Oh have the religious supported their argument with valid evidence so that we can start a valid debate? If so can you point me to the post as I, along with many others in all of history since religion was invented have been awaiting that post eagerly.
I will be so disappointed if the religious still have nothing valid to say but still think they have a right to jump on everyone else's bandwagon with zero justification.
Until such time I can't possibly be prejudice against anyone's God as they have not prove that there is a God to be prejudice against. But let's all play childish pretend world and start acting like there is one and carry on like that. - No, I don't think so!
Bring on this challenge and support it with valid evidence.
I already pointed out that some religious people support and campaign for same sex marriage, but you ignore that and continue to rant about 'the religious'. That's prejudice.
I am not sure what they use as a criteria for 'deep belief' either - I can only assume it must mean 'a deep belief that happens to coincide with my own'. If they succeed in this there will be nothing to stop people using the 'deep belief' argument to justify racism (as there are religious people who 'deeply believe' that mixed race relationships are sinful... sexist views will be protected too... and I expect someone will find a way to be prejudiced against the disabled or the old/young. It is a recipe for a return to the 'no-blacks; no-irish' signs of the past and I will oppose it as hard as I can.
Yes, the deep belief boils down to deeply believing they're better than others. The religion bit is an attempt to have a get out of jail free card.
The courts say things like 'I am satisfied that the Bulls deeply believe....'. How and what does it matter? I presume they go by what people like the Bulls say, how often they say they go to Church etc. In the Bulls case, they ran their business on the Sabbath, yet based their discriminatory acts on less important parts of the Bible. So perhaps that takes away from the idea that they 'deeply believe', for instance.
In any case, I agree with what you say, and the concept seems to be nothing more than trying to make a prejudice sound virtuous.
Oh have the religious supported their argument with valid evidence so that we can start a valid debate? If so can you point me to the post as I, along with many others in all of history since religion was invented have been awaiting that post eagerly.
I will be so disappointed if the religious still have nothing valid to say but still think they have a right to jump on everyone else's bandwagon with zero justification.
Until such time I can't possibly be prejudice against anyone's God as they have not prove that there is a God to be prejudice against. But let's all play childish pretend world and start acting like there is one and carry on like that. - No, I don't think so!
Bring on this challenge and support it with valid evidence.
It's an utterly pointless challenge, so I decline and anyone's spirituality is their own very personal business and responsibility. It's rightfully called into question when it's enforced on others. . I have my own spirituality, not religion and I'm pretty immune to any mocking and negativity. I've heard the lot over most of my long life and in discussion on countless DS religious threads. I'm not a Christian and what I and many Christians wholeheartedly disagree with is the wilful distortion of the simple teachings of a pretty decent bloke, by so called Christians, in decidedly un-Christian attitudes and behaviour. Only distorted and cherrypicked from the OT to suit personal agenda. Of course it's not limited to Christianity.
It's an utterly pointless challenge, so I decline and anyone's spirituality is their own very personal business and responsibility. It's rightfully called into question when it's enforced on others. . I have my own spirituality, not religion and I'm pretty immune to any mocking and negativity. I've heard the lot over most of my long life and in discussion on countless DS religious threads. I'm not a Christian and what I and many Christians wholeheartedly disagree with is the wilful distortion of the simple teachings of a pretty decent bloke, by so called Christians, in decidedly un-Christian attitudes and behaviour. Only distorted and cherrypicked from the OT to suit personal agenda. Of course it's not limited to Christianity.
I would love to be able to say that they are not 'cherry picking' and adhere to most/all of the OT proscriptions (or even the Paulian ones) - but they are not. Sexuality has turned into a chew-toy for some religious people to attempt to get back the power over society they once had... they chose an aspect that is still the subject of general prejudice and are using it, in my view, quite cynically... whipping up opposition so they can continue to have more relevance in society than they should. Religion should no more control society than football clubs, charities or the Young Farmers. It is something that should stay private and within their own communities.
I already pointed out that some religious people support and campaign for same sex marriage, but you ignore that and continue to rant about 'the religious'. That's prejudice.
1. Why point out something I already know?
2. The whole thread topic is about the religious who can't keep it to themselves and actually think they have a valid argument. They don't.
