to Muslims in a letter circulated to several hundred supporters and 40 imams, who are expected to publicise the issue during Friday prayers. Urging Muslims to "join our Christian friends in their campaign against the new proposed law on sexual orientation", he said: "It is against our religious rights and against our human rights and against our conscience and religious beliefs to have this new unjust law forced on all of us British Muslims."
Dr Katme, a prominent figure in campaigns against abortion and the decline of traditional family life, warned that the new laws would require "Muslims and Christian believers legally to accept and appoint homosexuals or anyone with any sexual deviation in our Muslim institutions and centres, mosques, schools, clubs, companies, hotels, business, shops etc".
He urged supporters to carry banners which were "polite, sensible and on the issue only".
Nadia Lipsey, spokesman for the Board of Deputies - the representative organisation of British Jewry - said yesterday: "It must be possible for people to live their lives in the manner in which they choose as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others.
"We hope that to this effect the regulations will be framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction."
Miss Kelly has yet to publish final details of how the regulations will work. However, similar proposals for Northern Ireland say anyone found guilty of discrimination will face fines of between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence and up to £25,000 for repeat "serious" offences.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, which is organising the London demo, said: "The regulations not only force people to assist and promote activities contrary to the historic teachings of their faith, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, but also censor them from speaking freely about their beliefs."
Is this bigotry or belief in your opinion? Is the legislation just or an infringement of human rights?
Quote from: Anthrobot"We hope that to this effect the regulations will be framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction."
That sounds awfully damn sensible to me. They're not complaining about the idea of combatting discrimination: they're against (what they fear will be) a ham-handed law that will achieve its goal only at the cost of other people's freedoms. And they're cautioning everyone who supports them to stay on topic, to be polite?
That's not even about belief. That's just plain good citizenship.
That's pretty much a textbook example of bigotry.
Quote from: AnthrobotIs this bigotry or belief in your opinion?
Both, their beliefs are bigoted.
That said, a carveout for religious groups shouldn't be too hard to draft I shouldn't have thought.
Just what I'd expect from the desert cults.
I'm interested to hear some elaboration from the folks who think that this is bigoted. What's the argument here? Are they not allowed to believe, in the confines of their own conscience and within the structure of their religious practice, that certain behaviors are wrong?
Now, personally, I disagree with them on what's right and what's wrong. But I support their right to their own conscience, so long as they are working to balance its mandates with the rights of others to do likewise.
So I ask seriously: Where do you draw the line, such that they are such a "textbook example" of bigotry?
Quote from: TonyLBThat sounds awfully damn sensible to me. They're not complaining about the idea of combatting discrimination: they're against (what they fear will be) a ham-handed law that will achieve its goal only at the cost of other people's freedoms. And they're cautioning everyone who supports them to stay on topic, to be polite?
That's not even about belief. That's just plain good citizenship.
That doesn't read as sensible to me at all.
"Pass all the laws on discrimination you want, so long as we're still allowed to discriminate."
Kind of defeats the purpose of trying to combat discrimination in the first place, don't you think?
And yes, I think their beliefs are bigoted.
When they came for the X, I did not complain, because I was not X...
What Tony is saying, I think, is that you are running into the situation where someone's behavioral "right" is running up against what here in America is considered one of the fundamental 1st Amendment rights - freedom of religion. So what happens when someone's religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong? Do you force someone with those beliefs to open up their private business even if it's against their fundamental religious belief? Of course, you'll probably say "sure, they're bigots." But that's not really the question, is it?
Now we can all point to the optimistic view that we all agree that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is bigotry. But what happens when they decide that discriminating against someone based on, oh, I don't know, political ideology is illegal? Will you be so ready to defend that? I doubt it. Would it be OK if we forced liberal think tanks to accept the membership of neo-conservatives? Hell no.
So it's all good as long as we can all point at "those desert cults" and agree to chastise them for their beliefs. What happens when it's your belief under the gun?
I've stayed out of this and the majority rule thread, but there are certain truths about humans that you can't avoid. You cannot control the way people think. Laws that try to do so only breed contempt.
