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

[CherryInHove]

So, you think it would be absolutely fine for a baker to refuse to make a cake for someone because they are black?

Edit - That was to dingodan.

 

[dingodan]

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.

Yes that's how the law works, but as I have said, it's not based on a correct understanding of what rights are. The end result of your logic is that a person can have a right to a cake, and so the baker must bake it or be denying someones rights. That's simply not true, and if you go down that road you always end up seeming to trade one persons rights for another. It's because of a misunderstanding about what rights really are. Nobody has a right to stuff or services provided by other people.

Rights must be protected by the Law, but they don't originate in Law making. The law once forbade gays from marrying, the law once forbade women from voting.

It's a subtle but important point to note that minorities in the past didn't have less rights, and then get more. They always had the same rights as everyone else, those rights were just denied. Rights are not given or taken away by lawmakers, they are only protected, or not.

 

[GT49er]

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.

"Burn in hell" very clearly defines one particular meaning.

 

[Hamilton]

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.

But it is.

The message that person is sending out is one of intolerance towards something which wider society has said is normal. It sends out a poor message.

The impact on the individual denied the cake, and the wider message to society - which in this case is basically trying to reinforce the idea that homosexuality is unacceptable - is damaging.

Same sex marriages are normal. Homosexuality is normal. Having brown hair is normal.

Even on a microlevel of pure convenience it is stopping people from living their lives. No, you can't buy a cake from this shop, go somewhere else. That's inconvenient and has stopped me living my life - even momentarily.

PS: I have brown hair.

 

[GT49er]

Do you consider that to be a "sexuality"?

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

Not the same thing by any means - worlds apart. But do paedophiles actually choose to become paedophiles, or is it something they're irrestably drawn to? (No, I don't know the answer, just asking, because I just can't imagine anybody doing that completely of their own free will).

 

[alfredmizen]

But it is.

The message that person is sending out is one of intolerance towards something which wider society has said is normal. It sends out a poor message.

The impact on the individual denied the cake, and the wider message to society - which in this case is basically trying to reinforce the idea that homosexuality is unacceptable - is damaging.

Same sex marriages are normal. Homosexuality is normal. Having brown hair is normal.

Even on a microlevel of pure convenience it is stopping people from living their lives. No, you can't buy a cake from this shop, go somewhere else. That's inconvenient and has stopped me living my life - even momentarily.

PS: I have brown hair.

You obviously dont know the correct meaning of the word if you define homosexuality as normal, I'm not passing judgement, but it's clearly abnormal.

 

[Hamilton]

You obviously dont know the correct meaning of the word if you define homosexuality as normal, I'm not passing judgement, but it's clearly abnormal.

Abnormal? You find homosexuality worrying? There may well be more heterosexuals than homosexuals I grant you, but it is not abnormal.

 

[KVLT]

"Burn in hell" very clearly defines one particular meaning.

Yes. And if you engage your braincell and read my post properly you will see that I am speaking from the bigoted Christian's perspective when I say that.

Quote = "As far as they're concerned someone who is nothing to do with them will burn in hell - SO FECKING WHAT!"

We've covered words and their different uses, have we now got to move on to lesson two where we focus on context?

Deary me!

(PS: That doesn't mean I'm expensive).

 

[dingodan]

But it is.

The message that person is sending out is one of intolerance towards something which wider society has said is normal. It sends out a poor message.

The impact on the individual denied the cake, and the wider message to society - which in this case is basically trying to reinforce the idea that homosexuality is unacceptable - is damaging.

Same sex marriages are normal. Homosexuality is normal. Having brown hair is normal.

Even on a microlevel of pure convenience it is stopping people from living their lives. No, you can't buy a cake from this shop, go somewhere else. That's inconvenient and has stopped me living my life - even momentarily.

PS: I have brown hair.

You need to consider what is passive and what is active.

Doing something is active. Not doing something is passive.

