Gay Bishops

[BigC]

The fact that it is 'natural' (to them), or legal and socially acceptable does not make it right. Are 'paedophiles' natural? Are they not people needing healing also? Or can they be hated because they are not socially acceptable. In this world one day they might be! Which is somewhat worrying.

You are a thinking person but you have followed the fashion of the day. because it is there does not make it right.

 

If your level of debating skills only goes as far as being able to compare gays to paedophiles, then you should really keep quiet.

 

Cosa has said most of what needs to be said already. I don't need to add much to it.

 

In my eyes, you and The Doctor represent the two sides to Christianity that are prevalent in society at the moment.

 

The Doctor always has a measured considered response which I rarely agree with (only on matters of faith - outside of that I agree with pretty much everything he says), but I always have to take the time to consider why I disagree with him because he always puts things into a new perspective which gives me a real insight into why he believes what he believes. And he's always well versed on the other side of the arguments so he doesn't make stupid remarks that are so poorly thought out that they don't even need responded to.

 

Your comment above doesn't need a measured response. All we need to do is highlight it and repeat it and anyone with a smidgen of intelligence will see it for what it it is. It's the other side, the nasty side, the holier-than-thou-I'm-going-to-heaven-and-you're-not-because-I'm-better-than-you side.

[felix]

True, but there is a big difference between a civil partnership and a marriage.

 

A civil partnership is a legally binding agreement that gives couples the same rights as married couples.

 

The difference is there is no presumption of a sexual relationship.

 

A marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated. A civil partnership cannot.

 

All a civil partnership does is gives gay couples the same legal rights in terms of benefits, tax and inheritance etc.

 

 

All she would be doing by officiating in the ceremony would be conferring their legal rights to receive the same benefits as married couples on them - which is precisely her job description.

 

She would not be endorsing sodomy so her whole argument does not stand up, which makes it all the more perplexing that she won the case. I really hope the council appeal this decision.

 

p.s. Sorry for hijacking the thread Deek. I was thinking about starting a thread on the subject but it seemed sensible to post on this one as many of the arguments would be similar.

 

 

Having attended many weddings and three same-sex civil partnerships I'm aware of the differences, and many similarirties, between the two.

To assume sex wouldn't be involved in either would be naive.

I'm also aware that same sex relationships upset many people and whilst this is wrong in my view, they too have rights therefore in this case the court was correct to take this womens view into account.

 

I think she won her case because she was discriminated against (and persecuted) for holding the view she does. This is also wrong and flies in the face of the tolerant society we aspire to be ; the one which gives equal rights to gay couples.

[Debtor]

If your level of debating skills only goes as far as being able to compare gays to paedophiles, then you should really keep quiet.

 

 

Your comment above doesn't need a measured response. All we need to do is highlight it and repeat it and anyone with a smidgen of intelligence will see it for what it it is. It's the other side, the nasty side, the holier-than-thou-I'm-going-to-heaven-and-you're-not-because-I'm-better-than-you side.

 

 

Then if that is what you see it is clear you do not read what I write! But I am used to folks behaving this way. I never fail to be amazed how the 'tolerance' of the 'tolerant' knows no beginning. Their democratic values begin and end with their opinions. No doubt I could put it in a 'nicer' way to make it easier, but facts will not change because of this.

[Boris]

....so all that'll be left is people preaching bible truth...

 

A bit of an oxymoron that, no?

 

If the Bible has been interpreted in so many ways, by so many people, what is true?

[BigC]

Then if that is what you see it is clear you do not read what I write! But I am used to folks behaving this way. I never fail to be amazed how the 'tolerance' of the 'tolerant' knows no beginning. Their democratic values begin and end with their opinions. No doubt I could put it in a 'nicer' way to make it easier, but facts will not change because of this.

 

I am happy to tolerate anyone who does not infringe on the basic rights of others.

 

The lady in question crossed that line which is why I object.

 

The only thing I am not tolerant of is people who discriminate against others because of the way they were born.

 

You are saying the facts don't change but I don't know what facts you are talking about. Having reviewed your posts I have yet to find a single fact.

 

You start by correcting people's spelling.

 

You follow that up by saying that teaching children to fear god is like teaching them to fear fire. (Except that he loves you???)

 

Then you launch into an astonishing attack on "gays"

 

We live in a world where gays dictate what we can and can't say.

 

Followed by the astonishing comparision between gays and paedophiles.

 

Which facts are you referring to?

[BigC]

I'm also aware that same sex relationships upset many people and whilst this is wrong in my view, they too have rights therefore in this case the court was correct to take this womens view into account.