And yet, there comes a point, where beliefs must step aside for the good of the rest of society.
The Klan takes it as a matter of religious belief that black people are inferior scum. Should we make legal exceptions for their lynchings?
Some cultures are so disgusted by femal sexuality that they will carve out a young girls' clitoris. Should we make legal exceptions for them? It is their beliefs after all.
"This is just what I believe" ceases to be a good excuse when it harms other people.
But more so than that, I think it is a matter of basic course that all people should be treated equally. There's no physical harm in forcing all black people to drink from seperate fountains, but there's certainly a psychological harm in treating them like second class citizens.
Quote from: J ArcaneAnd yet, there comes a point, where beliefs must step aside for the good of the rest of society.
And when they decide
your beliefs have to be put aside for the good of the rest of society? See, it's always easy when you agree with the toughts to be controlled; not so good when you don't.
Quote from: J ArcaneThe Klan takes it as a matter of religious belief that black people are inferior scum. Should we make legal exceptions for their lynchings?
Umm, lynchings? So you're equating some idiot refusing a room to someone in a hotel (the irony for Christians is too much!) to hanging someone from a tree? That's just - well - I expect more from you. You certainly aren't going to pass a law that people can't be bigots, are you? How do you enforce it? How do you enforce it without becoming a horrific tyranny?
Quote from: J ArcaneSome cultures are so disgusted by femal sexuality that they will carve out a young girls' clitoris. Should we make legal exceptions for them? It is their beliefs after all.
Again - physical agression is the same thing? Come on, at least be serious in your attempt to debate.
Quote from: J Arcane"This is just what I believe" ceases to be a good excuse when it harms other people.
And telling someone they can't buy milk from your corner store is the same? How long will that business last?
Quote from: J ArcaneBut more so than that, I think it is a matter of basic course that all people should be treated equally. There's no physical harm in forcing all black people to drink from seperate fountains, but there's certainly a psychological harm in treating them like second class citizens.
As Technomancer points out in the other thread, when it comes to public facilities and government services, absolutely. It's a slippery slope when you start telling people how to think and act in their personal life.
Good for that legislation. No, excellent for that legislation. These religious groups should be ashamed of themselves.
There are certain truths that I believe are self-evident. That nobody should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation is one of them.
Quote from: J ArcaneAnd yet, there comes a point, where beliefs must step aside for the good of the rest of society.
Yes, there is ... and determining where that point is in a given instance is a
fine purpose for polite, topical public debate.
Isn't that exactly what the folks being described in the article are trying to achieve?
As I said, I don't share their convictions, but I sure wish more people (both ones I agree with and ones I disagree with) were as willing to raise their concerns in a manner this productive.
Quote from: RedFoxGood for that legislation. No, excellent for that legislation. These religious groups should be ashamed of themselves.
There are certain truths that I believe are self-evident. That nobody should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation is one of them.
Amen.
I don't believe in a "right to discriminate".
QuoteIsn't that exactly what the folks being described in the article are trying to achieve?
They're not interested in debate, they're interested in screaming and yelling until they get their way. Demonstrations of this sort amount to childrens' temper tantrums.
*Shrug*
If churches don't want to be affected by laws on discrimination in the workplace, they have an option open in their own text... They can cease to be a workplace.
I don't recall "Jesus said you will be paid for your time, and will organize as a fiscal hierarchy." anywhere.
Churches as bodies of believers are great. Churches as institutions suck.
Quote from: J ArcaneAmen.
I don't believe in a "right to discriminate".
Ummm, wow. So we are not free to think and act in a manner we choose as long as we are not involved in physical harm or fraud?
Quote from: J ArcaneThey're not interested in debate, they're interested in screaming and yelling until they get their way. Demonstrations of this sort amount to childrens' temper tantrums.
Just curious - were you of the same thoughts about the demonstrations against the war in Iraq? How about the demonstrations in the US against illegal immigration? How about abortion demonstrations? Anti-abortion demonstrations?
