UKIP: supporting homophobia as much as it can...

First topic message reminder :

So as per my sig, UKIP wont repeal same-sex marriage as 'it would be grossly unfair and unethical to ‘un-marry’ loving couples'.

However, they would give legal protection to people on 'religious grounds' to refuse service to gay couples:

"British right-wing political party UKIP has revealed it would offer legal protection to those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds in the workplace, if it wins the 2015 general election.

The party outlined the pledge in a manifesto titled 'Valuing Our Christian Heritage'.

In it, they state: 'We will extend the legal concept of "reasonable ACCOMMODATION" to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue [of same-sex marriage].'"
See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ukip-pledges-legal-protection-religious-opponents-gay-marriage-workplace280415#sthash.sJHT49Ab.Y5pN4vNq.dpuf

Just another reason NOT to vote UKIP...

Incidentally I wouldn't be nearly as hostile in my language against religion IF it wasn't for things like male and female genital mutilation, suicide bombing, gay people being discriminated against on religious grounds, sectarian violence, and preaching against birth control among other things.

If religious beliefs were kept as something private I wouldn't care.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You feel hurt if someone judges you because you're gay right? Why then do you judge people for their faith? Telling them that their faith is "bullshit" is not very nice, is it?

You avoided points 1 and 2 I noticed.

I'm not intolerant though, because I am not horrible about them and I am not treating them badly in any way whatsoever. If I was a Christian I would by default think anyone not a Christian believes in rubbish, same if I was Muslim or Hindu. By default with religious outlooks if you believe one thing then everyone else MUST believe in nonesense.

I'm not judging those people either. But tell me, if I told you I believe in unicorns and fairies and that we are all floating around space on the back of a turtle and should worship at an Ice Cream parlour every Wednesday, how would you consider my beliefs?

Points 1 wasn't really of interest to me, and point 2 was pretty much the same as point 3. You are being horrible to religious people if you tell them that their faith is bullshit, and you are judging them.

You wouldn't like it if someone said that gayness was bullshit, would you?

Eilzel wrote:Incidentally I wouldn't be nearly as hostile in my language against religion IF it wasn't for things like male and female genital mutilation, suicide bombing, gay people being discriminated against on religious grounds, sectarian violence, and preaching against birth control among other things.

If religious beliefs were kept as something private I wouldn't care.

Exactly what I said in my last post.
These views should not effect opthers or how they treat others.
If they do, I will be openly critical of their views as any rational person would be.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

You are still not grasping this, so lets break this down for you.

Intolerant or tolerant of religious discrminating views on women?

Why do I tell people that religion is bullshit, just as i would someone who believed in fairies as stated, is because there is no evidence. It is as simple as that and where it effects the well being and equality of people, I will be highly critical just as you should be unless you agree in discrminating against people based off beliefs?

So why is it your business what people believe?

There's no point telling people that their faith is "bullshit". You won't change that faith, and it just makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum because you can't make people agree with you.

Sorry, but religious people are the biggest group of people that spout that other religiosu faiths are bullshit. So is that okay for them to say and even use when trying to convert someone? You have not the first clue what you are talking about as again religious people are the worst for claiming other faiths are bullshit in the hope of converting. I again will speak out to views that effect the well being and equality of others, which you seem to think is in some way wrong to condemn. Examples of b ullshit ideas in religion, stonning adulterers, execution for homosexuals etc? So yes there is every point telling people their faith is bullshit when they activelly discrminate against others. If they practice their faith to themselves where it does not effect others, i am very happy with that and wish them well.

You failed to answer my question

Intolerant or tolerant of religious discrminating views on women?

I don't know why you anti-faith people can't mind your own business. Of course, if there are religious practises which are abhorrent, that's a different matter, but some of you just seem to enjoy being abusive about religious people generally.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't know why you anti-faith people can't mind your own business. Of course, if there are religious practises which are abhorrent, that's a different matter, but some of you just seem to enjoy being abusive about religious people generally.

So you are saying we should mind our own buisness when people are discrminated against by those of a faith in their beliefs?

So you wish to allow intolerance of people due to myths?

Again I have no problem with people who believe in God that does not effect others, whether they are Christian, Muslim etc. It is when they take views of their faith to discrminate or even worse persecute people.
If you wish to ignore these wrongs, they you are actually defending these bad ideas.
Hence please answer the question:


Intolerant or tolerant of religious discrminating views on women?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You avoided points 1 and 2 I noticed.

I'm not intolerant though, because I am not horrible about them and I am not treating them badly in any way whatsoever. If I was a Christian I would by default think anyone not a Christian believes in rubbish, same if I was Muslim or Hindu. By default with religious outlooks if you believe one thing then everyone else MUST believe in nonesense.

I'm not judging those people either. But tell me, if I told you I believe in unicorns and fairies and that we are all floating around space on the back of a turtle and should worship at an Ice Cream parlour every Wednesday, how would you consider my beliefs?

Points 1 wasn't really of interest to me, and point 2 was pretty much the same as point 3. You are being horrible to religious people if you tell them that their faith is bullshit, and you are judging them.

You wouldn't like it if someone said that gayness was bullshit, would you?

The big difference is being gay is crystal clear fact.

