The Hazards of Belief

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

Aren't people working in shops like Boots etc. allowed refuse to sell contraceptives based on religious grounds? I think the printer could use the same defense in this situation. I think it's a somewhat bogus defence, but it seems to work.

There is a difference here though, and I think it is one that the courts are keen use. If a person believes that contraception is wrong then forcing them to provide contraception can be considered to be an unacceptable burden. They are, in effect, facilitating the wrong doing.

A printer, on the other hand, by printing a newsletter or magazine is not facilitating the act that is the subject of the material. It might be argued that by printing the magazine might, somehow, indirectly facilitate gay sex, but I would not expect the courts to find that particularly convincing.

To give a real world example, has anyone heard of the case of the two Glasgow midwives? They conscientiously objected to abortion and they took a case claiming that having to supervise other midwives that did work on abortions violated their human rights. The court did not agree, as they were not directly involved in the provisioning of abortions their conscientiously objection was not held to be violated.

MrP

Gbear

MrPudding wrote: »

This has nothing to do with overstepping the bounds of tolerance. As a businessman he is bound by the equality act. And just like he could not refuse a job because the customer is black, he can't refuse because the customer is gay. The fact that he is too stupid/honest to hide the fact that he is discriminating on a protected ground is neither here nor there. The law is there to prevent discrimination. Do you not agree with reducing discrimination?

MrP

Whether he wants to discriminate because they're gay, or because he doesn't like the look of them or because it's a fella who slept with his wife makes no odds to me. He should be allowed to print what he wants.

It's a bit like having a gentleman's club banned because they don't allow women in. Discrimination should be solely down to the person running the business and the reasons for doing so should be immaterial.

If you don't like it, go to another publisher.
The state, of course, has to represent it's citizens but a private business shouldn't.

SebBerkovich

Gbear wrote: »

Whether he wants to discriminate because they're gay, or because he doesn't like the look of them or because it's a fella who slept with his wife makes no odds to me. He should be allowed to print what he wants.

It's a bit like having a gentleman's club banned because they don't allow women in. Discrimination should be solely down to the person running the business and the reasons for doing so should be immaterial.

If you don't like it, go to another publisher.
The state, of course, has to represent it's citizens but a private business shouldn't.

I disagree, it's the governments job to ensure that no entity private or otherwise discriminates against it's citizens

If what you're saying where true then no private company would bother hiring women, because they might decided to have a kid and cost a poor harmless corporation money.

Gbear

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I disagree, it's the governments job to ensure that no entity private or otherwise discriminates against it's citizens

If what you're saying where true then no private company would bother hiring women, because they might decided to have a kid and cost a poor harmless corporation money.

Except they would, because women are worth hiring regardless.

And it's not like you can really police it. All you're stopping is them telling the candidate outright "we won't hire you because you're a women". That sort of discrimination happens regardless.

I don't think that it's the government's business to decide what opinions are or are not valid.

SebBerkovich

Gbear wrote: »

Except they would, because women are worth hiring regardless.

And it's not like you can really police it. All you're stopping is them telling the candidate outright "we won't hire you because you're a women". That sort of discrimination happens regardless.

I don't think that it's the government's business to decide what opinions are or are not valid.

Certain opinions are not valid. it's that simple. some people out there are stupid -really stupid. If someones stupid opinion has been proven overwhelmingly to harm other people or society in some way, it is not valid and the government should protect it's people with laws...

e.g. Hate crime legislation, equal pay act and work discrimination legislation.

The government has a right/mandate to protect it's citizens from other peoples bigotry.

If I went in and asked for him to print the same gay stuff I'd likely be turned down, so it's pretty obvious that it's the material rather than the person he's discriminating against and I'm fine with that. If it was politics or football-related (can't choose that! :pac: ) or just about anything other than teh gays there'd be no issue and the person who had been turned down would sensibly say "**** you, I'm glad I'm not giving you my money."

Gbear

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Certain opinions are not valid. it's that simple. some people out there are stupid -really stupid. If someones stupid opinion has been proven overwhelmingly to harm other people or society in some way, it is not valid and the government should protect it's people with laws...

e.g. Hate crime legislation, equal pay act and work discrimination legislation.

