Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Civil Partnership Bill passed by the Dail

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »
    Yeah it must be terrible for the poor Catholic hierarchy who no longer enjoy the freedom they once had - to abuse children, degrade women and preach from the pulpit that someone is going to (imaginary) hell because of their sexual preferences. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
    Alas it is not only Catholics who will have their freedom of opposition silenced under this bill.


  • Options
    #33
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    I was singling out catholicism as it has damaged this country the most


    Vatican Motto - "no child's behind left"


  • Options
    #34
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I drive for Dublin Bus. I don't think black people should sit at the front of my bus. I refuse to drive if there is a black person at the front. When I tell him to move to the back, some passengers clap and cheer. But most others couldn't actually give a shit. Most black people complain, but I don't have to change because it's against my morals. Yes, I realise that those black people are contributing to my wages, but it's OK because it's always been like this, right?


  • Options
    #35
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's not only Christians that are against this bill. Jews and Muslims are also obliged by their religious texts to oppose civil partnership.

    I hate using this word but I sense your attitude is very bigoted towards those wishing to express their belifes. Something that is very ironic for a person who has liberally thrown such words about in past discussions.


    The absense of a conscience clause in this bill will mean that people such as registrars, photographers or those responsible for parish halls, etc, will be forced to co-operate in acts they consider to be morally wrong. Or face a costly legal challange.

    This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots. Surely you can see this is anti-democratic?


    No, I genuinely have reservations about this bill and have come to the civil partnership thread in the LGBT forum to discuss the bill.
    How come no-one ever called for a conscience clause so that registrars could opt out or marrying divorcees?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #36
    Goodshape
    Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots.
    That's because they are bigots and they are wrong.

    If you are a state registrar then no, you should not be able to discriminate against a same sex couple any more than you should be able to discriminate against a mixed race couple.


    I wish there wasn't a need to legislate for common human ****ing decency and respect but "by Christ", I guess there is.

    "Religious freedom" in this regard is such an oxymoron it's beyond belief.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Goodshape wrote: »
    "by Christ"
    Didn't Jesus say "Love one another" - not "Love one another, in a strictly procreative married heterosexual context"?


  • Options
    #38
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    The problem isnt Jesus, its his f*cking fan club!


    (ps cool playlist Kirby, Opeth rules \m/)


  • Options
    #39
    azezil
    Registered Users Posts: 11,397 ✭✭✭✭azezil


    Aard wrote: »
    I drive for Dublin Bus. I don't think black people should sit at the front of my bus. I refuse to drive if there is a black person at the front. When I tell him to move to the back, some passengers clap and cheer. But most others couldn't actually give a shit. Most black people complain, but I don't have to change because it's against my morals. Yes, I realise that those black people are contributing to my wages, but it's OK because it's always been like this, right?

    You're a bus driver! cooooool ^_^


  • Options
    #40
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    T_T


  • Options
    #41
    TylerIE
    Registered Users Posts: 1,635 ✭✭✭TylerIE


    Aard wrote: »
    I drive for Dublin Bus. I don't think black people should sit at the front of my bus. I refuse to drive if there is a black person at the front. When I tell him to move to the back, some passengers clap and cheer. But most others couldn't actually give a shit. Most black people complain, but I don't have to change because it's against my morals. Yes, I realise that those black people are contributing to my wages, but it's OK because it's always been like this, right?

    Love the anecdote- will make use during my next run in :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Time to rename the bible the "Book of Troll" as that is all it seems to operate as these days especially on message boards.


  • Options
    #43
    Heebie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭Heebie


    The civil-partnership bill may be a step in the right direction... but it's also still a step in the wrong direction as well.. it sets a precedent that "nearly-identical but not equal" or "almost equal" is good enough.


  • Options
    #44
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's not only Christians that are against this bill. Jews and Muslims are also obliged by their religious texts to oppose civil partnership.

    There is no mention of 'civil partnerships' in any religious texts, at least be factual
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I hate using this word but I sense your attitude is very bigoted towards those wishing to express their belifes. Something that is very ironic for a person who has liberally thrown such words about in past discussions.

    You can express your beliefs all you want, just now you can't force them on others
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The absense of a conscience clause in this bill will mean that people such as registrars, photographers or those responsible for parish halls, etc, will be forced to co-operate in acts they consider to be morally wrong. Or face a costly legal challange.

    Registrars are employed by the state to do the states work. As for the others that is already enshrined in Equality law. They cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    This effectively silences people who may, for whatever reason have reservations about civil partnership and brands them bigots. Surely you can see this is anti-democratic?

    They can say what they want, they just cannot discriminate.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No, I genuinely have reservations about this bill and have come to the civil partnership thread in the LGBT forum to discuss the bill.

    I would like to know how you think that this bill limits religious freedom? You still have religious freedom, but you cannot force it on others.


  • Options
    #45
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Goodshape wrote: »
    That's because they are bigots and they are wrong.
    A bigot is a person who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. It is simply not true that people calling for the conscience clause are bigots. And such terms do not futher the discussion.
    Goodshape wrote: »
    If you are a state registrar then no, you should not be able to discriminate against a same sex couple any more than you should be able to discriminate against a mixed race couple.
    So you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?

    Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.
    Goodshape wrote: »
    "Religious freedom" in this regard is such an oxymoron it's beyond belief.
    Could you explain that?


  • Options
    #46
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    A bigot is a person who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. It is simply not true that people calling for the conscience clause are bigots. And such terms do not futher the discussion.
    And you think people who have a conscience clause are tolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, opinions? How so?

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?
    As I have mentioned photographers, hoteliers etc are already covered by the Equality legislation, it is already illegal for them to refuse a service based on someone sexual orientation
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.
    It is already illegal, you should check facts etc before debating things


  • Options
    #47
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    There is no mention of 'civil partnerships' in any religious texts, at least be factual
    You're right. Because civil partnerships weren't around when they were wrote.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    You can express your beliefs all you want, just now you can't force them on others.
    I agree. Which is why it is so important that a conscience clause is included in the Civil Partnership bill.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Registrars are employed by the state to do the states work. As for the others that is already enshrined in Equality law. They cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
    While it is true that registrars work for the state it is obvious that a persons moral and religious belifes will limit the persons ability to do their job as described.

    What I don't understand is why is this conscience clause such a problem? My estimation is two out of ten registrars will have no problem performing the ceremony. So why open those who are have reservations up to legal challanges? It simply isn't fair and goes against ones freedom of opposition.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    They can say what they want, they just cannot discriminate.
    Nobody is discriminating I don't even know how you could have got that.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    I would like to know how you think that this bill limits religious freedom? You still have religious freedom, but you cannot force it on others.
    How you one force freedom onto someone else? The only thing this conscience clause will do is protect innocent people with religious or moral belifes from costly legal battles by overzealous same-sex couples or so called "civil rights" interest groups.


  • Options
    #48
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    And you think people who have a conscience clause are tolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, opinions? How so?
    What do you mean by people who have a conscience clause?
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    As I have mentioned photographers, hoteliers etc are already covered by the Equality legislation, it is already illegal for them to refuse a service based on someone sexual orientation.
    Read my post. That is not what I asked him. I asked do you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    It is already illegal, you should check facts etc before debating things
    And you should really read peoples posts. Especially if you go to the bother of quoting them. In that post I was outlining what I believe in regards to this matter. I never mentioned what laws are currently in place. You seemed to pick that up and run with it yourself.


  • Options
    #49
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    And you think people who have a conscience clause are tolerant of differing creeds, beliefs, opinions? How so?

    Great point. If you have a conscience clause for one, you must have it for all. In that case you could expect to have a hotel chain which is run by a Jewish person declaring that they will host no more weddings for anyone but other Jews as they can not in good conscience play host to gentile celebrations.


  • Options
    #50
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You're right. Because civil partnerships weren't around when they were wrote.
    Then don't say it is against religious texts




    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    While it is true that registrars work for the state it is obvious that a persons moral and religious belifes will limit the persons ability to do their job as described.
    If your morals or religious beliefs prevent you doing your job that is their choice, either suck it up or get a different job. By the way does their religious beliefs that a civil marriage is not a marriage stop them marrying people in registry offices?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What I don't understand is why is this conscience clause such a problem? My estimation is two out of ten registrars will have no problem performing the ceremony. So why open those who are have reservations up to legal challanges? It simply isn't fair and goes against ones freedom of opposition.
    If I to express my freedom of opposition to paying taxes, do you also think I should not have to pay them?

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Nobody is discriminating I don't even know how you could have got that.
    Saying you will not do your job (i.e. as a registrar) just because the people involved are homosexual is discrimination no matter what way you look at it. Do you think that an atheist registrar should be allowed not to marry people with religious beliefs as it goes against their beliefs??

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    How you one force freedom onto someone else? The only thing this conscience clause will do is protect innocent people with religious or moral belifes from costly legal battles by overzealous same-sex couples or so called "civil rights" interest groups.
    Religious freedom means you are free to believe and practice your religion. I do no see how you think other sections of society having rights affects your religious freedom. Also as said previously there is nothing in religious texts about civil partnerships anyway.


  • Options
    #51
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What do you mean by people who have a conscience clause?


    Read my post. That is not what I asked him. I asked do you believe that a registrar, or even a non-state worker such as a photographer or the owner of a local hotel should be liable to legal challanges because their religion obliges them to turn down their services to a same-sex couple?
    Please show me where your religion tells a photographer he is not to take pictures of a homosexual couple, or any other examples you may have


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »

    Oh and for the record, yes. I do believe non-state workers such as photographers or hotel owners should have the right to turn down a mixed race couple. They should have the right to turn down anyone they want.

    So you're for outright discrimination against people based on anything, then?


    I think that statement alone is enough to show why people should pay no heed to any of your inane wittering. Now be a good boy and jog on, nobody here agrees with you, or is ever going to agree with you; and you have no place on here wibbling.