The FACT is that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, FSM believers etc CANNOT all be right, by default, how much does it take to hammer this fact home?

Therefore most of those people do believe in BS, whether I say it or not.

And again, since you are stubbornly ignoring another point made:

"I wouldn't be nearly as hostile in my language against religion IF it wasn't for things like male and female genital mutilation, suicide bombing, gay people being discriminated against on religious grounds, sectarian violence, and preaching against birth control among other things.

If religious beliefs were kept as something private I wouldn't care."

It's quite ironic that Didge is now using the name of a Greek goddess on here.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Points 1 wasn't really of interest to me, and point 2 was pretty much the same as point 3. You are being horrible to religious people if you tell them that their faith is bullshit, and you are judging them.

You wouldn't like it if someone said that gayness was bullshit, would you?

 The big difference is being gay is crystal clear fact.

The FACT is that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, FSM believers etc CANNOT all be right, by default, how much does it take to hammer this fact home?

Therefore most of those people do believe in BS, whether I say it or not.

And again, since you are stubbornly ignoring another point made:

"I wouldn't be nearly as hostile in my language against religion IF it wasn't for things like male and female genital mutilation, suicide bombing, gay people being discriminated against on religious grounds, sectarian violence, and preaching against birth control among other things.

If religious beliefs were kept as something private I wouldn't care."

Why not keep your own bigotry and intolerance private? It doesn't matter to you what people have faith in.

It's not ironic. God names from mythology are pretty cool and the interesting thing about mythical gods is they all have characteristics we can associate with.

Of course they ARE mythical.

If I told you I really followed the Roman gods and slaughter cows when I wanted something good to happen what would you think of my religious views raggs?

People who are gay should just be left alone to get on with their lives without all this hassle. They're not harming anyone in any way and if they want to commit themselves to each other in the eyes of the church why would anyone object to that?

People who are gay can be religious as well and why shouldn't they? I doubt the big guy upstairs would commit them to hell and damnation just for loving each other because that's what it is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

 The big difference is being gay is crystal clear fact.

The FACT is that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, FSM believers etc CANNOT all be right, by default, how much does it take to hammer this fact home?

Therefore most of those people do believe in BS, whether I say it or not.

And again, since you are stubbornly ignoring another point made:

"I wouldn't be nearly as hostile in my language against religion IF it wasn't for things like male and female genital mutilation, suicide bombing, gay people being discriminated against on religious grounds, sectarian violence, and preaching against birth control among other things.

If religious beliefs were kept as something private I wouldn't care."

Why not keep your own bigotry and intolerance private? It doesn't matter to you what people have faith in.

I don't go around telling people their is BS raggs, if the conversation arises I will be open enough to say I think religious beliefs are wrong and explain why I think so. But that isn't intolerance, if the subject comes up I assume to other person is open enough to accept conflicting views and discuss them.

See I'm not intolerant. My views do NOT affect how I am with people at all. While religious views often have great impact on the actions of believers, sometimes dangerously so. I do impede on anyone's right to believe things however silly I find them.

You however would allow me and my partner to be discriminated against by religious business owners- they only one showing intolerance here is you.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's quite ironic that Didge is now using the name of a Greek goddess on here.

Stop deflecting and answer the points, you are just acting childish now

So again

Intolerant or tolerant of religious discrminating views on women?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why not keep your own bigotry and intolerance private? It doesn't matter to you what people have faith in.

I don't go around telling people their is BS raggs, if the conversation arises I will be open enough to say I think religious beliefs are wrong and explain why I think so. But that isn't intolerance, if the subject comes up I assume to other person is open enough to accept conflicting views and discuss them.

See I'm not intolerant. My views do NOT affect how I am with people at all. While religious views often have great impact on the actions of believers, sometimes dangerously so. I do impede on anyone's right to believe things however silly I find them.

You however would allow me and my partner to be discriminated against by religious business owners- they only one showing intolerance here is you.

Er ... where did I say that I would allow you and your partner to be discriminated against? Please find where I said that and quote it. If you cannot do so, perhaps you could retract that.

[quote="Eilzel"]It's not ironic. God names from mythology are pretty cool and the interesting thing about mythical gods is they all have characteristics we can associate with.

Of course they ARE mythical.

If I told you I really followed the Roman gods and slaughter cows when I wanted something good to happen what would you think of my religious views raggs?[/quote]


Good point and interested to see if you get an answer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I don't go around telling people their is BS raggs, if the conversation arises I will be open enough to say I think religious beliefs are wrong and explain why I think so. But that isn't intolerance, if the subject comes up I assume to other person is open enough to accept conflicting views and discuss them.

See I'm not intolerant. My views do NOT affect how I am with people at all. While religious views often have great impact on the actions of believers, sometimes dangerously so. I do impede on anyone's right to believe things however silly I find them.

You however would allow me and my partner to be discriminated against by religious business owners- they only one showing intolerance here is you.

Er ... where did I say that I would allow you and your partner to be discriminated against? Please find where I said that and quote it. If you cannot do so, perhaps you could retract that.

You haven't said you oppose UKIP's policy here, when you this:

"Why would someone want a cake with "support gay marriage" on it? We have gay marriage so there's no need to support it or not support it."

and argue religious people should be left alone, the only inference to be made is you think religious folk should be allowed to turn away gay couples.