As for sending out messages, we can't legislate to control what "messages" are sent out. I agree with you that in this case it sends a bad message. But you are saying that someone should decide what is a good and what is a bad message. I would remind you that homosexuality was once illegal for this very same reason. Because certain people felt it sent out a "bad message". So if you are going to defend the policing of "messages" then you are defending the means which have been used in the past to deny gay people their right to live as they choose.

You just think it's Ok, because you are sure that these "messages" are bad ones. & I agree.

But that's what homophobic legislators thought too. We have to stop trying to control other people, not because our intentions are not pure, they are. But because we forget that when we leave behind a legal apparatus which tries to manage what "messages" something sends, we will be leaving behind the very structures which could allow the wrongs of history to repeat. We don't know or control who will be legislating in 2025. Could they be a bigot? If they are they can use what you are arguing for, and they can use it to punish the very minorities that you propose that it will protect.

I'm suggesting that we break that cycle, and I know it's counter intuitive, but protecting homosexuals and other minorities long term starts with protecting everybody without exception, and regardless of how we feel about them.

 

[alfredmizen]

Abnormal? You find homosexuality worrying? There may well be more heterosexuals than homosexuals I grant you, but it is not abnormal.

It quite clearly is.

 

[Hamilton]

You need to consider what is passive and what is active.

Doing something is active. Not doing something is passive.

As for sending out messages, we can't legislate to control what "messages" are sent out. I agree with you that in this case it sends a bad message. But you are saying that someone should decide what is a good and what is a bad message. I would remind you that homosexuality was once illegal for this very same reason. Because certain people felt it sent out a "bad message". So if you are going to defend the policing of "messages" then you are defending the means which have been used in the past to deny gay people their right to live as they choose.

You just think it's Ok, because you are sure that these "messages" are bad ones. & I agree.

But that's what homophobic legislators thought too. We have to stop trying to control other people, not because our intentions are not pure, they are. But because we forget that when we leave behind a legal apparatus which tries to manage what "messages" something sends, we will be leaving behind the very structures which could allow the wrongs of history to repeat. We don't know or control who will be legislating in 2025. Could they be a bigot? If they are they can use what you are arguing for, and they can use it to punish the very minorities that you propose that it will protect.

I'm suggesting that we break that cycle, and I know it's counter intuitive, but protecting homosexuals long term starts with protecting everybody without exception, and regardless of how we feel about them.

I disagree. In this case the passive act is in a very active act. The act of refusal on the grounds of sexuality is denying that person a freedom that would otherwise be extended to someone else. That is something which we can, and should legislate against in order to advance a free society for all.

I see your point with regards to over-legislation, but in this case, extending rights to protect those that wish to deny others access to services based upon a way of life which society accepts would be a backwards step. The crowd - despite what the internet would have you believe - rarely does a good job of self-policing.

 

[Creaky]

Yes that's how the law works, but as I have said, it's not based on a correct understanding of what rights are. The end result of your logic is that a person can have a right to a cake, and so the baker must bake it or be denying someones rights. That's simply not true, and if you go down that road you always end up seeming to trade one persons rights for another. It's because of a misunderstanding about what rights really are. Nobody has a right to stuff or services provided by other people.

Rights must be protected by the Law, but they don't originate in Law making. The law once forbade gays from marrying, the law once forbade women from voting.

It's a subtle but important point to note that minorities in the past didn't have less rights, and then get more. They always had the same rights as everyone else, those rights were just denied. Rights are not given or taken away by lawmakers, they are only protected, or not.

I never said that anyone has the right to any goods or services provided by other people BUT they do have the right to be treated the same as anyone else without being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

Likewise suppliers of goods or services have a duty to treat all their potential customers the same irrespective of their sexual orientation. They do not have the right as you have defined it to refuse their goods or service to anyone based on them being gay, nor for that matter if they have red hair or long noses. They may not be breaching their duties under the law in the case of the latter two examples but they are certainly denying red haired or long nosed people their rights.

