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....
Chat Forum
Tim Farron
Advertisement
-
Posted 5 hours ago #
-
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.
Posted 5 hours ago # -
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 Pakis"? Are you then the bigot for forcing me to hire them and giving me no choice?
Posted 5 hours ago # -
Posted 5 hours ago # -
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.
Posted 5 hours ago # -
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?
Posted 4 hours ago # -
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.
Posted 4 hours ago # -
source please - genuine enquiry no agenda[news to me so interested]
taPosted 4 hours ago # -
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 ActPosted 4 hours ago # -
"HOUSE!"
[sorry, troll bingo card filled up a bit quick there]
Posted 4 hours ago # -
Posted 3 hours ago #
-
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
Posted 3 hours ago # -
Mefty - its clear and simple homophobic discrimination.
Posted 3 hours ago # -
No one would have been deprived of the right to get married, no one is being deprived of any rights, there is no discrimination.
Posted 3 hours ago # -
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
Posted 3 hours ago # -
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.
Posted 3 hours ago # -
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?
Posted 3 hours ago # -
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?
Posted 3 hours ago # -
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?
Posted 1 hour ago # -
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.
Posted 1 hour ago # -
Your fear is misplaced.
Posted 56 minutes ago #
Advertisement
Advertisement
Reply
You must log in to post.