I thought screaming and yelling to try and get your way was exactly the kind of thing classical liberals
want to see - it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*
If churches don't want to be affected by laws on discrimination in the workplace, they have an option open in their own text... They can cease to be a workplace.
I don't recall "Jesus said you will be paid for your time, and will organize as a fiscal hierarchy." anywhere.
Churches as bodies of believers are great. Churches as institutions suck.
When did a workplace become public domain? I mean, I know in some places where the workplace is nationalized (can you say Chavez?) this would be the case. But why are private organizations of any kind held to this standard? Your view on churches, no matter how much I might or might not agree, is irrelevant.
But let's assume we accept your division. Is it your position that you would be OK with discrimination as long as you weren't getting paid for your belief? I mean, it makes no sense.
Quote from: James J SkachUmmm, wow. So we are not free to think and act in a manner we choose as long as we are not involved in physical harm or fraud?
I love it when people try and take a human rights issue and make the bigoted asshole the real victim.
Give it up. I don't care. I have no sympathy for bigotry, so trying to stir me to some great compassion to a guy who'd throw someone to the curb for sleeping with the wrong people is not really going to work.
QuoteJust curious - were you of the same thoughts about the demonstrations against the war in Iraq? How about the demonstrations in the US against illegal immigration? How about abortion demonstrations? Anti-abortion demonstrations?
I thought screaming and yelling to try and get your way was exactly the kind of thing classical liberals want to see - it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
I think it's a fantastic way to ensure that the rest of the world won't take you seriously.
Demonstrations mean jack shit. You can get more done with a letter to an MP or a Congressman that you can with a bunch of rabble screaming unintelligibly at people who have no part in the decisions.
Talk to the people who actually decide these things, and to it in a fashion that doesn't involve harrassing the public and making an ass of yourself in front of all the world.
Tend to be more productive.
Though in a way, I guess it's good they've chosen this route because it rather spectacularly decreases their chances of success.
Quote from: James J SkachWhen did a workplace become public domain? I mean, I know in some places where the workplace is nationalized (can you say Chavez?) this would be the case. But why are private organizations of any kind held to this standard? Your view on churches, no matter how much I might or might not agree, is irrelevant.
But let's assume we accept your division. Is it your position that you would be OK with discrimination as long as you weren't getting paid for your belief? I mean, it makes no sense.
So tell me James, what would you say regarding an emplyer who refused to hire someone because he was black?
Or Native American?
Or Jewish?
Or Christian?
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*
If churches don't want to be affected by laws on discrimination in the workplace, they have an option open in their own text... They can cease to be a workplace.
Except that the law does not appear to be limited to workplace discrimination. I mean ... I don't know the law in any detail, but the quoted article says:
Quote from: AnthrobotThe Church of England has complained that vicars who refuse to bless civil partnerships may be also targeted.
Now maybe there's just a misunderstanding of what the law will cover. Or
maybe the law is vaguely worded enough that it could, indeed, apply to vicars in the pursuance of their religious duties. Personally, that's the kind of thing that I'd want to have nailed down beyond any possible doubt, wouldn't you? Especially since ...
Quote from: AnthrobotMiss Kelly has yet to publish final details of how the regulations will work. However, similar proposals for Northern Ireland say anyone found guilty of discrimination will face fines of between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence and up to £25,000 for repeat "serious" offences.
£25,000 is a fair chunk of change ... especially if the vicar now has no job because the church has decided to stop being a place of employment :D
Quote from: James J SkachWhen they came for the X, I did not complain, because I was not X...
What Tony is saying, I think, is that you are running into the situation where someone's behavioral "right" is running up against what here in America is considered one of the fundamental 1st Amendment rights - freedom of religion. So what happens when someone's religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong? Do you force someone with those beliefs to open up their private business even if it's against their fundamental religious belief? Of course, you'll probably say "sure, they're bigots." But that's not really the question, is it?
Now we can all point to the optimistic view that we all agree that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is bigotry. But what happens when they decide that discriminating against someone based on, oh, I don't know, political ideology is illegal? Will you be so ready to defend that? I doubt it. Would it be OK if we forced liberal think tanks to accept the membership of neo-conservatives? Hell no.