The government has a right/mandate to protect it's citizens from other peoples bigotry.

First of all.. can open, worms everywhere. What on earth was I thinking getting into this debate.:p

You're quite correct that certain opinions are not valid. However, I don't trust the government to decide which is which. That they're deciding one particular opinion is verboten correctly isn't really important. The fact that they're correct is incidental. They could just as easily be wrong.

To give an example - once upon a time a government took it upon itself to regulate where people of different skin colour could go to the toilet or sit on a bus. Up until quite recently being gay was illegal. Were those decisions justified because they were popular?

I don't want governments to make better decisions in these circumstances. I don't want them to be the ones making the decisions at all because I don't trust them to.

joseph brand

Robertson: God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science.

On Monday’s episode of CBN’s The 700 Club, Robertson responded to a viewer who wanted to know why “amazing miracles (people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking) happen with great frequency in places like Africa, and not here in the USA?”

“People overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools,” the TV preacher laughed. “We’re so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out. We know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real.”

“We have been inundated with skepticism and secularism,” he conintued. “And overseas, they’re simple, humble. You tell ‘em God loves ‘em and they say, ‘Okay, he loves me.’ You say God will do miracles and they say, ‘Okay, we believe him.’”

“And that’s what God’s looking for. That’s why they have miracles.”

Seems legit! God awards ignorance.

Brian Shanahan

The Black Oil wrote: »

Wouldn't someone then argue that their human rights, were undermined by having to against their personal beliefs in order to comply with equality legislation, and they weren't allowed to exercise freedom of conscience? At least, that is what seems to come across as a sticking point when some of these cases end up before the courts as the oppressed Christian routine gets thrown around...or something.

They'd fall foul of European human rights legislation, like the woman, Lillian Ladele, who refused to perform her registry duties in the case of same sex Civil Partnerships in the UK. And even that one* who "won" her case to wear religious iconography at work, only won because her employer, British Airways, in an effort to compromise with her had previoulsy changed their rules on wearing religious symbols. And it is interesting to note that no mention of her other cases, namely to proselytise aggressively to other BA employees, and "pray the gay" out of homosexual passengers, never got near the courts so laughable they were.

* I know the woman's name, but I won't darken myself to speak or type it.

Hotblack Desiato

Gbear wrote: »

Discrimination should be solely down to the person running the business and the reasons for doing so should be immaterial.

Right.
So would you be OK with a guest house owner refusing to accommodate a gay couple?
Or an inter-racial couple?
Or even just an unmarried heterosexual couple?
No blacks, no dogs, no Irish?

Telling a gay man there are other printers he can use is exactly the same as telling a black man there are other counters he can eat lunch at.

ninja900

ninja900 wrote: »

Right.
So would you be OK with a guest house owner refusing to accommodate a gay couple?
Or an inter-racial couple?
Or even just an unmarried heterosexual couple?
No blacks, no dogs, no Irish?

Telling a gay may there are other printers he can use is exactly the same as telling a black man there are other counters he can eat lunch at.

Again, you need to prove that it was because he was gay that the printer didn't want to do it rather than the material he wanted printed. If a printer/publisher is going to be compelled by law to print whatever someone requests then I think we're going down a very odd path given that the internets is going exactly the opposite way.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, you need to prove that it was because he was gay that the printer didn't want to do it rather than the material he wanted printed. If a printer/publisher is going to be compelled by law to print whatever someone requests then I think we're going down a very odd path given that the internets is going exactly the opposite way.

They can and are compelled by law not to refuse business on the basis of an illegal form of discrimination.

Drawing a distinction between homosexuals (yay!) and homosexual acts (boo!) is exactly what the RCC does isn't it - it's OK to be gay but not to get a pro-gay leaflet printed? How is this position any different, or any more defensible, than the ludicrious RCC position?

But it wasn't the sexual persuasion of the the client that was the issue, so I don't see how it's discrimination.

Hotblack Desiato

That was the point I was making in the second paragraph of my post. In practice I think the distinction being made is a false one, a smokescreen.