But ok, if you actually disagree with UKIP's policy then I will retract that. Can you clarify?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Er ... where did I say that I would allow you and your partner to be discriminated against? Please find where I said that and quote it. If you cannot do so, perhaps you could retract that.

You haven't said you oppose UKIP's policy here, when you this:

"Why would someone want a cake with "support gay marriage" on it? We have gay marriage so there's no need to support it or not support it."

and argue religious people should be left alone, the only inference to be made is you think religious folk should be allowed to turn away gay couples.

But ok, if you actually disagree with UKIP's policy then I will retract that. Can you clarify?

I commented about the cake because I thought it was a stupid thing to put on a wedding cake. I said that you should leave religious people alone when it comes to calling their faith "bullshit" because it's not your business if they have religious faith or not.

I do understand that some people have very strong religious beliefs about homosexuality, and I think that there's a issue in trying to force people to go against those, especially if they suddenly find themselves having to do so because the law changed after they started their business. I think this is what Farage is saying - that there's no point upsetting people by making them go against their religious beliefs.

However, I think that having a policy which allows some people to discriminate and not others is a bit silly and too vague, so I would oppose that particular policy.

I also think that singling out Christians is unfair, so I disagree with UKIP in that respect too. The Gay Police Association tried to single out Christians as being homophobic several years ago, and that was also wrong.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You haven't said you oppose UKIP's policy here, when you this:

"Why would someone want a cake with "support gay marriage" on it? We have gay marriage so there's no need to support it or not support it."

and argue religious people should be left alone, the only inference to be made is you think religious folk should be allowed to turn away gay couples.

But ok, if you actually disagree with UKIP's policy then I will retract that. Can you clarify?

I commented about the cake because I thought it was a stupid thing to put on a wedding cake. I said that you should leave religious people alone when it comes to calling their faith "bullshit" because it's not your business if they have religious faith or not.

I do understand that some people have very strong religious beliefs about homosexuality, and I think that there's a issue in trying to force people to go against those, especially if they suddenly find themselves having to do so because the law changed after they started their business. I think this is what Farage is saying - that there's no point upsetting people by making them go against their religious beliefs.

However, I think that having a policy which allows some people to discriminate and not others is a bit silly and too vague, so I would oppose that particular policy.  

I also think that singling out Christians is unfair, so I disagree with UKIP in that respect too. The Gay Police Association tried to single out Christians as being homophobic several years ago, and that was also wrong.

People have strong views against homosexuality, but those are wrong views. Same as people used to have strong views in support of slavery, those views were wrong too. It isn't right to mollycoddle people with views that are bigoted and outdated. They should change, there are no good grounds to discriminate this way.

MY problem with cases like cake shops (or pizzerias or B&Bs) is that one day a friendly gay couple could wander in and ask for service and be rejected solely on the grounds of being gay. That would be awful, I can't imagine how shitty that must feel. And for what? Because the business owner believes a man born of a virgin came back from the dead or another believes a desert warlord flew to heaven on a horse- wtf? That's should not be acceptable in 2015.

So what policy would you enact here raggs? To ensure everyone is happy?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I commented about the cake because I thought it was a stupid thing to put on a wedding cake. I said that you should leave religious people alone when it comes to calling their faith "bullshit" because it's not your business if they have religious faith or not.

I do understand that some people have very strong religious beliefs about homosexuality, and I think that there's a issue in trying to force people to go against those, especially if they suddenly find themselves having to do so because the law changed after they started their business. I think this is what Farage is saying - that there's no point upsetting people by making them go against their religious beliefs.

However, I think that having a policy which allows some people to discriminate and not others is a bit silly and too vague, so I would oppose that particular policy.  

I also think that singling out Christians is unfair, so I disagree with UKIP in that respect too. The Gay Police Association tried to single out Christians as being homophobic several years ago, and that was also wrong.

People have strong views against homosexuality, but those are wrong views. Same as people used to have strong views in support of slavery, those views were wrong too. It isn't right to mollycoddle people with views that are bigoted and outdated. They should change, there are no good grounds to discriminate this way.

MY problem with cases like cake shops (or pizzerias or B&Bs) is that one day a friendly gay couple could wander in and ask for service and be rejected solely on the grounds of being gay. That would be awful, I can't imagine how shitty that must feel. And for what? Because the business owner believes a man born of a virgin came back from the dead or another believes a desert warlord flew to heaven on a horse- wtf? That's should not be acceptable in 2015.

So what policy would you enact here raggs? To ensure everyone is happy?

Well they're not wrong to the people who hold those views. It's not relevant what year it is - religious views do not necessarily change because of the passage of time. I think you have to accept that some people will hold those views, and stop trying to change them. You can change whether or not they act on those views though.

Do you also disagree with discrimination against Christians? There was that case of the lady who was banned from wearing a cross at work on the grounds that it was "jewellery", but she said it was not, it was a religious symbol, and others were allowed to wear religious symbols. I supported her view, and I'm pleased she eventually won her case against the company and against the Government.

Do you disapprove of the people who defaced a Bible at an exhibition in Glasgow because they didn't like the stuff Paul said in it?

