« How should we select MEPs? | Main | Next year's Spring Forum »

Comments

This law needs to be killed off.
We all have rights, but why should the gay brigade, or any other have more rights than anyone else.
The suggestions and comments from supporters of this bill and government ministers is small minded and mealy mouthed and typical of the spin that we expect from NuLab. We had the same sort of guff from NuLab concerning the provisions of Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and that has already been abused. We have seen clergy and committed Christians arrested or questioned over comments made reflecting long held religious beliefs.
This country is losing its heart to a welter of laws designed to shut everyone up, and to make any debate or counter held beliefs or convictions a crime.
It is time for the people to stand up against big, interfering government and the lobbies of strident single interest groups, who would have primcy as minorities against majority viewpoints and standards and a government that would make opposition to its policies a crime.

I'm not sure quite why Lord McKay thinks the bill forcing religious people to "facilitate an act which their religions oppose" is any worse than similar legislation on the grounds of race or gender. Some people deeply feel that members of ethnic minorities are inferior but that does not excuse them refusing them service.

It is unfortunate that the legislation is necessary and it would be good if it never had to be invoked. It should be noted it will make it ipossible to bar straight people from gay venues if the good Lord wanted to go...


All "equality" legislation is totalitarian in nature, as it overturns freedom of association, freedom of contract, private property rights, freedom of speech, and reverses the usual burden of proof.

This is simply more totalitarian than most. The answer lies in repealing the vast majority of equality legislation that has grown up over the years.

The regulations are nasty and totalitarian, fully in keeping with this government. They create claim-rights where there should only be liberties.

"It should be noted it will make it ipossible to bar straight people from gay venues if the good Lord wanted to go"

Why shouldn't a nightclub or bar be entitled to restrict its clientele to homosexuals if that's what the owners want?

I accept this legislation is interfering, but totalitarian is pushing it a bit! And to suggest that gayas want more rights than anyone else is a gross exaggeration - it would be nice ot be treated as equals, as throughout most of society we now are.

I doubt any of us would want to reverse legislation on racial discrimination however much we dislike state control in principle adn the same should apply to sexual orientation.

I don't think treating people without regard to something over which they have no control is a particularly radical or distressing idea. If this site had been around in the past, doubtless the same usual suspects would have been complaining about equality for women and ethnic minorities. A crying shame.

"doubtless the same usual suspects would have been complaining about equality for women and ethnic minorities"

There's a difference between what I'm in favour of myself - treating people equally - and what I think should be imposed on others. Eg I'm in favour of state-sanctioned homosexual marriage but I don't believe churches should be forced to carry out gay marriages if they don't want to. It's one thing for the government to have non-discrimination policies, another for that government to impose itself on all walks of life. Apart from being anti-liberal; there's an inevitable clash between a claim-right not to be discriminated against and the right to freedom of religion, which is also recognised in the ECHR. One inevitably must trump the other.

But the bill won't force churches to conduct civil partnerships (they are explicitly not allowed to) and some churches have voluntarily been blessing same-sex couples for years.

Freedom of religion is not compromised by this bill - freedom for religious bigotry is. There is a difference between belief and action, and this bill only curbs the latter.

Fifty years ago you rabble would be excusing racism in similar terms - indeed the Dutch Reformed Church were doing so much more recently than that.

Please, no culture war and lets drop the archaic language.

No doubt one of the buggery opposed mob will be on later to display their repressed sexuality too.


Well put, Simon.

There are specifically noxious points to this though. One is that the burden of proof is reversed, so that the person accused of discrimination has to prove they didn't discriminate. Another is the very wide definition of "harrassment" contained within the regulations. As with the Mcphershon definition of "racially motivated incident" "harrassment" seems to be purely subjective, and for the "victim" to define.

"Totalitarian" is not, I think, excessive here. Anti-discrimination legislation never stops. Its scope is always increasing. First you have legislation against discrimination; then you have requirements on public bodies to have "targets" for the employment of certain groups; now, I learn from Personnel Today, the government is likely to adopt "contract compliance", and actually force private companies to discriminate *against* white job applicants.

Please everybody don't rise to the Marberry bait. I'm mpre and more convinced this person is just a troll.

"There is a difference between belief and action, and this bill only curbs the latter"

Winston Smith was free in that sense.

I agree there are difficulties with proving discrimination and I would certainly be against targets and quotas becuase they produce only superficial equality rather thanan actual equality of opportunity.

Having said that I don't think this bill goes anywhere near as far as that. As E L Marberry said, let's avoid the pointless "culture wars" that have bedevilled America for decades to no avail.

Simon Newman and Sean Fear put the liberal case against this totalitarian legislation well. In the process they demolish the arguments of Councillor Lindley.

