Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ELVsLP)
    the same science that says that two men or two women can't create a baby together.
    So what? Some straight couples can't make babies together; is it wrong for them to seek IVF or adoption because they "can't create a baby together"?

    so i never understand why gays claim its natural for two people of the same sex to be parents to a child when even science says a man and a woman are needed. not just to create the child but to normalise its upbringing.
    every person needs a mother and a father!
    You are proving his point - where is your evidence to back up these claims? Most reputable studies show that there is no disadvantage to a child by having two same-sex parents.

    You are only saying "every person needs a mother and a father" because that's presumably all you know and you could not think of yourself having been brought up by anything different. Whereas, I am sure many kids brought up by same-sex parents will say they have not felt they or "every person" needs a mother and a father.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ELVsLP)
    the same science that says that two men or two women can't create a baby together. so i never understand why gays claim its natural for two people of the same sex to be parents to a child when even science says a man and a woman are needed. not just to create the child but to normalise its upbringing.
    every person needs a mother and a father!
    Are you a Muslim?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    In the eyes of the owner, they clearly had "done something wrong" - presumably publicly associating with an ideology that he found unacceptable.

    I think he was wrong, but if his opposition to Islam was reasonable, then it was not bigotry.
    However, discriminating against them (not serving them) is a slightly different matter.
    He could have still served them, even if his dislike of them was bigoted. He would still have been a bigot despite not discriminating against them.
    On the other hand, if his reasons for not serving them were "reasonable" (they were making religiously based insults at other customers) then his refusal to serve them based on religion would not be bigoted.

    There is too much knee-jerk, black and white thinking around issues like this. And too little inderstanding of what words actually mean. That is the beauty of a language like English, and it is a shame that so many people just ride rough-shod over its magnificent subtlety and exactitiude.

    You seem to have taken it upon yourself to argue against a point that no one has made.

    Having negative views towards the ideology of Islam is perfectly acceptable. Judging people who follow such an ideology negatively is perfectly acceptable.

    Refusing to serve someone for simply believing in such an ideology is not. I personally do not believe in a thought police. I think it's great that in the UK you are allowed to think whatever you want with no fear of punishment. We do not punish evil thoughts.

    Refusing to serve someone who has done nothing wrong, for simply believing in an ideology that you disagree with is unreasonable discrimination and is therefore wrongful. Whether that belief is Fundamental Islam or neo Nazism, it is unreasonable to refuse to serve someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong.

    Quite why you are obsessing over the meanings of words and semantics, i'm not so sure.

    The fact remains that we should live in a society where we are allowed to think whatever we want and follow whatever religion we want without fear of punishment. If you act on such a belief in an illegal manner then fair enough, but merely holding such a belief is not and should not be punishable.


    If two Jewish people were refused service in a shop, you'd be up in arms about it and rightly so. It should be the same here.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    Which is an artificial distinction created by law to appease the religious vote and to stop private men's clubs from having to admit women.

    On a moral and social level, the person you quoted is right: this sets a precedent where the restaurant manager is fully entitled to ask "well if that synagogue can refuse to marry gays, why can't I refuse to serve gays?". I don't think referring to artificial distinctions in the law adequately settles that question.
    The question the person I quoted had (in another post) was: can I make a religion that says "don't serve Asians in your shops" and discriminate against Asians on religious grounds? The answer is no; you're not allowed to discriminate in business on these grounds. A Muslim restaurant owner for example cannot refuse to serve polytheistic Hindus on religious grounds no matter how much he/she may hate them.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Should they be allowed to refuse to serve black people or disabled people? Its a dangerous precedent.
    Of course. The point isn't that 'she is a Muslim' is a good reason not to serve someone, but that an owner of an establishment shouldn't have to give a reason, good or otherwise. I don't think that is at all dangerous. As others have pointed out, it's bad business to refuse a particular group of customers simply because you don't like them or disagree with them in some way. It may be the case that individual establishments may make some money by appealing to racist demographics, for example, but if businesses were allowed absolute discretion in choosing whom to do business with then clearly the vast majority would deal with everyone.

