And of course some of us are both gay and religious and belong to churches (etc) that support same-sex marriage
Yes of course!
That's why I liked the opt in clause, because it quelled a lot of the "but religions will be FORCED to marry gays!" panic that anti crowd liked to spew, and it recognised that some religions support equal marriage and are happy to conduct such ceremonies.
I understand that it's not the same as them saying "we don't serve gays", but I'm saying it's similar. And that's what you're missing.
They say they don't support gay marriage and, therefore, they're anti equality. And the people who lose out from that inequality are gay people. So they are discriminatory whichever way you look at it.
They can hold that view in private if they so wish, but when they're running a business they are open to the public and therefore need to be equal.
Personally I think a finding in favour of the gays on this particular issue is beyond the scope of equality and moving towards the realm of special. I dont think there will be a finding in favour of the gays though and I genuinely believe all of us will be better for that.
I am not trying to judge the case here - I am saying that the next step if for a court to do so. Your opinion on what the law means with respect to an actual case means the same as mine... ie bugger all. A court needs to decide.
That's nice. I wouldn't tell you that your opinion about this means bugger all. You are only saying that because the only thing you can think of to rebut my argument is an appeal to authority.
Why dont you shout bigot like the rest of them.
What is the point of discussing the issue if it gets reduced to let the court decide?
Yeah lets let the court decide and if the bakery loses it sets a precedent that affects everyone, gay or straight that infringes on your human rights of freedom of conscience.
I'm not sure i see it happening and if it does, i guess, yay for gay rights except you are now compelled to provide support for campaigns that go against gay rights.
Personally I think a finding in favour of the gays on this particular issue is beyond the scope of equality and moving towards the realm of special. I dont think there will be a finding in favour of the gays though and I genuinely believe all of us will be better for that.
Win or lose it wont make a jot of difference to you though will it?
That's nice. I wouldn't tell you that your opinion about this means bugger all. You are only saying that because the only thing you can think of to rebut my argument is an appeal to authority.
Why dont you shout bigot like the rest of them.
What is the point of discussing the issue if it gets reduced to let the court decide?
Dont flatter yourself....jesaya's stance on this has remained consistent throughout the thread.
That's nice. I wouldn't tell you that your opinion about this means bugger all. You are only saying that because the only thing you can think of to rebut my argument is an appeal to authority.
Why dont you shout bigot like the rest of them.
What is the point of discussing the issue if it gets reduced to let the court decide?
Yeah lets let the court decide and if the bakery loses it sets a precedent that effects everyone, gay or straight that infringes on your human rights of freedom of conscience.
I'm not sure i see it happening.
But everyone's opinion on law is worth "bugger all". For example, if I said I disagreed with the law on stealing and that I thought it should be allowed. No one would care and my opinion about it is worthless because the law stands regardless of my view on it.
Dont flatter yourself....jesaya's stance on this has remained consistent throughout the thread.
As if i take your opinion on anything seriously i bet you cant even provide a single argument that would prove this was an example of indirect discrimination.
But everyone's opinion on law is worth "bugger all". For example, if I said I disagreed with the law on stealing and that I thought it should be allowed. No one would care and my opinion about it is worthless because the law stands regardless of my view on it.
This is a discussion forum if you reduce any topic about the law to "let the court decide because your opinion is worth bugger all" what are we all doing?
Especially when it is in response to a reply that has considered the situation.
So how do you deal with the what is apparent to me and i hate to use the term but homophobia in religion?
When the bible says men lusted after one another and were punished... how do you consolidate that with your faith? do you just ignore it?
Well, you are rather presuming I am a Christian of course - I am not, but many in my religious group are. They manage this the same way they manage the stories in the Bible that say God tells you to stone people who work on the Sabbath... ie they treat them as written by men in an earlier age. They use the Bible as a source of inspiration and follow the parts appropriate for a modern society - especially things like 'do unto others'... which seems terribly apt here.
But everyone's opinion on law is worth "bugger all". For example, if I said I disagreed with the law on stealing and that I thought it should be allowed. No one would care and my opinion about it is worthless because the law stands regardless of my view on it.
People affect changes to law. It starts with someones opinion. Eg someone werent too keen on no gays getting married, expressed that opinion and in the end got it sorted out.
That's nice. I wouldn't tell you that your opinion about this means bugger all. You are only saying that because the only thing you can think of to rebut my argument is an appeal to authority.
Why dont you shout bigot like the rest of them.
What is the point of discussing the issue if it gets reduced to let the court decide?
Yeah lets let the court decide and if the bakery loses it sets a precedent that affects everyone, gay or straight that infringes on your human rights of freedom of conscience.
I'm not sure i see it happening and if it does, i guess, yay for gay rights except you are now compelled to provide support for campaigns that go against gay rights.
I said my opinion was worth the same - and as I keep repeating on here I am not sure if this is unlawful discrimination or not. I think the bakery were wrong... but that is not the same as saying they broke the law.
We have chosen, as a society, to live within the rule of law - and our government has created a set of laws regarding equality... it is the court's job (or the government if they choose) to clarify laws when necessary.
