[Closed] Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin...

Jesus was born a jew, surely?

Terry Christian? 🙂

Jesus was born a jew, surely?

No - he became Jewish. No-one gets born any religion.

WHAT?? JESUS WAS A JEW??? DO THE CHRISTIANS KNOW??

No-one gets born any religion.

He was born a Jew called Shirley?

This is getting really confusing now

I thought Jesus was Batman?

Or has popular music fooled me again?

No no no no, not at all, that was Bruce Wayne. Typical STW argument, quoting things out of context!

But anyway... Why are people making this a religious matter? Yes it's true that their religious beliefs guided them to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

However their religion does not say "Thou shalt not let bumming transpire in thine B&B". So they have a religious position of disapproval, but a personal and non-religious decision to act upon it.

Hate the sin but love the sinner, no?

"Thou shalt not let bumming transpire in thine B&B"

Why should people with discriminatory religious beliefs be allowed exceptions to the law

They are not as their right to religious freedom which is protected is limited in certain circumstances. The limitation applies where there is a conflict with other law, so the legislation dealing with gays etc would trump that right to religious expression. The question Geetee is raising is why should this be a one way street, why shouldn't the anti discrimination law for homosexuals have a similar limitation so everyone's rights are given equal weight. That is a perfectly sensible question.

How can a person be 'born jewish' (or any other religio for that matter)? religion is a lifestyle choiuce, not a genetic fact.

Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy

So what if I argue that my 'religious beleifs' should take precendent over any law then? Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

The B+B owners have the choice of either running a business and therefore complying with laws that apply to all people equally (as well as following whatever religion they choose of course), or exercising their personal bigotry and not running a business. they have that choice. The couple don't have a choice over their sexuality. That's the fundamental difference here. And if you can't understand that, then you need to go and have a long hard think about what Equality actually means.

His mum and dad had to sleep in a stable. He'd probably do the same. Following starts first? optional

"Thou shalt not let bumming transpire in thine B&B"

Coffee down the nose time again. Genius!!! 😆

Can't you see that you're all playing right into the far right's hands?

If you just passed an exception to the law on the basis of religious grounds and then left them to their own devices, you'd make things like this a non-story, you wouldn't stir up debate, you wouldn't polarise opinion and you wouldn't give idiots like Nick Griffin a platform on which to make points that people listen to.

By being so bloody militant about it, you really are making a rod for your own backs. And that's the problem with an ultra liberal agenda. It stops being liberal and starts being tyranny.

That is a perfectly sensible question.

No it's to. Because choosing to practice a code of behaviour which you believe allows you to discriminate against somebody because of their sex, gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc is not a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Therefore it's not a perfectly sensible question at all. Think about it.

If you just passed an exception to the law on the basis of religious grounds and then left them to their own devices, you'd make things like this a non-story, you wouldn't stir up debate, you wouldn't polarise opinion and you wouldn't give idiots like Nick Griffin a platform on which to make points that people listen to.

Ok then: Just say that my religious beliefs allow me to refuse entry to someone to my business because they are Jewish/Black/Disavbled etc. Can i be left to my own devices please?

Oh, thought not.

Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

Ummmm, I don't think being gay is a lifestyle choice. Some blokes like other blokes. I don't think they have much choice in it.

Hang on a minute. Is it the liberalism, generally, thats the tyranny? Or are we specifically talking about bumming in Christian B&B's now?

Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

Ummmm, I don't think being gay is a lifestyle choice. Some blokes like other blokes. I don't think they have much choice in it.
Ah. You meant the godsquads. Wups.

Bumming christians in B&Bs? Times change eh?

So what if I argue that my 'religious beleifs' should take precendent over any law then? Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

Two points here.

First, you're patronising reference to it being a lifestyle choice shows up you're own bigotry. Try seeing it from their perspective. It may look like a misguided choice to you and me, but it is point of fact to them. They BELIEVE that's the point and the problem.

