EPTIn the UK most people only go to Church to get married or to get buried. Church in the UK is increasingly seen as oudated and soon to be out of influence. It is great to live in a progressive society, governed by rationality rather than dogma born of superstition.
UK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
In the UK most people only go to Church to get married or to get buried. Church in the UK is increasingly seen as oudated and soon to be out of influence. It is great to live in a progressive society, governed by rationality rather than dogma born of superstition. | ||
|
Deleted User 108965
1096 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote: To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation. This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church. I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote: i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short? | ||
|
Savern101
United Kingdom859 Posts
As a side note, I personally am happy for gay couples to be afforded all the same rights as heterosexual couples, but in the UK that was already legislated for under Civil partnerships. For some reason, and I can't completely explain it, I'm slightly wary of changes to the definition of "Marriage". I guess I don't see why hetero and homosexual relationships can't have different labels for what is basically the same thing. We already use different names for them, hetero/straight, homo/gay/lesbian etc. | ||
|
Penev
28481 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote: i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
However, this is coming at it from an american perspective (bias disclosed) | ||
|
Deadeight
United Kingdom1629 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:47 Savern101 wrote: British Christian here (albeit pretty lazy and liberal). I preferred the previous iteration of this law, where Gay marriage was to be legalised, but no church/mosque etc. would be forced to carry it out. I feel like the law has gone the wrong way about it now, as it leaves much less flexibility for proponents of gay marriage within religions. As a side note, I personally am happy for gay couples to be afforded all the same rights as heterosexual couples, but in the UK that was already legislated for under Civil partnerships. For some reason, and I can't completely explain it, I'm slightly wary of changes to the definition of "Marriage". I guess I don't see why hetero and homosexual relationships can't have different labels for what is basically the same thing. We already use different names for them, hetero/straight, homo/gay/lesbian etc. "Interracial marriage" isn't a legal thing, for example, and it shouldn't be. Having different labels for what is basically the same thing (your words), invites some discrimination in my opinion. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:42 hzflank wrote: So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short? Well yes, but a business wouldn't last long in today's economic climate if they refuse major demographics purely based on discrimination. The problem with discrimination laws is that they can be abused. In the U.S. most businesses reserve the right to refuse to serve any person for any reason. This covers a variety of situations, like cutting people off of alcohol at bars/restaurants, kicking out unruly customers or kids that don't want to pay for anything, etc. Yes, it can be used to discriminate, but this isn't the 1960's. Restaurants aren't separated into black joints and white joints. If a business owner openly discriminates against a specific group, that is not going to be good for his business, and if he discriminates against his workers he faces legal action. But if you have convoluted discrimination laws in place, that drunk you throw out of your bar for being too drunk can claim it was because he was black, or the teenager you don't let into your store because you're sure she's a shoplifter can claim it is because she is a woman. Businesses are not public or governmental institutions and shouldn't be required to serve every single person that walks into their door. Religion is a bit different in terms of being a public entity, but since their system of beliefs is really all a religion has you really shouldn't be able to force them to perform a ceremony they don't believe in. Again, this is assuming that secular homosexual marriages are possible and the religious ceremony is purely cosmetic/spiritual. | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
1. Labelling: I think you (Kwark) underestimate the power of naming and labelling. I think its an amazing thing that a society has not only alligned gay's rights with straight people's in law but is also calling bringing them together under the same label. A 'separate but equal' policy is not healthy and has proven (IMO) to not work as it still emphasises the 'otherness' of civil partnerships. 2. Unlawful Discrimination: I have always found the exemptions under UK discrimination law to be very odd. Technically (though it has not been challenged in courts yet), a buddhist vegetarian can ask for special treatment (e.g. food suiting his needs in prison - though this example didn't go to court a UK prison changed its policy for fear of a legal challenge) based on his faith, but if I were to make a case based on reason, pertaining to no particular religious/social group (vegetarians have not yet been classed as such, but I'm sure may be in the future) the outcome is less certain. My point is that religious insititutions have been afforded a certain amount of leeway e.g. gender discrination in recruitment, and more and more I find it very difficult to accept that we have this kind of double standard with regards to secular organisations and religious ones. Which leads me to my next point 3. Moral Relativism: quite a few posters have argued that morality is subjective etc... I assume they also mean relative as there is a fair bit of overlap/confusion between the two terms. But as a UK resident/citizen it is impossible not to notice that British civil society seems unwilling to pronounce judgment on other cultures/religions for fear, perhaps, of being perceived as cultural imperialists. This is a fine, very British, way of dealing with a multi-cultural society but I think this 'Politically Correct' (apologies) approach is being pushed to its very limit and is in some ways incredibly insulting. We are essentially saying that we do not need to hold certain cultures/beliefs/ways of life to the same, I would say very high, standard that we would apply to others. Though it is not my opinion that anyone should be repressed from practicing and celebrating their beliefs/cultures, we have got to apply principles of rule of law, equality (I can already see the angry responses to the use of this rather dubious term) and all the other qualities that make a just society to all sections of said society. Thanks, froggynoddy | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote: You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate). | ||
KwarK
United States42695 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 108965