3. Then we have some on this very thread telling me that just because someone has decided to imagine some sort of nonsense, they should automatically have the same protection as people had no say in their status; IE black people, gay people, the disabled, etc. It's very insulting that people who freely choosing to imagine things think that they are the same as others who did not.
And seriously just because someone supports gay marriage does not absolve them of everything else in other areas. They are two different things and yet as usual with religion they try to put the two together and get it through under one ticket. 'I support [good cause] and I'm a Christian' - What has one got to do with the other? Good that the person supports the good cause, but that ends there. The choosing to follow any such religious nonsense is another thing.
I would love to be able to say that they are not 'cherry picking' and adhere to most/all of the OT proscriptions (or even the Paulian ones) - but they are not. Sexuality has turned into a chew-toy for some religious people to attempt to get back the power over society they once had... they chose an aspect that is still the subject of general prejudice and are using it, in my view, quite cynically... whipping up opposition so they can continue to have more relevance in society than they should. Religion should no more control society than football clubs, charities or the Young Farmers. It is something that should stay private and within their own communities.
I believe this is where it will be challenged if it goes to appeal. A political belief is not a protected characteristic covered in the Equality Act 2010 which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and NI.
Unless living under a Totalitarianist regime it's completely unrealistic and impossible to implement , otherwise the courts and prisons would be packed full of political activists and dissenters on a daily basis.
1. Why point out something I already know?
2. The whole thread topic is about the religious who can't keep it to themselves and actually think they have a valid argument. They don't.
3. Then we have some on this very thread telling me that just because someone has decided to imagine some sort of nonsense, they should automatically have the same protection as people had no say in their status; IE black people, gay people, the disabled, etc. It's very insulting that people who freely choosing to imagine things think that they are the same as others who did not.
And seriously just because someone supports gay marriage does not absolve them of everything else in other areas. They are two different things and yet as usual with religion they try to put the two together and get it through under one ticket. 'I support [good cause] and I'm a Christian' - What has one got to do with the other? Good that the person supports the good cause, but that ends there. The choosing to follow any such religious nonsense is another thing.
On your third point there it is the law which gives equal protection to religious people as it does to gay and disabled people. Do you think this shouldn't be the case?
You seem to have a problem with Christians even where they support same sex marriage, what else do they need to be 'absolved' of, in your view?
I believe this is where it will be challenged if it goes to appeal. A political belief is not a protected characteristic covered in the Equality Act 2010 which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and NI.
Unless living under a Totalitarianist regime it's completely unrealistic and impossible to implement , otherwise the courts and prisons would be packed full of political activists and dissenters on a daily basis.
There is a specific piece of legislation that covers NI and protects on the grounds of religious/political belief - it has been mentioned multiple times on this thread.
Yes, the deep belief boils down to deeply believing they're better than others. The religion bit is an attempt to have a get out of jail free card.
The courts say things like 'I am satisfied that the Bulls deeply believe....'. How and what does it matter? I presume they go by what people like the Bulls say, how often they say they go to Church etc. In the Bulls case, they ran their business on the Sabbath, yet based their discriminatory acts on less important parts of the Bible. So perhaps that takes away from the idea that they 'deeply believe', for instance.
In any case, I agree with what you say, and the concept seems to be nothing more than trying to make a prejudice sound virtuous.
It's bullshine. In all of these bigot cases about deeply held beliefs it often comes down to selecting whatever personally suits them from the ramblings of men suffering psychotic episodes. Superstitions of the time. Imagine nowadays some poor old bloke running amok with a knife chopping off his own, all the other males' around him and 8 day old babies foreskins? The fact that this barbarism is still practised today, by Jews and Muslims, is disgusting and wholly unacceptable.. All because an old man had voices in his head telling him to plus the bribery of wealth and power?. Look at the 70 odd rules of OT Leviticus, where they hoik out homosexuality from. Search hard enough and anything in the Bible usually has something else in there to contradict it. How anyone lived their lives in a tiny part of the world millenia ago, has no bearing on how I live my life.
I would love to be able to say that they are not 'cherry picking' and adhere to most/all of the OT proscriptions (or even the Paulian ones) - but they are not. Sexuality has turned into a chew-toy for some religious people to attempt to get back the power over society they once had... they chose an aspect that is still the subject of general prejudice and are using it, in my view, quite cynically... whipping up opposition so they can continue to have more relevance in society than they should. Religion should no more control society than football clubs, charities or the Young Farmers. It is something that should stay private and within their own communities.
