Heartland

Not as exciting a topic as the title suggests

Should discrimination against gay people be made illegal in the UK, despite the protests by a bunch of hate-filled vile christian wankers? (I never said it was a neutral question)

I'm hoping this is a no-brainer, but you never know (after all, someone might decide that gay people are part of a US/Zionist conspiracy that the rest of us are all too stupid and lazy to be aware of... )

link for background info for non-UK peeps: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm

Voted #1.

Live and let live, sweep in front of your own door etc etc...

I saw a chap on the news this evening who'd chucked a guy couple out of his guesthouse because he didn't want to "promote" homosexuality by allowing them to fornicate on his premises. Never mind the fact they could well have actually gone to sleep in their twin beds, or done something really deviant like sit and watch the telly in their room... guess he thinks gay people want to commit their filthy acts all day every day .

His loss really innit? That's £100 quid in the pocket of another, less bigoted B&B owner

lazarus corporation wrote:...a bunch of hate-filled vile christian wankers?

That´s the second reason why.
The first reason is everybody must be able to live according to his nature.
Says a straight bastard.

Gay or straight, poor or rich, black or white etc etc etc........goth or non goth. ( )....I like a person or I don't or cannot be bothered.

Discrimation of gays or other groups as mentioned should be illegal....so option 1 for sure.

I can't imagine this is even going to affect a lot of people; most of us have sense to not give a flying f**k. The ponderous British justice system lags behind reality again.

boudicca wrote:guess he thinks gay people want to commit their filthy acts all day every day .

Unlike us filthy hetties who really DO want to commit our filthy acts all day every day...

I haven't seen any discrimination against homosexuals where I live, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough

Laws should/could be introduced, I just hope they don't use it to their advantage

(btw, I am not homophobic at all).

Another tough topic for the new and improved, thought provoking Heartland

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.

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.

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 - I think what should be done, however, is that the NHS has a policy that it’ll help anyone, no matter race or sexual orientation. Therefore, it’s up to the bigot whether he wants to work with the NHS and help people he discriminates against, therefore not causing a situation where a gay person is dying and a homophobic doctor refuses to aid him.

It's a no brainer Paul so no vote from Blast on this one.

Anyone should be respected as long as they don't hurt anyone else, point final

nick the stripper wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

I should add as a PS to my first post that there are plenty of tolerant christians posting on the BBC website saying they disagree with the protesters and are in favour of the legislation.

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.

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.

I can see your side, but I'm just not sure if it's right or not. I'm leaning on the fence here.

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 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.


I hate these sorts of arguments because I am in no way a bigot, but am always worried that I'll be tarred as one for defending the rights of people of an unseemly nature.

I think I've seen enough of your posts to know you're not a bigot, Josh, and I'm sure no one else will think that either.

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.

I noticed this particular quote

John Studley, a Christian from London, said: "This government is placing sexual rights over religious rights."

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".

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.

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.

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.

Although I am still somewhat questionable of the law and it's impediment on people hiring and serving who they wish, and therefore impeding on their principles.

Maisey wrote:I noticed this particular quote

John Studley, a Christian from London, said: "This government is placing sexual rights over religious rights."

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".

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.

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'?

Discrimination against gay people is already illegal in France and that's a good thing.
Plus gay couples should be allowed to adopt children and enjoy the same rights as any other couple. Except that it's up to the church, not the state, to decide whether or not they can have a religious ceremony.

@ James : I'm really sorry and I don't mean to be rude, but as a non smoker and a relatively healthy person I have to disagree. I don't think you understand how annoying smoking is to other people. Nothing personal, but it just stinks, the smoke gets in my eyes (which is all the more annoying as I wear contact lenses) and makes me sick.

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'?

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.

I haven't come to a decision about the anti-smoking law yet. As a smoker wanting to give up but finding it very hard, I'm leaning towards being in favour of it, but that's because I'm currently pissed off by my addiction. Remove my current addiction-angst and I'd probably be happy for people to be smoking in pubs.

..........or as once put it, 'get on with it Wayne you poof'

Nae Fags in pubs completley is a bit much, they should at least be banished to a wee dark corner.

Smokers you understand

I only discriminate against idiots, I don't care were they put their bits

what about discrimination against goth people?

James Blast wrote:What about us who's orientation is to have a cigarette whilst quaiffing a beer and chatting with our friends?

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.

ormfdmrush wrote:what about discrimination against goth people?

They're scum, no question