So it's all good as long as we can all point at "those desert cults" and agree to chastise them for their beliefs. What happens when it's your belief under the gun?
I've stayed out of this and the majority rule thread, but there are certain truths about humans that you can't avoid. You cannot control the way people think. Laws that try to do so only breed contempt.
No you cant control how folks think but that doesnt mean religion trumps everything else.
I mean, Mormons weren't allowed into the union until they renounced polygamy...
What if this goes beyond the person... is an employer allowed to fire a homosexual? A pharmacist allowed to not fill AZT prescriptions because people with AIDS are being punished?
Quote from: J ArcaneI love it when people try and take a human rights issue and make the bigoted asshole the real victim.
I'm not making them a victim. I'm making
you the victim. When, one day, your thoughts are called into question. Are his desires to worship as he sees fit
not a human rights issue?
Quote from: J ArcaneGive it up. I don't care. I have no sympathy for bigotry, so trying to stir me to some great compassion to a guy who'd throw someone to the curb for sleeping with the wrong people is not really going to work.
Wow, that's a rather...prejudiced...view. But, you know, your compassion is limited to the group with whom you agree, so that's cool; hip even. Some might call it progressive.
Quote from: J ArcaneSo tell me James, what would you say regarding an emplyer who refused to hire someone because he was black?
Or Native American?
Or Jewish?
Or Christian?
Well, in most cases I'd say he's an ass (I'd no more expect a Christian newsletter to hire a muslim writer or vice versa then I would the aforementioned example of a liberal think tank hiring a "neo-con"). And I would refuse to do business with him. And I'd spread the word that he's and ass and that others shouldn't do business with him for the very same reason.
What I would not do is expect the government to handle the problem. I'm not one who believes the government is the place to go for a solution except in very limited narrowly defined instances. Otherwise, you end up with the government in everyone's business - hey, kinda like it is now!
QuoteWell, in most cases I'd say he's an ass (I'd no more expect a Christian newsletter to hire a muslim writer or vice versa then I would the aforementioned example of a liberal think tank hiring a "neo-con"). And I would refuse to do business with him. And I'd spread the word that he's and ass and that others shouldn't do business with him for the very same reason.
What I would not do is expect the government to handle the problem. I'm not one who believes the government is the place to go for a solution except in very limited narrowly defined instances. Otherwise, you end up with the government in everyone's business - hey, kinda like it is now!
So I suppose we should've just left segregation alone then, right?
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckNo you cant control how folks think but that doesnt mean religion trumps everything else.
Well, I certainly didn't say religion trumps everything else. I do know that in America it currently trumps sexual orientation as freedom of religion is instantiated in the Constitution. Should it? It's a good debate to have, don't you think? Certainly not poluted with the idea that just because someone thinks homosexuality is wrong based on religious beliefs they are somehow not allowed to take part in the debate.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI mean, Mormons weren't allowed into the union until they renounced polygamy...
Ironic, eh?
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckWhat if this goes beyond the person... is an employer allowed to fire a homosexual?
I don't see why not. I've seen stories of women being fired from teaching jobs because, in their private lives, they get wild and crazy in a bar and someone takes a picture. People are fired for things they do in their personal lives all the time.
Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckA pharmacist allowed to not fill AZT prescriptions because people with AIDS are being punished?
If the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, I would think they should be able to dispense drugs as they see fit. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I'm not carrying that product (the AZT drug) because I don't agree with the moral implications." I mean, should a devout muslim who owns a store be forced to carry Playboy? I wouldn't want to force him to.
At the same time, Walgreens should be able to fire a pharmacist who doesn't follow their policy.
Quote from: J ArcaneSo I suppose we should've just left segregation alone then, right?
Well you know how silly they looked in all those demonstrations, don't you think?
Quote from: James J SkachWell you know how silly they looked in all those demonstrations, don't you think?
So now we are comparing the screeching of bigots to Martin Luther King's rallies are we?
