Crosswords0 min ago
Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination
316 Answers
In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:
https:/
https:/
Answers
A, I am not ranting. B, I have the balls to call out homophobic bigots what ever their religion ... try it for once.
10:18 Fri 17th Feb 2017
Naomi - //Although these are all people from what the District Attorney calls ‘a protected class’, she doesn’t have the right to refuse to do what she doesn’t want to do but they have the right to demand that she does it simply because they think she should - which is a bit of a cheek to say the least! In this instance, in my opinion, her right to ‘offend’ takes precedence. //
You appear to be overlooking the central point here - the florist was not refused the right to do what she didn't want to do, and the gay couple did not force her to do it either.
She made a conscious decision to discriminate, which is against the law - and that is the beginning and the end of it.
She didn't decide she 'didn't want to do something' - she refused the service of her business on the basis of her prejudice, and that is illegal.
I have said previously, as have others, that she could have made up any number of excuses not to fill the order, and retained the goodwill of her regular customers, and satisfied the edicts of her faith.
But because she is possessed of the arrogance of the bigoted Christian, she could not resist letting the couple know why she was not serving them, which is not only offensive, it is illegal, and she was rightly hoist by her own petard.
Yes, the couple could have 'quietly gone away' and shopped elsewhere, Rosa Parkes could have quietly moved to the back of the bus.
But the destruction of prejudice in a society starts when people confront it, and refuse to accept it, and that starts with individual actions that build and multiply and change society's attitudes.
So I am well up for supporting this couple, and decrying this bigoted opinionated woman who was busy being anything but Christian in her need to ensure that everyone knew she was standing on her principles - and she was rightly damned for doing it.
You appear to be overlooking the central point here - the florist was not refused the right to do what she didn't want to do, and the gay couple did not force her to do it either.
She made a conscious decision to discriminate, which is against the law - and that is the beginning and the end of it.
She didn't decide she 'didn't want to do something' - she refused the service of her business on the basis of her prejudice, and that is illegal.
I have said previously, as have others, that she could have made up any number of excuses not to fill the order, and retained the goodwill of her regular customers, and satisfied the edicts of her faith.
But because she is possessed of the arrogance of the bigoted Christian, she could not resist letting the couple know why she was not serving them, which is not only offensive, it is illegal, and she was rightly hoist by her own petard.
Yes, the couple could have 'quietly gone away' and shopped elsewhere, Rosa Parkes could have quietly moved to the back of the bus.
But the destruction of prejudice in a society starts when people confront it, and refuse to accept it, and that starts with individual actions that build and multiply and change society's attitudes.
So I am well up for supporting this couple, and decrying this bigoted opinionated woman who was busy being anything but Christian in her need to ensure that everyone knew she was standing on her principles - and she was rightly damned for doing it.
Naomi, I believe, like me, you are heterosexual, not religious and married? So what has religion got to do with your, or my, marriage? If you walked into a shop, say a jeweller, to buy something to celebrate your marriage - say an eternity ring with an inscription (to make it a personal service rather than simply a "product") - and the Christian jeweller refused to sell that service to you, on the basis that your marriage wasn't a "proper one", for some reason, e.g. you're not religious, didn't get married in church, haven't had children, didn't want children, couldn't have children, whatever ... what would you think about that? Would you feel affected in some way by that jeweller's religious beliefs? I certainly would.
The only difference between you, me and a married gay person in the above scenario is that they're gay. We're all legally not religious. We're all legally married. So why should they be treated any differently to you or me? Prejudice. That's all. Religion has nothing to do with you, me or them.
> Since the gay couple were very eager to protect their rights, they should, in my opinion, have had the courtesy to understand that the rights of other people are often equally important to them, and rather than making a fuss, shopped elsewhere.
Well they probably did shop elsewhere in the end, but as for not making a fuss ... why shouldn't they? They were being discriminated against. Why turn a blind eye to it? That only leads to more discrimination.
The only difference between you, me and a married gay person in the above scenario is that they're gay. We're all legally not religious. We're all legally married. So why should they be treated any differently to you or me? Prejudice. That's all. Religion has nothing to do with you, me or them.
> Since the gay couple were very eager to protect their rights, they should, in my opinion, have had the courtesy to understand that the rights of other people are often equally important to them, and rather than making a fuss, shopped elsewhere.
Well they probably did shop elsewhere in the end, but as for not making a fuss ... why shouldn't they? They were being discriminated against. Why turn a blind eye to it? That only leads to more discrimination.
Naomi - if you are posting this - // she doesn’t have the right to refuse to do what she doesn’t want to do but they have the right to demand that she does it simply because they think she should - which is a bit of a cheek to say the least! In this instance, in my opinion, her right to ‘offend’ takes precedence. //
I, and others could be forgiven for thinking that actually, you don't know at all.
I, and others could be forgiven for thinking that actually, you don't know at all.
A précis?
As the title of the OP: Religion No Excuse For Discrimination Against Gays
Some say "Yes it is".
Others say "No it isn't".
The OP refers to a case in America where a florist's refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding, similar to how a few years ago in the UK a baker's refused to bake/decorate a cake for a gay wedding. In both cases, the law found against the discriminating business.
As the title of the OP: Religion No Excuse For Discrimination Against Gays
Some say "Yes it is".
Others say "No it isn't".
The OP refers to a case in America where a florist's refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding, similar to how a few years ago in the UK a baker's refused to bake/decorate a cake for a gay wedding. In both cases, the law found against the discriminating business.
Bathsheba
Cba to read through 200+odd posts,,,,can anyone give me a precis/summary please?
Ta.
Baths
x x x
Evening Bathy.
On a thread entitled
'Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination'
Something I back 100% ... you can mention Christian bigotry against gay people but not Muslim bigotry against gay people.
Because the hypocrites or cowards or both say that makes you a bigot.
Bizarre.
Cba to read through 200+odd posts,,,,can anyone give me a precis/summary please?
Ta.
Baths
x x x
Evening Bathy.
On a thread entitled
'Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination'
Something I back 100% ... you can mention Christian bigotry against gay people but not Muslim bigotry against gay people.
Because the hypocrites or cowards or both say that makes you a bigot.
Bizarre.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.