That's why I liked the opt in clause, because it quelled a lot of the "but religions will be FORCED to marry gays!" panic that anti crowd liked to spew, and it recognised that some religions support equal marriage and are happy to conduct such ceremonies.
Indeed - I think that was a good step too. I noticed that the Unitarians have deferred their decision as a small minority of their delegates at the conference they held last week, opposed SSM... and the church wants to have consensus. I think that is the right decision and I hope next year they will join the Quakers and United Reformed Church (among some others) who have already decided to 'opt in'.
I said my opinion was worth the same - and as I keep repeating on here I am not sure if this is unlawful discrimination or not. I think the bakery were wrong... but that is not the same as saying they broke the law.
We have chosen, as a society, to live within the rule of law - and our government has created a set of laws regarding equality... it is the court's job (or the government if they choose) to clarify laws when necessary.
It doesn't matter if you say your opinion is the same we are discussing the topic and if in response to something i say you come out with your opinion is worth bugger all and so is mine why are we even discussing it?
Regardless of the outcome or who gets to decide we can still discuss the issue, disagree with it, put forward counter arguments but when you respond with your opinion means bugger all and so does mine you are basically saying i've ran out of things to say and here is my appeal to authority so shut up.
So, let the courts decide. What is your aim when you say let the courts decide? for us to stop talking about it or you just dont have anything to say?
It doesn't matter if you say your opinion is the same we are discussing the topic and if in response to something i say you come out with your opinion is worth bugger all and so is mine why are we even discussing it?
Regardless of the outcome or who gets to decide we can still discuss the issue, disagree with it, put forward counter arguments but when you respond with your opinion means bugger all and so does mine you are basically saying i've ran out of things to say and here is my appeal to authority so shut up.
So, let the courts decide. What is your aim when you say let the courts decide? for us to stop talking about it?
My position in this thread has always been that it should go to court for the decision - I have never said you should not have an opinion or express it on here, just that whatever both of us think the actual case has to be determined by a court.
My position in this thread has always been that it should go to court for the decision - I have never said you should not have an opinion or express it on here, just that whatever both of us think the actual case has to be determined by a court.
Your position is that it should go to court, if people question you on it, put forward reasons why they think it shouldn't and highlight the consequences of a decision in favour of the people who initiated it and your response is your opinion means bugger all let the courts decide then do you actually want to discuss it or just state an opinion?
People affect changes to law. It starts with someones opinion. Eg someone werent too keen on no gays getting married, expressed that opinion and in the end got it sorted out.
Your position is that it should go to court, if people question you on it, put forward reasons why they think it shouldn't and highlight the consequences of a decision in favour of the people who initiated it and your response is your opinion means bugger all let the courts decide then do you actually want to discuss it or just state an opinion?
I have explained that, now a complaint has been made and the Equalities Commission has given their opinion that court is the next step. In the court they will not be using DS posts to make their decision.
I have also discussed throughout this thread why the bakery may have breached the law so I am unsure what you want from me... I have said I am not sure and want the court to decide. If you think that someone else should decide then who do you think that someone should be?
I have explained that, now a complaint has been made and the Equalities Commission has given their opinion that court is the next step. In the court they will not be using DS posts to make their decision.
I have also discussed throughout this thread why the bakery may have breached the law so I am unsure what you want from me... I have said I am not sure and want the court to decide. If you think that someone else should decide then who do you think that someone should be?
I have explained that, now a complaint has been made and the Equalities Commission has given their opinion that court is the next step. In the court they will not be using DS posts to make their decision.
I have also discussed throughout this thread why the bakery may have breached the law so I am unsure what you want from me... I have said I am not sure and want the court to decide. If you think that someone else should decide then who do you think that someone should be?
I'm not an idiot and i haven't got any illusions of grandeur where i believe i can change the course of opinion in the court by posting on here or that anyone else should decide.
Yes court is the next step and the end point was always going to be that the courts decide but that point could have been made in the first reply to the thread and rendered the entire discussion pointless.
Instead you made it in response to something i said highlighting the inconsistency in the accusations made by the equality commission.
I dont mean to appear hostile it just frustates me because everyone appears to be throwing around accusations of bigotry and prejudice with reckless abandon or just being dismissive and not really interested in talking about it.
There is an argument that can be made for a case of indirect discrimination, i'll give you a clue, it involves quantity. See if you can find it ;-)
I dont mean to appear hostile it just frustates me because everyone appears to be throwing around accusations of bigotry and prejudice with reckless abandon or just being dismissive and not really interested in talking about it.
There is an argument that can be made for a case of indirect discrimination, i'll give you a clue, it involves quantity. See if you can find it ;-)
Rather than everyone play guessing games, why don't you just state what it is and that way the discussion can progress rather than tiptoeing around.
Well, you are rather presuming I am a Christian of course - I am not, but many in my religious group are. They manage this the same way they manage the stories in the Bible that say God tells you to stone people who work on the Sabbath... ie they treat them as written by men in an earlier age. They use the Bible as a source of inspiration and follow the parts appropriate for a modern society - especially things like 'do unto others'... which seems terribly apt here.