Re policies, I think that if it's not a huge deal, there could be some give and take. For example, if I wanted to buy a Bible from a bookshop, and the person serving me objected to selling a Bible because they perhaps didn't approve of it, I wouldn't mind if they called someone else to serve me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

People have strong views against homosexuality, but those are wrong views. Same as people used to have strong views in support of slavery, those views were wrong too. It isn't right to mollycoddle people with views that are bigoted and outdated. They should change, there are no good grounds to discriminate this way.

MY problem with cases like cake shops (or pizzerias or B&Bs) is that one day a friendly gay couple could wander in and ask for service and be rejected solely on the grounds of being gay. That would be awful, I can't imagine how shitty that must feel. And for what? Because the business owner believes a man born of a virgin came back from the dead or another believes a desert warlord flew to heaven on a horse- wtf? That's should not be acceptable in 2015.

So what policy would you enact here raggs? To ensure everyone is happy?

Well they're not wrong to the people who hold those views. It's not relevant what year it is - religious views do not necessarily change because of the passage of time. I think you have to accept that some people will hold those views, and stop trying to change them. You can change whether or not they act on those views though.

Do you also disagree with discrimination against Christians? There was that case of the lady who was banned from wearing a cross at work on the grounds that it was "jewellery", but she said it was not, it was a religious symbol, and others were allowed to wear religious symbols. I supported her view, and I'm pleased she eventually won her case against the company and against the Government.

Do you disapprove of the people who defaced a Bible at an exhibition in Glasgow because they didn't like the stuff Paul said in it?

Re policies, I think that if it's not a huge deal, there could be some give and take. For example, if I wanted to buy a Bible from a bookshop, and the person serving me objected to selling a Bible because they perhaps didn't approve of it, I wouldn't mind if they called someone else to serve me.

1. Year is relevant, because the passage of time should show certain beliefs to be irrelevant. And we shouldn't accept all beliefs. Did you know every 5 years in Nepal there is a religious festival where 250,000 or so animals and butchered in a field with machetes all to appease a goddess who will then take away evil and bring prosperity? It's true. Should we accept millions of people hold this belief and leave them to it? (There isn't much we can do anyway but even you should understand the point I'm making).

2. No I don't agree with discrimination against Christians, or any other religious people. She should have been allowed to wear her cross.

3. People defacing a document which contains inflammatory remarks is understandable. I don't tend to agree with defacing books however, arguing against them works much  better.

4. I'm not asking what you mind about in all respect. I'm asking if you think there should be any legal protection for people who want to treat others unequally on religious grounds.

By the way. People who think the Earth is flat are not wrong in their own minds- but they still ARE wrong...

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they're not wrong to the people who hold those views. It's not relevant what year it is - religious views do not necessarily change because of the passage of time. I think you have to accept that some people will hold those views, and stop trying to change them. You can change whether or not they act on those views though.

Do you also disagree with discrimination against Christians? There was that case of the lady who was banned from wearing a cross at work on the grounds that it was "jewellery", but she said it was not, it was a religious symbol, and others were allowed to wear religious symbols. I supported her view, and I'm pleased she eventually won her case against the company and against the Government.

Do you disapprove of the people who defaced a Bible at an exhibition in Glasgow because they didn't like the stuff Paul said in it?

Re policies, I think that if it's not a huge deal, there could be some give and take. For example, if I wanted to buy a Bible from a bookshop, and the person serving me objected to selling a Bible because they perhaps didn't approve of it, I wouldn't mind if they called someone else to serve me.

1. Year is relevant, because the passage of time should show certain beliefs to be irrelevant. And we shouldn't accept all beliefs. Did you know every 5 years in Nepal there is a religious festival where 250,000 or so animals and butchered in a field with machetes all to appease a goddess who will then take away evil and bring prosperity? It's true. Should we accept millions of people hold this belief and leave them to it? (There isn't much we can do anyway but even you should understand the point I'm making).

2. No I don't agree with discrimination against Christians, or any other religious people. She should have been allowed to wear her cross.

3. People defacing a document which contains inflammatory remarks is understandable. I don't tend to agree with defacing books however, arguing against them works much  better.

4. I'm not asking what you mind about in all respect. I'm asking if you think there should be any legal protection for people who want to treat others unequally on religious grounds.

By the way. People who think the Earth is flat are not wrong in their own minds- but they still ARE wrong...

One of the points of religious faith is that it's constant in times of change, so the year is not relevant. I said that you can't change beliefs, but I also said you can stop people acting on them. You can't stop people thinking that animals should be killed to appease a goddess, but you can stop them actually doing it - well you can try anyway.

Defacing the Bible was an insult to Christians, but you think that's OK? It was the defacing which was inflammatory IMO, and those people should have been prosecuted for damage to property, if nothing else.

There doesn't seem to be a policy which would make everyone happy, so there has to be a choice, yes? I think that now the law is clear, people who start up new businesses understand that they can't discriminate. Before, I think some people were already in business when the law changed, and that caused problems - particularly with a couple of B&B owners. The problem was that in making it illegal for them to discriminate, there was indirect discrimination against them for their religious beliefs.

I don't think the law will change, and I don't think it should, I'm just saying that there's no need for people to get all outraged and go running to the police or the courts all the time if it's a relatively trivial example of discrimination.