I believe in separation of church and state. So that, for example, a Catholic Bishop should not be able to be elected to the Senate without giving up his bishopric, and probably then only after seven years; no mosque should be able to donate money to a political party; nor should the Prime Minister's approval be required to appoint a Chief Rabbi of a state.
A civilised state must be in effect secular. That means that no faith ought to guide the state; but by the same token, no state ought to interfere in any faith, save only where that faith's members are violating the law. So you could not allow murder as "well, it's in our faith to cut out the still-beating heart of infidels." Faiths should be restricted by criminal law, but not by purely civil law. So you should be able to sue a priest for molesting you, but not for denying you the Eucharist.
A state should not impose its secularism on a faith, for people must have freedom of religion, just as they have freedom of speech. In general, all places of worship must be public places, anyone must be able to go there. But the place must not be obliged to welcome them, nor yet should what they say be prescribed or proscribed, except within the limits of the criminal law.
Church and state must remain separate, and freedom of speech and religion must remain. Churches, mosques and synagogues are public places; anyone, whatever their faith or race or sexuality, ought to be able to go there. If the place wants to restrict attendance, then they're no longer public, so they can give up their tax-free status. But those attending, they need not welcome and embrace, nor promote to be leaders of their congregations, still less should they be restricted in what they say because of their company.
If you support freedom of speech, then you must also support freedom of religion, they go hand-in-hand. Just as freedom of speech means freedom to say things which may offend or annoy us, so too does freedom of religion mean freedom to preach offensive or annoying things.
It's a shit, but there it is.
Now for the serious answer.
No. As I've stated before, discrimination by any government agency should not be tolerated. The government should have no prejudice whatsoever. Who can get into a school, who can use which public drinking fountain, where someone can sit on a public bus. All should have been dismantled.
It's why I think, for example, it's time for governments to revamp how they "licesne marriage." Unfortunately, the religious sanctioning and the state sanctioning of a marriage were intertwined. It wasn't some evil thing, just the way America evolved. Now there marriage should be nothing more than a shorthand for a specific kind of civil contract. The word marraige should be dropped from goverment vernacular and left to churches.
But that's a discussion we should have without the prejudice of calling people who don't believe homosexuals should be married due to religious tenets bigots because, you know, everyone thinks so.
The power of the civil rights demonstrations was to sway public opinion that not only should the idea of non-discrimination be instantiated in the government, but that it was immoral to discriminate based on race (color) in private as well. They conviced people. The mistake was in making that part of the law (with respect to private "transactions"). Might it have taken longer to reach a colorblind society? Perhaps. But it wouldn't have ushered in/reinforced the idea that government can/should control how people think and act in their private lives. It ends up in laws where, in Connecticut, you won't be able to smoke in your own car if you have your kids in the car with you.
Quote from: JimBobOzIf you support freedom of speech, then you must also support freedom of religion, they go hand-in-hand. Just as freedom of speech means freedom to say things which may offend or annoy us, so too does freedom of religion mean freedom to preach offensive or annoying things.
That's truly ironic, given the source. Still I can't say I disagree with the gist of your post. Well said.
These guys obviosuly are belivers in bigotry.
I'm not surprised to see muslims doing this kind of shit, but I am disappointed that jews are doing it, it's really so much like the early days of nazi domination of germany, when anti-jew laws were slowly, incrementally, being introduced. You'd think they of all people would know what it feels like to be a persecuted and abused minority.
Also you'd think they'd understand the meaning of the famous "When they came for me there was no one left to speak up." bit too.
Quote from: Serious PaulThat's truly ironic, given the source. Still I can't say I disagree with the gist of your post. Well said.
I didn't say that I believed in freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; I said that
if you believe in one, then you have to believe in the other.
I believe that freedom of speech may be reasonably limited in a number of ways for the public good. In general, speech should be limited when it's aiming at enabling or promoting criminal activities. The old "fighting words" is one example - you don't get to threaten people then claim "it's just words!" Incitement to riot, to racial hatred, etc, should also be restricted. Instructions on murderous activities like bomb-making, should also be restricted. Sympathetic and lurid or instructional depictions of paedophilia should also be limited. Like I said - speech enabling or promoting criminal activities.