I agree it's plain as day and the BIB is exactly why. Next thought, how will this increase cash flow?
I believe this is where it will be challenged if it goes to appeal. A political belief is not a protected characteristic covered in the Equality Act 2010 which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and NI.
Unless living under a Totalitarianist regime it's completely unrealistic and impossible to implement , otherwise the courts and prisons would be packed full of political activists and dissenters on a daily basis.
No, it's NI with their own legislation to cover politics and religion. Discussed and linked before in the thread. How do you think they were found guilty under the 1998 order?
Judge Brownlie gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff and found that Ashers were liable to him for unlawful discrimination contrary to the provisions of the 2006 Regulations and the 1998 Order.
There is a specific piece of legislation that covers NI and protects on the grounds of religious/political belief - it has been mentioned multiple times on this thread.
A religion or belief yes. It states nothing regarding political. That's the Act which enforces legislation over protected characteristics, so where is this 'specific piece' within that Act exempting NI from the UK?
On your third point there it is the law which gives equal protection to religious people as it does to gay and disabled people. Do you think this shouldn't be the case?
You seem to have a problem with Christians even where they support same sex marriage, what else do they need to be 'absolved' of, in your view?
Why are we discussing discrimination of religious people? Does that have anything to do with the thread?
I believe this is where it will be challenged if it goes to appeal. A political belief is not a protected characteristic covered in the Equality Act 2010 which applies to England, Wales, Scotland and NI.
Unless living under a Totalitarianist regime it's completely unrealistic and impossible to implement , otherwise the courts and prisons would be packed full of political activists and dissenters on a daily basis.
Where is there a reference to businesses providing goods and services?
This is about protection from discrimination by employers.
Equality Act 2010
2010 CHAPTER 15
An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal characteristics; to enable certain employers to be required to publish information about the differences in pay between male and female employees; to prohibit victimisation in certain circumstances; to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct; to enable duties to be imposed in relation to the exercise of public procurement functions; to increase equality of opportunity; to amend the law relating to rights and responsibilities in family relationships; and for connected purposes.
I think it's relevant. However, you are free to discuss whatever you like, you are under no obligation to reply to my posts
I was just trying to figure out why it had been thrown in when it wasn't relevant...but if you prefer not to say/have no valid reason, then that is fine with me.
Yes the ignore all and carry on telling people what is what, approach.
The bottom line many pages ago is that religion is not an excuse in anything and that the law has been broken and they have been found guilty.
But that is ignored and some feel that their opinion is also above the law.
You mention the Law, though isn't it true that the Law doesn't allow same sex marriage at the moment in NI. It doesn't recognize any marriage made between two men and two women.
There are 59 pages on this thread all posting about how a bakery discriminated against a gay man. But the fact is that this "discrimination" was in a place where the goverment hold the same discriminating views!
A bakery gets punished for not baking a cake in Northern Ireland, the same place where Northern Ireland will not recognize a marriage between two gay people....
In my view the evidence simply does not support any finding that the bakery discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The judge in order to say that it did had to rule that there was no distinction between the gay customer and the cause he espoused. This is clearly nonsense and has the effect of protecting an idea instead of a person and of course there is no law to support this.
The 1998 order similarly does not confer the rights the judge claimed. Those rights are a general political stances ie unionist or nationalist. That is the mischief the order was intended to meet. It was never intended to cover opinion on any view imaginable.
A lot has been said about tolerance here. The suggestion that it was the bakers who were intolerant and that others who are in fact intolerant of the bakers views are in reality tolerant if far divorced from reality.
Question- if I asked a gay baker to bake a cake with the message Gay marriage is sinful, how many would support the baker if my order were refused?
I was just trying to figure out why it had been thrown in when it wasn't relevant...but if you prefer not to say/have no valid reason, then that is fine with me.
You mention the Law, though isn't it true that the Law doesn't allow same sex marriage at the moment in NI. It doesn't recognize any marriage made between two men and two women.
There are 59 pages on this thread all posting about how a bakery discriminated against a gay man. But the fact is that this "discrimination" was in a place where the goverment hold the same discriminating views!
A bakery gets punished for not baking a cake in Northern Ireland, the same place where Northern Ireland will not recognize a marriage between two gay people....