Typical incoherent drivel from the New Puritan/cultural Marxist, E.L Marberry. Robert McIlveen forgets that the reason why there is a "culture war" in the US is because unlike here, the Right has not capitulated to cultural Marxism.

The law should where possible recognise the right of conscientious objection and we should be careful of imposing social attitudes on individuals. However in the public sphere there should be no discrimination.

The arguement here is about where the line is between public and private - it is not illegal to be racist or homophobic only to practice racism or homophobia in the public space. So is a private school, a church hospice, a private members club, a church or a bed and breakfast a public or private space. Laws on racism and smoking have made most of these public in some form.

I think where the law must tread most carefully is in religious organisations - in accomodation or business there's no real argument so if "Christians" don't want homosexual couples in a B&B then don't run a B&B, they wouldn't run a strip joint for moral reasons so if they have moral objections to couples sharing beds then don't do B&B.

"Laws on racism and smoking have made most of these public in some form."

Quite true. The legislative trend today is very much against admitting that such a thing is truly private property exists.

Sean Fear:
"There is a difference between belief and action, and this bill only curbs the latter"

Winston Smith was free in that sense.

Well said. This stuff absolutely is totalitarian - look the word up in a dictionary if you like.

Robert McIlveen:
"But the bill won't force churches to conduct civil partnerships..."

OK, if you want another example, I'm in favour of non-discrimination in hiring and I think the government should not discriminate between gay/straight, male/female or black/white, religious/atheist etc in government employment, but I don't think a church, club, or privately owned company should be prevented from doing so. Of course I should also be free to boycott the company that won't hire gays, women, blacks, Christians or whatever. That would be how a free society would work.

This is an EU innovation and if you look at Fremason Frattini's EU Website you can see the matter clearly.

If this Bill goes through it will lead to a backlash. There will be silly cases brought and silly cases dismissed with perhaps one or two false convictions.

The result will be to drive a wedge right through society as Muslims sever contact with the Establishment and retreat further into the Mosques.

The Church of England will corrode further and be replaced by Evangelical Christian groups and Protestantism which will be more determined to defend The Faith.

The political system will have set in train the kind of schism which caused it such problems in the 17th Century. The issue is not simply Religion it is whether The Law can be used to tell people what they must THINK............it is telling people to worship Caesar's Head on the coin.

This is where Socialist Regimes founder - when they demand total obeisance to their Law under penalty of punishment.

Sean, I agree: the whole backbone of cultural Marxism/New Labour thinking is that " the personal is political". Ted, this is hardly something that should be endorsed, unless you believe in state control of every aspect of people's lives.

Since the issue has been raised, I think I'd scrap the application of all "equality" laws to private individuals and privately funded bodies including businesses, while accepting that if a state takes money from its citizens by law, then when that money is being spent all citizens should be normally treated equally, unless there are very compelling reasons for taking account of their race, religion etc.

Beyond that I would restore the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by scrapping all supposedly supranational "human rights" laws and returning to the concept of "civil rights", ie the rights of the citizen, backed up by the traditional view that the Crown extends its protection to both subjects/citizens and aliens present within its territory, while in turn requiring them all to obey the law.

I doubt any of us would want to reverse legislation on racial discrimination

Whilst I understand the pragmatic case for such legislation, at the time it was created, in principle I am completely against the State telling anyone with whom they can do business. It should have been temporary.

Instead as Sean Fear says

Anti-discrimination legislation never stops. Its scope is always increasing.

The first piece of such legislation was the thin end of the wedge. As society has become more tolerant, instead of repealing existing laws, we see the government poking its nose into even more areas of our lives.

I don't think treating people without regard to something over which they have no control is a particularly radical or distressing idea. If this site had been around in the past, doubtless the same usual suspects would have been complaining about equality for women and ethnic minorities. A crying shame.

I am sorry that you have been so brainwashed by Cultural Marxism, Mr Lindley.

Neither Mr Newman nor Mr Fear, nor I, wish to see a society where people are ill treated because of whom they choose to sleep with, their possession of a Y Chromosome or due to their parentage.

All forms of violent & abusive behaviour are illegal, and should be so. Racial or Homophobic harassment, can be dealt with without destroying our freedom of association.

However, the left would rather outlaw certain types of thinking, than punish criminal behaviour. I am only sad that so many Conservatives wish to go along for the ride.


Apropos of nothing, Lord Mackay was a very good Lord Chancellor who, unlike others, typified by that waste of space Lord Irvine, was actually able to hold his own on the bench and delivered some lucid and clear judgements.

I think it's a shame that this has turned into a religious vs. gay debate, when really it should be about property rights. What business does the government have deciding who can sell what to who? If people are stupid enough to refuse business because of religious bigotry, let them suffer: toleration cannot be legislated into existence.