We're the defacing someone else's Bible? If not then it isn't property damage. And you obviously failed to read the part where I said I don't generally agree with damaging books at all.

And religion ISN'T constant. We no longer call Jews Christ killers, we have no problem with divorce, Hindu's in India AND Nepal are increasingly turning against religious sacrifice of animals, slavery is no longer defended on Christian grounds, most Christians no longer believe literal interpretations of the Bible and so on and so on. If you honestly think religion is constant then you are deliberately ignoring the history of all religions.

It is always evolving (not in a biological sense), which is why we should not hold any respect for discriminatory views based in religion. If you agree we can try and stop people slaughtering animals then why not also try and stop people discriminating against gay people?

Eilzel wrote:We're the defacing someone else's Bible? If not then it isn't property damage. And you obviously failed to read the part where I said I don't generally agree with damaging books at all.

And religion ISN'T constant. We no longer call Jews Christ killers, we have no problem with divorce, Hindu's in India AND Nepal are increasingly turning against religious sacrifice of animals, slavery is no longer defended on Christian grounds, most Christians no longer believe literal interpretations of the Bible and so on and so on. If you honestly think religion is constant then you are deliberately ignoring the history of all religions.

It is always evolving (not in a biological sense), which is why we should not hold any respect for discriminatory views based in religion. If you agree we can try and stop people slaughtering animals then why not also try and stop people discriminating against gay people?

This is the biggest hypocrisy around those who back the view to be anti-homosexual because of what the bible states is how they ignore other parts. Do you also see them advocate children should be executed if they are disobedient to their parents? This is what is so absurd with their reasoning, they chose to ignore some views and yet back others within the very same book of Lectiticus.

Eilzel wrote:We're the defacing someone else's Bible? If not then it isn't property damage. And you obviously failed to read the part where I said I don't generally agree with damaging books at all.

And religion ISN'T constant. We no longer call Jews Christ killers, we have no problem with divorce, Hindu's in India AND Nepal are increasingly turning against religious sacrifice of animals, slavery is no longer defended on Christian grounds, most Christians no longer believe literal interpretations of the Bible and so on and so on. If you honestly think religion is constant then you are deliberately ignoring the history of all religions.

It is always evolving (not in a biological sense), which is why we should not hold any respect for discriminatory views based in religion. If you agree we can try and stop people slaughtering animals then why not also try and stop people discriminating against gay people?

Yes, it wasn't their own Bible, it belonged to the museum.

I think you'll find that some religious people do have a problem with divorce, and those who don't probably never did. Calling Jews Christ killers was not in the Bible, and so it's not really a religious belief as such. The actions people take may not be constant, but you can't force someone to change their views just because it's 2015 and you don't like their views.

You cannot change the words in the Bible, and you cannot change the way some people interpret them. They are open to interpretation IMO, but that doesn't mean that anyone should be forced to re-interpret them.

Have I not already said that I agree with the law about discrimination? The problem is that it's also against the law to discriminate against people for their religion, so it's a bit of a minefield. I'm sure it will all settle down eventually though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:We're the defacing someone else's Bible? If not then it isn't property damage. And you obviously failed to read the part where I said I don't generally agree with damaging books at all.

And religion ISN'T constant. We no longer call Jews Christ killers, we have no problem with divorce, Hindu's in India AND Nepal are increasingly turning against religious sacrifice of animals, slavery is no longer defended on Christian grounds, most Christians no longer believe literal interpretations of the Bible and so on and so on. If you honestly think religion is constant then you are deliberately ignoring the history of all religions.

It is always evolving (not in a biological sense), which is why we should not hold any respect for discriminatory views based in religion. If you agree we can try and stop people slaughtering animals then why not also try and stop people discriminating against gay people?

Yes, it wasn't their own Bible, it belonged to the museum.

I think you'll find that some religious people do have a problem with divorce, and those who don't probably never did. Calling Jews Christ killers was not in the Bible, and so it's not really a religious belief as such. The actions people take may not be constant, but you can't force someone to change their views just because it's 2015 and you don't like their views.

You cannot change the words in the Bible, and you cannot change the way some people interpret them. They are open to interpretation IMO, but that doesn't mean that anyone should be forced to re-interpret them.

Have I not already said that I agree with the law about discrimination? The problem is that it's also against the law to discriminate against people for their religion, so it's a bit of a minefield. I'm sure it will all settle down eventually though.

If it belonged to a museum then of course they should have been prosecuted.

And never mind picking up on a few of my points on changing beliefs- the overarching point was beliefs are NOT constant. Which you have not argued against.

And we can try to change to change peoples views, because as with slavery, gender roles, racism etc we have seen how beliefs, including religion, can and do change. Attitudes like yours would see us stuck in the 18th century. Fortunately people have made major efforts to change hearts and minds and been continuously successful.

And if you don't think religious people should be allowed to legally discriminate then great, I retract my earlier statement

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, it wasn't their own Bible, it belonged to the museum.

I think you'll find that some religious people do have a problem with divorce, and those who don't probably never did. Calling Jews Christ killers was not in the Bible, and so it's not really a religious belief as such. The actions people take may not be constant, but you can't force someone to change their views just because it's 2015 and you don't like their views.