  • Options
    #53
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    iguana wrote: »
    Great point. If you have a conscience clause for one, you must have it for all. In that case you could expect to have a hotel chain which is run by a Jewish person declaring that they will host no more weddings for anyone but other Jews as they can not in good conscience play host to gentile celebrations.
    That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.
    IrishTonyO wrote:
    Then don't say it is against religious texts
    It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    If your morals or religious beliefs prevent you doing your job that is their choice, either suck it up or get a different job.
    Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Saying you will not do your job (i.e. as a registrar) just because the people involved are homosexual is discrimination no matter what way you look at it.
    No it isn't. I'll tell you what is though, forcing innocent people to act beyond their belifes or face legal challanges. Which is exaclty what the government and equality authority are doing at the moment by not including a conscience clause in this bill.
    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Religious freedom means you are free to believe and practice your religion. I do no see how you think other sections of society having rights affects your religious freedom. Also as said previously there is nothing in religious texts about civil partnerships anyway.
    Because good religious people like hotel owners or photographers are being refused the right to deny their services via state intervention. This challanges their religious opposition to same-sex couples. Opposition they are well entitled to hold.


  • Options
    #54
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I agree. Which is why it is so important that a conscience clause is included in the Civil Partnership bill.

    You realise that such a clause isn't going to be included, don't you?

    You're speaking as if it might still surface. It won't. The bill has passed the Dáil, it will pass the Seanad unhindered also. There is no conscience clause and never wil be - because thankfully even FF don't bow to pressure from bigots.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.

    So we should allow people to follow their religious texts to the letter then? Even the bits which are illegal in this state? Such as murdering infidels, adulterers, etc?

    The law of the land outweighs ANY religious texts in ALL cases.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.

    Hatred isn't a "good innocrent religious" belief.


  • Options
    #55
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.


    It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.


    Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.


    No it isn't. I'll tell you what is though, forcing innocent people to act beyond their belifes or face legal challanges. Which is exaclty what the government and equality authority are doing at the moment by not including a conscience clause in this bill.


    Because good religious people like hotel owners or photographers are being refused the right to deny their services via state intervention. This challanges their religious opposition to same-sex couples. Opposition they are well entitled to hold.
    Most of those quotes are mine not iguanas


  • Options
    #56
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    So you're for outright discrimination against people based on anything, then?
    Basically I believe that if you are a self-employed photographer or hotel owner then it is your right to deny services to however you want. And the state should not be able to take away those rights as they see fit.
    MYOB wrote: »
    I think that statement alone is enough to show why people should pay no heed to any of your inane wittering. Now be a good boy and jog on, nobody here agrees with you, or is ever going to agree with you; and you have no place on here wibbling.
    The only bigoted post I see here is yours. I have given my reasons why I believe that a conscience clause is important for this bill. Your first reply to me here is rude and condescending. Though I do not know what I have ever done to you. Perhaps it is an inferiority complex on your behalf.

    That is my first reply to you on this thread and if your attitude continues it will be my last. I have no intention of getting into a flame-fest with you.


  • Options
    #57
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    Most of those quotes are mine not iguanas
    Oops, sorry. My bad. :o


  • Options
    #58
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.

    Except it's not. If you decide to trade in the public domain you have to be open to all of the public. Everyone has a choice, trade publicly or don't. It's very straight forward and it allows total personal religious freedom.


  • Options
    #59
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That would be perfectly fine. It's their hotel so it's their business who they serve.
    Thankfully in all western democracies that is illegal

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It is against their faith. As described in their relgious texts. I don't understand how you can't get that.
    Again I will ask you to supply references for the religious texts you refer to. I do not recall the bible or anywhere telling photographers or anyone else not to be involved in civil partnerships

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Judging by the nature of that response. I am going to assume that you have absolutely no problem with good innocent religious people being legally challanged because they do not agree with your belifes. Sounds a lot like opression to me.
    I have no problem with them being legally challenged when they break this or any other law

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No it isn't. I'll tell you what is though, forcing innocent people to act beyond their belifes or face legal challanges. Which is exaclty what the government and equality authority are doing at the moment by not including a conscience clause in this bill.
    And if they did include a conscience clause they would be forcing 'your' belief on others.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Because good religious people like hotel owners or photographers are being refused the right to deny their services via state intervention. This challanges their religious opposition to same-sex couples. Opposition they are well entitled to hold.
    You really are living in the past if I am an atheist should I be allowed to refuse any service to you because you are religious? Maybe the state should deny all civil rights to religious people as the religious point of view is against the will of the state, which by the way is the will of the majority of it's citizens.


  • Options
    #60
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,703 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Basically I believe that if you are a self-employed photographer or hotel owner then it is your right to deny services to however you want. And the state should not be able to take away those rights as they see fit.

    So the state should not be allowed intervene to prevent racism, sexism and homophobia then?
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Perhaps it is an inferiority complex on your behalf.

    Inferiority to WHAT? Please, explain what on earth I'd feel inferior to you for?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    anotherlostie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭anotherlostie


    I guess this conscience clause would apply elsewhere, such as to allow someone working in the Department of Social Welfare not to process anything relating to single mothers if they don't believe in sex before marriage. :rolleyes:


Advertisement