The loss of business might also make them rethink their views about homosexuality, helping to reduce the kind of prejudice which makes people such as Lord Mackay refer to homosexuality as a "practice", suggesting that there's an element of choice in the matter.

And where is Dave on all this?


To be fair, CDM, most contributors on this thread have focussed on issues of property rights and personal freedom.

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I am opposed to laws that specifically outlaw discrimination on the grounds of religion, or lack of it.

Michael - point I was trying to make was that as a society we need to be clear on those areas where laws on behaviour apply and those where people's right to privacy & personal preferences apply. It is far too blurred at present.
Tend to agree with CDM on property but having grown up in a country where black people had to enter stores through different doors and were served at different counters I can quite understand why discrimination in shops, hotels, lodgings etc cannot be allowed as it has very high social costs.

Why are christians so obsessed with homosexuality ? Is it all down to repression and bigotry? Homosexuality doesn't even break the 10 commendments.

Surely someone running a guest house will have far more customers commiting adultery, a far bigger sin according to the bible.

The Act is a good one - let's hope Cameron supports it.


Ted, were such businesses required by law to act in that way? That would of course be wholly wrong.

I think it would be commercial suicide for a British business to act in that way, even if it were lawful, but we've never had a legally enforced colour bar in this country.

The Act is a good one - let's hope Cameron supports it

Any reason to support that comment?

If people are stupid enough to refuse business because of religious bigotry, let them suffer: toleration cannot be legislated into existence.

A thought that I can support wholeheartedly

I think both sides can argue from a libertarian point of view. Is it really fair that a section of society can potentially be banned from every hotel, shop and restaurant in the country?

Just to offer a parallel, should a Christian hotelier be allowed to ban Muslims from their hotel. Indeed, away from the religious argument, should a white restaurant owner be allowed to have a no-blacks policy?

The answer to those questions is obviously no, so why should it be any different for gay people? Is it reasonable that people should be prevented from living a normal life for doing something completely legal and natural?

For what it's worth, I think it would be completely right to expose biggoted hotels, B&Bs and restaurants. I'm a bit more cautious about legislating on it, but I think it's probably a good law.

"Is it really fair that a section of society can potentially be banned from every hotel, shop and restaurant in the country?"

Market forces being what they are, the chance of that occurring is so remote as to be not worth considering.

The answer to those questions is obviously no

The answer is not obvious at all. A true libertarian argument would say that it is up to the owner whom he serves. (That is of course different for public services)

As Sean Fear keeps pointing out, and most people keep ignoring, the chance of a business in the UK being successful, whilst having an openly bigoted approach to service is next to zero.

The cost to our liberty and to businesses having to prove that they are not discriminating is massive, versus a very tiny benefit to society.

should a Christian hotelier be allowed to ban Muslims from their hotel.

If that "hotel" is a room in his own home do you believe a Muslim should be allowed to refuse to serve bacon to a non-Muslim guest?

Why are christians so obsessed with homosexuality ? Is it all down to repression and bigotry? Homosexuality doesn't even break the 10 commendments.

Because it is like Adultery and Incest and Bestality - it is alien to Judaeo-Christian Ethics. If you knew anything you would know that the 10 Commandments are not the mainstay of Christian Faith but the basis of the Mosaic Law.

You should read the Pentateuch.

Besides which I tire of your disrespectful approach. It is pure Narcissism that elevates your rights above mine Will, and it is simply a case that Christians, Muslims and Jews find certain forms of behaviour abhorrent and having a few lawyers say otherwise will comnvince them of nothing but the rightness of their belief.

Well here we go again - isn't it remarkable how Sean Fear can work himself into a lather about the injustice of the State intervening against discrimination for groups of which he personally disapproves (and using a liberal/libertarian perspective so to do), yet just a couple of weeks ago here he was on this very forum asserting how right it was for the State to discriminate in favour of married couples.

Precisely the same sort of hypocrisy that enables the "Christian Alliance" to demand that their right to discriminate against homosexuals is reasonable but who wouldn't dream of abiding by other Bible-sanctioned edicts some of which other contributors above have commented on, perhaps?

Simon Newman states:

"...there's an inevitable clash between a claim-right not to be discriminated against and the right to freedom of religion, which is also recognised in the ECHR. One inevitably must trump the other."

Evidently, Simon's position is that the freedom to discriminate should trump those of someone not to be discriminated against.

As a genuine libertarian and not one who happens to adopt these views only when they suit my prejudices, I respect Simon's right to hold that (irrational and illogical) position, but as the basis of my libertarianism is that anyone can hold any view and practice any act they like provided that it does no harm to others, I will oppose to my dying day his insistence that he has the right to impose his (cruel, illogical and oppressive) prejudices on anyone else.

