Will the Lefty Loons protest at the Swiss consulate?

Graces7

DontThankMe wrote: »

From my reading of the article it was a perfectly reasonable decision. If they don't want to integrate into society then they shouldn't be granted citizenship and it's not as if what they were being asked to do to gain citizenship was crazy or ridiculous.

it was crazy and ridiculous to ,make it a qualification.. are they all freemasons?

Graces7

RobertKK wrote: »

If they can't shake hands because of the sex of someone, you should tell them it is backward, it is what most people would think whether they liked it or not.

in what way backward? it is backward and worse not to respec t the mores of incomers.

RobertKK

Graces7 wrote: »

depends what you mean by "accept". and no. a vote does not make something that is inherently wrong, right.

It doesn't make it right. one can see hypocrisy from some of these people who publicly campaigned for the recent referendum.
But we as a nation usually accept the result of a vote.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

Most people believe in the democratic process and accept the outcome of the various votes.

There's nothing to suggest that these people wouldn't accept a democratic decision. It's not the law that you have to shake hands. And that was never decided by a democratic poll. And it would be frankly weird to pass a law saying you have to shake hands.

The point is that they wouldn't shake hands. There's no evidence that they wouldn't accept a democratic decision.

Whereas we have people who refuse to marry gay people or dispense abortion medication. They are refusing to do something that was decided by law. Do you think they should have their citizenship revoked? Or should they be jailed? Should we refuse entry to Christians who are pro life and anti gay?

Or is it ok when a christian refuses to do something because of their silly religious belief but not ok when a muslim doesn't?

RobertKK

Graces7 wrote: »

in what way backward? it is backward and worse not to respec t the mores of incomers.

Why move to a country, if you go with the intention of showing no respect to local customs and practices?
If is the person who moved there that has to show the respect, one has to earn respect, one doesn't get it by seeing themselves above the norms in the society.

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest that these people wouldn't accept a democratic decision. It's not the law that you have to shake hands. And that was never decided by a democratic poll. And it would be frankly weird to pass a law saying you have to shake hands.

The point is that they wouldn't shake hands. There's no evidence that they wouldn't accept a democratic decision.

Whereas we have people who refuse to marry gay people or dispense abortion medication. They are refusing to do something that was decided by law. Do you think they should have their citizenship revoked? Or should they be jailed? Should we refuse entry to Christians who are pro life and anti gay?

Or is it ok when a christian refuses to do something because of their silly religious belief but not ok when a muslim doesn't?

I have been to Switzerland, I have seen them do things that is particular to Switzerland. It is admirable and you know you are in Switzerland. They want to protect that.
If people are looking for citizenship of Switzerland and can't even shake the hands of the people who can grant it, then it is not the Swiss who have the problem.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

I have been to Switzerland, I have seen them do things that is particular to Switzerland. It is admirable and you know you are in Switzerland. They want to protect that.
If people are looking for citizenship of Switzerland and can't even shake the hands of the people who can grant it, then it is not the Swiss who have the problem.

You completely ignored the point of the post. Should we stop Christians from coming to a country if they have conscientious objections, because of their religion, against gay people and abortions?

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

You completely ignored the point of the post. Should we stop Christians from coming to a country if they have conscientious objections, because of their religion, against gay people and abortions?

People don't have to agree with abortion, every country has people who oppose the killing of the unborn. It is not like everyone accepts the killing of the unborn as something to be admired and many countries allow conscientious objection to people in the medical sector to not take part in abortions.
Most people don't care if someone is gay, bisexual or whatever and anyone who does has too much time on their hands if that is a problem.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

People don't have to agree with abortion, every country has people who oppose the killing of the unborn. It is not like everyone accepts the killing of the unborn as something to be admired and many countries allow conscientious objection to people in the medical sector to not take part in abortions.
Most people don't care if someone is gay, bisexual or whatever and anyone who does has too much time on their hands if that is a problem.

But we're having arguments in this country at the moment about pharmacists not giving an abortion pill because of their religious objections. So you think it's ok to not give a pill because of religious reasons but not shaking hands because of religious reasons is wrong.

And as for the bolded bit, you think anyone who campaigned against gay marriage had too much time on their hands? Maybe you think that no-one should be allowed to refuse to marry gay people because of their religion? Priests, in countries where they officiate the official service as well as the religious part, should have their ability to marry people removed because they won't apply it equally.

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

But we're having arguments in this country at the moment about pharmacists not giving an abortion pill because of their religious objections. So you think it's ok to not give a pill because of religious reasons but not shaking hands because of religious reasons is wrong.

And as for the bolded bit, you think anyone who campaigned against gay marriage had too much time on their hands?

Doctors won't have to adminster the abortion pill if they object and you want pharmacists to?
I think marriage shouldn't be regulated by the state, the relevancy of state involvement in marriage is something from the 19th century, over a third of births are outside marriage, the referendum should have been less state involvement in personal lives, not more.

keith_sixteen

Graces7 wrote: »

it was crazy and ridiculous to ,make it a qualification.. are they all freemasons?

I'm raising my daughter in Switzerland. I'm delighted the Swiss are rejecting those who would treat her as inferior.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

Doctors won't have to adminster the abortion pill if they object and you want pharmacists to?
I think marriage shouldn't be regulated by the state, the relevancy of state involvement in marriage is something from the 19th century, over a third of births are outside marriage, the referendum should have been less state involvement in personal lives, not more.

