Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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.
    modern Britain calls for equality (in fact people like me have spent the last 20 years actually demanding it) and this also includes equally in marriage

    That you don't understand this is telling but expected don't worry you'll soon get 'on message' as we say
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    modern Britain calls for equality (in fact people like me have spent the last 20 years actually demanding it) and this also includes equally in marriage

    That you don't understand this is telling but expected don't worry you'll soon get 'on message' as we say
    Yes; the the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 extends marriage to same sex couples. Funnily enough the same Act also 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, and most proponents of equality in marriage, including myself, are perfectly fine with this.

    I think it'll be you who'll get "on message" soon...or maybe not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Yes; the the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 extends marriage to same sex couples. Funnily enough the same Act also 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.

    I think you have a bit of "getting on message" to do, whatever that means.
    yes and we still have a way to go to get equality

    it seems though you think though enough been done

    Thankful most of us don't and refuse to allow the faithful to hide their bigotry behind god.

    As I said I was part of the people campaigning to get the act put into law and we've a way to go yet despite the objections of the 'faithful'

    as I said you are behind with the times and people don't want you to continue making excuses for discrimination

    But as I said your hypocrisy would be funny if it didn't result in real world discrimination (but hey they're only members of the LGBT community so what does it really matter as long as you and your fellow believers aren't being discriminated against)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    yes and we still have a way to go to get equality

    it seems though you think though enough been done

    Thankful most of us don't and refuse to allow the faithful to hide their bigotry behind god.

    As I said I was part of the people campaigning to get the act put into law and we've a way to go yet despite the objections of the 'faithful'

    as I said you are behind with the times and people don't want you to continue making excuses for discrimination

    But as I said your hypocrisy would be funny if it didn't result in real world discrimination (but hey they're only members of the LGBT community so what does it really matter as long as you and your fellow believers aren't being discriminated against)
    LOL, don't delude yourself. Fanatics like you are still a minority. Your fantasy of nullifying religious freedom and forcing priests, imams, rabbis and other officials to conduct marriages or other services contrary to their religious beliefs, will remain a fantasy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    LOL, don't delude yourself. Fanatics like you are still a minority. Your fantasy of nullifying religious freedom and forcing priests, imams, rabbis and other officials to conduct marriages or other services contrary to their religious beliefs, will remain a fantasy.
    same thing the bigots were saying 20 years ago

    My how times have changed

    but love how you are justifying discrimination now (as its discrimination you support) while bemoaning about discrimination I do note a trend if its religious people being discriminated against it's wrong but if its religious people doing the discrimination it's OK.

    Hypocrisy at it worst.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    if its religious people being discriminated against it's wrong but if its religious people doing the discrimination it's OK.

    Hypocrisy at it worst.
    totally agree

    two weights, two measures
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    totally agree

    two weights, two measures
    it doesn't take log for those who complain about one form of discrimination to end up supporting another
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    same thing the bigots were saying 20 years ago

    My how times have changed

    but love how you are justifying discrimination now (as its discrimination you support) while bemoaning about discrimination I do note a trend if its religious people being discriminated against it's wrong but if its religious people doing the discrimination it's OK.

    Hypocrisy at it worst.
    Yes, freedom of religion is obviously bigotry and not a fundamental human right at all. Fortunately most people are sensible enough to know the difference between equality before law and equality before God The State has no business regulating the internal ceremonies of religious institutions; what next, the Church should be forced to hire Muslim imams and conduct Sikh-Hindu marriages? As your best friend QE2 pointed out, not every instance of discrimination is immoral/unjustified, and not every instance of immoral (in your view) discrimination ought to be illegal. Context is everything

    What you deem hypocrisy, I deem common sense exemptions!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Non-profit religious institutions, private clubs, etc are distinct from businesses; the former can discriminate. However, religious corporations and other businesses run by non-profits cannot discriminate. For example, if a church runs a store or hospital, it has to provide equal opportunities.
    It is quite possible to set up a non-profit hospital. Can a non-profit hospital discriminate against patients then?

    (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.
    Villages often set up non-profit community shops. If a village establishes a community shop which runs as a non-profit store to serve the community, this store can then discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion and sexuality?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Yes, freedom of religion is obviously bigotry and not a fundamental human right at all
    Nope it's not when it results in discrimination (and the right has always been subject to restrictions)

    But carry on telling us why discrimination is OK or is it! as you seem confused over the matter given your opening stance on this matter.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    It is quite possible to set up a non-profit hospital. Can a non-profit hospital discriminate against patients then?
    No, not all non-profit organisations are totally exempt however charitable organisations can discriminate on religious grounds.