You cannot change the words in the Bible, and you cannot change the way some people interpret them. They are open to interpretation IMO, but that doesn't mean that anyone should be forced to re-interpret them.

Have I not already said that I agree with the law about discrimination? The problem is that it's also against the law to discriminate against people for their religion, so it's a bit of a minefield. I'm sure it will all settle down eventually though.

If it belonged to a museum then of course they should have been prosecuted.

And never mind picking up on a few of my points on changing beliefs- the overarching point was beliefs are NOT constant. Which you have not argued against.

And we can try to change to change peoples views, because as with slavery, gender roles, racism etc we have seen how beliefs, including religion, can and do change. Attitudes like yours would see us stuck in the 18th century. Fortunately people have made major efforts to change hearts and minds and been continuously successful.

And if you don't think religious people should be allowed to legally discriminate then great, I retract my earlier statement

You are demanding that people change their beliefs because it's 2015, but they're not obliged to do that. They read the Bible, believed what they read, and those words have not changed, and neither has their belief. You cannot force those people to approve of gayness, and you cannot take those words out of the Bible. As I said, they're open to interpretation - IMO - but in the opinion of others they are not.

There's nothing wrong with my attitude. You are the one being intolerant and demanding that people change their views to suit you. I am saying that tolerance needs to go both ways - something you clearly can't bear.

to be fair there is more about not eating shellfish than not being gay
Most Christians ignore that I think the man issue most people have with the christian argument is the hypocrisy of which versus are safe to ignore because 'old' and which are still relevant today.

As Groomsy has posted before like 5 cases of don't be gay hundreds of cases of love thy fellow man

Actually the bible is poor excuse for their discrimination and it shows they haven't really read the bible. or at least really missed JC's point

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

If it belonged to a museum then of course they should have been prosecuted.

And never mind picking up on a few of my points on changing beliefs- the overarching point was beliefs are NOT constant. Which you have not argued against.

And we can try to change to change peoples views, because as with slavery, gender roles, racism etc we have seen how beliefs, including religion, can and do change. Attitudes like yours would see us stuck in the 18th century. Fortunately people have made major efforts to change hearts and minds and been continuously successful.

And if you don't think religious people should be allowed to legally discriminate then great, I retract my earlier statement

You are demanding that people change their beliefs because it's 2015, but they're not obliged to do that. They read the Bible, believed what they read, and those words have not changed, and neither has their belief. You cannot force those people to approve of gayness, and you cannot take those words out of the Bible. As I said, they're open to interpretation - IMO - but in the opinion of others they are not.

There's nothing wrong with my attitude. You are the one being intolerant and demanding that people change their views to suit you. I am saying that tolerance needs to go both ways - something you clearly can't bear.

I'm not 'demanding' anything, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they can be changed as they have since the dawn of time and that therefore we should try. Views toward homosexuality have changed massively since the 1960s and in case it failed to escape your attention no one supports slavery anymore. You have no idea about history do you?

I am intolerant of intolerance and nothing more. People like you like to play the 'oh but you're so intolerant of their discriminatory views' without even realizing how inane that line is.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You are demanding that people change their beliefs because it's 2015, but they're not obliged to do that. They read the Bible, believed what they read, and those words have not changed, and neither has their belief. You cannot force those people to approve of gayness, and you cannot take those words out of the Bible. As I said, they're open to interpretation - IMO - but in the opinion of others they are not.

There's nothing wrong with my attitude. You are the one being intolerant and demanding that people change their views to suit you. I am saying that tolerance needs to go both ways - something you clearly can't bear.

I'm not 'demanding' anything, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they can be changed as they have since the dawn of time and that therefore we should try. Views toward homosexuality have changed massively since the 1960s and in case it failed to escape your attention no one supports slavery anymore. You have no idea about history do you?

I am intolerant of intolerance and nothing more. People like you like to play the 'oh but you're so intolerant of their discriminatory views' without even realizing how inane that line is.

You're saying they should be changed, but the people who hold those views do so because they believe it's what God wants. If they change those views it won't be because you tell them they're wrong.

If you're intolerant of intolerance, then you should also be intolerant of your own intolerance towards religious faith. It's a pity that intolerance of Christianity seems to be on the rise - that's a step backwards, so perhaps it's you who should pay attention to history.

It would be best if people like you kept your views about religious faith to yourself, and it would be better if people who think that gayness is wrong kept their views to themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'm not 'demanding' anything, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying they can be changed as they have since the dawn of time and that therefore we should try. Views toward homosexuality have changed massively since the 1960s and in case it failed to escape your attention no one supports slavery anymore. You have no idea about history do you?

I am intolerant of intolerance and nothing more. People like you like to play the 'oh but you're so intolerant of their discriminatory views' without even realizing how inane that line is.

You're saying they should be changed, but the people who hold those views do so because they believe it's what God wants. If they change those views it won't be because you tell them they're wrong.

If you're intolerant of intolerance, then you should also be intolerant of your own intolerance towards religious faith. It's a pity that intolerance of Christianity seems to be on the rise - that's a step backwards, so perhaps it's you who should pay attention to history.

It would be best if people like you kept your views about religious faith to yourself, and it would be better if people who think that gayness is wrong kept their views to themselves.

