[red rocket]

UK Minister for Communities and Local Government, Ruth Kelly, was on the radio again this morning, speaking about how of course it was acceptable for fanatical Christians to call homosexuals an "abomination under the eyes of God" because it was part of free speech, and their religious freedoms had to be respected.

So, apparently there are religious people out there who think hate speech is discrimination if it's done on secular grounds, but when it's done because of religious beliefs, it should be respected as free speech and religious freedom.

In my opinion, those people are scum.

Some links: 1 2 3

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

So, apparently there are religious people out there who think hate speech is discrimination if it's done on secular grounds, but when it's done because of religious beliefs, it should be respected as free speech and religious freedom.

Yes. Generally those people tend to be part of a government which wants to control your every move. The rest of us don't see the difference between secular "hate speech" and religious "hate speech" - it should all be free speech.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

In my opinion, those people are scum.

You have the wrong end of the stick. She's scum because she's Labour, not because she's religious.


My opinion on the background subject: I'll say what I like and provide services to whoever I like for whatever reasons I like, thanks. Just because someone's gay they don't get a free pass. There's no need for this legislation.

[Millennium]

It is indeed free speech, but that doesn't make her any less of a hypocrite. While the Bible describes some actions as wrong, and even describes a few acts as 'abominations in the eyes of God,' never once does it ever describe people that way for any reason. If she wants to say otherwise that's her prerogative, but she has no credible claim to scriptural backing. Given that she claims to follow the teachings of God and Jesus as laid down in the Bible, this makes her a hypocrite.

She does have a point on free speech, though.

[rambo47]

Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think I misunderstood the ballot.

Was I supposed to click the little box to the right - or the one above it?

Damn. I feel disenfranchised.

I thought I was voting for John Kerry.

[moodymonster]

she's a member of Opus Dei init - checking... yup, like the kinky/masochistic/whatever albino in the Da Vinci code.

there's probably something else happening - why else put her where she is? Same reason Two Shags is still there: chaff, ' good day to bury news' and all that jazz.

maybe I'm being mean, but she looks rather mannish.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

she's a member of Opus Dei init - checking... yup, like the kinky/masochistic/whatever albino in the Da Vinci code.

there's probably something else happening - why else put her where she is? Same reason Two Shags is still there: chaff, ' good day to bury news' and all that jazz.

maybe I'm being mean, but she looks rather mannish.

Da Da Vinci Code is known for being historically accurate and was nearly considered a documentary. All portrayals within the movie are based on truth and all characters are based on real life people.

Anyways, my fiance almost joined Opus Dei, and basically it would have meant a lil more praying through out the week, smile a little more, and thats about it.... Doesnt quite live up to the evil/spookiness shown in Da Vinci Code, reality can be a let down at times.

As this Kelly lady, its her right to be ignorant and to express her ignorance... at least in this country it would be.

[Doofy]

I don't like Kelly much, since she's a Labour MP. However, she's right on this one.

For our American friends who don't know what it's about, this is essentially to do with a bill which would remove people's freedoms. It's *not* about freedom of speech.

The bill will prevent businesses and organisation from refusing services to people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Now, while this is a good thing on the face of it, it'd mean that priests would be liable for prosecution if they refused to perform gay marriages in their church.

It'd also allow for small businessmen to be prosecuted. To illustrate, a few years back there was a case where a guy running a bed and breakfast refused services to a gay couple on the grounds that he didn't want them in his home (most B&Bs are in someone's home - essentially it's renting your spare bedroom out to tourists) and that he ran a family-friendly place. If this bill were passed, he'd have been prosecuted (rather than shunned by the leftist elite).

As far as I'm concerned, any private business owner should be able to conduct business with whoever they please, with no government intervention. If they don't want to provide service to someone because they're gay or have a full-face tattoo or their tits aren't big enough or they're wearing a blue t-shirt then that's their call, not the government's.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Doofy

For our American friends who don't know what it's about, this is essentially to do with a bill which would remove people's freedoms. It's *not* about freedom of speech.

The bill will prevent businesses and organisation from refusing services to people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Now, while this is a good thing on the face of it, it'd mean that priests would be liable for prosecution if they refused to perform gay marriages in their church.

It'd also allow for small businessmen to be prosecuted. To illustrate, a few years back there was a case where a guy running a bed and breakfast refused services to a gay couple on the grounds that he didn't want them in his home (most B&Bs are in someone's home - essentially it's renting your spare bedroom out to tourists) and that he ran a family-friendly place. If this bill were passed, he'd have been prosecuted (rather than shunned by the leftist elite).

As far as I'm concerned, any private business owner should be able to conduct business with whoever they please, with no government intervention. If they don't want to provide service to someone because they're gay or have a full-face tattoo or their tits aren't big enough or they're wearing a blue t-shirt then that's their call, not the government's.

Refusing gay people services is negative discrimination, the same as refusing services to black people, for instance. Legislation that protects one group of people's freedom to exercise negative discrimination against another group whilst protecting the first group from discrimination on the grounds that the group is religious is grossly unjust.

No special rights for religious people.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Refusing gay people services is negative discrimination, the same as refusing services to black people, for instance.

Yes, and unless that discrimination is fully legal, you don't have freedom.

The state and its mechanisms should not be allowed to discriminate for any reason other than "ability to do the job".

But a private businessman should be free to discriminate using any metric he so desires. Same for private organisations. If that private businessman is OK losing out on a sale because he doesn't want to do business with a Bajoran/Kilgon/Borg/Ferengi/Breen, then that's his problem - not the state's.
In fact, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the state. The state should provide a mechanism to enforce contracts (i.e. make sure nobody is ripping anyone off) but shouldn't be involved in deciding who a person does business with.

And if you think straight people never get refused entry to gay clubs solely because they're straight, you're in a fantasy world.

[red rocket]

Imagine you're applying for a job. You're fully qualified, but you're black. The employer tells you, "Sorry, but we don't hire n1ggers. Now f*** off."

You could take the employer to court, and you'd probably win.

Now imagine you're applying for a job. You're fully qualified, but you're gay. The employer tells you, "Sorry, but this is a God-fearing company and we don't hire faggots. Now go to Hell."

In Kelly's World, you couldn't do anything because the employer's religious prejudices are protected by law.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Imagine you're applying for a job. You're fully qualified, but you're black. The employer tells you, "Sorry, but we don't hire n1ggers. Now f*** off."

You could take the employer to court, and you'd probably win.

Now imagine you're applying for a job. You're fully qualified, but you're gay. The employer tells you, "Sorry, but this is a God-fearing company and we don't hire faggots. Now go to Hell."

In Kelly's World, you couldn't do anything because the employer's religious prejudices are protected by law.

In my world, you wouldn't be able to take the employer to court in either instance. If the employer wants to lose out on a potentially superb employee simply because he doesn't like something about that person, then it's his problem. His freedom to choose, even idiotically, should be preserved.

In the Internet age, how many employers are going to risk losing all their gay customers because they won't hire a gay employee?

You say "no special rights for religious folk". I say "no special rights for gay folk either".

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You say "no special rights for religious folk". I say "no special rights for gay folk either".

No special rights for anybody.

[moodymonster]

I would be more tactful, 'there was another applicant we felt more suited to the job' - or only notify the person getting the job.

I know it's not the issue, but... telling someone they didn't get the job 'cause of their colour/gayness/religion is just rude. Lying is so much easier.

[SirCastor]

I'd like to plug in here that Homosexuality is the abomination, whereas homsexual people are people who are sinning...

</conservative christian viewpoint>