Cork Boy

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

If a printing press can refuse to print, say pro FF literature for FF, then he's ok me thinks.

Regarding the analogy to refusing a black man in a pub i think it's different because by refusing him a pint you are refusing him a service he would normally render to white customers.

If a straight man were to have printing services declined for a sex-ed mag on the basis that printing promotion of birth control isn't something the printer wants to do as he's a papist... would that be [illegal] discrimination?

Now, if he refused to print something for a gay person that he prints for a straight person - then he's in trouble.

I'm an atheist btw, very staunchly so.

ninja900

ninja900 wrote: »

That was the point I was making in the second paragraph of my post. In practice I think the distinction being made is a false one, a smokescreen.

So publishing a magazine is a typical homosexual act? I don't think so, it's something that an individual wanted to do, I don't think there's quite the same strength of correlation between being gay and publishing a gay-centric magazine and being gay and performing gay sexual acts.
I'm not gay though, I don't know what they get up to.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

So publishing a magazine is a typical homosexual act?

No, but there is legal precedent that a business (guesthouse) can't refuse service on the basis that they dislike homosexuality. I'm having difficulty seeing why it's then OK to refuse to print a leaflet with pro-gay content on the basis that the printer dislikes homosexuality.

I'm not gay though,

Glad you cleared that up :rolleyes:

ninja900

ninja900 wrote: »

No, but there is legal precedent that a business (guesthouse) can't refuse service on the basis that they dislike homosexuality. I'm having difficulty seeing why it's then OK to refuse to print a leaflet with pro-gay content on the basis that the printer dislikes homosexuality.

Is the legal precedent to with liking/disliking the person rather than the service being sought? I can't believe you can't see any difference.
Do you think if the potential customer had been looking to get something about fishing published that there would have been an issue? The issue appears to be with what he wanted published, not the fact that he is gay.

Hotblack Desiato

Actually the issue appears to be that the printer is a bigot, and thinks they can justify that with religion now whether they can, under the law as it stands, remains to be seen but morally I think that what they are doing is wrong.

ShooterSF

joseph brand wrote: »

Robertson: God gives fewer miracles to ‘too-educated Americans’ who learn science.



Seems legit! God awards ignorance.

You're talking about the same guy who punished people for eating from a tree of knowledge tbf.

SebBerkovich

ShooterSF wrote: »

You're talking about the same guy who punished people for eating from a tree of knowledge tbf.

Could he not just have made "The Turd of Knowledge" instead?
would have saved a lot of trouble for him...

Sarky

He could have built a castle on a 50 mile high mountain that shot down anyone trying to reach him while proclaiming his Plan, and performed daily miracles which he filmed and put on YouTube, and that would have saved a lot of trouble for everyone.

swampgas

Sarky wrote: »

He could have built a castle on a 50 mile high mountain that shot down anyone trying to reach him while proclaiming his Plan, and performed daily miracles which he filmed and put on YouTube, and that would have saved a lot of trouble for everyone.

... except John Waters would moan about God destroying the mysteries of creation, or something.

Sarky

He's just God, he's not a f*ckin' miracle worker.

endacl

I'm sure this must count as a 'Hazard of Belief'? That 'eye for an eye cr4p?

FFS?!?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22010122

PopePalpatine

endacl wrote: »

I'm sure this must count as a 'Hazard of Belief'? That 'eye for an eye cr4p?

FFS?!?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22010122

There's a thread on it in AH. Predictably, there's some in there hailing this as "justice".

recedite

a baby was abandoned in a wheelie bin before being rescued.The child’s mother had left a note saying the baby had “gone to a better place”.The child is now in foster care with a relative.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/baby-left-in-wheelie-bin-was-taken-into-care-29174486.html

Doctrine of the afterlife makes it easier to kill others, without losing sleep afterwards. Luckily this victim survived.

Nodin

Uganda is considering extraordinary measures against women's rights that would see women arrested for wearing miniskirts above the knee in public.
The proposed law would mark a return to the era of dictator Idi Amin, who banned short skirts by decree. It has met with a hostile reaction from many Ugandans and has spawned a Twitter hashtag, #SaveMiniSkirt.