Speech may also be limited by
venue. The middle of a Catholic church service is probably not the best time for me, a Jew, to stand up and talk about Christ's followers swiping his body and faking the Resurrection; dinner with the in-laws isn't the time for sex jokes; and a roleplaying game forum is not the place talk about - for example - religion and the law. If the church lets me talk about Jesus' body, or the in-laws let me make sex jokes, or the rpg forum lets me talk about religion and the law, that's simply a courtesy on their part, a courtesy they're in no way obliged to give, and which they can fairly withdraw at any time.
I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech, nor of religion. But if you believe in one, you must believe in the other.
Quote from: TonyLBNow maybe there's just a misunderstanding of what the law will cover. Or maybe the law is vaguely worded enough that it could, indeed, apply to vicars in the pursuance of their religious duties. Personally, that's the kind of thing that I'd want to have nailed down beyond any possible doubt, wouldn't you? Especially since ...
It is a a misunderstanding of the act. Actually, it's a blatent and irresponsible lie, but you get to expect this kind of thing. It's got the stage where if a fundamentalist evangelical tells me a fact, I automatically assume that it's untrue unless I know otherwise. You can find the text of the act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031661.htm) and the parliamentary answers designed to clarify it for the hard of reading/thinking on the Net
Quote from: TonyLB£25,000 is a fair chunk of change ... especially if the vicar now has no job because the church has decided to stop being a place of employment :D
The CofE never has been a place of employment - at least not for vicars, but that's another matter entirely (and a sore point with many vicars and the trades union that represents them)
Quote from: JimBobOz; and a roleplaying game forum is not the place talk about - for example - religion and the law. If the church lets me talk about Jesus' body, or the in-laws let me make sex jokes, or the rpg forum lets me talk about religion and the law, that's simply a courtesy on their part, a courtesy they're in no way obliged to give, and which they can fairly withdraw at any time.
I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech, nor of religion. But if you believe in one, you must believe in the other.
Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread and contributed to this debate.Thanks also for keeping it relevant and not letting it descend into a complete verbal fistfight. I find the question of liberty to do what people want has to be set against the responsibility of getting on in society with each other. How this is done is a very tricky thing indeed and your answers to this question are very interesting.:) I hope to read some more food for thought.:D
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIt is a a misunderstanding of the act. Actually, it's a blatent and irresponsible lie, but you get to expect this kind of thing. It's got the stage where if a fundamentalist evangelical tells me a fact, I automatically assume that it's untrue unless I know otherwise. You can find the text of the act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031661.htm) and the parliamentary answers designed to clarify it for the hard of reading/thinking on the Net
Wow! Thanks for the link (I'm clearly not as net-savvy as I should be ... I just barely managed to figure out by references to the march being on Westminster and the previous legislation enacting in Northern Ireland that this was a British regulation we were discussing).
As to the outrage of church groups, given what I know now: WTF? I am hard pressed to imagine how they possibly get from this very specifically employment-only regulation to talking about who can share a hotel room, who can adopt a child, who a vicar is compelled to bless. I mean ... WTF?
I'm way more inclined to concur with bigotry, given how specific the act is. I mean ... it even has a cut-out clearly made for the churches (paragraph (7)(3)(a-b), which exempts any employment relevant to religion from the protection of the act).
Yes, there are areas where there is a fuzzy line between belief and discrimination, but this act isn't touching anything
anywhere near that line.
WTF? And they sounded so reasonable :(
Uh ... Hastur? I think you got the wrong act.
You've pointed to the "Employment Equality Act."
There's also a (separate) "Equality Act" which deals with the disposition of goods and services (i.e. all the stuff being discussed in the article). I'm having the devil's own time tracking down the British version of the act (here's (http://books.google.com/books?id=z2vxM_2h-40C&dq=equality+act+sexual+orientation+regulations+-northern+-ireland+-employment&pg=PP5&ots=zDVZfRNkqP&sig=pt0b_wxZ8vg4VRAceIuFOhVdsCw&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dequality%2Bact%2Bsexual%2Borientation%2Bregulations%2B-northern%2B-ireland%2B-employment&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1) the closest I've gotten) but the version (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2006/20060439.htm) enacted in Northern Ireland is more readily available.