It's not about what I want. I do think doctors and pharmacists should do the job they're paid to do but like I said, what I want isn't the point. The point is that their religious believes prevent them from doing something that the state said should be available and legal. It's their religious believes that prevent them from doing something the country said, in an official poll, was ok. Their religious believes prevent them from doing something the majority think is ok.

And you're dodging the question again. The fact is that gay marriage was accepted by a vast majority of the state. Should people who officiate marriages be allowed discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

The point of all my posts here, something that you've been avoiding, is this. A person can have their citizenship refused based on the fact that they would not shake hands because of religious reasons. Why is it ok to refuse one person because their religious beliefs don't fit in with the norm and not to refuse others. The majority of this country voted in favor of gay marriage and abortion. It may be that someone coming into this country could affect the lives of people by their refusal to prescribe or dispense an abortion pill. They could affect someone by refusing to marry them. They will not affect someones life by refusing to shake hands.
Yet it's considered ok to refuse someone citizenship based on hand shaking but not the others?

Sugar Free

While I agree with the decision, the people saying good riddance etc. are a little misguided. The article doesn’t give enough details but it’s likely they were already permanent residents, more commonly referred to as a C Permit.

So they’ll simply continue living in Canton Vaud as before, just without their red passport. They certainly won’t be on a plane back to their home country in North Africa.

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

It's not about what I want. I do think doctors and pharmacists should do the job they're paid to do but like I said, what I want isn't the point. The point is that their religious believes prevent them from doing something that the state said should be available and legal. It's their religious believes that prevent them from doing something the country said, in an official poll, was ok. Their religious believes prevent them from doing something the majority think is ok.

And you're dodging the question again. The fact is that gay marriage was accepted by a vast majority of the state. Should people who officiate marriages be allowed discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

The point of all my posts here, something that you've been avoiding, is this. A person can have their citizenship refused based on the fact that they would not shake hands because of religious reasons. Why is it ok to refuse one person because their religious beliefs don't fit in with the norm and not to refuse others. The majority of this country voted in favor of gay marriage and abortion. It may be that someone coming into this country could affect the lives of people by their refusal to prescribe or dispense an abortion pill. They could affect someone by refusing to marry them. They will not affect someones life by refusing to shake hands.
Yet it's considered ok to refuse someone citizenship based on hand shaking but not the others?

It was not religious reasons, if a person can't shake the hand of another person it tells a lot.
These people wanted citizenship, the people whom they refused to shake hands with were trying to help them and instead got the equivalent of 'you are below us, won't shake your hand'.
People can blame religion if they want, but in Switzerland, shock/horror people expect to be respected and not treated as inferior in their own country.
It was not hard to shake hands, they can go to Sweden where they will be compensated if the same happens, at least their country has no immigrant problems...the far right expected to get into power soon...

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

It was not religious reasons, if a person can't shake the hand of another person it tells a lot.
These people wanted citizenship, the people whom they refused to shake hands with were trying to help them and instead got the equivalent of 'you are below us, won't shake your hand'.
People can blame religion if they want, but in Switzerland, shock/horror people expect to be respected and not treated as inferior in their own country.
It was not hard to shake hands, they can go to Sweden where they will be compensated if the same happens, at least their country has no immigrant problems...the far right expected to get into power soon...

So their refusal to shake hands had nothing to do with their religion at all? You're certain of this. If it was religious, would you be ok with it?

Grayson

Bootlegger wrote: »

If you are so pig ignorant that you won't shake someones hand because 'muh holy koran' then you should piss off somewhere else.

I thought this had nothing to do with religion?

Could you guys who are in favor with this get together and get your stories straight?

Grayson

Bootlegger wrote: »

Maybe the geniuses should not have tried to move to a Western nation if something as simple as handshake was so offensive to them?

Maybe they should have moved to a country that's tolerant is what you're saying?

keith_sixteen

Grayson wrote: »

Maybe they should have moved to a country that's tolerant is what you're saying?

Clueless. Switzerland is one of the most tolerant countries on Earth.

Odhinn

keith_sixteen wrote: »

Clueless. Switzerland is one of the most tolerant countries on Earth.

...didn't give women the national vote until 1971....some cantons didn't allow women vote on canton issues until the 1990's...some cantons had laws against couples "living in sin" until the 1980's & 90's.

keith_sixteen

keith_sixteen wrote: »

Clueless. Switzerland is one of the most tolerant countries on Earth.

Odhinn wrote: »

...didn't give women the national vote until 1971....some cantons didn't allow women vote on canton issues until the 1990's...some cantons had laws against couples "living in sin" until the 1980's & 90's.

Is.

Was.

Zebra3

So there's no protest after all?

Terrible stuff. Now the OP must be really upset!

2 Scoops

DontThankMe wrote: »

From my reading of the article it was a perfectly reasonable decision. If they don't want to integrate into society then they shouldn't be granted citizenship and it's not as if what they were being asked to do to gain citizenship was crazy or ridiculous.

Westernyelp

The Swiss are not known for tolerance also they are no craic.

keith_sixteen

Westernyelp wrote: »

The Swiss are not known for tolerance

I reckon the Muslim couple in question should look up the word tolerance in the dictionary.

Roger Hassenforder

Grayson wrote: »

Should we stop Christians from coming to a country if they have conscientious objections, because of their religion, against gay people and abortions?

If a country's laws was so anthema to ones beliefs, I imagine one should look elsewhere for citizenship.

Becoming gay and/or having an abortion arent a mandatory condition of gaining citizenship in Ireland. And the Irish are now as free to be as gay as they want, and soon to abort away (Terms and conditions apply). Or not to.