Home › Forums › Chat Forum › Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin…
- This topic has 295 replies, 73 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by cfinnimore.
-
Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin…
-
joao3v16Free Member
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.
geetee1972Free MemberI’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.
wreckerFree MemberI was thinking more a kind of Death Metal outfit
I reckon it fits JLS perfectly. Maybe Boyzone too.
NorthwindFull Memberduckman – 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
binnersFull MemberSo 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
LiferFree Memberbwaarp – 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.
bencooperFree MemberAh 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?
bwaarpFree MemberThis 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.
geetee1972Free MemberThis 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?
Zulu-ElevenFree MemberSome 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!
bwaarpFree MemberHow 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.
mikeconnorFree MemberYou 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?
joao3v16Free MemberAh 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.
mikeconnorFree MemberAh 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.
geetee1972Free MemberI feel very much at odds with most of the arguments on here which is odd because I’ve spent a large part of my adult life standing up for equality and for the rights of all groups, in particular the gay community.
So please know that I do not like the idea of the argument I am putting forward.
I do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.
I am ‘against’ the idea of religion and I share the view that it is almost certainly a ‘temporary insanity’ as Aurthur C Clarke put it.
But I also recognise that if you’re going to identify groups within society that must be protected from bigotry then that protection must be applied to all groups, for as long as it does cause conflict with other groups.
You need exceptions to protect people during a transition. In 20 years time, everyone will know that if you’re going to make the free choice to set up a B&B, then you better be prepared to allow access to people of all sexual persuasions.
Exceptions should protect those caught in that transition period and only those.
binnersFull MemberWhat, 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?
Michael. Its a simple statement of fact that if the gayers started getting militant, and donning suicide vests along with their leather chaps, then far less people would be discriminating against them.
In fact, its an even more effective tactic. Seriously …would you want someone with a suicide-belts detonator switch in their sweaty palm, while off their head on GBH and poppers?
I rest my case
geetee1972Free MemberWhat is the arbitrary ethical line that would allow the former and disallow the latter
How about common sense? Just like you would get a different sentence to reflect different crimes. We can therefore agree that not all crimes are equally as bad and the law is not black and white; there are shades of grey.
bencooperFree MemberI do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.
Again, that’s the same word trick that often gets played.
Religious groups are not being marginalised, they’re having their special privileges removed so they are equal to everyone else.
bwaarpFree MemberI do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.
No they are not, they are just having to comply with the laws of the land like everyone else. They should be offered no exemption based on religous belief.
Exceptions should protect those caught in that transition period and only those.
And when is that transition period deemed over?
bencooperFree Memberthe law is not black and white; there are shades of grey.
How many shades of grey? And is that kind of thing allowed in a B&B?
wreckerFree MemberYou need exceptions to protect people during a transition. In 20 years time, everyone will know that if you’re going to make the free choice to set up a B&B, then you better be prepared to allow access to people of all sexual persuasions.
But these laws are relevant NOW and have by and large improved the lives of many and I believe have a positive affect in society.
It was only in the 80’s footy fans were chucking bananas on the pitch.30 years on and we’re horrified by the behaviour of the serbs. If it’s approached too softly, people won’t take it seriously.binnersFull MemberYou need exceptions to protect people during a transition. In 20 years time, everyone will know that if you’re going to make the free choice to set up a B&B, then you better be prepared to allow access to people of all sexual persuasions.
What about someone who’s half rice/half chips, and is having an indecisive weekend, so brings both?
pleaderwilliamsFree MemberBut I also recognise that if you’re going to identify groups within society that must be protected from bigotry then that protection must be applied to all groups, for as long as it does cause conflict with other groups.
You can’t prevent bigotry because that is a state of mind, and, at the moment at least, we have no government authorised mind control. Discrimination is illegal and the law does apply equally to all groups! If I ran a B&B and refused to allow Christians I could be prosecuted, just as the Christian couple who refused to allow homosexuals were.
GrahamSFull MemberI do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.
But this isn’t about marginalising Christians. It is about marginalising bigots.
The fact that these bigots happen to be Christian is entirely irrelevant.
Or at least it should be.bwaarpFree MemberHow about common sense? Just like you would get a different sentence to reflect different crimes. We can therefore agree that not all crimes are equally as bad and the law is not black and white; there are shades of grey.
Common sense? How the **** is it common sense if you have no ethical or rational argument to treat religion differently in the eyes of the law to everyone else.
You are marginalizing me, as an atheist.
geetee1972Free MemberYou can’t prevent bigotry because that is a state of mind, and, at the moment at least, we have no government authorised mind control.
We do actually. It’s called ‘hate crime’ and it allows for offences that are racially or otherwise aggravated to be given differential sentences.
Also, inciting racial hatred is a crime. If I stand up and preach hatred and intolerance against Muslisms, I could be arrested and prosecuted for it.
mikeconnorFree MemberIts a simple statement of fact that if the gayers started getting militant, and donning suicide vests along with their leather chaps, then far less people would be discriminating against them.