    I concede that this position would never be accepted in a tourist centre like Paris, obviously.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    you are comparing a religion and culture with political beliefs. They're not the same.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Islam is a complete socio-political theory and an agenda for how a society should be organised and ruled, how justice should be administered, criminals punished, how economic and family relations should be conducted

    how is that different from a political belief ?
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The question the person I quoted had (in another post) was: can I make a religion that says "don't serve Asians in your shops" and discriminate against Asians on religious grounds? The answer is no; you're not allowed to discriminate in business on these grounds. A Muslim restaurant owner for example cannot refuse to serve polytheistic Hindus on religious grounds no matter how much he/she may hate them.
    Yet, using another example: a Muslim restaurant owner could not refuse to serve a gay couple, but a Muslim cleric could refuse to marry them at the mosque.

    It does not particularly matter what the law says or what arbitrary distinctions it draws - there's still a moral and social contradiction there (that the exempt organisations can discriminate, whereas other organisations cannot). It's ridiculous that you can refuse to marry a gay couple yet cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake, because of what type of organisation you are deemed to be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    Yet, using another example: a Muslim restaurant owner could not refuse to serve a gay couple, but a Muslim cleric could refuse to marry them at the mosque.
    Marriage is a religious institution in religions like Islam. The Islamic nikkah is defined as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim women. Religious ceremonies, unlike products and other services provided by businesses, have a "sacred" element that means a lot to religious people. You wouldn't force a Church to conduct a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu, would you?

    It does not particularly matter what the law says or what arbitrary distinctions it draws - there's still a moral and social contradiction there (that the exempt organisations can discriminate, whereas other organisations cannot). It's ridiculous that you can refuse to marry a gay couple yet cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake, because of what type of organisation you are deemed to be.
    I don't think it's that ridiculous.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Marriage is a religious institution in religions like Islam. The Islamic nikkah is defined as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim women. Religious ceremonies, unlike products and other services provided by businesses, have a "sacred" element that means a lot to religious people. You wouldn't force a Church to conduct a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu, would you?
    It's all ideology, whether you use adjectives such as "sacred" or not. Discriminating on the grounds of an ideological belief that x minority is inferior for y political, social or other reason is no different to discriminating on the grounds of a religious belief (and religions are ideologies at their core) that gay couples are inferior to the extent that they should not be offered the service of marriage.

    If some Christians interpreted the Bible in a way to mean that interracial marriages are sinful, would you think this was somehow acceptable discrimination to refuse to marry interracial couples, whereas it would be unacceptable discrimination for a holiday company to refuse to sell a honeymoon to an interracial couple on that basis? That is what your logic is suggesting.

    I don't think it's that ridiculous.
    You seem to be giving a free pass to discrimination when it is packaged in terms of "sacredness", yet seemingly denounce other ideological-based forms of discrimination.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You seem to have taken it upon yourself to argue against a point that no one has made.

    Having negative views towards the ideology of Islam is perfectly acceptable. Judging people who follow such an ideology negatively is perfectly acceptable.

    Refusing to serve someone for simply believing in such an ideology is not. I personally do not believe in a thought police. I think it's great that in the UK you are allowed to think whatever you want with no fear of punishment. We do not punish evil thoughts.

    Refusing to serve someone who has done nothing wrong, for simply believing in an ideology that you disagree with is unreasonable discrimination and is therefore wrongful. Whether that belief is Fundamental Islam or neo Nazism, it is unreasonable to refuse to serve someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong.

    Quite why you are obsessing over the meanings of words and semantics, i'm not so sure.

    The fact remains that we should live in a society where we are allowed to think whatever we want and follow whatever religion we want without fear of punishment. If you act on such a belief in an illegal manner then fair enough, but merely holding such a belief is not and should not be punishable.