Really?

So why do many of those who who believe this is what God wants do not back from the same book of Leviticus to kill disobedient children?
Why back one command and not another?
Why do you keep coming out with the most daft reason that criticism of religion is intolerance?

Don't you see the problem raggs? If religions like Islam and Christisnity weren't inherently bigoted there wouldn't be a problem.

You are creating a non-existed paradox by using my opposition to particular religious views as a sign of my intolerance- let me ask you, and be brave enough to answer- should we tolerate racism?

Eilzel wrote:Don't you see the problem raggs? If religions like Islam and Christisnity weren't inherently bigoted there wouldn't be a problem.

You are creating a non-existed paradox by using my opposition to particular religious views as a sign of my intolerance- let me ask you, and be brave enough to answer- should we tolerate racism?

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity is not inherently bigoted. One might as well say that gay people are inherently bigoted because they tend to blame Christians for homophobia, and it's my opinion that most of it does not arise from religious belief.

I don't think that people should be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. You can't stop people disliking someone for their race, but they should not discriminate on that basis.

OMG, I would not even bother after that Eilzel.
So homosexuals who have been persecuted for centuries by Christians because of their faith, are now bigoted towards Christians who would have every right to be, but in fact the reality is many are not.

She is just making unfounded accusations that she cannot back up and failing to respond to many points.


Good luck, it pointless to continue when she fails to answer many valid points raised.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Don't you see the problem raggs? If religions like Islam and Christisnity weren't inherently bigoted there wouldn't be a problem.

You are creating a non-existed paradox by using my opposition to particular religious views as a sign of my intolerance- let me ask you, and be brave enough to answer- should we tolerate racism?

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity is not inherently bigoted. One might as well say that gay people are inherently bigoted because they tend to blame Christians for homophobia, and it's my opinion that most of it does not arise from religious belief.

I don't think that people should be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. You can't stop people disliking someone for their race, but they should not discriminate on that basis.

What? Christianity has passages which support slavery, promote the subservience and women and treating them as objects, state being gay is wrong and much more. Have you ever actually read the Bible at a decent length? You are being deliberately ignorant here.

Why shouldn't they discriminate? What if they were brought up with the absolute belief that their race was superior and that people of other races shouldn't be treated the same? It's their beliefs why should you force them to change? People should just avoid them right?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I can't speak for Islam, but Christianity is not inherently bigoted. One might as well say that gay people are inherently bigoted because they tend to blame Christians for homophobia, and it's my opinion that most of it does not arise from religious belief.

I don't think that people should be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. You can't stop people disliking someone for their race, but they should not discriminate on that basis.

What? Christianity has passages which support slavery, promote the subservience and women and treating them as objects, state being gay is wrong and much more. Have you ever actually read the Bible at a decent length? You are being deliberately ignorant here.

Why shouldn't they discriminate? What if they were brought up with the absolute belief that their race was superior and that people of other races shouldn't be treated the same? It's their beliefs why should you force them to change? People should just avoid them right?

Sod off with your patronising attitude. You can disagree with me if you like, but I'm a bit fed up with your arrogant attitude. I do not think that Christianity is inherently bigoted. Read the words of Jesus and then come back to discuss it with me.

If people want to believe they are superior to other races, that's up to them. How many fucking times do I need to say to you that believing something is one thing, and acting on that belief is another thing. You seem to think you can force people to change their views to what you want. You cannot do that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

What? Christianity has passages which support slavery, promote the subservience and women and treating them as objects, state being gay is wrong and much more. Have you ever actually read the Bible at a decent length? You are being deliberately ignorant here.

Why shouldn't they discriminate? What if they were brought up with the absolute belief that their race was superior and that people of other races shouldn't be treated the same? It's their beliefs why should you force them to change? People should just avoid them right?

Sod off with your patronising attitude. You can disagree with me if you like, but I'm a bit fed up with your arrogant attitude. I do not think that Christianity is inherently bigoted. Read the words of Jesus and then come back to discuss it with me.

If people want to believe they are superior to other races, that's up to them. How many fucking times do I need to say to you that believing something is one thing, and acting on that belief is another thing. You seem to think you can force people to change their views to what you want. You cannot do that.

Look you are basically denying a huge chunk of the Bible actually doesn't exist. That Saint Paul either didn't exist or never said what he is recorded as saying. If you read those sections you would see it is inherently bigoted. Christianity is not JUST what Jesus said- if it is then you can take back everything you said about Christians and views against being gay because Jesus said NOTHING on the matter.

You can't just say something is when it evidently isn't. Someone can't just say the world is flat and have others so 'oh ok sure that's right if you think so'. You want me to just say 'oh if you say it isn't then I guess it isn't' when substantial tracts in the Bible are massively bigoted. You obviously just haven't read them.

I also already said I'm not forcing anything; but we can try to change views via education and the media.

You are getting upset for nothing. I have as much reason to be aggravated as you with you deliberate subverting of points I and Nemesis have made. If you are going to make certain claims expect them to be challenged.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sod off with your patronising attitude. You can disagree with me if you like, but I'm a bit fed up with your arrogant attitude. I do not think that Christianity is inherently bigoted. Read the words of Jesus and then come back to discuss it with me.