It discusses exactly the type of things being discussed in the article. It has nothing to do with employment.\
EDIT: Now let me be clear: I personally think that the church cut-outs enacted in the Northern Ireland version to protect religious practice are good enough to do the job. But I certainly do not think that they are so iron-clad that it is unreasonable for groups that are more personally concerned about the issue to want to have their voices heard. Like I was saying earlier (before I got misinformed) I don't agree with the beliefs these people have, but I think that they're doing a good job of advocating those beliefs within the context of respect for the system.
Quote from: AnthrobotMuslim and Jews join gay-laws protest
BY STEVE DOUGHTY Last updated at 22:00pm on 3rd January 2007
Prominent Muslims and Jews united with Christians yesterday to voice concern at laws boosting gay rights.
Campaigners claim the rules will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights in contradiction to their teachings and could persecute those who disapprove of homosexuality on irrational grounds.
Its an irony that Xtian, Jewish and Muslim hardliners are united to a common purpose.
I would have thought that, what with the Iraq debacle and Palestinian hassles still going off, these people would have been at each others throats.
The common purpose is of course the irrational hatred of a group of people who have done nothing to hurt either Xtians, Jews or Muslims, or anyone else for that matter.
I find these hardliners an anachronism that should be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty first century.
Churches should not be forced to let out their halls to or bless homosexual unions.
However, catholic adoption agencies should have to follow the laws - and if the laws state homosexual couples may adopt, then they should be religiously blind. Would they refuse to adopt out to a muslim or hindi couple? If these agencies recieve some government funding, then they should not be able to discriminate.
People should be free to hold their own personal views, but anything that remotely touches upon government money or sponsership needs to be discrimination free, religious beliefs be damned.
Shows a tremendous amount of callousness that catholics would rather shut down adoption agencies, and thus impact the lives of the children in their care, than adopt to a homosexual couple.
Quote from: AnthrobotIts an irony that Xtian, Jewish and Muslim hardliners are united to a common purpose.
I would have thought that, what with the Iraq debacle and Palestinian hassles still going off, these people would have been at each others throats.
The common purpose is of course the irrational hatred of a group of people who have done nothing to hurt either Xtians, Jews or Muslims, or anyone else for that matter.
I find these hardliners an anachronism that should be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty first century.
Anthro... You fail to understand that the Palestinian situation is not a religious one but a territorial one. In many ways, so is Iraq. Iraq was a largely secular nation, while predominantly Islamic, prior to the invasion and the hardline religious nuts have only gained power in the wake of the invasion.
These are not holy wars by any means.
Quote from: AnthrobotIts an irony that Xtian, Jewish and Muslim hardliners are united to a common purpose.
They're not.
The three have
members - not even representatives - who are all saying about the same thing, and there's one Dr Katme who's urging his fellow Moslems to "join our Christian friends in their campaign against the new proposed law on sexual orientation." Note that Dr Katme is not even an imam, not a religious figure, but head of "the Islamic Medical Association." So it seems unlikely that the 40 imams he wrote to will pay any attention to what he said.
But you are not actually seeing Moslems, Christians and Jews rallying together, waving placards and chanting, "burn the gays!" or whatever. Nor are you seeing their representatives getting together to plan such a thing.
"A few people having the same opinion about X," is not the same thing as "all the people united to a common purpose." The distinction is important, because when people are "united to a common purpose," there's a fair chance of that common purpose being achieved; when people are just mouthing off, there's not a shit's show in hell of anything being achieved. Right now, we're in the "mouthing off" stage.
Don't get carried away. Read the article, what it actually says. No-one is actually going to do anything, nor will the three faiths be united in a common purpose.
Quote from: HackmastergeneralChurches should not be forced to let out their halls to or bless homosexual unions.
However, catholic adoption agencies should have to follow the laws - and if the laws state homosexual couples may adopt, then they should be religiously blind. Would they refuse to adopt out to a muslim or hindi couple? If these agencies recieve some government funding, then they should not be able to discriminate.