Do I like the fact that such laws are needed in this day and age? Not at all. But would it not also be the case that without anti-discrimination laws black people in America would still be required to surrender their seats on buses, attend segregated schools and be treated as three fifths the value of free Americans?

I try not to impugn the motives of those who project all sorts of hysterical claims onto any legislation that seeks to rectify wrongs no tolerant and progressive civilisation would want to perpetuate but when faced with the inconsistency of their beliefs; applied only against groups of which they personally disapprove, I find it somewhat difficult.

"As with the Mcphershon definition of "racially motivated incident" "harrassment" seems to be purely subjective, and for the "victim" to define." - maybe in the sense of bringing the complain, but it is judges who will decide on the merit of those complaints so your point fails there.

-

"Homosexuality ... is like Adultery and Incest and Bestality - it is alien to Judaeo-Christian Ethics." - as are many other things some modern Christians are happy to turn a blind eye to, including in this case bearing false witness (the vile advertisement placed in newspapers by some Evangelical umbrella group was a cynical pack of lies).


In principle it would be perfectly possible for somebody to arrive in a country and find that because of his different skin colour nobody would provide him with food or shelter, people would set dogs on him and the children would throw stones at him, and he would be driven from pillar to post and left to die by the roadside.

In practice that would have been very unlikely to happen in this country any time during the last five hundred years, and probably long before that. While I don't like attempts to re-write our history to convince us that we've always been a nation of immigrants, so let's have a few million more, it's true that there was a sprinkling of black people in this country long before the Empire Windrush docked, and to a large extent they'd been accepted into all levels of society including the highest.

I'm sure that it would have been easy enough to find a few landladies who put up a "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs" signs, and film them so that the film could be shown again and again for decades to show what an intolerant lot the British were and still are, and I must admit that at one time it convinced me that there was a serious problem, an injustice which could only be rectified by passing laws.

Now I'm inclined to think that this was not accurate reporting but propaganda, designed to distort the truth and justify laws which were not in fact needed and which have probably been counter-productive over the longer term.

I saw Lord Mackay on Channel Four news and frankly I couldn`t believe what I was hearing. Discrimination is unacceptable in whatever way it is practiced or directed against and I would have thought an ex Lord Chancellor would have been standing up for the act not attacking it as equality under the law is what all lawyers should be defending.
These dinosaurs we keep seeing pop up on news programmes from time to time with views that make them look like eighteen century mill owners do the Conservative Party no good at all. Bigotry of this sort as no place in public life today.

Do you not understand Jack that it's so much more complicated than you are suggesting? Christians have a right to their beliefs and homosexuals have a right to their relationships?

that without anti-discrimination laws black people in America would still be required to surrender their seats on buses,

Excuse me..........but there are Black Scholarships denied to Whites, there are Ethnic Quotas in US universities; there is a Black Police Association, a Black Lawyers Association, to which Whites seem to face problems becoming a part

With the help of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, the word quickly spread across the country, resulting in a flood of interest from Black staff members from other forces

Mission

The National Black Police Association seeks to improve the working environment of Black staff by protecting the rights of those employed within the Police Service and to enhance racial harmony and the quality of service to the Black community of the United Kingdom.

Tom Tom - I wasn't being disrespectful just interested why homosexuality was still such a big issue for Christians. The Pentateuch does provide interesting reading.

Do you still want people put to death for working on a Sunday ?

support slavery etc

or has the world moved on.


Try playing the man, not the ball, Peter. I've not advocated legislation to discriminate in favour of married couples. Unless, I suppose, your argument is that legal recognition of marriage is itself discriminatory.

"But would it not also be the case that without anti-discrimination laws black people in America would still be required to surrender their seats on buses, attend segregated schools and be treated as three fifths the value of free Americans? "

Not really, as these were all requirements passed by law. You may recall that the Jim Crow laws were repealed in the fifties and sixties, and slavery in the nineteenth century. Nice straw man.

Discrimination is unacceptable in whatever way it is practiced or directed against

So you think The Roman Catholic Church should not be permitted to deny Holy Communion to a Protestant ?

Do you think a Halal butcher should be permitted to refuse to sell me pork ?

Should a Muslim woman be denied treatment if she refuses to be in a Mixed Hospital Ward ?


Come on Jack


And, Peter, it's a pretty peculiar sort of libertarian who thinks that placing the burden of proof on the accused is somehow justified.

"So you think The Roman Catholic Church should not be permitted to deny Holy Communion to a Protestant?" - who said they won't be?

"Do you think a Halal butcher should be permitted to refuse to sell me pork?" - who said a butcher can't decide what he sells?

"Should a Muslim woman be denied treatment if she refuses to be in a Mixed Hospital Ward?" - who said this happens.

