The Sisters of Mercy Forum
)
.
That´s the second reason why.lazarus corporation wrote:...a bunch of hate-filled vile christian wankers?
)....I like a person or I don't or cannot be bothered.
Unlike us filthy hetties who really DO want to commit our filthy acts all day every day...boudicca wrote:guess he thinks gay people want to commit their filthy acts all day every day
If this is true, then it is forcing people to go against their principles. So, as much as I dislike homophobia, I'm going to say no.They also argue a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be forced to print a flyer for a gay night club, or a teacher would have to break the law to promote heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership.
Yes, it's the same - the same way that a racist can't hang a notice outside their B&B anymore saying "No Blacks", and the same way that a company can't refuse to promote someone because they're a woman.nick the stripper wrote:If this is true, then it is forcing people to go against their principles. So, as much as I dislike homophobia, I'm going to say no.They also argue a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be forced to print a flyer for a gay night club, or a teacher would have to break the law to promote heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership.
Also, it's forcing people into non-consensual relationships. While I worked at a newsagent, I was told by the manager that they had the right to serve and not serve whoever they want (with the exception of not being allowed to selling minors cigarettes and alcohol). A trade should be this way, it should be consensual. It is not consensual if one side is forced.
Edit: by the way, that won't change. The only difference is that you wouldn't be able to refuse to serve someone in a newsagent/pub/etc because they were gay.nick the stripper wrote:Also, it's forcing people into non-consensual relationships. While I worked at a newsagent, I was told by the manager that they had the right to serve and not serve whoever they want (with the exception of not being allowed to selling minors cigarettes and alcohol). A trade should be this way, it should be consensual. It is not consensual if one side is forced.
Do you think that that's right though? What you are doing there is, as I said, forcing people into non-consensual relationships. Non-consensual relationships equal tension and tension equals danger. You're taking away a person's basic right to socialize and hire for their business who they please. This would surely cause discomfort for both the boss and the worker, who could find work and services at less-bigoted places.lazarus corporation wrote:Yes, it's the same - the same way that a racist can't hang a notice outside their B&B anymore saying "No Blacks", and the same way that a company can't refuse to promote someone because they're a woman.
Any law is non-consensual to someone. That's why laws need to be enforced rather than being immediately and happily observed universally immediately.
I agree entirely there. That's why the government funded schools should have a similar law as that of the NHS, therefore making it the Christians decision between not indoctrinating kids or f**king off and teaching a private protestant or Catholic school.And I'm not sure why a christian teacher should be promoting heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriages (i.e. indoctrinating children with their personal religious beliefs) anyway! A teacher's personal political or religious beliefs should not be what they're teaching the children!
I personally believe people should have no religious rights, other than "should be allowed to believe what they like and practice what they wish so long as it doesn't breach the law".John Studley, a Christian from London, said: "This government is placing sexual rights over religious rights."
That’s true since, from an ethical standpoint, the discriminators are the morally apprehensible, not those they are discriminating against. And if rights have to be violated, I’d much prefer to be those of the morally apprehensible than the opposite. And I can’t exactly see this law ruining the homophobe’s life, whereas, without this law, as you stated, the lives of those discriminated against have been ruined.lazarus corporation wrote:I'm also suspicious of any law because all laws are, by definition, restrictions of freedom. It's a question of balance. And I think in this case the law is required because of the tales of bigotry and discrimination I've heard about that have ruined people's lives and careers.
Maisey wrote:I noticed this particular quote
I personally believe people should have no religious rights, other than "should be allowed to believe what they like and practice what they wish so long as it doesn't breach the law".John Studley, a Christian from London, said: "This government is placing sexual rights over religious rights."
But that applies as much to people to role play socities and book clubs as it does to religions!
Sexual rights on the other hand are equally, if not much more important. It is my personal belief that you are "as god made you" (note: hefty spoonful of irony) so therefore should not have to suffer descrimination for what they cannot change (and even if they could, shouldn't have to). I'd say dening your own urge is far more unnatural than coming up a dirt path into someones backyard.
It's a question of harm. Smoking in front of your friends harms both you and them (and the bar staff), which is, I presume, the logic behind the forthcoming anti-smoking law.James Blast wrote:What about us who's orientation is to have a cigarette whilst quaiffing a beer and chatting with our friends?
We really have no options except to stand in the freezing cold as we no longer have a 'section' where we can do 'it'.
What's next, drinking alcohol becomes the new bete noir, so we're all standing outside (with the smokers off to the left, as they've been here a while) so we don't 'infect' anyone 'normal'?
once put it, 'get on with it Wayne you poof'
Apples and oranges comparison, mein herr, unless you're drinking some kind of magic beer that gets into everyone you're drinking with (or you spill frequently). Cigarette smoke gets everywhere, including into non-smokers' hair/clothes/lungs &c. It's more likely to affect non-participants than the drinking. I think that's the argument.James Blast wrote:What about us who's orientation is to have a cigarette whilst quaiffing a beer and chatting with our friends?
They're scum, no questionormfdmrush wrote:what about discrimination against goth people?