If people want to believe they are superior to other races, that's up to them. How many fucking times do I need to say to you that believing something is one thing, and acting on that belief is another thing. You seem to think you can force people to change their views to what you want. You cannot do that.

Look you are basically denying a huge chunk of the Bible actually doesn't exist. That Saint Paul either didn't exist or never said what he is recorded as saying. If you read those sections you would see it is inherently bigoted. Christianity is not JUST what Jesus said- if it is then you can take back everything you said about Christians and views against being gay because Jesus said NOTHING on the matter.

You can't just say something is when it evidently isn't. Someone can't just say the world is flat and have others so 'oh ok sure that's right if you think so'. You want me to just say 'oh if you say it isn't then I guess it isn't' when substantial tracts in the Bible are massively bigoted. You obviously just haven't read them.

I also already said I'm not forcing anything; but we can try to change views via education and the media.

You are getting upset for nothing. I have as much reason to be aggravated as you with you deliberate subverting of points I and Nemesis have made. If you are going to make certain claims expect them to be challenged.

I have my own views on St Paul and the meaning of what he said. Of course I've read those sections. I wonder why you have though - you seem to be spoiling for a fight on the issue the whole time.

I don't need to take anything back because it's not me who is saying anything about gay people. Jesus certainly did not mention them, but if others choose to pay more attention to St Paul, that's up to them. How many more times do I have to say that what is said by him is open to interpretation? There is nothing inherently bigoted about it.

As for Nemesis, I'm not reading what he says - had enough of him yesterday with his constant insults.

I think you will find it was you insulting and again you are now using this as an excuse because you cannot answer my points, so be my guest and sulk like a child, as you clearly are doing now.
That is what you call a copout
You also have a basic knowledge of Christianity as well as seen.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Look you are basically denying a huge chunk of the Bible actually doesn't exist. That Saint Paul either didn't exist or never said what he is recorded as saying. If you read those sections you would see it is inherently bigoted. Christianity is not JUST what Jesus said- if it is then you can take back everything you said about Christians and views against being gay because Jesus said NOTHING on the matter.

You can't just say something is when it evidently isn't. Someone can't just say the world is flat and have others so 'oh ok sure that's right if you think so'. You want me to just say 'oh if you say it isn't then I guess it isn't' when substantial tracts in the Bible are massively bigoted. You obviously just haven't read them.

I also already said I'm not forcing anything; but we can try to change views via education and the media.

You are getting upset for nothing. I have as much reason to be aggravated as you with you deliberate subverting of points I and Nemesis have made. If you are going to make certain claims expect them to be challenged.

I have my own views on St Paul and the meaning of what he said. Of course I've read those sections. I wonder why you have though - you seem to be spoiling for a fight on the issue the whole time.

I don't need to take anything back because it's not me who is saying anything about gay people. Jesus certainly did not mention them, but if others choose to pay more attention to St Paul, that's up to them. How many more times do I have to say that what is said by him is open to interpretation? There is nothing inherently bigoted about it.

As for Nemesis, I'm not reading what he says - had enough of him yesterday with his constant insults.

Paul spread Christianity to Europe, without him you would probably not be Christian today. Either way, the Bible is THE text of Christianity and it is inherently bigoted on paper- perhaps I should have said the Bible was inherently bigoted instead?

I have read the Bible because it interests me, I know the stories very well because I went to church until the age of 10 and was fascinated by Bible stories (still am in fact) from a general interest perspective.

I haven't asked you to take anything back.

the trouble is of course, and I beleive I have mentioned this before Eil

what exactly do you want?

tolerance??

do you really want tolerance....or
is what you want acceptance

you see tolerance can be forced on someone and thus be given only grudgingly and only in as much measure as required by law

acceptance however is unconditional and free....

i think the point you are missing of course is that you are relying on the stupidity of those that are thus bigoted

pass a law and they will perforce, out of fear and stupidity reluctantly follow it...so you think

the smart guy however is another matter

He will produce a large list of "standard" messages for wedding cakes....anything else is a "special" and will cost 5 times as much..

He will be nice or surley and unwelcoming, difficult to deal with and not worth your effort when it suits him...
nothing of course that you can actually pin down and make a case of but non the less off putting...

the single small business is in a far more powerful position than a large concern in these matters

there are some folks for whom I'm always too busy to take on work from....(due to past experiences)
and I can never be called upon to justify that....since busy may include personal life as well as business.....
and in any case could never be proved......

see what I mean

Tolerance is a poor substitute for acceptance......
personally I wouldnt want someone to merely "tolerate" me

I'd sooner they were open about their "problem" with me and be done with it......especially when there are plenty of alternative suppliers etc available MOST of whom would be quite willing to oblige.....even if ONLY to pinch a bit of business from the guy up the road and no other reason....

I agree with that vic.

Of course acceptance is what is wanted, but if the best to be expected from some is tolerance so be it, in time more and more will fall into the former catagory.

But we don't need laws allowing open unashamed discrimination on religious grounds, what I'm sure UKIP don't realize is this type of policy could be abused further by Muslims.

I know some business owners will find ways of not serving people they don't like- nothing we can do about that, that's their perogative. But open discrimination, no chance, this isn't 50 years ago.