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

[Bold Seagull]

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

In a nutshell yes. The cake owner could have said they just don't want to bake them a cake, or suggest they go elsewhere. Not a problem. By stating it was because they are gay, it is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, part 3 item 29 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/3

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Are they going to extend this right to Muslims?

 

[Milton Keynes Seagull]

Homophobia, mysoginy, racism and policies that would sink this country. Tolerate that? Not on your nelly!

Sounds far more applicable to certain countries in the middle east! Or is that Islamophobic? By the way, if you wish to label those of a supposed "right wing" persuasion as uneducated, you may wish to check your spelling credentials first. I refer you to the correct spelling of Misogyny.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Sounds far more applicable to certain countries in the middle east! Or is that Islamophobic?

You know as well as I do, language like this will get you in trouble with the thought Police. You think I'm joking right, Labour have a plan for things like this
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/co...ophobia-danger-to-Britain-warns-Leo-McKinstry

 

[W.C.]

Sounds far more applicable to certain countries in the middle east! Or is that Islamophobic? By the way, if you wish to label those of a supposed "right wing" persuasion as uneducated, you may wish to check your spelling credentials first. I refer you to the correct spelling of Misogyny.

Bit obsessed with muslims aren't we? Second post you've made mentioning them, in a thread about christians and UKIP?

 

[W.C.]

You know as well as I do, language like this will get you in trouble with the thought Police. You think I'm joking right, Labour have a plan for things like this
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/co...ophobia-danger-to-Britain-warns-Leo-McKinstry

christ, you aswell. What's this got to do with the thread's topic?

 

[brakespear]

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

Both?

 

[dingodan]

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.

It could be claimed that the law on wearing motorcycle helmets, (or not in the case of Sikhs), set the precedent. Personally I think that exception was also wrong, (if your religious beliefs mean that you are unable to comply with certain regulations in order to carry out a particular activity then simply don't take part in the activity). At least though in the case of wearing a helmet it is the individual who suffers any subsequent consequences.

As others have said where do you draw the line in the amendment proposed by UKIP. Should taxi drivers be able to refuse a fare from Jews or gays. Should teachers be able to refuse to teach gay pupils? What about a football chairman refusing entry to gay supporters?

Laws to ensure that people of any sexual preference have equal rights is NOT political correctness - they are simply just. I don't see how it can be argued that reducing the duties of one minority that diminishes the rights of another can be supported by anyone who believes in democracy.

You can't use Law to use force against other people.

You have a right to your life, and you have a right to your property, and you have a right to live free from interference and force from anyone else, so long as you are not interfering with or using force against anyone else.

You don't have any right to a cake, or a taxi ride.

I do understand where you are coming from, but equality is for the law. We must all be treated equally before the law. The idea that we must all treat each other equally is something very different from the protection of peoples rights. For every person "treated equally" in this way there is another person who has actually had force used against them, and has actually been denied their rights.

I know people won't like me saying it but actually forcing the Christians to make the cake in this case is a denial of rights, and the Christians refusing to make a cake of a gay couple is not a denial of rights.

& I don't say any of this in defense of the prejudice I feel is being shown by the Christians. I would suggest that Jesus wouldn't judge people and would probably make the cake. I don't like seeing anyone discriminated against for any reason. But as with a lot of things the response which feels right and the one which is right are not the same. & my defense of individual rights is a defense of women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities, all of whom incidentally have suffered denials of their rights in the past because people decided to use the Law as force against other people.

 

[Danny-Boy]

What's "gay marriage"? I thought everything was just "marriage", unless we have a "straight marriage" category.

Is there a "bi-marriage" too?

A lot of people I know are "married" to their pets. Particularly women and cats.

 

[dingodan]

if your religious beliefs mean that you are unable to comply with certain regulations in order to carry out a particular activity then simply don't take part in the activity.

This is the mentality of prejudice.

"If your sexuality means that you cannot conduct your sexual activity in accordance with certain regulations, then simply don't engage in sexual activity."

Your attitude is no different to those you would claim to be against.

 

[CherryInHove]

This is the mentality of prejudice.

"If your sexuality means that you cannot conduct your sexual activity in accordance with certain regulations, then simply don't engage in sexual activity."

Your attitude is no different to those you would claim to be against.

It's entirely different.

Gay people are just asking to be able to live their lives without being prejudiced against whereas these Christian groups are asking to be able to be prejudiced against people for something that is entirely outside of their control.

