Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage

[yxee]

What's wrong with it is the very dangerous precedent it would set. Argue for the repeal of laws on sexual discrimination by all means but to excuse certain laws for certain groups is not right.

This is not sexual discrimination... "gay" is not a sex

 

[Nibble]

Well their policy wouldn't be able to override current discrimination laws so don't see the harm. Of course Christians shouldn't support same sex marriages, they're morons for that way of thinking but I'll defend their right to think it.
All arbitrary anyway as that bunch of bumblefecks won't get anywhere near running this country in a month of yellow shit storms.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Christian Concern is a group which just deliberately makes trouble and is stuck in the dark ages.

Well they've picked the right party to get into bed with

 

[GT49er]

This is fine as long as I get legal protection when I tell them that they believe in a fairytale grandfather figure (or figures) in the sky that were thought up by primitive people to attempt to explain the world they live in and that these theories were then exploited by the ruling elite as a means of controlling said primitive beings. It only works one way? Funny that...

UKIP hater comes up with stupid argument - Wow! Hold the front page!

 

[gregbrighton]

Presumably you would extend this refusal to anti-gay Muslims or would that be Islamophobia?

Of course.

 

[Cian]

I don't have a problem with this as long as I, as an atheist, can can refuse the business of anti-gay Christians and Neanderthal UKippers.

It's only fair...

My brother's suggestion was that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on "conscience" - but would have to put massive signs in their window saying they do so. I've a feeling that there wouldn't be many...

 

[Mattywerewolf]

This is fine as long as I get legal protection when I tell them that they believe in a fairytale grandfather figure (or figures) in the sky that were thought up by primitive people to attempt to explain the world they live in and that these theories were then exploited by the ruling elite as a means of controlling said primitive beings. It only works one way? Funny that...

I think you have just demonstrated that you can say that, and believe that quite freely without recourse. So how does it only work in one direction exactly?

 

[Diego Napier]

What is wrong with that?
We do not all follow the herd along the party - line of Political Correctness in twenty first century thinking .. I support freedom of conscience

Ah, the old freedom of conscience ploy, nurturing malign bigotry under shelter of it's baleful umbrella. Perfidious Albion eh? How apposite.

I'm uncomfortable (and resent the fact, and being honest it's offensive) that they are not like me. They don't think like me (I don't care if some of them are intrinsically better people than me and some the same and some worse). They just don't comply with my norm (and I'm certainly not going to change to accommodate them). And some of them don't dress like me (they may be just as bigoted as me but they don't believe in my superstitions and my version of the truth). I ought to able to express my thoughts about their difference (it's not intolerance, I should be free to express my belief and if it offends people who don't think like me well, I just don't care. And don't give me that old clap trap about being socially divisive, I'm not the one who's at fault). If you want us to all get along then I have to be able to point out where they are different (and wrong come to that and don't give me any of that "what is acceptable in a civilised society" twaddle). I have my rights (and I don't care if it gives succour to extremists who think along the same lines as me, I want to satisfy that primal instinct squatting in my psyche to mistrust humans from a different tribe). Some of them look different to me (I've always been uncomfortable with that but at least if they think differently and keep their trap shut then it's less offensive but as you know, in our PC society we have to mind our p's and q's and keep quiet about that).

Anyway, this is good news about Ukip's policy. Of course, it won't correct all the problems with these people but hopefully we can come on to that later.....

 

[Bold Seagull]

This is not sexual discrimination... "gay" is not a sex

In the Equality Act 2010, 'sexual' is defined as meaning your sexual orientation.

 

[Nibble]

UKIP hater comes up with stupid argument - Wow! Hold the front page!

His is the best argument on the thread. UKIP hater? What is not to hate? Racist scum the lot of them. You know it, they know it and that's why people support UKIP, thick, racist scum. There, I said it, I'm sick of this PC nonsense, I'm saying it. UKIP and it's supporters are thick, homophobic , racist scum. And relax.

 

[spring hall convert]

I have a strong suspicion that had this come as a result of pressure from a muslim group, the reaction on here would be vastly different.

Intolerance isn't something to be encouraged. Typically for UKIP, it is a policy that will appeal to their core vote whilst being met with a shrug of the shoulders by the electorate at large.

 

[Simster]

I'm not an admirer of UKIP, but I'm surprised this policy upsets so many people.

People will accuse them of being intolerant, but is it any less tolerant to vilify people who don't want to partake in helping same-sex marriages for reasons of religious belief/social consciousness?

 

[GT49er]

His is the best argument on the thread. UKIP hater? What is not to hate? Racist scum the lot of them. You know it, they know it and that's why people support UKIP, thick, racist scum. There, I said it, I'm sick of this PC nonsense, I'm saying it. UKIP and it's supporters are thick, homophobic , racist scum. And relax.

Ah, another UKIP hater practicing his liberal minded tolerance!

 

[Nibble]

Ah, another UKIP hater practicing his liberal minded tolerance!

The argument of a moron. Some things shouldn't be tolerated. Homophobia, mysoginy, racism and policies that would sink this country. Tolerate that? Not on your nelly!

 

[TomandJerry]

From a business point of view, they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so in wake of the cake situation, they weren't breaking the law

 

[Cian]

From a business point of view, they have the right to refuse service to any without reason, so in wake of the cake situation, they weren't breaking the law

The cake situation is still going through the courts so its rather premature to state they weren't breaking the law.

You do not have a right to refuse business if you state a reason that is protected under law - which they did. Had they just said no with no reason, there'd be no court case.

 

[TomandJerry]

The cake situation is still going through the courts so its rather premature to state they weren't breaking the law.

You do not have a right to refuse business if you state a reason that is protected under law - which they did. Had they just said no with no reason, there'd be no court case.

So the way around the law is just to refuse service and refuse to give a reason

 

[Nibble]

From a business point of view, they have the right to refuse service to any for any reason, so in wake of the cake situation, they weren't breaking the law

Not true in all cases, and this case is iffy. Could Tesco refuse to serve a black man if it stated the reason is because he is black? No, of course not.
The Christian nutty cake people don't agree with gay marriage. They don't like gays. They shouldn't be in the public service industry.

 

[WATFORD zero]

From a business point of view, they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, so in wake of the cake situation, they weren't breaking the law

You are right, they can refuse any business. However, if they then state that they are turning down the business because the client is Gay, Black, Irish, Polish, Jewish etc etc and then follow it up with TV/Newspaper interviews then a court case is very likely to come about.

So they were either trying to deliberately upset people and cause a court case or were very very stupid.

I wonder which it was

 

[Cian]

So the way around the law is just to refuse service and refuse to give a reason

Which is what bouncers on nightclubs, hotels avoiding certain wedding receptions, etc, etc do every day of the week

Its when someone feels compelled to give a religious lecture to the person they're refusing that they end up in court over it - that's what happened in the bakery.