So they aren't following the Bible at all then just picking and choosing what to follow?
Comments
Yes of course!
That's why I liked the opt in clause, because it quelled a lot of the "but religions will be FORCED to marry gays!" panic that anti crowd liked to spew, and it recognised that some religions support equal marriage and are happy to conduct such ceremonies.
Personally I think a finding in favour of the gays on this particular issue is beyond the scope of equality and moving towards the realm of special. I dont think there will be a finding in favour of the gays though and I genuinely believe all of us will be better for that.
That's nice. I wouldn't tell you that your opinion about this means bugger all. You are only saying that because the only thing you can think of to rebut my argument is an appeal to authority.
Why dont you shout bigot like the rest of them.
What is the point of discussing the issue if it gets reduced to let the court decide?
Yeah lets let the court decide and if the bakery loses it sets a precedent that affects everyone, gay or straight that infringes on your human rights of freedom of conscience.
I'm not sure i see it happening and if it does, i guess, yay for gay rights except you are now compelled to provide support for campaigns that go against gay rights.
Win or lose it wont make a jot of difference to you though will it?
Dont flatter yourself....jesaya's stance on this has remained consistent throughout the thread.
Yes it will. It will affect the society I live in and I care about that. Dont be so isolationist.
But everyone's opinion on law is worth "bugger all". For example, if I said I disagreed with the law on stealing and that I thought it should be allowed. No one would care and my opinion about it is worthless because the law stands regardless of my view on it.
As if i take your opinion on anything seriously i bet you cant even provide a single argument that would prove this was an example of indirect discrimination.
I have one and nobody has made it.
This is a discussion forum if you reduce any topic about the law to "let the court decide because your opinion is worth bugger all" what are we all doing?
Especially when it is in response to a reply that has considered the situation.
Well, you are rather presuming I am a Christian of course - I am not, but many in my religious group are. They manage this the same way they manage the stories in the Bible that say God tells you to stone people who work on the Sabbath... ie they treat them as written by men in an earlier age. They use the Bible as a source of inspiration and follow the parts appropriate for a modern society - especially things like 'do unto others'... which seems terribly apt here.
People affect changes to law. It starts with someones opinion. Eg someone werent too keen on no gays getting married, expressed that opinion and in the end got it sorted out.
I said my opinion was worth the same - and as I keep repeating on here I am not sure if this is unlawful discrimination or not. I think the bakery were wrong... but that is not the same as saying they broke the law.
We have chosen, as a society, to live within the rule of law - and our government has created a set of laws regarding equality... it is the court's job (or the government if they choose) to clarify laws when necessary.
Indeed - I think that was a good step too. I noticed that the Unitarians have deferred their decision as a small minority of their delegates at the conference they held last week, opposed SSM... and the church wants to have consensus. I think that is the right decision and I hope next year they will join the Quakers and United Reformed Church (among some others) who have already decided to 'opt in'.
It doesn't matter if you say your opinion is the same we are discussing the topic and if in response to something i say you come out with your opinion is worth bugger all and so is mine why are we even discussing it?
Regardless of the outcome or who gets to decide we can still discuss the issue, disagree with it, put forward counter arguments but when you respond with your opinion means bugger all and so does mine you are basically saying i've ran out of things to say and here is my appeal to authority so shut up.
So, let the courts decide. What is your aim when you say let the courts decide? for us to stop talking about it or you just dont have anything to say?
My position in this thread has always been that it should go to court for the decision - I have never said you should not have an opinion or express it on here, just that whatever both of us think the actual case has to be determined by a court.
Your position is that it should go to court, if people question you on it, put forward reasons why they think it shouldn't and highlight the consequences of a decision in favour of the people who initiated it and your response is your opinion means bugger all let the courts decide then do you actually want to discuss it or just state an opinion?
Much to your chagrin x
I have explained that, now a complaint has been made and the Equalities Commission has given their opinion that court is the next step. In the court they will not be using DS posts to make their decision.
I have also discussed throughout this thread why the bakery may have breached the law so I am unsure what you want from me... I have said I am not sure and want the court to decide. If you think that someone else should decide then who do you think that someone should be?
Absolutely not. I have no quarrel with gay marriage. I have been invited to one next year actually.
Dan_blamires
I'm not an idiot and i haven't got any illusions of grandeur where i believe i can change the course of opinion in the court by posting on here or that anyone else should decide.
Yes court is the next step and the end point was always going to be that the courts decide but that point could have been made in the first reply to the thread and rendered the entire discussion pointless.
Instead you made it in response to something i said highlighting the inconsistency in the accusations made by the equality commission.
There is an argument that can be made for a case of indirect discrimination, i'll give you a clue, it involves quantity. See if you can find it ;-)
Rather than everyone play guessing games, why don't you just state what it is and that way the discussion can progress rather than tiptoeing around.
Because i might as well argue with myself as i already did when i came up with a counter argument
So they aren't following the Bible at all then just picking and choosing what to follow?