 

[GT49er]

This is the mentality of prejudice.

"If your sexuality means that you cannot conduct your sexual activity in accordance with certain regulations, then simply don't engage in sexual activity."

On the other hand, that sounds totally fair, and not prejudice at all, if applied to a person whose sexuality is paedophilia.

 

[KVLT]

It's entirely different.

Gay people are just asking to be able to live their lives without being prejudiced against whereas these Christian groups are asking to be able to be prejudiced against people for something that is entirely outside of their control.

Exactly. What the hell is it with these religious imbeciles and gayness anyway. It should only be an issue to them if they themselves are being made to be gay. As far as they're concerned someone who is nothing to do with them will burn in hell - SO FECKING WHAT!

 

[GT49er]

Exactly. What the hell is it with these religious imbeciles and gayness anyway. It should only be an issue to them if they themselves are being made to be gay. As far as they're concerned someone who is nothing to do with them will burn in hell - SO FECKING WHAT!

For somebody who seems to be very anti-religion, it is most strange that you appear to believe in the concept of hell.

 

[Hamilton]

I am a Jedi. Will they be creating laws to protect me so that I may carry my light sabre?

 

[dingodan]

On the other hand, that sounds totally fair, and not prejudice at all, if applied to a person whose sexuality is paedophilia.

Do you consider that to be a "sexuality"?

Do you think homosexuality and pedophilia are comparable? Because I don't.

 

[Hamilton]

Coming soon. Legal protection to those that oppose the existence of black people.

UKIP, the peoples' party (as long as you're prepared to overlook the fact that we're financed by rich white blokes and run by a career politician - alright, anyone for a pint ha ha ha ha!)

 

[KVLT]

For somebody who seems to be very anti-religion, it is most strange that you appear to believe in the concept of hell.

Really? Is that the best you've got?

Slang definitions & phrases for hell:

An exclamation of disgust, regret, emphasis, etc : Oh hell, they're back/ Hell, darling, I didn't mean it. (Source = dictionary.com)

Who'd have thought that words have multiple uses and meanings.

 

[dingodan]

It's entirely different.

Gay people are just asking to be able to live their lives without being prejudiced against whereas these Christian groups are asking to be able to be prejudiced against people for something that is entirely outside of their control.

If a baker decides that they don't want to make a cake for someone, anyone, that decision is not stopping anyone from living their lives, or most importantly, it is not using force against anyone.

What you have to understand is that if you are for forcing the Christians to make the cake, then you are defending the attitude that banned gay marriage in the first place.

If you want to defend gay people so that they can live their lives without interference from anyone else, then you have to defend everyone's right to live their lives without interference from anyone else.

Like MLK said, Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If you truly believe in protecting peoples rights in a consistent and principled way, it tends to be the unpopular that you have to look out for.

Once it was gay people who were marginalized & unpopular, who needed to be stood up for against the majority. In the same way, in this context, it's now those with religious faith who we should be defending.

All we have been doing is reversing the use of force and using it in the other direction, what we need to do is abandon the notion that anyone should have force used against them, homosexual, Christian, or otherwise.

 

[Creaky]

You can't use Law to use force against other people.

You have a right to your life, and you have a right to your property, and you have a right to live free from interference and force from anyone else, so long as you are not interfering with or using force against anyone else.

You don't have any right to a cake, or a taxi ride.

I do understand where you are coming from, but equality is for the law. We must all be treated equally before the law. The idea that we must all treat each other equally is something very different from the protection of peoples rights. For every person "treated equally" in this way there is another person who has actually had force used against them, and has actually been denied their rights.

I know people won't like me saying it but actually forcing the Christians to make the cake in this case is a denial of rights, and the Christians refusing to make a cake of a gay couple is not a denial of rights.

& I don't say any of this in defense of the prejudice I feel is being shown by the Christians. I would suggest that Jesus wouldn't judge people and would probably make the cake. I don't like seeing anyone discriminated against for any reason. But as with a lot of things the response which feels right and the one which is right are not the same. & my defense of individual rights is a defense of women, ethnic minorities and sexual minorities, all of whom incidentally have suffered denials of their rights in the past because people decided to use the Law as force against other people.

You are mixing up 'rights' and 'duties'.

Everyone has a duty under the law not to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
Everyone has the right under the law to be treated withouted prejudice based on their sexual orientation.

No matter how you present it, if someone offers a service to the general public they have a duty to offer that service to everyone, irrespective of their race, colour, religion or sexual orientation.