Why don't they mind their own business?

[unformed 0]

Quote

Sick the ACLU on us....

I might be wrong here, but I don't think the American Civil Rights Union has much effect across the ocean.

This ad space for sale.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

We're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of Race, Colour or Creed nor are we allowed to against normal straight sexual orientation, so why would it be O.K to do so against those of a Gay Orientation?

Can anyone explain to me why we, as a society, have developed a zeitgeist that is very unaccepting of attacks on race, color, gender and (for the most part) sexual orientation.... but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

Hmm.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

We're not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of Race, Colour or Creed nor are we allowed to against normal straight sexual orientation, so why would it be O.K to do so against those of a Gay Orientation?

Can anyone explain to me why we, as a society, have developed a zeitgeist that is very unaccepting of attacks on race, color, gender and (for the most part) sexual orientation.... but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

Hmm.

Churches get a tax break that the others do not?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

Fictional entities have no rights under law

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[yjumpinoz 0]

Here is the deal. Start a Gay/Church/Event Hall and you can have a not for profit, tax free "business". You will have all the business you want. I don't think there will be any Christians there. Then you can tell them Christians are not allowed to be married there.

[shropshire 0]

Why wouldn't there be any Christans there? Dont you think that Gay folk can be Christian too?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Here is the deal. Start a Gay/Church/Event Hall and you can have a not for profit, tax free "business". You will have all the business you want. I don't think there will be any Christians there. Then you can tell them Christians are not allowed to be married there.

Why is the burden on me? The onus is on businesses not to discriminate. If churches restricted themselves to religion they wouldn't have a problem. But if they choose to go into business - well, OK, obey business rules.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Remster 30]

Quote

Why wouldn't there be any Christans there? Dont you think that Gay folk can be Christian too?

Of course not. They all worship Satan and kill babies. Thats when they're not busy destroying famillies and distracting the troups.

Remster

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Here is the deal. Start a Gay/Church/Event Hall and you can have a not for profit, tax free "business". You will have all the business you want. I don't think there will be any Christians there. Then you can tell them Christians are not allowed to be married there.

Why is the burden on me? The onus is on businesses not to discriminate. If churches restricted themselves to religion they wouldn't have a problem. But if they choose to go into business - well, OK, obey business rules.

Riiiiight!

[unformed 0]

Quote

Quote

Why wouldn't there be any Christans there? Dont you think that Gay folk can be Christian too?

Of course not. They all worship Satans and kill babies. Thats when they're not busy destroying famillies and distracting the troups.

Don't forget raping baby rabbits.

Damn heathens and their rabbits.

This ad space for sale.

[yjumpinoz 0]

There are plenty of liberal churches that do.

[shropshire 0]

See, I have the memory of a gold-fish.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Lindercles 0]

Quote

Can anyone explain to me why we, as a society, have developed a zeitgeist that is very unaccepting of attacks on race, color, gender and (for the most part) sexual orientation.... but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

Hmm.

Because creed is the only thing in that list that is a choice.

[billvon 3,120]

>Can anyone explain to me why we, as a society, have developed a
>zeitgeist that is very unaccepting of attacks on race, color . . .

Most people assume those two issues are the same. Answer - because we once did discriminate based on race, and we've learned that is wrong.

That's not to say that there aren't a few idiots who discriminate against blacks (or koreans, or whoever) but they are in the minority, and we don't have any "official" discrimination in place.

>gender . . .

Same. We used to discriminate very heavily, and learned it was wrong. There are a few people who continue this, but again, they are in the minority.

>sexual orientation . . .

We _do_ discriminate based on sexual orientation; gays have fewer rights than straight people do. A lot of people give gays a lot of shit for being immoral or evil or trying to "advance their militant gay agenda" - you need look no further than this article for examples. Fortunately, that is changing now, and someday I'm confident we will overcome this particular bias.

>but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

The founders of the US came from places where certain religions were heavily discriminated against. They were wise enough to found this country on the principle of free worship. Thus we don't discriminate against any one religion, and most people are pretty accepting of other people's religions.

That's not to say that there aren't a few idiots who discriminate against muslims (or christians, or jews) but they are in the minority, fortunately.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Here is the deal. Start a Gay/Church/Event Hall and you can have a not for profit, tax free "business". You will have all the business you want. I don't think there will be any Christians there. Then you can tell them Christians are not allowed to be married there.

Nope, sorry - you can't ban Christians from your church event or even simply from your guest house - that would be illegal.

Homosexuals though - well at present they're fair game. Why should the law maintain such a lopsided status quo? Protect religion but not sexuality?

Guess some would prefer we go back to the days when signs like that which is attached were not only allowed, but were commonplace; (which, lest anyone get upset, has clearly been edited).

[Andy9o8 2]

ROFL - That site is pretty funny.
Um.....
I couldn't resist.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.


Um, excuse me? This is absolutely wrong. Churches should be able to refuse to hold gay wedding receptions. How is this NOT forcing "beliefs" down on Christians, instead of leaving Christians alone to believe what they want to believe?

Such double standards.

If churches want to enter the business world, they should have to follow the same rules as any other business. Why should a church get special treatment? That would be the double standard!

