Tim Farron

I have provisions in my will to give money to religion based charities

Careful TJ some might try and test that! 🙂

BTW my Burnley work colleagues all hate Farron cos he’s a Rovers fan!

well how can they be Christians if they don’t accept the word of God, as higlighted in that link. More hypocrisy and make it up as you go along so it suits you. No wonder Aetheists get frustrated and angry at people with religious beliefs, as it is all so irrational

I assume that the distinction is that being gay means being sexually attracted to the same sex, which is something you have little choice over, and therefore is not in itself a sin, but gay sex, which is what is prohibited, is something you can choose to do or not do.

I think thats right mr Ape.

TJ, obliged.

Edit – was referring to the link.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

he recanted some of the previous laws – Lex talionis [ eye for an eye] for example but about homosexuality he said nothing other than he agreed with the laws of the prophets.

Its quite bizarre to argue he disagreed with god and the proof is he never said a word about something – still its the religious so no need for a rational evidence based point as they clutch at straws to explain why even they dont follow the word of god .

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

No guesses….

Paul wrote was precisely what Jesus intended, so much so that it could be said to be “God-breathed.” Jesus condemned homosexuality by means of Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality.

Assuming that to be the case: the tracts I commented on were – I think – all Paul’s writings. Paul did or didn’t condemn homosexuality depending on how you choose to translate the original text. It’s not definitive either way.

I assume that the distinction is that being gay means being sexually attracted to the same sex, which is something you have little choice over, and therefore is not in itself a sin, but gay sex, which is what is prohibited, is something you can choose to do or not do.

Pretty much the conclusion I drew. Except it’s not limited to “gay” sex, it’s anal generally which is verboten.

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

It really depends on the beliefs though, doesn’t it. If someone believes something abhorrent then is it bigoted to oppose those beliefs?

What if I was an employer who “didn’t want to hire ****”? Are you then the bigot for forcing me to hire them and giving me no choice?

So some liberals wanted to allow some people to choose whether they wish to do something that is against their beliefs or not while others want to impose that choice on them and given them no choice. And which ones are the bigots?

Easy one. the bigots are the ones who want to legitimise discrimination by public servants against homosexuals. If you don’t want to perform gay marriage resign your job as registrar. NO one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs only to ensure that public services are provided to all fairly and that there is no discrimination in a public service.

If you don’t want to perform gay marriage resign your job as registrar. NO one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs only to ensure that public services are provided to all fairly and that there is no discrimination in a public service.

Interesting

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

In this case, the amendment only applied to existing registrars, there was no question of anyone being denied a public service and thus being discriminated against, just certain people for whom the goalposts had been moved could opt out so someone else would have to be found. It seems to me a quintessentially liberal solution to the issue and thus the complete opposite of bigotry.

source please – genuine enquiry no agenda[news to me so interested]
ta

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130520/debtext/130520-0002.htm#13052013000002

New Clause 2(2) lays out continuing requirement to offer provision
New Clause 3(1) restricts to registrars at time of Act

“HOUSE!”

[sorry, troll bingo card filled up a bit quick there]

This link works

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

Well spotted – I wondered if someone had enough smarts to make that connection. IMO no

I think the main difference is not against a particular group of people but a type of service so does not discriminate against any particular group.

Nice try – close but no cigar

Mefty – its clear and simple homophobic discrimination.

No one would have been deprived of the right to get married, no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.

Lsaughable. to allow public servants to refuse to provide a service because of the recipients sexuality is allowing discrimination

By your reckoning any doctor could refuse to treat black folk. a paramedic could be called to a life threatening illness and refuse to treat them because they were a jew. a teacher could refuse to teach irish people. A catholic policeman could refuse to save a protestant person from being beaten

By your reckoning any doctor could refuse to treat black folk. a paramedic could be called to a life threatening illness and refuse to treat them because they were a jew. a teacher could refuse to teach irish people.

Not at all, the right to religious views is protected in law, none of those views are.

The right to your view yes but you are not allowed to discriminate in provision of goods and services. Plenty of law on this

I am really beginning to feel rather sorry for you as if you believe this nonsense. I thought yo were an inteligent and thoughtful chap but it appears you support homophobic discrimination

Ok – how about a policeman who is a member of the free kirk refusing to save a catholic from being beaten? A muslim doctor refusing to treat an alcoholic?

So mefty – do you think a evangelical Christian doctor should be able to refuse to treat a homosexual? A policeman who is a member of the united free kirk refuse to protect a catholic? ( united free kirk are historically very hostile to Catholics) A teacher refuse to teach someone who is gay?

None of those things require anyone to compromise their beliefs, and none of them are new rules that someone previously doing those jobs without a moral dilemma suddenly has imposed upon them creating a moral dilemma for them.

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that? Would you think it fair that all of a sudden you had to either do something you thought was wrong or resign from your job?

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that?

I fear you misunderstand atheism.

If the law was changed to say that as part of my job I was legally obliged to accompany a staff member whist they communed with Batman then I’d think they were somewhat silly but I’d nod and smile and go along with it if I had to.

Your fear is misplaced.

I thought yo were an inteligent and thoughtful chap but it appears you support homophobic discrimination

😀

Mefty, can we check that you are not Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, in disguise?

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

GPs are independent contractors rather than public employees, so there is a difference there in what they can be compelled to provide. In terms of actually delivering the abortion procedure, doctors who are against abortion would not tend to gravitate towards that particular service, I’d imagine.

If the law was changed to say that you had to pray with any patient who wanted you to do so, would you be ok with that? Would you think it fair that all of a sudden you had to either do something you thought was wrong or resign from your job?

somewhat hypothetical but you remember I put in my defense that I took a person in my care to church? I stood ,sat down,kneeled, closed my eyes etc at all the appropriate times etc. It would make zero difference to me. Praying is not offensive to me, just silly.

no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.

Indeed what is being entrenched is the right of the religious to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality- i rather suspect they would object if i had a special book that allowed me to treat them differently and the law specifically exempted me from legislation so i could do it

FWIW i agree it was a reasonable fudge but the religious need special exemptions from fairness/equality legislation and then they want to preach/lecture me about tolerance when I question their belief …the irony

Cheers for the link considere dme eduicated but I also noted this

No school shall be under any duty as a result of the guidance issued to promote or endorse an understanding of the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children that runs contrary to the designated religious character of the school.

Another get out clause t for those with the book.

the god of love and forgiveness is not that tolerant. No way i would worship that god ,i treat everyone equally
YMMV

Lsaughable. to allow public servants to refuse to provide a service because of the recipients sexuality is allowing discrimination

But that wasn’t the case

As Mefty said, No one would have been refused the right to get married,

It merely meant that that an (already employed) individual registrar was free to refuse to carry out the service, the local authority still had a duty to provide the service and an an alternative registrar would be provided instead

(1) No person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to conduct a marriage to which he has a conscientious objection if he is employed as a registrar of marriages on the date this Act comes in force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “conscientious objection” exists where the refusal to conduct a marriage is only that it concerns a same sex couple, and is based on the person’s sincerely held religious or other beliefs.
(3) This section is without prejudice to the duty of a registration authority to ensure that there is a sufficient number of registrars and superintendent registrars in that area to carry out the required functions.
(4) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it

In just the same way that a GP who doesn’t want to sanction abortion would refer a patient to a colleague, at no point is anyone denied a service, it just means that an individual is permitted to opt out of delivering that service

But that wasn’t the case

Why does that matter?

But that wasn’t the case

Comprehension fail
Services can still be accessed but individual employees can discriminate based on sexuality – these are just the facts- and he was correct
for example someone wont serve asians but the other assistant will[ in the shop] so you think no discrimination occurred by the person who refused to serve
It did but the business/service did notr

Not a hard distinction to grasp

What about small town with only one registrar? What about if all the registrar’s in an area refuse to conduct gay weddings?

ninfan

On that basis should doctors be allowed to opt out of authorising &/or performing abortions based on their religious beliefs?

They can and do – but have to ensure that there is in place a referral and service pathway which does not in any way discourage, disadvantage or shame the patient, Increasingly this is done via open access to specific service providers like BPAS.

For many years in my practice I saw the patients of one colleague – now retired – who had objections and I supported their patients through this.

And this is one tiny bit of a Drs role. Marrying people is a huge chunk of a registrars role…

Bottom line is, Farron’s socially conservative view and interpretation of the Bible in a particular way was at odds with the wider views of his party and he had to go,

somewhat hypothetical

Indeed, if not entirely hypothetical. I thought it might be something you would feel uncomfortable doing given your views on religion.

but you remember I put in my defense that I took a person in my care to church?

Yes, and that you go out of your way to accommodate those in your care has not escaped me.

that is it. Basically he was in the liberal party and he had illiberal views due to his faith as his god is a bigot.

its an interesting one great ape. To conform to the rituals ie the standing up and so on is no hardship. I’ll even kneel to ” let us pray” close my eyes and bow my head. But in my head I am thinking of other things
If the requirement was to say the prayers out loud I am not sure. the words mean nothing to me so little hardship to say them but it would feel somewhat hypocritical to parrot words you don’t mean.
I think that to follow the rituals on the surface is a courtesy. Many years ago I was in a cathedral with some Americans in a tour group. I got pretty angry with a couple ‘cos they kept their hats on – I thought that disrespectful and made them take their hats off.
But if told I had to say the words out loud? Hard to know until I was put in that situation.
You are a man of faith IIRC ( indeed it might have been you I insulted before 😉 ) Which is worse to you? to follow the rituals actions but not say the words or to say the words that you do not mean?

Honest answer there from me even if a little contradictory.

You are a man of faith

Although one who is quite wary of organised religion.

it might have been you I insulted before

Not that I recall

Which is worse to you? to follow the rituals actions but not say the words or to say the words that you do not mean?

I think the trick is to find the balance between being courteous/respectful to others without venturing into hypocrisy, and I think following the conventions (stand for this, sit for that, hats off etc.) are just good manners, and good manners are something which I am thoroughly in favour of 😀

Ta