Ah, i see you’re doing yourt usual ‘this discussion’s a bit too intellectual for me to get to grips with, so i’ll just make stupid provocative statements my mates down the pub might find amusing’ trick. Forgive me for taking you seriously, I shall endaevour not to do so in future. Enjoy your inebriation.
It was only in the 80’s footy fans were chucking bananas on the pitch.30 years on and we’re horrified by the behaviour of the serbs. If it’s approached too softly, people won’t take it seriously.
Exactly. Nothing to do with ‘ultra-liberalism’ or any other such crap.
MrsToastFree MemberWhat was that saying – Love the sinner but hate the sin? I personally have no problem with people taking up any religion, whether it’s worshipping the Abrahamic god in any of its flavours, following the Ancient Norse, Greek or Hindi pantheons, Buddhism or Pastafarianism – ‘tis all the same to me. However, if they commit discriminatory, violent or otherwise illegal acts, even if it’s in the name of their religion, they’re fair game for prosecution and a good old fashioned shunning.
As much as people like to justify their homophobic/racist/misogynist beliefs as being dedicated to god – you can’t quote the Bible, the Qu’ran or the Torah as back up, because they’re a mish mash of largely contradictory nonsense. Thou shalt not kill, unless they’re a witch, worked on the Sabbath, have committed adultery – in which case, crack right on my lovely. Live in harmony with Christians and Jewish people, because they’re people of the Book, apart from when we’ve changed our mind and decided they should convert or die.
Religion changes with the times and eventually jettisons the elements that become socially unacceptable – when was the last time you saw even the most devout of Christian women popping down to the Church to burn a couple of pigeons to be cleansed of her period? Or a Christian bloke doing the same because he became unclean by talking to the menstruating woman? Should we allow Christians to keep slaves, as long as they’re from a neighbouring nation? Or allow those of faith to put to death those pesky people who keep on insisting on working on the Sabbath?
geetee1972Free MemberCommon sense? How the **** is it common sense if you have no ethical or rational argument to treat religion with positive discriminatory practices?
Not sure what you mean here?
D0NKFull MemberWe do actually. It’s called ‘hate crime’ and it allows for offences that are racially or otherwise aggravated to be given differential sentences.
Geetee I think he was referring to what goes on in ones head ie you can hate gay/black/29er-riding people but you can’t vocalise or act upon it.
joao3v16Free MemberHang on everyone, turns out we’re massively over-reacting
“The couple at the bed and breakfast made it clear that they didn’t want unmarried couples at all sharing a bed in their room”
So, turned away for not being married, nothing to do with being gay …
😉
Zulu-ElevenFree MemberAlso, inciting racial hatred is a crime. If I stand up and preach hatred and intolerance against Muslisms, I could be arrested and prosecuted for it.
You sure about that?
I was under the impression that Muslim was not a race, it was a religion – therefore you could only be arrested if you used actually Threatening words to stir up religious hatred, stirring up hatred by being abusive or insulting about Moslems would not be enough, you have to actually threaten.
Edit:
So, turned away for not being married, nothing to do with being gay …
Good point! 😈
mikeconnorFree Memberwhen was the last time you saw even the most devout of Christian women popping down to the Church to burn a couple of pigeons to be cleansed of her period?
Interesting. I’ll mention this to my girlfriend, although perhaps not when she’s a bit pre-menstrual.
Or allow those of faith to put to death those pesky people who keep on insisting on working on the Sabbath?
Ah, I suspect I’ll be yet again called upon to act as a Shabbos Goy tomorrow. Probably be needed to press a doorbell or something. I doubt i’ll be put to death though.
D0NKFull MemberSo, turned away for not being married, nothing to do with being gay …
and bugger me I do believe several large Christian organisations are pretty hot on gays not being able to get married and have lobbed their toys out of their privileged direct line to parliament pram when the marriage equality thing came up.
LiferFree MemberCougar – Member
What exactly do you mean by “marginalised” here, GT?Interested too. What with it being the state religion and all. And having representation in our legislature.
birdyFree MemberA few other points; people have said if it’s OK to discriminate against the gay couple would it be OK to do so against blacks for example.
No it wouldn’t but no one is claiming the right to do that on religious grounds. Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith; being black isn’t.
Historically people have used the bible to justify both apartheid in South Africa and slavery in the US.
D0NKFull MemberHistorically people have used the bible to justify both apartheid in South Africa and slavery in the US.
you can read pretty much anything into it you want, tis a useful book to have and of course claiming to have a god on your side will always help swing an argument.
I get your point about not picking up on every little thing geetee lest it be used against liberalism but a couple of guys went on holiday and were discriminated against and (rightly if they so wish) kicked up a fuss. If you tell them to stop making a fuss and leave the poor marginalised christians alone you let stupidity/bigotry “win” and they will continue to act in that way and send out a very bad message that it’s ok to do this and gay people should put up with it.
The topic ‘Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin…’ is closed to new replies.