The government-backed bill would also see many films and TV dramas banned and personal internet use closely monitored by officials.
Simon Lokodo, Uganda's ethics and integrity minister, defended the proposals. "It's outlawing any indecent dressing including miniskirts," he said on Friday. "Any attire which exposes intimate parts of the human body, especially areas that are of erotic function, are outlawed. Anything above the knee is outlawed. If a woman wears a miniskirt, we will arrest her."

Lokodo, a former Catholic priest, went on to suggest that victims of sexual violence have invited trouble because of the way they dress.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/05/uganda-ban-miniskirts-womens-right

Stupidity....is it the most prolific human trait...?

Hotblack Desiato

Simon Lokodo, Uganda's ethics and integrity minister, defended the proposals. "It's outlawing any indecent dressing including miniskirts," he said on Friday. "Any attire which exposes intimate parts of the human body, especially areas that are of erotic function, are outlawed. Anything above the knee is outlawed. If a woman wears a miniskirt, we will arrest her."

Lokodo, a former Catholic priest, went on to suggest that victims of sexual violence have invited trouble because of the way they dress.

And he'd probably have been able to remain true to his vows, too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids women brazenly parading their bare knees about the place.

Won't someone think of the men desperately trying to deny themselves a normal, natural, sexuality?

Nodin

ninja900 wrote: »

And he'd probably have been able to remain true to his vows, too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids women brazenly parading their bare knees about the place.

Won't someone think of the men desperately trying to deny themselves a normal, natural, sexuality?

especially areas that are of erotic function

Hmmmmmmm........

Definition of EROTIC
1
: of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire <erotic art>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/erotic

I see the 1st christian burkha ahead.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partialism

Hotblack Desiato

Anything can be erotic if you're convinced it's verboten...

Kivaro

Two infants in the last three months in New York City's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have been infected with herpes following a ritual circumcision.

One of the two infected babies developed a fever and lesion on its scrotum seven days after the circumcision, and tests for HSV-1 were positive, according to the health department.

The man who performs the ritual, known as the mohel, takes a mouthful of wine and then proceeds to orally suck the infant’s penis to cleanse the wound of any bacteria.

More here.

Nodin

One person has been killed in clashes outside Cairo's main cathedral following the funerals of four Coptic Christians killed in religious violence on Thursday.
Mourners leaving St Mark's Cathedral clashed with local residents.
Police fired tear gas to break up the violence. More than 60 people were injured, the state news agency said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22058570

Hotblack Desiato

Kivaro wrote: »

The man who performs the ritual, known as the mohel, takes a mouthful of wine and then proceeds to orally suck the infant’s penis to cleanse the wound of any bacteria.

There's no holy book that can make that s**t right.

SebBerkovich

ninja900 wrote: »

There's no holy book that can make that s**t right.

It's holy books that caused acceptance of this insanity. Nothing makes it right, but with these books people are deluded into thinking it is.

robindch

Kivaro wrote: »

Two infants in the last three months in New York City's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have been infected with herpes following a ritual circumcision.

On the plus side, the parents of the infected child declined to identify the nutter involved, so he can't be prosecuted. Neither did the parents sign the consent form that New York state mandated in January to prevent this kind of thing from happening:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/second-n-y-jewish-infant-contracts-herpes-from-controversial-circumcision-rite-1.513545

kylith

Lokodo, a former Catholic priest, went on to suggest that victims of sexual violence have invited trouble because of the way they dress.

I'd be very interested to hear what he would blame for all the sexual assaults in Arabic countries then.

The problem is not clothing; it's the dehumanisation of women that absolves men of their responsibilities to not act like barbarians.

Cossax

Wasn't quite sure where to put this as it's slightly amusing, slightly interesting and also a somewhat odd approach.

The Three Christs of Yosilanti.

The Three Christs of Ypsilanti (1964) is a book-length psychiatric case study by Milton Rokeach, concerning his experiment on a group of three paranoid schizophrenic patients at Ypsilanti State Hospital[1] in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The book details the interactions of the three patients, Clyde Benson, Joseph Cassel, and Leon Gabor, who each believed himself to be Jesus Christ.


...