 

I think she won her case because she was discriminated against (and persecuted) for holding the view she does. This is also wrong and flies in the face of the tolerant society we aspire to be ; the one which gives equal rights to gay couples.

 

She has the right to hold these views, but she doesn't have the right to dictate to her employer which parts of her job she can and can't do.

 

If she takes a job in any service industry she can't choose who she serves - especially when it's a government job. She has to serve everyone.

 

Also I would disagree that it is wrong to discriminate against someone who holds extreme views. Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?

 

If someone believes that all foreigners should sod off home then they wouldn't be allowed to continue working at the local asylum seekers centre. They still have the right to their opinions, but their position is untenable.

 

There is absolutely no difference.

 

Going back to the point about sex after marriage.

 

Whilst it would be naive to suggest that they won't go home for a bit of jobby jabbing, the registrar is not involved in that part of it. All she has to do is confer the same rights as married couples upon the two people. Nothing else.

 

If a shop attendant in a chemist refused to sell gay people condoms because they objected to gay sex then they would be likely to lose their job and no-one would argue against it (except maybe Mr Debtor).

 

Again, there is absolutely no difference.

[Ulysses]

If she firmly believes marriage starts at 25+, as a registrar, she's in the wrong job.

 

That wasn't my question. If she really believes (on religious or humanist grounds) that people should not get married under the age of 25, should she have the right to refuse to register a marriage where one or both of the partners is under 25?

[felix]

She has the right to hold these views, but she doesn't have the right to dictate to her employer which parts of her job she can and can't do.

 

She actually does have that right.

The ruling said that Islington council placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief.

 

Also I would disagree that it is wrong to discriminate against someone who holds extreme views. Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?

She wasn't being intolearnt. She wasn't persecuting the couple due to be married, just asking that someone else perform the ceremony.

Her peers on the other hand, were being intolerant , which is why they lost the case.

 

If someone believes that all foreigners should sod off home then they wouldn't be allowed to continue working at the local asylum seekers centre. They still have the right to their opinions, but their position is untenable.

That person would be an out and out racist.

You claimed Lillian Ladelle was a "homophobic bigot".

When she joined Islington Council "gay marriage" didn't exist, she has views which tells her gay marriage is wrong, so let her get on with the business of She may indeed be a homophobe - but how is she a bigot ?

 

If a shop attendant in a chemist refused to sell gay people condoms because they objected to gay sex then they would be likely to lose their job and no-one would argue against it (except maybe Mr Debtor).

Again, there is absolutely no difference

Except identifying gay men buying condoms isn't as easy as identifying gay men at a civil partnership - so there's a big difference.

[felix]

That wasn't my question. If she really believes (on religious or humanist grounds) that people should not get married under the age of 25, should she have the right to refuse to register a marriage where one or both of the partners is under 25?

 

Of course not, but I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

The legal age for marriage in the UK has always (as far as I can remember) been 16. Perhaps at some time in the past it was 18.

 

Anyone with a firm-held belief that it should be 25, should not fill in a job application to be a council registrar.

[Ulysses]

Of course not, but I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

 

Where I'm going is to ask what happens when our responsibilities at work diverge from our opinions and beliefs - especially when the job involves working in the public sector to deliver services to all citizens in accordance with the law.

 

I (currently) work for a tax and customs administration. In one part of the organisation, my job would be to ensure that people get their tax credits. Some of those credits are given for things that I might personally find objectionable - but it is my job to give them to the citizens who pay my salary. In another part of the organisation, my job would involve assessing and searching likely smugglers of illegal drugs. I might find that objectionable because I believe that such drugs should be decriminalised - but it is my job to uphold the law of the land as it currently stands.

 

In either case, I should not have the option of standing back and insisting that someone else do the job. I should do the job for which I am paid. And if that job involves the law of the land, I have to respect the right of a democratic society to change the law.

[BigC]

She actually does have that right.

The ruling said that Islington council placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief.

 

 

She wasn't being intolearnt. She wasn't persecuting the couple due to be married, just asking that someone else perform the ceremony.

Her peers on the other hand, were being intolerant , which is why they lost the case.

 

 

That person would be an out and out racist.

You claimed Lillian Ladelle was a "homophobic bigot".

When she joined Islington Council "gay marriage" didn't exist, she has views which tells her gay marriage is wrong, so let her get on with the business of She may indeed be a homophobe - but how is she a bigot ?

 

 

Except identifying gay men buying condoms isn't as easy as identifying gay men at a civil partnership - so there's a big difference.

 

 

I should have said "shouldn't" rather than doesn't. Due to this ruling it seems that she does, but my point was that the ruling was wrong.