    If two Jewish people were refused service in a shop, you'd be up in arms about it and rightly so. It should be the same here.
    On modern day Britain, there is a thought police and you can get punished for your thoughts. Many people have been prosecuted for "offense", simply by stating their thoughts aloud.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Are you a Muslim?
    No, its not just muslims who are against homosexuality.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think it's great that in the UK you are allowed to think whatever you want with no fear of punishment.
    hah... don't rejoice too soon

    next month, we will start deploying special ideological police teams, fitted with cyclotronic x-ray vision goggles... soon, people sharing in your unorthodox beliefs will have time to cool it off in dedicated, safe, very quiet places. You just wait ...
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    we should live in a society where we are allowed to think whatever we want.
    of course, as long as people think the right thoughts
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Marriage is a religious institution in religions like Islam. The Islamic nikkah is defined as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim women. Religious ceremonies, unlike products and other services provided by businesses, have a "sacred" element that means a lot to religious people. You wouldn't force a Church to conduct a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu, would you?
    You see if you can 'excuse' some discrimination then so will others

    It's a slippery slope don't you think.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    If some Christians interpreted the Bible in a way to mean that interracial marriages are sinful, would you think this was somehow acceptable discrimination to refuse to marry interracial couples,
    how about the fact that, in islam, a non-Muslim man cannot marry a Muslim woman ? does that constitute an acceptable form of discrimination ?

    in my opinion, it's a very rare form of double discrimination: both religious (between non-Muslim and Muslim) and sexual (between male and female)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    It's all ideology, whether you use adjectives such as "sacred" or not.
    I don't see why the mere fact that it's "all ideology" should prevent us from distinguishing the ideologies and applying appropriate rules/exemptions thereof accordingly. In the case of religion, the general exceptions to the Equality Act 2010 are in compliance with the right to free exercise of religion and is rooted in common sense (i.e. it would be ridiculous to force the Catholic Church to hire an atheist priest, or a Temple to hire a Muslim Imam). Such discrimination is, and should not be, unlawful on the basis that it respects the doctrine or the principles of the religion, and to avoid offending the religious beliefs of a significant number of people who follow the religion.

    Discriminating on the grounds of an ideological belief that x minority is inferior for y political, social or other reason is no different to discriminating on the grounds of a religious belief (and religions are ideologies at their core) that gay couples are inferior to the extent that they should not be offered the service of marriage.
    I disagree. Even the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which extends marriage to same sex couples nevertheless protects freedom of religion by giving explicit protection to religious organisations and their officials from being compelled by any means to carry out same sex marriages. It's not always a matter of discriminating due to the belief that x minority is inferior for some y reason, but even if it is then the nature of religions is such that these exemptions must be made for the sake of common sense. It's not even about appeasing the religious voters since religious organisations are granted these rights and exemptions under Articles 9 and 11 of the ECHR.

    If some Christians interpreted the Bible in a way to mean that interracial marriages are sinful, would you think this was somehow acceptable discrimination to refuse to marry interracial couples, whereas it would be unacceptable discrimination for a holiday company to refuse to sell a honeymoon to an interracial couple on that basis? That is what your logic is suggesting.
    Yes, that is the logical conclusion. Of course, those same Christians would not be allowed to discriminate when providing a service on behalf of a public authority.

    You seem to be giving a free pass to discrimination when it is packaged in terms of "sacredness", yet seemingly denounce other ideological-based forms of discrimination.
    Being "packaged in terms of sacredness" is not the only criterion I have in mind. I would give free passes to discriminate to specific conditions charities, LGBTQ+ events and support groups, etc.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    You see if you can 'excuse' some discrimination then so will others

    It's a slippery slope don't you think.
    Will they?

    And no, I think it's maintaining a reasonable balance between freedom of religion and anti-discriminatory laws.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Will they?

    And no, I think it's maintaining a reasonable balance between freedom of religion and anti-discriminatory laws.
    Yes, as you are doing here you are justifying one form of discrimination while complaining about another
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Yes, as you are doing here you are justifying one form of discrimination while complaining about another
    Context is everything.

    These are the laws we as a society have agreed upon. If you don't like it, you're welcome to move to a country wherein freedom of religion is not protected.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Context is everything, my simple-minded friend.
    Ah the good old personal attack

    to be expected when your told you're a hypocrite (as in this case here)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Ah the good old personal attack

    to be expected when your told you're a hypocrite (as in this case here)
    Frankly speaking I don't think you're integrated well enough in modern Britain to accept the balance between freedom of religion and anti-discrimination. I'd suggest you migrate to a country you might like better.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.