While initially the three patients quarreled over who was holier and reached the point of physical altercation, they eventually each explained away the other two as being mental patients in a hospital, or dead and being operated by machines.[2]

Gbear

robindch wrote: »

On the plus side, the parents of the infected child declined to identify the nutter involved, so he can't be prosecuted. Neither did the parents sign the consent form that New York state mandated in January to prevent this kind of thing from happening:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/second-n-y-jewish-infant-contracts-herpes-from-controversial-circumcision-rite-1.513545

Surely there's a case for criminal negligence on their part then?

Allowing your baby to be fellated by some old fella is pretty clearly a case of child abuse.

endacl

Gbear wrote: »

Allowing your baby to be fellated by some old fella is pretty clearly a case of child abuse.

Too say nothing of the preceding genital mutilation. Adding insult to injury?

Kivaro

endacl wrote: »

Too say nothing of the preceding genital mutilation. Adding insult to injury?

Common sense goes out the window when it comes to religion.
I am so embarrassed by humanity some times.

Imagine trying to explain it to an Alien.

"Say what??" would be the response from a Betelgeusian.

joseph brand

Chalcedon Pastor: There is a place for slavery in godly cultures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSBauI1ETX4

In a recently posted YouTube sermon, The pastor of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church, Dr. Joe Morecraft says in a Biblical society, the godly must own “the fool who despises God’s wisdom” because it’s the only way to keep those with a “slave mentality” from ruining other people’s families.
Based on Proverbs 11:29, Morecraft makes a case for Biblically justified enslavement of a man who does not “trust in Christ” since slavery is the only way to “keep a fool under wraps.”
The dominionist pastor interprets the Proverb to predict that in a Christian theocracy, an unbeliever will “lose his family, his property, and his freedom,” and “his energies, talents and life will not be used as he himself pleases, but in the service of wise people who work hard to benefit the community.”
“Put him in somebody’s service where they can watch over him and make him do right even though he doesn’t want to do it.”
According to Pastor Morecraft, the consequences of being a “foolish person who is unwilling to live by the Word of God” is to “become a slave of somebody who is godly and who is wise.”

endacl

Kivaro wrote: »

"Say what??" would be the response from a Betelgeusian.

In classical Betelgeusian, or vulgar? Sorry, I can be a bit pedantic as regards language!

PopePalpatine

I'd say so too if I managed to hear that from intelligent life that evolved around a red supergiant. :eek:

Brian Shanahan

endacl wrote: »

In classical Betelgeusian, or vulgar? Sorry, I can be a bit pedantic as regards language!

Methinks demotic.

Nodin

From Christians with Beards.....

Feminism is a "very dangerous" phenomenon that could lead to the destruction of Russia, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church has said.
"I consider this phenomenon called feminism very dangerous, because feminist organisations proclaim the pseudo-freedom of women, which, in the first place, must appear outside of marriage and outside of the family," said Patriarch Kirill, according to the Interfax news agency.

"Man has his gaze turned outward – he must work, make money – and woman must be focused inwards, where her children are, where her home is," Kirill said. "If this incredibly important function of women is destroyed then everything will be destroyed – the family and, if you wish, the motherland."
"It's not for nothing that we call Russia the motherland," he said

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/09/feminism-destroy-russia-patriarch-kirill

Nodin

A Catholic nun has pleaded guilty to stealing nearly $130,000 (£85,000) from rural churches in the US state of New York to fuel a casino gambling addiction, police have said.
Sister Mary Anne Rapp, 68, was arrested in November when the theft was uncovered during a routine audit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22087338

They say the Bingo is an entry into the hard gamblin.

PopePalpatine

The money was just resting in her account. :pac:

Pherekydes

Nodin wrote: »

From Christians with Beards.....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/09/feminism-destroy-russia-patriarch-kirill

Such an insult to every Russian woman who fought, died and worked to defeat the Nazis in the Great Patriotic war.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

Patriarch Kirill [...]

Funny, I can't ever hear that guy's name without thinking of really, really expensive watches.

Here's a unique "Spot the Difference" for kremlinologists:

http://rt.com/news/patriarch-watch-photo-scandal-326/