There are plenty of businesses out there that may refuse service to anyone for any reason. Churches in particular, are private institutions. I'm sure that a Synogogue would give me shit if I had wanted a Catholic Wedding Mass in their temple.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mr2mk1g 10]

By the way everyone, I thought I'd just point out that where some uninformed vicars are claiming that this legislation is going to force them to perform gay weddings or to rent out church halls to gays. Well... to put it bluntly, they're talking out of their consecrated arses.

Hopefully the below quote from the legislation is clear enough for most lay people to understand.

Quote

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006

Organisations relating to religion or belief
16. —(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (8) this regulation applies to an organisation the purpose of which is —

(a) to practice a religion or belief;

(b) to advance a religion or belief;

(c) to teach the practice or principles of a religion or belief;

(d) to enable persons of a religion or belief to receive any benefit, or to engage in any activity, within the framework of that religion or belief.

(2) This regulation does not apply —

(a) to an organisation whose sole or main purpose is commercial; or

(b) in relation to regulations 9, 10 and 11 (education).

(3) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for an organisation to which this regulation applies, or for anyone acting on behalf of or under the auspices of such an organisation to which this regulation applies —

(a) to restrict membership of the organisation;

(b) to restrict participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;

(c) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices; or

(d) to restrict the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation,

in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation.

(4) Nothing in these Regulations shall make it unlawful for a minister —

(a) to restrict participation in activities carried on in the performance of his functions in connection with or in respect of an organisation to which this regulation relates; or

(b) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities or services in the course of activities carried on in the performance of his functions in connection with or in respect of an organisation to which this regulation relates,

in respect of a person on the ground of his sexual orientation.

(5) Paragraphs (3) and (4) permit a restriction only if imposed —

(a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or

(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religions followers.

If that's not clear enough, (as it patently isn't for most of the clergy), in essence it says that so long as the organisation is a religious institution, (rather than one with a primary commercial or teaching focus), then they can restrict their membership to non-gays, refuse to allow gays to attend their events, refuse to provide goods and services to gays, and refuse to allow gays to use their buildings, so long as such refusal is as a result of a conflict with either their religious doctrine or merely the views of a significant number of the followers.

No church is going to be forced to conduct a gay wedding.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

Hmmm is this the pot calling the kettle black.. with so many churchs who condone attacks on Gays???

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Can anyone explain to me why we, as a society, have developed a zeitgeist that is very unaccepting of attacks on race, color, gender and (for the most part) sexual orientation.... but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

Hmm.

Because creed is the only thing in that list that is a choice.

So? Or more to the point, why was it important forty years ago to pass national laws preventing discrimination based on creed?

What has changed that what was once off limits is now open season?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

The founders of the US came from places where certain religions were heavily discriminated against. They were wise enough to found this country on the principle of free worship. Thus we don't discriminate against any one religion, and most people are pretty accepting of other people's religions.

What you claim runs completely counter to what regularly transpires on this forum.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

but attacks on creeds - particularly Christianity, are completely acceptable?

Hmmm is this the pot calling the kettle black.. with so many churchs who condone attacks on Gays???

I'm not sure. Perhaps you can show me where I've said it's perfectly acceptable to attack gays.

[billvon 3,120]

>What you claim runs completely counter to what regularly transpires on this forum.

Oh, you mean on this forum? We have racists, anti-gay activists, and anti-jewish, muslim, christian, and atheist people. We have people who think the world is about to end, and who are positive that George Bush blew up the World Trade Center. We've got gun lovers, gun haters, and gun agnostics. We have people who think that the US is the best thing since sliced bread and the worst thing since the USSR. We have people who would argue with you if you said "good morning" to them.

The attacks here, in other words, are against everything and everyone; think of it as equal-opportunity bashing. People would be at each other's throats day and night if it wasn't against the forum rules.

Of course, one tends to see only the most vocal posters, who tend to have the most vehement opinions. If you took all the people who read this forum, rather than just the most popular posters, you'd probably see a distribution similar to the real world - which is what I was referring to in my post.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Here is the deal. Start a Gay/Church/Event Hall and you can have a not for profit, tax free "business". You will have all the business you want. I don't think there will be any Christians there. Then you can tell them Christians are not allowed to be married there.

The Church (no particular denomination but speaking of the "Body of Christ") should NEVER accept or patronize to sin and unbiblical teaching of any kind. However, sinners should be welcome in church. That's what it's for. There should be a sign on the front of every church stating "ALL LIARS, THIEVES, BLASPHEMERS, ADULTERERS, AND COVETERS ARE WELCOME! ALL THOSE WHO ARE SELF-RIGHTEOUS ARE NOT!" That does not mean that there should be actively practicing homosexuals in leadership positions just like there shouldn't be actively practicing adulterers in leadership position within the church. The primary and most important reason for the church to exist is to seek to save that which is lost. Only the sick need a physician. We should be careful not to turn away those who need to hear the cure. Homosexuals are no different from anyone else in this regard.

Quote

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17

[billvon 3,120]

Making comparisons between homosexuals and adulterers is pretty odious. A recent post complained that no one attacks gays, but lots of people attack christians - I'll remember this post as a good rebuttal of that position.