 

She was persecuting them, (although the word persecute normally has stronger connotations). She chose not to do what she would have done to any straight couple. She is treating them differently because of their sexual orientation. To me it couldn't be more clear cut.

 

She asked that someone else perform the service because she doesn't have to power to stop it. I think she would do more to stop gay marriage if she could, but I'm getting into conjecture.... I don't think we can really take that point any further.

 

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of people with lifestyles different to them (according to the dictionary). I think she is intolerant of gay people because they choose a different lifestyle to her. That is how she is a bigot.

 

Of course it's harder to identify gay people at chemist shops, but you haven't really addressed the point. If the chemist new they were gay, and refused to serve them condoms, would it be right or wrong?

 

If you agree that it's wrong, then how do you make a distinction between the two cases? Both would be withdrawing access to a service to a person or persons based on their sexual orientation.

[felix]

Where I'm going is to ask what happens when our responsibilities at work diverge from our opinions and beliefs - especially when the job involves working in the public sector to deliver services to all citizens in accordance with the law.

 

I (currently) work for a tax and customs administration. In one part of the organisation, my job would be to ensure that people get their tax credits. Some of those credits are given for things that I might personally find objectionable - but it is my job to give them to the citizens who pay my salary. In another part of the organisation, my job would involve assessing and searching likely smugglers of illegal drugs. I might find that objectionable because I believe that such drugs should be decriminalised - but it is my job to uphold the law of the land as it currently stands.

 

In either case, I should not have the option of standing back and insisting that someone else do the job. I should do the job for which I am paid. And if that job involves the law of the land, I have to respect the right of a democratic society to change the law.

 

Whilst interesting, this has nothing to do with someone objecting to undertaking their duties, on religious grounds.

[felix]

[A bigot is someone who is intolerant of people with lifestyles different to them (according to the dictionary). I think she is intolerant of gay people because they choose a different lifestyle to her. That is how she is a bigot.

 

Your dictionary must be different to mine. A bigot is someone who's intolerant to somone's creed or party - creed usually taken to be somone's religion. Consequently someone objectionable to gays is not usually considered bigotted .

I genuinely wondered if you had some additional knowledge of Lillian Ladel's bigotry.

 

Of course it's harder to identify gay people at chemist shops, but you haven't really addressed the point. If the chemist new they were gay, and refused to serve them condoms, would it be right or wrong?

Wrong

If you agree that it's wrong, then how do you make a distinction between the two cases? Both would be withdrawing access to a service to a person or persons based on their sexual orientation

Wrong again.

So long as the retailer made sure the condoms were retailed by someone else; then there's no problem. Many people find sex wrong - if they were working in Boots and were prudish about condoms; you'd expect a considerate employer to make allowance. That's all that's happening in the Islington registrars case and for you to post the link with reference to skinhead prejudice, is almost as ridiculous as the gay/paedophile comparison you referred to earlier.

[Boris]

Of course not, but I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

The legal age for marriage in the UK has always (as far as I can remember) been 16. Perhaps at some time in the past it was 18.

 

Anyone with a firm-held belief that it should be 25, should not fill in a job application to be a council registrar.

 

16 in Scotland, 16 in England but only with parental consent. As far as i am aware.

[Boris]

Whilst interesting, this has nothing to do with someone objecting to undertaking their duties, on religious grounds.

 

What if they refused to marry a black woman to a white man as they were adherents of the Afrikaaner Church in South Africa that used the Bible to justify apartheid?

 

Surely that wouldn't be acceptable?

[felix]

What if they refused to marry a black woman to a white man as they were adherents of the Afrikaaner Church in South Africa that used the Bible to justify apartheid?

 

Surely that wouldn't be acceptable?

 

Of course not, but that's racism based on an apartheid system with roots in slavery & colonisation, not religion.

 

Afrikaaners may have used the bible to justify their actions but as you say, the book can be interpreted in many ways .Warmongers throughout history have used religion to justify actions however as far as I'm aware, nowhere in the good book does it say it's ok to invade Poland or Iraq nor does it make reference to mixed race marriage, or racial segragation.

 

It does however state that homosexuality is wrong and although I think this is an abomination in itself, I'll defend someones right to follow the teachings of the bible, by whatever interpretation they choose, so long as no-one else is hurt.

[Boris]

Of course not, but that's racism based on an apartheid system with roots in slavery & colonisation, not religion.

 

Afrikaaners may have used the bible to justify their actions but as you say, the book can be interpreted in many ways .Warmongers throughout history have used religion to justify actions however as far as I'm aware, nowhere in the good book does it say it's ok to invade Poland or Iraq nor does it make reference to mixed race marriage, or racial segragation.