-

There goes TomTom again... There are some very cogent and sensible arguments against this legislation, but TomTom's fatastic lies are not part of them!

Do you still want people put to death for working on a Sunday ?

support slavery etc

or has the world moved on.

I am not sure The Bible never said to put people to death for working on a Sunday. The Sabbath was a Saturday for Christians until changed by a Roman Emperor to Sunday.

I do not know that the Bible ever supported slavery, I thought it recorded the lives of those who built the Jewish nation and urged fair treatment of slaves..........but I think it was the Egyptians who enslaved the Israelites and used their children in place of bricks when quotas were not met.

The most renowned homosexuals were the Greeks who had quite a line in slavery, but I suppose that went with their Hellenic culture.

Personally, I could not care less about practising homosexuals - they are insignificant - but I do object to them trying to interfere and dictate theological matters to Christians or Jews or Muslims. Toleration is one thing but to have a minority group seeking to impose its own notions on major world religions suggests that there should be unbending resistance to forces of fanatical anti-Christianism.

I am not sure The Bible ever said

"...toleration cannot be legislated into existence" - to an extent that's true, but the circumstances under which tolerance grows can be brought about by changes in legislation. For example homosexuality is much more tolerated now than it was 40 years ago, can anyone really claim that legislation had NOTHING to do with that?

Where's Mitzy Green?

For example homosexuality is much more tolerated now than it was 40 years

So is Incest, Divorce, Adultery, Murder, Gun Crime, Abortion, Foul Language, Drugs, Burglary, ..............

Peter Coe wrote "

Well here we go again - isn't it remarkable how Sean Fear can work himself into a lather about the injustice of the State intervening against discrimination for groups of which he personally disapproves "

and I wrote

"For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I am opposed to laws that specifically outlaw discrimination on the grounds of religion, or lack of it."

There's no inconsistency there.

"I do object to them trying to interfere and dictate theological matters to Christians or Jews or Muslims" - which, again, is not what the real legislation does (in fact there are specific exemptions on the grounds of doctrine contained in the Northern Ireland regulations which shows the line from the protesters that they will be 'forced' to promote homosexuality is nothing more than a bare faced lie).

Keep on telling lies, TomTom, and you'll burn in Hell!

Peter Coe is essentially trotting out the standard dogma of all "social liberals" (the New Puritans): that they are entitled to use the full force of the law to impose on others their brand of moral orthodoxy because they are indisputably "right" and those others are not just "wrong" but "evil". On this basis, Cromwell was a libertarian. Despite being Christian, I have a lot of sympathy with the gay rights lobby. But that is not the point. I also know that on other ethical issues (notably, abortion on demand), I do not agree with social liberals. Yet given half a chance and if I were a doctor, those same people would criminalise my refusal to perform an abortion on the basis that I was "discriminating" by failing to provide services to a pregnant woman.

Peter, you also miss another key point. Sean's support for marriage was because, odds on, it provides the best framework in which to bring up children.....a crucial social objective. I know Portillo, the born-again Cultural Marxist, cannot bear to hear this but it is demonstrably true and I say that as single parent. So Sean is quite rationally asserting that society should prioritise arrangements which promote the common good. Presumably you think it is "discrimination" that society penalises drink driving?

Yes, Jack, Heaven forbid that any of us should ever "discriminate":

http://www.answers.com/topic/discriminate

v. intr.

1.

a To make a clear distinction; distinguish

b To make sensible decisions; judge wisely

v. tr.

1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct

2. To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate

3. To make or constitute a distinction in or between

lest we are accused of

v. intr.

2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice

Despite his period as Lord Chancellor it clearly hasn't dawned on Mackay that he should never under any circumstances "make sensible decisions; judge wisely".

Thanks, Michael. The funny thing is that finished up agreeing with Peter that tax breaks for marriage were not a particularly good idea, but I was also in favour of ending laws and practices that penalise marriage, and facilitate its break up.

Keep on telling lies, TomTom, and you'll burn in Hell!

Posted by: Reagan Fan | January 09, 2007 at 14:53

silly little child..........use your handkerchief

Come on Denis, you're not really that thick. Deliberately taking an erroneous definition made nonsensical by context is the kind of tactic TomTom thinks wins arguments.

"To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice~" - that's the relevant one here, as you well know.

Apparently, some 'Christian' charities object to having provide soup and shelter to gay people. Seems to me there has been some terrible mis-reading of the Gospels going on somewhere.

"So is Incest, Divorce, Adultery, Murder, Gun Crime, Abortion, Foul Language, Drugs, Burglary, .............."

Do you wish homosexuality were less tolerated now?

Gareth, don't have heart failure but I agree with you! For a Christian charity to behave in that way is, if true, wholly indefensible and totally at odds with the Gospels.