1096 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote: You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? On December 13 2012 01:42 hzflank wrote: So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short? am i ok with it? well no i dont agree with their decision, but i think that they should have that right to make their stupid decision | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote: You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? Did you think it through? No, few people would be OK with that, and they would demonstrate that by refusing to eat at McDonalds. McDonalds is a public company and probably would suffer a crippling backlash if they came out and said they would not serve African Americans. That doesn't mean there should be a law preventing them from doing so. In addition, each individual restaurant is held accountable by the corporation, so an individual store manager can't suddenly decide to stop serving black people without facing consequences from those above him. You should probably think about what is socially and economically acceptable before slapping laws onto everything. But a small business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If that means they won't serve blacks or women that's his prerogative but it's really not a good business model and won't garner him any good will with his community. I've always believed that if you force someone, by law, to put aside their bigotry and prejudices, it's not nearly as effective as showing them that their bigotry and prejudices are no longer acceptable in society. It's already happening, but as religions continue to lose clout among the world's youth they will realize that if they want to perpetuate their faith they need to be able to appeal to this generation. That includes more modern views on homosexuals. | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote: We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. Just to emphasise what I think Kwark is saying. There is a difference between discrimination (a normal human process used in practically all decision making) and unlawful discrimination, which aims to stop people from applying non-relevant factors (i.e. protected characteristics of gender, sexual orientation, religion etc...) to certain decisions in society (e.g. in domains of employment, public services, consumer issues etc...). Throwing out a customer because he is being aggressive/drunk is a relevant factor to consider when making the decision of whether to serve him/her. Refusing to serve him because he is gay or catholic is not relevant (or at least not deemed to be based on democratic/rule of law principles). EDIT: Applying the above logic to the topic at hand: refusing, or allowing a particular segment of society to refuse individuals to be afforded the same respect by being brought under the same label of 'marriage', based on their sexuality seems to me to be like such an example of a non-relevant factor being applied to a pretty fundamental process of UK society. (i.e. sharing ones life with another). | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:55 ZasZ. wrote: Well yes, but a business wouldn't last long in today's economic climate if they refuse major demographics purely based on discrimination. The problem with discrimination laws is that they can be abused. In the U.S. most businesses reserve the right to refuse to serve any person for any reason. This covers a variety of situations, like cutting people off of alcohol at bars/restaurants, kicking out unruly customers or kids that don't want to pay for anything, etc. Yes, it can be used to discriminate, but this isn't the 1960's. Restaurants aren't separated into black joints and white joints. If a business owner openly discriminates against a specific group, that is not going to be good for his business, and if he discriminates against his workers he faces legal action. But if you have convoluted discrimination laws in place, that drunk you throw out of your bar for being too drunk can claim it was because he was black, or the teenager you don't let into your store because you're sure she's a shoplifter can claim it is because she is a woman. Businesses are not public or governmental institutions and shouldn't be required to serve every single person that walks into their door. Religion is a bit different in terms of being a public entity, but since their system of beliefs is really all a religion has you really shouldn't be able to force them to perform a ceremony they don't believe in. Again, this is assuming that secular homosexual marriages are possible and the religious ceremony is purely cosmetic/spiritual. Actually in the US you cannot deny service to anyone for ANY reason. Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. California takes it a step further by adding a few more limitations. The Unruh Civil Rights Act , or Unruh Act, as discussed in the housing chapter of this publication, applies to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public. Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include bookstores, gymnasiums, shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and condominium homeowners associations. The Unruh Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition. The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. For example, the arbitrary exclusion of individuals from a restaurant based on their sexual orientation is prohibited. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch4 | ||
|
Penev
28481 Posts
On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate). I like your attitude of being able (trying) to see more than just one side of an argument but in this case I think it's a good idea to test this stance with an (more) extreme example. Should people/ businesses be allowed to not help someone in mortal danger because of their ethnicity? | ||
|
Penev
28481 Posts
On December 13 2012 02:02 ZasZ. wrote: Did you think it through? No, few people would be OK with that, and they would demonstrate that by refusing to eat at McDonalds. McDonalds is a public company and probably would suffer a crippling backlash if they came out and said they would not serve African Americans. That doesn't mean there should be a law preventing them from doing so. In addition, each individual restaurant is held accountable by the corporation, so an individual store manager can't suddenly decide to stop serving black people without facing consequences from those above him. You should probably think about what is socially and economically acceptable before slapping laws onto everything. But a small business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If that means they won't serve blacks or women that's his prerogative but it's really not a good business model and won't garner him any good will with his community. I've always believed that if you force someone, by law, to put aside their bigotry and prejudices, it's not nearly as effective as showing them that their bigotry and prejudices are no longer acceptable in society. It's already happening, but as religions continue to lose clout among the world's youth they will realize that if they want to perpetuate their faith they need to be able to appeal to this generation. That includes more modern views on homosexuals. Yes I did; See my previous post. Edit: What if all the restaurants in a little town wouldn't serve to women and you're a (hungry) woman just passing through. Should be allowed? | ||
| ||