    Villages often set up non-profit community shops. If a village establishes a community shop which runs as a non-profit store to serve the community, this store can then discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion and sexuality?
    See above.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Nope it's not when it results in discrimination (and the right has always been subject to restrictions)
    Yes, it has been subject to restrictions in terms of positive liberty, but not negative liberty. You might want to read up on the two forms of liberty

    But carry on telling us why discrimination is OK or is it! as you seem confused over the matter given your opening stance on this matter.
    As a non-Christian, non-Muslim, etc I have no opinion on the validity of same-sex marriages within those religions but as a personal example, I'm from a Sikh background and while I am in favour of same sex Anand karaj ceremonies (Sikh weddings), I'm not in favour of violating the Sikh temples' freedom of religion and forcing them to carry out same sex marriages. I hope that has cleared up your binary misunderstanding of the issue
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    No, not all non-profit organisations are totally exempt however charitable organisations can discriminate on religious grounds.

    See above.
    And can you not see how absurd it is? Discrimination and bigotry should not be justifiable merely because it is religiously influenced. Either discrimination against ones sexuality, gender, religion or race is acceptable, or it isn't.

    Why should discrimination be unacceptable in a hospital, but acceptable in a Church, if both are non-profit?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Yes, it has been subject to restrictions in terms of positive liberty, but not negative liberty. You might want to read up on the two forms of liberty



    As a non-Christian, non-Muslim, etc I have no opinion on the validity of same-sex marriages within those religions but as a personal example, I'm from a Sikh background and while I am in favour of same sex Anand karaj ceremonies (Sikh weddings), I'm not in favour of violating the Sikh temples' freedom of religion and forcing them to carry out same sex marriages. I hope that has cleared up your binary misunderstanding of the issue
    How you justify this discrimination is irrelevant

    It is still discrimination which I thought you were against but apparently not in all cases
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Why should discrimination be unacceptable in a hospital, but acceptable in a Church, if both are non-profit?
    or run as a charity
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    And can you not see how absurd it is? Discrimination and bigotry should not be justifiable merely because it is religiously influenced. Either discrimination against ones sexuality, gender, religion or race is acceptable, or it isn't.

    Why should discrimination be unacceptable in a hospital, but acceptable in a Church, if both are non-profit?
    No, I'm sorry but I just don't see the absurdity. It's common sense in my eyes; I've spoken to many LGBTQ + Muslims and Christians who wish to marry someone from their own sex, and not once have I come across any calls to force churches and mosques to carry out same sex marriages.

    I've highlighted in a previous post some of the reasons why religious organisations are exempt from the Equality Act 2010 in terms of its internal religious ceremonies.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    No, I'm sorry but I just don't see the absurdity. It's common sense in my eyes; I've spoken to many LGBTQ + Muslims and Christians who wish to marry someone from their own sex, and not once have I come across any calls to force churches and mosques to carry out same sex marriages.
    LGBT religious individuals tend to be a persecuted minority. It makes sense to not push peoples tolerance too far in fear of backlash. It is much like how the suffragettes settled for an act that permitted women over 30 to vote.

    There were even women who opposed the right of women to vote such as the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League, but I don't see why that should justify the discrimination.

    I've highlighted in a previous post some of the reasons why religious organisations are exempt from the Equality Act 2010 in terms of its internal religious ceremonies.
    I haven't received an explanation for why discrimination and bigotry is wrong, but acceptable when it is hidden behind the label of religion. It is absolutely illogical to me. I've not seen any proper explanation for why that should be the case. Quoting acts does not explain why discrimination should be acceptable in some cases but not others.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I haven't received an explanation for why discrimination and bigotry is wrong, but acceptable when it is hidden behind the label of religion. It is absolutely illogical to me. I've not seen any proper explanation for why that should be the case. Quoting acts does not explain why.
    The answer, surely, lies in like-minded people joining a club to share and enjoy their beliefs. Why shouldn't people with mediaeval superstitious beliefs get together and enact those beliefs among themselves as long as it affects nobody else and does not break the law? It goes without saying that they should receive no exemptions, tax breaks or other financial or legal benefits for doing so, of course.

    It's a bit like boxing, where like-minded people can hit one another until one is knocked out or gives up, which is illegal under other circumstances.

    If they wish to refuse religious marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples, then that is fine - their bigotry is confined to their own ranks.

    However, no marriage should ever be recognised as such unless it is carried out within the law of the land, either at an authorised registry office or (in the case of Britain) within the established church. France takes things a welcome stage further and does not recognise church weddings at all.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    In other words, it's difficult (for you) to accept the claim that most Muslims do not support ISIS despite polls and mainstream scholarly consensus suggesting otherwise?

    Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, people who believe in the infallibility of a text may interpret said text differently?
    All it means is that we have the situation where the majority of Muslims condemn ISIS for using captives for sex, but support the concept of using captives for sex (for example).

    It is mealy-mouthed equivocation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    All it means is that we have the situation where the majority of Muslims condemn ISIS for using captives for sex, but support the concept of using captives for sex (for example).

    It is mealy-mouthed equivocation.
    How do you know? There is an anti-slavery consensus amongst the Islamic scholarly community.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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.