Second, we already have exception to the law of discrimination. You CAN discriminate against any protected characteristics for example, where you can clearly show that the requirements of say a job, demand this.

So it's not illegal currently to deny a gay man access to the priest hood because that would be regarded as at odds with the job AS THEY SEE IT (they being the church/religion etc). SImiarly, you couldn't be ordained a catholic priest if actually you were a muslim and vice versa.

So there are exceptions. Always have been, always will be.

Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy. I wouldn't like it, but that's not the same thing.

Sorry but a liberal democracy should treat all people equally, that means not giving special exemptions and tolerance to religious belief.

Should terrorists be tolerated because slitting the throats of unbelievers is ordained by their religious beliefs? Can I make up my own religion in which I'm allowed to discriminate against heathen protestants?

Was it not all set up by a Gay rights group anyway? IIRC They advertised in Christian magazines (the B&B, NOT the gay rights group) and were chosen on the hope they would refuse a room.

A Tyranny of Bumming would make a great band name

A Tyranny of Bumming would make a great band name

Can't you see that you're all playing right into the far right's hands?

By letting Nick Griffin expose himself for the bigoted thug that he really is?

If you just passed an exception to the law on the basis of religious grounds and then left them to their own devices, you'd make things like this a non-story, you wouldn't stir up debate, you wouldn't polarise opinion

Yep, that's always the best way to deal with bigotry isn't it?
Keep quiet, don't make a fuss, and pass laws to allow it.

that's the problem with an ultra liberal agenda.

I'm not sure how you could define wanting gay people to have an equal right to goods and services as [i]"an ultra liberal agenda"[/i]. 😕

What would normal liberalism be exactly?

Ok then: Just say that my religious beliefs allow me to refuse entry to someone to my business because they are Jewish/Black/Disavbled etc. Can i be left to my own devices please?

As I already said, the law already allows for exemptions and these are used every day to discriminate against certain groups.

Why should people with discriminatory religious beliefs be allowed exceptions to the law

It may not be your eyes but it is in other peoples' and I believe that you need to reach a sensible middle ground - questioning whether the status quo achieves that is perfectly sensible. You can argue your case but the simple act of questioning the status quo is not bigoted or homophobic and if it wasn't allowed none of these rights would exist.

I was thinking more a kind of Death Metal outfit. Probably Swedish? Or possibly Japanese.....

Buohaharrarrrrrrrr

If you drive a 'rights' agenda for one group at the expense of another, then that's not equality its hegemony

I think some people need to learn the difference between a "right" and a privilege.

First, you're patronising reference to it being a lifestyle choice shows up you're own bigotry.

Religion is a lifestyle choice. Nothing more. I'm not being 'bigoted' at all, merely stating a fact.

Try seeing it from their perspective

Why should i, if I chose not to share their beleifs? Why don't they see it from mine?

Second, we already have exception to the law of discrimination. You CAN discriminate against any protected characteristics for example, where you can clearly show that the requirements of say a job, demand this.

Yes, and I pointed this out earlier. I think you failed to understand my point though.

So it's not illegal currently to deny a gay man access to the priest hood because that would be regarded as at odds with the job AS THEY SEE IT (they being the church/religion etc). SImiarly, you couldn't be ordained a catholic priest if actually you were a muslim and vice versa.

So there are exceptions. Always have been, always will be.

That there are holes in our legal system proves it to be an imperfect beast, and one which must always be scrurinised to find ways to improve it. Homosexuality was once illegal. It isn't now, because rational thought took over from religious beliefs, fear and bigotry, and equality prevailed.

Show me one person who's born a Christian, and I'll concede your point.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

So we're free to discriminate against Muslims, Hindu's, Atheists, Christians or anyone with any other religion-related beliefs?

No?

Didn't think so.

I'm not sure how you could define wanting gay people to have an equal right to goods and services as "an ultra liberal agenda".