 

It does however state that homosexuality is wrong and although I think this is an abomination in itself, I'll defend someones right to follow the teachings of the bible, by whatever interpretation they choose, so long as no-one else is hurt.

 

But surely the interpretation of the bible is why they see homosexuality as an abomination? If the Bible is being used to make one form of intolerance ok, why not another, as in the case of the Boers?

[felix]

But surely the interpretation of the bible is why they see homosexuality as an abomination? If the Bible is being used to make one form of intolerance ok, why not another, as in the case of the Boers?

 

Because the Boers were using The Bible as a crutch to prop-up their racist views whereas the woman in Islington was following her orthodox christian belief that marriage should be between a man and woman.

[Boris]

Because the Boers were using The Bible as a crutch to prop-up their racist views whereas the woman in Islington was following her orthodox christian belief that marriage should be between a man and woman.

 

Oh well, as long as the religious belief is mainstream then...

 

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose between which religion is ok and which isn't.

 

It wasn't that the Islington woman was using the bible as a crutch to prop up her homophobic views then?

[cosanostra]

Because the Boers were using The Bible as a crutch to prop-up their racist views whereas the woman in Islington was following her orthodox christian belief that marriage should be between a man and woman.

 

Come on Das, there's no difference.

 

One is racist and one is homophobic. Why is one wrong and not the other?

[felix]

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose between which religion is ok and which isn't.

I wasn't picking and choosing between religion - apartheid isn't a religion, nor is it based on one.

The Islington woman was using the bible as the core of her faith - a faith where many believe same-sex relationships are wrong - thus the furor about gay bishops.

Respecting her faith is no big deal imho - if a muslim in Tesco refuses to sell you booze, don't be offended or feel persucuted, move to another till.

That's all this woman has done, refuse to carry out a task she doesn't feel comfortable with.

[felix]

Come on Das, there's no difference.

 

One is racist and one is homophobic. Why is one wrong and not the other?

 

There's a huge difference.

In one case racist superiority resulted in forced re-settlement, unwarranted detention, torture and multiple murder.

 

In the case of the homophobic registrar, there are no victims.

(apart from the registrar herself, it seems ).

[Ulysses]

Whilst interesting, this has nothing to do with someone objecting to undertaking their duties, on religious grounds.

 

It has everything to do with someone objecting to undertaking their duties on religious grounds. An objection to something on religious grounds is no different to an objection to something for other personal philosophical reasons.

 

I'll go back to my previous example, and tease it out further; someone in my office is expected, as part of his duties, to give tax credits for marriage to same-sex couples who have registered a civil union. He is a christian - in this case a Roman Catholic. He objects to homosexuality, and his church objects to homosexuality. He refuses to apply the tax credits, and insists that someone else in the office should be assigned the task. Should he be allowed to do this? Or can my employer take appropriate disciplinary action, on the grounds that he has refused to carry out his duties in accordance with the country's tax law?

[BigC]

Wrong again.

So long as the retailer made sure the condoms were retailed by someone else; then there's no problem. Many people find sex wrong - if they were working in Boots and were prudish about condoms; you'd expect a considerate employer to make allowance.

 

Maybe if it was a shy 18 year old on her first day. But eventually they would need to take on that part of their job.

 

But what happens when it isn't possible to make an allowance?

 

Let's forget about Boots and assume we're talking about a small independent shop.

 

Say there are only 2 employees in the shop and they are both commited Christians who don't want to sell condoms - the owner can't be there all the time.

 

Does the chemist have to employ a third person, an atheist or a raving queen, just to ensure they don't fall foul of the law themselves?

 

What if one of them was an old biddy that had been working there for 35 years and started working for the chemist before it was legal for gays to even have sex? Would it be OK for her to refuse because the working conditions have changed?

 

That is why the council took action and pursued the case. They realised that there may have been a point where due to annual leave and/or sickness, at some point they would have to decide between forcing her to do it or calling off the civil partnership ceremony, and they weren't prepared to wait for that to happen, so they decided to replace her with someone who could fullfil all the roles that the job entailed.

 

......and for you to post the link with reference to skinhead prejudice, is almost as ridiculous as the gay/paedophile comparison you referred to earlier.

 

I don't see how.

 

The only point I was making, was that it doesn't matter how you became prejudice. It only matters that you are.