People should be free to hold their own personal views, but anything that remotely touches upon government money or sponsership needs to be discrimination free, religious beliefs be damned.
Shows a tremendous amount of callousness that catholics would rather shut down adoption agencies, and thus impact the lives of the children in their care, than adopt to a homosexual couple.
By the same token, groups that religions discriminate against should not be forced to pay more taxes to cover their tax exempt status. As is, churches get to claim tax exempt status, prteach against the rights of gays, women, etc, and those same groups have to take up the slack for the taxes they get to not pay.
Quote from: SpikeAnthro... You fail to understand that the Palestinian situation is not a religious one but a territorial one. In many ways, so is Iraq. Iraq was a largely secular nation, while predominantly Islamic, prior to the invasion and the hardline religious nuts have only gained power in the wake of the invasion.
These are not holy wars by any means.
No mate, you are in error there. I do recognise that the Palestinian situation is a territorial one. It is just that people tend to mix the two together sometimes.I agree with you about Iraq too.These may not be holy wars to most folk, but to Al Qaeda any battle is a jihad.
The secular philosophy has its problems, like any other philosophy, but it is looking more and more like the sanest way to run a country.
Quote from: JimBobOzThey're not.
But you are not actually seeing Moslems, Christians and Jews rallying together, waving placards and chanting, "burn the gays!" or whatever. Nor are you seeing their representatives getting together to plan such a thing.
"A few people having the same opinion about X," is not the same thing as "all the people united to a common purpose." The distinction is important, because when people are "united to a common purpose," there's a fair chance of that common purpose being achieved; when people are just mouthing off, there's not a shit's show in hell of anything being achieved. Right now, we're in the "mouthing off" stage.
Don't get carried away. Read the article, what it actually says. No-one is actually going to do anything, nor will the three faiths be united in a common purpose.
I never said "all the people united to a common purpose", please read my post again. As far as I can see protesting against gay rights has made these folk act in like manner, in unison if you will. Mouthing off they may be
, but they're all mouthing much the same irrational bilge against a minority pretty much blameless of any crimes against these hardliners.I disagree that they won't actually do anything. Religious hardliners have become more militant recently, if you follow the news you can see this trend becoming stronger. Though I hope that I'm wrong about this particular trend. The only people who are getting carried away are the Muslims/Jews and Xtians who imagine that this legislation will impinge on their worship.And you Jimknob who has an axe to grind because you misperceive me as being somehow more intelligent than you and thus try to hallucinate stuff,in an attempt to score points in some private game:
6
.Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.
Quote from: TonyLBUh ... Hastur? I think you got the wrong act.
You've pointed to the "Employment Equality Act."
Ooopsie. Here you go (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060003.htm). Similar exemptions
Apparently most of the 200-odd protesters outside Parliament were from the same church (Peniel), one that even fundamentalist evangelicals think goes a bit too far, so I think that Anthrobot's concerns are ill-founded.
I was having a chat with my vicar last night and he told be that the Church of England Newspaper had an article about the act, written by a friend of his, a barrister who specialises in human rights legislation. I can't link to it as it's a paysite, but apparently it came to the same conclusion as me - it's nothing to worry about unless you make a habit of being deliberately offensive while denying people access to goods and services
As an insider, I'm noticing a different trend. After the "Jerry Springer" debacle mainstream Christians in this country began to realise that they were being manipulated by a lunatic fringe and this time they've been a little more savvy
Hastur: Yeah, there are similar exemptions. But I'm not as inclined to say "Those jerks!" now that I know that the act they're talking about actually is about the examples they were citing (rather than some completely unrelated topic like employment). I spot them their right to disagree with me (and virtually everyone else) on whether the exemptions will be strong enough. Y'know what I mean?
Quote from: TonyLBI spot them their right to disagree with me (and virtually everyone else) on whether the exemptions will be strong enough. Y'know what I mean?
I do and the part of me that doesn't regard these people as Christianity's Lawncrappers has sympathy. It can be scary to live in a world that's changed so much and so fast