You and everyone else is failing to see it from the other side.

I am in favour of equality for as long as it doesn't unduly infringe other group's beliefs. I think passing certain exceptions is ugly but necessary.

I was thinking more a kind of Death Metal outfit

duckman - Member

Was it not all set up by a Gay rights group anyway? IIRC They advertised in Christian magazines (the B&B, NOT the gay rights group) and were chosen on the hope they would refuse a room.

CITATION NEEDED

So we're free to discriminate against Muslims, Hindu's, Atheists, Christians or anyone with any other religion-related beliefs?

You can't discriminate against Muslims. They get a bit,... you know... a bit... explody!

Perhaps that what we need to ensure equality. Some militant terrorist gayers? Hmmmmmm

As well as the Japanese Death Metal/Boy bands, obviously

bwaarp - Member
Should terrorists be tolerated because slitting the throats of unbelievers is ordained by their religious beliefs? Can I make up my own religion in which I'm allowed to discriminate against heathen protestants?

This shows how absurd your argument is GeeTee.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

How is demanding that they comply with the same laws as everyone else being discriminatory?

The Christian church, especially, is very good at playing this word trick - "You're not giving due respect to our beliefs, therefore you're discriminating against us"

What if I said that it was my deeply and sincerely held belief that black people were dirty, and so weren't allowed in my shop? Would that be fine?

This shows how absurd your argument is GeeTee.

Arguing with crass satirical absurdity is how I roll

Although I wouldn't have to make up a religion to discriminate against protestants. Just realized you can do that as a Catholic.

This shows how absurd your argument is GeeTee.

Oh dear lord! Pun intended.

How is the turning away of a gay couple from a B&B even remotely analogous to a Muslim slitting the throat of an infidel?

Some years ago, SHAC and other animal rights protesters published shareholders addresses online and organised protests outside the houses of animal rights staff.

I don't recall the police rushing to protect their rights, they would turn up to prevent a breach of the peace, but did sod all to move them on - in fact I seem to recall that it was defended as protecting the protesters freedom of speech!

How is the turning away of a gay couple from a B&B even remotely analogous to a Muslim slitting the throat of an infidel?

What is the arbitrary ethical line that would allow the former and disallow the latter? Discrimination and murder are both illegal in the UK, hence both should be illegal with or without religious belief.

You can't discriminate against Muslims. They get a bit,... you know... a bit... explody!

What, all of them? Or just a tiny minority the gutter press crap you obviously read sensationalises as being representative of all Muslims?

Did you think that up all by yourself in that pub? Or did you have help?

Oh shit. The terminally offended are here.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

How is demanding that they comply with the same laws as everyone else being discriminatory?

That's not quite what I meant. I was commenting with regards to stuff being said about being gay isn't a choice whereas religious beliefs are, the implication (as I read it. or mis-read it) being that it was almost ok to make judgements about someone's lifestyle if it was their choice rather than who they were born as.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

Making people abide by the law rather than acting in a discriminatory manner is hardly 'discriminating', rather it's simply upholding rationality and common sense. If someone chooses to beleive in something that has no justification in a universal social context, then they are free to do so, but they are not free to discriminate based on such beleifs. i can't believe some people are struggling with this pretty straightforward concept.

Here is the issue simplfied, for those failing to understand how it all works:

The Law: 'You can run any business you want, as long as you obey the law'

The B+B owners: 'Oh but we want to run our business outside of the law'

The Law: 'You can't. It's illegal. You don't have a choice here'

The B+B owners: 'Oh you're discriminating agains us'

The Law: 'No; we're preventing you from discriminating agains others with no legal, pratcical or otherwise rational basis for your behaviour, in order to protect the rights of all people equally'.

Is it really so hard to understand? The B+B owners want to break the law and can't, so are attempting to use the claim of 'discrimination' to cover up their own bigotry. And failing. Rightly so too.