Tom,tom wrote:

"Personally, I could not care less about practising homosexuals - they are insignificant - but I do object to them trying to interfere and dictate theological matters to Christians or Jews or Muslims. Toleration is one thing but to have a minority group seeking to impose its own notions on major world religions suggests that there should be unbending resistance to forces of fanatical anti-Christianism."

Have you been chweing on those strange mushrooms at the bottom of your garden again tom,tom? It's doing odd things to your powers of reasoning.

I do hope that David Cameron reads this blog before telling everyone that the Tory Party has changed it's outlook, entered the 21st Century at last and stopped being to bigoted. No wonder you're un-electable!

Lois, if David Cameron reads this blog, he will discover that there is vigorous debate on the centre-right....despite his efforts to suppress it. So freedom of speech and thought is alive and well. No doubt a grave disappointment to you and Zanu Labour.

Lois, please don't lump us all together with raging loons like TomTom, in fact please don't lump all those opposed to the legislation together with him either! Some posters do have good sane arguments against the legislation, arguments with which I happen to disagree. They are not all foaming bigots like TomTom who falsely use religion as a shield to defend their loathing of certain minorities.

"So is Incest, Divorce, Adultery, Murder, Gun Crime, Abortion, Foul Language, Drugs, Burglary, .............."

Do you wish homosexuality were less tolerated now?

Changing your argument again........you stated that laws had made people much more tolerant of homosexuality and I pointed out how many other things they tolerate................it is your argument; I was merely mocking it

Reagan Fan, I must have missed the bit where TomTom "falsely used religion as a shield to defend his loathing of certain minorities". Or did you make this bit up?

They are not all foaming bigots like TomTom who falsely use religion as a shield to defend their loathing of certain minorities.

Posted by: Reagan Fan | January 09, 2007 at 15:21

You are a funny little troll........I said "Personally, I could not care less about practising homosexuals - they are insignificant I could not care less and they are insignificant - except to political parties detached from the public.

It is terribly unimportant, but the problem about minorities getting too much limelight is that people get irritated as Muslims have discovered........this Govt spent 700 hours on fox hunting and is now using Secondary Legislation to ram through an EU Directive.

Most of the Clauses in this Bill will not even be debated in Parliament but inserted by a Minister later - it is an Enabling Act

Reagan Fan, that's not an "erroneous" definition - it's the original definition, and in fact in my oldest dictionary (Chambers's Etymological 1907) the second definition doesn't even appear because the word had not then been purloined for its present propaganda purposes. I'm old enough to recollect when right-thinking people were only against "unfair discrimination", not against all kinds of discrimination.

There is a lack of clarity in this debate.

The Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim rleigions all believe that the homosexual act is instrinctly wrong. It is for each individual to decide whether they accept that teaching and whether they wish to belong to one of those Faiths.

The proposed Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations as drafted could lead to Churches being sued if they refused, for instance, to bless same sex unions or refused to allow children in their care to be adopted by homosexual couples. It would deny the right of Churches to refuse to allow their halls to be used for homosexual 'wedding' receptions. Christian Retreat houses, conference centres and hostels could be prosecuted if they refused bookings from Homosexual Groups. Christian newspapers could find themselves in court if they turned down advertisements at odds with their church teaching.

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales pointed out to the Government last year that the regulations make no disction between 'homophobia' and a "conviction based on religious belief and moral conscience, that homosexual practice is wrong. We do not believe they strike a reasonable balance between the right of people not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual conduct or lifestyle, and the right of regious organisations to be able to act in conformity with their religious beliefs and identity"

Dr Majid Katme of the Islamic Medical Associaition argued that the regulations showed that the Government was prepared to discriminate against faith communities to enforce its own definition of 'equlity'.

These regulations strike at the heart of religious and personal freedom.

Everybody discriminates, that is part of the act of choosing. Discrimination because of someone's colour or social class in the provision of services is clearly wrong and unlawful but discrimination because of what a person believes and how they act are not in the same category. Conservative Clubs require their members to belong to the Conservative Party and Labour Clubs would would not accept Conservatives as members. Lesbian Clubs have the right to refuse entry to men.

A free society does not demand that people be coerced and forced to do things which their faith & conscience tells them are wrong.

Sorry Michael, it is an inference I took from:

1. his lumping together of homosexuality with, inter alia, incest, murder, gun crime drugs and burglary suggesting he loathes homosexuals; and

2. his continual propensity to bear false witness (something a true Christian wouldn't do).

I concede you might have a greater insight on his troubled mind and if I am wrong and he is a devout practising Christian who does't hate gays then I stand corrected and apologise to you and, of course, him.

I do hope that David Cameron reads this blog before telling everyone that the Tory Party has changed it's outlook, entered the 21st Century at last and stopped being to bigoted.