 

In most other aspects of life, I'm sure your average skinhead is a much less desirable person than a priest. But in the context of the topic we are discussing, their views are equally abhorent. It doesn't matter whether you were taught to hate gays by the bible or Mein Kampf. All that matters is that you are a homophobe. (*Can I just state quite clearly that I am not comparing the two books to each other).

 

The gay/paedophile reference is a completely different kettle of fish. That comment implied that because nature produces both gays and paedophiles, they should both be looked at in the same way, which is nonsense because homosexuality requires the consent of both parties, whereas paedophelia is abuse.

 

Surely you can see that?

[felix]

It has everything to do with someone objecting to undertaking their duties on religious grounds. An objection to something on religious grounds is no different to an objection to something for other personal philosophical reasons.

I'm sorry Ulysses, but the example you gave was moral objections to drug smuggling, illegal drugs and tax credits to questionable sources. Although admirable, these are not religious or valid legal objections for refusing to undertake your duties.

Recent Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations, give employees more freedoms where their Religious beliefs are concerned. This would , I imagine, excuse an orthodox christian Registrar from officiating at a gay wedding; just as it would give hindus and sikhs, more flexibility with dress codes, leave for bereavement, canteen menus and leave to celebrate festivals.

 

I'll go back to my previous example, and tease it out further; someone in my office is expected, as part of his duties, to give tax credits for marriage to same-sex couples who have registered a civil union. He is a christian - in this case a Roman Catholic. He objects to homosexuality, and his church objects to homosexuality. He refuses to apply the tax credits, and insists that someone else in the office should be assigned the task. Should he be allowed to do this? Or can my employer take appropriate disciplinary action, on the grounds that he has refused to carry out his duties in accordance with the country's tax law ?

 

I know where you're coming from on this one but objections to tax-relief would not be considered religious or cultural enough to permit this discrimination. He should be given a warning then sacked

[felix]

Big C - I hear what you're saying and don't think for a minute I'm defending homophobia.

You posted a link about Lilian Ladele - she was in a job where the goalposts moved and she's now been placed in a position, where her beliefs make her unable to carry out same-sex unions. Her employer could have accommodated her belief (without harming anyone) but instead chose to bully and persecute her .

I'm not sure you're fully aware of this case, but contrary to what you said; it wasn't Islington Council who took action and brought the case to court - it was Lilian Ladele who brought proceedings . She felt was being discriminated against for holding the views she does.

The court agreed and so do I (fwiw).

[BigC]

Big C - I hear what you're saying and don't think for a minute I'm defending homophobia.

You posted a link about Lilian Ladele - she was in a job where the goalposts moved and she's now been placed in a position, where her beliefs make her unable to carry out same-sex unions. Her employer could have accommodated her belief (without harming anyone) but instead chose to bully and persecute her .

I'm not sure you're fully aware of this case, but contrary to what you said; it wasn't Islington Council who took action and brought the case to court - it was Lilian Ladele who brought proceedings . She felt was being discriminated against for holding the views she does.

The court agreed and so do I (fwiw).

 

We're going round in circles here.

 

The goalposts moved because the government decided to make the law less discriminatory. (Just like they did when they made homosexuality legal).

 

That means people have to treat gay people the same way as straight people when employed by any equal opportunities employer.

 

She refused to do that because of her beliefs, but her beliefs are wrong. So it should be her tough luck. Shape up or ship out.

 

As it happens, I agree that she was discriminated against because of her beliefs. The difference is, I think that's a good thing. If your beliefs are intolerant, they SHOULD hinder you in modern society.

 

We should not be tolerant of intolerance.

[ADAM]

Big C - I hear what you're saying and don't think for a minute I'm defending homophobia.

You posted a link about Lilian Ladele - she was in a job where the goalposts moved and she's now been placed in a position, where her beliefs make her unable to carry out same-sex unions. Her employer could have accommodated her belief (without harming anyone) but instead chose to bully and persecute her .

I'm not sure you're fully aware of this case, but contrary to what you said; it wasn't Islington Council who took action and brought the case to court - it was Lilian Ladele who brought proceedings . She felt was being discriminated against for holding the views she does.

The court agreed and so do I (fwiw).

 

The Council have appealed, surely this perverse ruling will be overturned.

 

The law which, rightly, protects religious people from discrimination, should not be perverted to allow people to practice discrimination on the basis of their religion. It is an unacceptable and unprincipled distortion of the spirit of the equality laws.

 

It's interesting that Lilian Ladele appears to be an 'orthodox Christian' only when it suits. In addition, at least one of the employment tribual panel members had strong, to put it midly, links with the Catholic Church, raising the prospect of 'conflict of interest' questions. (see attached link)

 

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/07/17/ladele-v-islington/