You are correct that individuals have rights based on humanity outside of the law but the point you are missing is that the law imposes duties on their citizens which may well infringe on their individual rights for the good of society.

Removing such duties from certain individuals, in this case Christian cake makers, will deny gay individuals their rights, which you have recognised, and will not be for the betterment of society as a whole.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

This is not sexual discrimination... "gay" is not a sex

It's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is also wrong.

 

[Hamilton]

It quite clearly is.

Oh.

In that case, I'll leave you to your bigotry and we'll part.

Perhaps one day a relative will let you know that they are gay and you'll see it as less worrying and undesirable.

 

[dingodan]

I disagree. In this case the passive act is in a very active act. The act of refusal on the grounds of sexuality is denying that person a freedom that would otherwise be extended to someone else. That is something which we can, and should legislate against in order to advance a free society for all.

I see your point with regards to over-legislation, but in this case, extending rights to protect those that wish to deny others access to services based upon a way of life which society accepts would be a backwards step. The crowd - despite what the internet would have you believe - rarely does a good job of self-policing.

There is no extending of rights, a person has a right to make or not make a cake for anybody. It's just a question of whether that right will be defended or not.

Nobody has a right to any product or service. I want everyone to have access to every product or service that they want. But every product and service is delivered through the voluntary action of somebody else. So while I want everyone to have cake, I cannot control the baker, the same as I cannot control a homosexual. Both should be free of what I think they ought to do, and for that matter what anyone else thinks they ought to do too.

 

[Hamilton]

There is no extending of rights, a person has a right to make or not make a cake for anybody. It's just a question of whether that right will be defended or not.

Nobody has a right to any product or service. I want everyone to have access to every product or service that they want. But every product and service is delivered through the voluntary action of somebody else. So while I want everyone to have cake, I cannot control the baker, the same as I cannot control a homosexual. Both should be free of what I think they ought to do, and for that matter what anyone else thinks they should do.

You are right, but what if we look at this from the grounds for refusal angle. I have no right to the cake if I am unreasonable in my requests, or if the supplier can not deliver to my time, price or location. Also, if I were to use the product or service to break the law, then that is good grounds for refusal. But my colour, my gender, my sexuality? That is not good grounds for refusal. If someone is going to offer cakes for public purchase then they need to be held to account for their grounds for refusal if they are irresponsible surely?

 

[Creaky]

There is no extending of rights, a person has a right to make or not make a cake for anybody. It's just a question of whether that right will be defended or not.

Nobody has a right to any product or service. I want everyone to have access to every product or service that they want. But every product and service is delivered through the voluntary action of somebody else. So while I want everyone to have cake, I cannot control the baker, the same as I cannot control a homosexual. Both should be free of what I think they ought to do, and for that matter what anyone else thinks they should do.

A person has the right to make or not make a cake - they do NOT have the right, either under the law or in humanity to refuse to do so because someone is gay.

Where do you get the idea that people have a moral right to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, colour, race or any other human trait?

 

[alfredmizen]

Oh.

In that case, I'll leave you to your bigotry and we'll part.

Perhaps one day a relative will let you know that they are gay and you'll see it as less worrying and undesirable.

Did you miss the part in my original post where I said I wasn't passing judgement ? To try to pretend homosexuality is normal is quite clearly wrong , some people are homosexual , some people are heterosexual, get over it, heterosexual is quite clearly the norm, you reveal the usual bigotry and intolerance of those on the left by attempting to paint me as possessing these traits with no evidence in my post that would suggest this, either that or you're just not very bright and that is the limit of your argument.

 

[Diego Napier]

You obviously dont know the correct meaning of the word if you define homosexuality as normal, I'm not passing judgement, but it's clearly abnormal.

You are clearly passing judgement if you state that homosexuality is abnormal.

 

[alfredmizen]

You are clearly passing judgement if you state that homosexuality is abnormal.

No, just stating a fact.