Lois, I am sure that Mr Cameron is a man of much greater intellectual ability than you, and as such he will recognise that the vast majority of the argument against this bill is not based on bigotry, but on a belief in freedom.

Councillor Bennett, you need to recognise that we no longer live in a free society. Labour, the Lib Dems and a significant number of Tories who call themselves "social liberals" believe that they are entitled to use the criminal law to override the faith and conscience of other people, and to drive those people underground. We have been here before: it was a crime punishable by heavy fines, civil disabilities, imprisonment or death to be a Catholic in this country for the best part of two centuries. The people who put together those penal laws were also lawyers and politicians who styled themselves as "liberals" and "reformers".

Councillor Bennett,

There are specific exemptions on the grounds of doctrine contained in the Northern Ireland regulations meaning that religions will not be required to 'promote homosexuality' through the enforced blessing of same sex unions (they are civil unions and as anyone knows who has attended a civil ceremony, straight or gay, by law no mention of God is allowed) or refused to allow children in their care to be adopted by homosexual couples (the charitable objects exemption applies here).

You see, I don't accept a blanket statement like "Discrimination because of someone's colour or social class in the provision of services is clearly wrong".

I would want to know more about what services, how they were being provided, and who was paying, etc, before I agreed that the discrimination was "unfair".

And even if I agreed that in a particular case the discrimination really was "unfair", I would not necessarily agree that it should be unlawful.

"A free society does not demand that people be coerced and forced to do things which their faith & conscience tells them are wrong."

But by the same argument we would see British Muslims justifiably adopting Sharia Law... unless we agree that the law of the land takes precedence over arbitrary religious preachings.

Peter Coe:
"I will oppose to my dying day his insistence that he has the right to impose his (cruel, illogical and oppressive) prejudices on anyone else."

Hm, what prejudices of mine would those be?

If anything, this seems like the opposite of my position. My own preferences are mostly socially liberal but I don't want to impose my worldview on those who disagree.


I'll bow to superior knowledge, but as far as I know, our law does not require Muslims to do things that are positively unIslamic.

I've read all the arguments above, and think they prove that the legislation about discrimination is very badly drawn.

1. There is surely a serious ethical difference between discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity/disability/sexuality, and their religious belief, the latter being a matter of personal choice.

2. There is a difference between services provided by the State (ref US schooling and transport being formerly segregated) and services provided by private suppliers.

As an agnostic, I find the Abrahamic religions' hatred of homosexuals offensive, but if a businessman refuses to provide services to someone for that reason, I don't believe the State should force him to do so.

Finally, I just wish our society and its religions could stop being obsessed with individuals' sexual preferences and address the real problems of this world.

For me, the issue here is not of the'rights' on any party - it is about changing a disparity in the law. For a gay man to refuse to serve or provide goods and services to a Christian falls foul of anti-discrinimation laws in which religious belief is protected. For the opposite to occur, with a Christian refusing someone on the grounds of being gay does not fall fowl of the law. There are two solutions - you extend the law to cover homosexuals which this government has rightly chosen to do or you abolish all laws on the matter including those relating to religion, race and gender.

There's a couple of important factors that we're forgetting here - private property and freedom of association. Add those into the equation and one can accept equal legal rights for homosexuals while also accepting that owners of private property have the right to accept or exclude who they want from it.


Afleitch, my preferred course would be to remove the legal protection for the Christian in those circumstances. That way, neither party could claim that they were being treated unjustly by the State, and the State would have one less reason to interfere with the individual.

As a gay man myself Sean that is in theory my preferred choice too; however it does mean having to tolerate people being allowed to refuse provide goods and services to whoever they wished even for quite disturbing reasons. To just take away the rights of the Christian would not resolve the matter- every group covered by existing legislation would have to be removed even if it results in people being legally allowed to put 'No Catholics' signs in their B&B's which used to grace the windows in some parts of Britain until a generation ago. I don't believe that can be done.

The Bible in the Old Testament prescribes death for anyone found to have committed Homosexual Acts, and in the New Testament Jesus says that he did not come to change what had been written but as the fulfillment of a prophecy in the Old Testament, St Paul extensively condemned Homosexual acts in the New Testament.

Everyone's beliefs are equal, therefore all discrimination is equally bad. Ergo, I don't see what the debate is about.

Ok, having actually bothered to read the posts above I've noticed that private property rights etc have been discussed which is a good thing. Too often this debate ignores these issues.

8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: Ex. 21.17 · Mt. 15.4 · Mk. 7.10 he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10¶ And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Ex. 20.14 · Lev. 18.20 · Deut. 5.18
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.8 · Deut. 22.30 ; 27.20
12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.15
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. Lev. 18.17 · Deut. 27.23
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. From Leviticus 20, King James Bible

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them
Ezekiel 20:13, translation from the Hebrew at Bartleby

But by the same argument we would see British Muslims justifiably adopting Sharia Law..