I've been here right from the start....I still don't get the relevance. In relation to this case there has been no discrimination against Christians.....but as I said, please don't put yourself out by explaining why you think there has been.
In my view the evidence simply does not support any finding that the bakery discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The judge in order to say that it did had to rule that there was no distinction between the gay customer and the cause he espoused. This is clearly nonsense and has the effect of protecting an idea instead of a person and of course there is no law to support this.
The 1998 order similarly does not confer the rights the judge claimed. Those rights are a general political stances ie unionist or nationalist. That is the mischief the order was intended to meet. It was never intended to cover opinion on any view imaginable.
A lot has been said about tolerance here. The suggestion that it was the bakers who were intolerant and that others who are in fact intolerant of the bakers views are in reality tolerant if far divorced from reality.
Question- if I asked a gay baker to bake a cake with the message Gay marriage is sinful, how many would support the baker if my order were refused?
Not me, you would be a cherrypicking religious homophobic bigot like the Ashers and the Christian Institute. I proudly don't tolerate any cherrypicking religious homophobic bigots.. As for the rest, that's your opinion, the law clearly disagrees and so do I. .
Here's a thought. I wonder if they ask to see the parent's marriage certificate for any christening cake they make. They announced that sex outside of marriage is also a sin. Do they check on the bride and grooms virginity when they order a wedding cake? I hope they never do cakes for divorcees because yup, that's a sin. What bloody miserable judgemental lives they must live. Yet Christ tells people not to judge one another. They also seem to support witchcraft. Is that in their Bible?
Where is there a reference to the businesses providing goods and services?
Equality Act 2010
No idea what this question has to do with the post you quoted. I never mentioned anything about "businesses providing goods and services".
In relation to the post you deleted, given that this case was heard before SSM was voted in NI, by accusing Ashers of sexual orientation discrimination against Lee they, NI Gov, are also guilty of the same discrimination. Effectively the court judge has convicted the NI Government of discrimination which is the "a/b" part another poster found questionable.
Comments
I already pointed out that some religious people support and campaign for same sex marriage, but you ignore that and continue to rant about 'the religious'. That's prejudice.
The courts say things like 'I am satisfied that the Bulls deeply believe....'. How and what does it matter? I presume they go by what people like the Bulls say, how often they say they go to Church etc. In the Bulls case, they ran their business on the Sabbath, yet based their discriminatory acts on less important parts of the Bible. So perhaps that takes away from the idea that they 'deeply believe', for instance.
In any case, I agree with what you say, and the concept seems to be nothing more than trying to make a prejudice sound virtuous.
It's an utterly pointless challenge, so I decline and anyone's spirituality is their own very personal business and responsibility. It's rightfully called into question when it's enforced on others. . I have my own spirituality, not religion and I'm pretty immune to any mocking and negativity. I've heard the lot over most of my long life and in discussion on countless DS religious threads. I'm not a Christian and what I and many Christians wholeheartedly disagree with is the wilful distortion of the simple teachings of a pretty decent bloke, by so called Christians, in decidedly un-Christian attitudes and behaviour. Only distorted and cherrypicked from the OT to suit personal agenda. Of course it's not limited to Christianity.
I would love to be able to say that they are not 'cherry picking' and adhere to most/all of the OT proscriptions (or even the Paulian ones) - but they are not. Sexuality has turned into a chew-toy for some religious people to attempt to get back the power over society they once had... they chose an aspect that is still the subject of general prejudice and are using it, in my view, quite cynically... whipping up opposition so they can continue to have more relevance in society than they should. Religion should no more control society than football clubs, charities or the Young Farmers. It is something that should stay private and within their own communities.
1. Why point out something I already know?
2. The whole thread topic is about the religious who can't keep it to themselves and actually think they have a valid argument. They don't.
3. Then we have some on this very thread telling me that just because someone has decided to imagine some sort of nonsense, they should automatically have the same protection as people had no say in their status; IE black people, gay people, the disabled, etc. It's very insulting that people who freely choosing to imagine things think that they are the same as others who did not.
And seriously just because someone supports gay marriage does not absolve them of everything else in other areas. They are two different things and yet as usual with religion they try to put the two together and get it through under one ticket. 'I support [good cause] and I'm a Christian' - What has one got to do with the other? Good that the person supports the good cause, but that ends there. The choosing to follow any such religious nonsense is another thing.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
Unless living under a Totalitarianist regime it's completely unrealistic and impossible to implement , otherwise the courts and prisons would be packed full of political activists and dissenters on a daily basis.
On your third point there it is the law which gives equal protection to religious people as it does to gay and disabled people. Do you think this shouldn't be the case?
You seem to have a problem with Christians even where they support same sex marriage, what else do they need to be 'absolved' of, in your view?
There is a specific piece of legislation that covers NI and protects on the grounds of religious/political belief - it has been mentioned multiple times on this thread.
It's bullshine. In all of these bigot cases about deeply held beliefs it often comes down to selecting whatever personally suits them from the ramblings of men suffering psychotic episodes. Superstitions of the time. Imagine nowadays some poor old bloke running amok with a knife chopping off his own, all the other males' around him and 8 day old babies foreskins? The fact that this barbarism is still practised today, by Jews and Muslims, is disgusting and wholly unacceptable.. All because an old man had voices in his head telling him to plus the bribery of wealth and power?. Look at the 70 odd rules of OT Leviticus, where they hoik out homosexuality from. Search hard enough and anything in the Bible usually has something else in there to contradict it. How anyone lived their lives in a tiny part of the world millenia ago, has no bearing on how I live my life.
I agree it's plain as day and the BIB is exactly why. Next thought, how will this increase cash flow?
No, it's NI with their own legislation to cover politics and religion. Discussed and linked before in the thread. How do you think they were found guilty under the 1998 order?
http://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Publications/Individuals/ReligiousDiscrimShortGuide2010.pdf
Edit. Jesaya already answered this above.
Why do you think that the Religious Hate Act (2006) has been conveniently bypassed on this thread?
That's a simple question, nothing to do with pedantry, just asking you for some evidence to support your claim.
.
Why are we discussing discrimination of religious people? Does that have anything to do with the thread?
Where is there a reference to businesses providing goods and services?
This is about protection from discrimination by employers.
Equality Act 2010
I think it's relevant. However, you are free to discuss whatever you like, you are under no obligation to reply to my posts
I was just trying to figure out why it had been thrown in when it wasn't relevant...but if you prefer not to say/have no valid reason, then that is fine with me.
You mention the Law, though isn't it true that the Law doesn't allow same sex marriage at the moment in NI. It doesn't recognize any marriage made between two men and two women.
There are 59 pages on this thread all posting about how a bakery discriminated against a gay man. But the fact is that this "discrimination" was in a place where the goverment hold the same discriminating views!
A bakery gets punished for not baking a cake in Northern Ireland, the same place where Northern Ireland will not recognize a marriage between two gay people....
Don't you think that is hypocritical at least?
The 1998 order similarly does not confer the rights the judge claimed. Those rights are a general political stances ie unionist or nationalist. That is the mischief the order was intended to meet. It was never intended to cover opinion on any view imaginable.
A lot has been said about tolerance here. The suggestion that it was the bakers who were intolerant and that others who are in fact intolerant of the bakers views are in reality tolerant if far divorced from reality.
Question- if I asked a gay baker to bake a cake with the message Gay marriage is sinful, how many would support the baker if my order were refused?
Try reading the thread maybe?
You asked me that pages ago.
I've been here right from the start....I still don't get the relevance. In relation to this case there has been no discrimination against Christians.....but as I said, please don't put yourself out by explaining why you think there has been.
Not me, you would be a cherrypicking religious homophobic bigot like the Ashers and the Christian Institute. I proudly don't tolerate any cherrypicking religious homophobic bigots.. As for the rest, that's your opinion, the law clearly disagrees and so do I. .
Here's a thought. I wonder if they ask to see the parent's marriage certificate for any christening cake they make. They announced that sex outside of marriage is also a sin. Do they check on the bride and grooms virginity when they order a wedding cake? I hope they never do cakes for divorcees because yup, that's a sin. What bloody miserable judgemental lives they must live. Yet Christ tells people not to judge one another. They also seem to support witchcraft. Is that in their Bible?
In relation to the post you deleted, given that this case was heard before SSM was voted in NI, by accusing Ashers of sexual orientation discrimination against Lee they, NI Gov, are also guilty of the same discrimination. Effectively the court judge has convicted the NI Government of discrimination which is the "a/b" part another poster found questionable.