The Law of the Land seems perfectly at ease with Muslim religious teachings and practice on marriage

For example, in English law, Part II of the Family Law Act 1986 draws the distinction between a divorce obtained by "judicial or other proceedings" and the divorce obtained "otherwise than by means of proceedings". The Nikah form is recognised in UK if:

* it is effective by the lex loci actus (the law of the place where it was obtained), and
* at the relevant date, either party was:

habitually resident in,
domiciled either in accordance with the local law or English law, or
a national of that foreign country.

But a "bare" talaq will only be recognised in UK if:

* it is effective by the law of the country where it was obtained and
* at the relevant date, each party was domiciled in that country (or if only one was domiciled in that country, then the other was domiciled in another country where the bare talaq was recognised).

And no recognition will be allowed if one of the parties has been habitually resident in the UK throughout the period of one year immediately preceding the pronouncement. The intention is to prevent one spouse from evading the local judicial system by travelling to a country that does permit the talaq.


Afleitch, it may be politically impossible (although the extension of anti-discrimination legislation to religion was a recent innovation by this government to please Muslims - I'm not aware that any Christian group was demanding it, and I doubt if there would be that much of a fuss if it were repealed).

That said, if you believe, as I do, that all such legislation is bad because it reverses the burden of proof, infringes freedom of association and property rights, generates litigation and so forth, then it's logical to oppose any extension of it.

Some American states go further now and outlaw discrimination on the grounds inter alia of weight, political opinion, and appearance (!) Should we continue down this route of finding ever more groups to outlaw discrimination against, or start rethinking the law?

Yet Another Anon @1744, quoting Ezekiel:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

Phwew! That's alright then. I don't lie with women as I lie with mankind; I only lie with men (man, actually). Call off the stoning!

Yet Another Anon @1744

" Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? "

# § 185 StGB
# § 186 StGB
# § 187 StGB
# § 189 StGB
# § 194 StGB
# § 374 StPO

These are the Clauses of the German Criminal Code dealing with Insulting Behaviour, Insulting the Dead, or Insulting a Public Official, a Soldier, or other categories of Official


Penalties are 12-24 months in jail.

Perhaps if the EU introduced this as A directive everyone would be satisfied

Sean, by rethinking the law does that mean opposing this bill but then doing nothing about the rest? Because that what it appears to mean - many of the Christians who argue against this law seem blissfully oblivious to the fact that they are beneficiaries of a similar law. Do you think they would support a further change in the law, if this bill is defeated to deny them legal protection in the delivery of goods and services? Not a snowball in hells chance!

"What would a good price for her be?"

That's purely a matter for the buyer and the seller. Leviticus has nothing to say on the point.

"My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"

He has to be put to death by *all* men of the town. You can't take the law into your own hands, and the police have no juristiction in the matter.

Tom Tom questioned whether it was mentioned in the Bible and I posted the bit of the bible it was in, there are some things where it is clearly related to problems of a desert tribe with regard to hygiene - they wouldn't have the same abilities for dealing with dead pigs, meat that is not recently killed would then have been liable to have gone off hence emphasises on eating freshly killed meat, but with regard to the statements regarding sexual behaviour there are no clear differences between then and now that would justify taking different positions then and now, I have heard it argued before that it was because the tribe was worried about semen being wasted in a situation in which they were struggling for survival, however masturbation is not punishable by death in the bible or by any kind of Corporal Punishment although it is viewed with disfavour.


I can only speak for myself, Afleitch. I'm a Christian, and I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have any special legal protection. I believe that the law relating to contract, tort, and the criminal justice system is more than adequate to protect my interests.

If this site had been around in the past, doubtless the same usual suspects would have been complaining about equality for women and ethnic minorities

Doubtless you would indeed have seen almost all posters on a Conservative site objecting to all coercive socialist legislation. It is the Labour Party that has repeatedly forced their standards of "tolerance" on the British people.

Freedom of choice means freedom to make choices which may be unpopular with others. That is what freedom is all about.

It's clear that those Conservatives who give this latest outrage any encouragement at all are in a minority and I personally would like to see them in a minority of zero.

Certain posters should remember that all the great Conservative leaders of the part have adhered to principles of traditional Christian morality. There is no reason why that tradition should change now.

Enforced "equality" is a Marxist, far-left concept. It seems therefore that the party has been infiltrated by a number of Marxists whose views are actually anti-Conservative.

We can do without them.

"My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"

He works on Saturday ?

Why don't you kill him - then call the police - you have your defence ?

While your at it no doubt you'll be sleeping with your daughter before you sell her to other men ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker