If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Makes no sense... Are you Klintock's less mean twin or something?
And is this division always a bad thing?
Again... I don't see the point in this.
You claim that understanding differences between people segregates society, no shit. Then you put society in speech marks and say "society can't treat anyone"... Are you talking about society as an entity? Do you not believe it can exist?
I discriminate? No shit... Who the hell doesn't? Simplistic statement, no point to it.
Plenty of hotels reject all-male or all-female group bookings (perhaps if they don't want the stag do/hen night crowd). You presumably think hotels have no right to do that? The reason hotels would provide for turning down such bookings would probably be that they are 'family-orientated' establishments or have had problems in the past with such bookings - which certainly isn't serving all of the public without discrimination...
Some gay bars/clubs turn away straight people. Should this be allowed? (I believe this will be banned with the new legislation). I don't agree.
The nearest pub to where I went to school always refused service to Sixth Formers with a school tie (even if over 18 with ID and outside school hours). Should they be allowed to do that? I think so - but I always thought they were twats for it and consequently I always avoided the place whatever clothes I was wearing and I still avoid it because I didn't like their policy. (Or attitude for that matter).
I admit that doesn't compare to refusing service because of someone's race or sexuality - but I know for sure that if establishments intent on refusing service to people for that reason were forced to publicly and clearly acknowledge their bigoted policies, a lot of people would boycott them. Indeed, wouldn't it be preferable to allow the racist twat to deny entry to black people and for him to then go out of business?
The way you have ?
You brought up harassment in a thread discussing discrimination.
Not that I`m aware of.I have a similar accent to young Mr.Klintock and that`s about it.
Not always.
You appear to be talking about society as an entity. That`s a lie.
All your other groups that you treat as entities likewise.
But you are asking a third party to put a gun to the head of someone else who also discriminates, in order to stop it happening.
I've been thinking about the above comment, and I think kermit is absolutely right, I refer you to my first post in this thread.
I'm embarrassed by this, because the article explicitly mentions christians. None of you are embarrassed because none of you are linked to those people. Because the article says christians, I have to answer for them, because I'm a christian. No-one will expect anything from any of the agnostics or atheists here.
Incidentally, I'm sure you've all noticed that it failed, big surprise.
I noticed in a picture of the demonstration that 95% of the people there were black, but if I'd come on and said that "black people hate gays and want pro-gay laws banned" I'd have been rightly attacked for it.
I am in favour of the legislation, although I doubt it will make too much difference. Bouncers still keep black people out if they are racist.
The homophobia has nothing to do with their religious beliefs, and their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their homophobia, just as the skin colour of the protestors has nothing to do with it.
But also because it should be illegal (IMO) to discriminate against anyone on race, ethnic, sexual orientation or religious grounds.
Religion used to be used as justification for racism, too, without it having diddly squat to do with it.
No-one else is connected that way. Non-prejudiced brits don't have to apologise for, or be embarrassed by, prejudiced ones. No-one here is doing that.
So reporting like this isn't exactly helpful.
In practice I think it often means there really isn’t any religious accountability.
Why is it a lie?
Again, makes no sense... Nor is this even relevent. Where have I (or has anyone) condoned violence to people who don't think like them?
You just come across as if you're pumping out pseudo-intellectual philosophy to confuse people or spark irrelevent debate tbh.
As for my views on this... I don't believe that people should be forced to promote things that they don't believe in. Muslims, for example, have no time for gays. I don't agree with that view, but they are perfectly entitled to believe it. That said, I don't think anyone should be allowed to actively discriminate against someone else on the grounds of sexuality, nor anything else. If, and that's a very big if, the new laws force people to promote practices they don't agree with, then I would be deeply uncomfortable with its introduction.
There was a good article in the Guardian before Christmas about it (the Guardian is 20p in my uni shop, cheap read), I think Ruth Kelly said something too. Can't quite remember.
To be honest, why is it any business of any religious group what people do behind closed doors?
I think the new act is great. You can't refuse somebody a service on the grounds they are black, or of a diffeent religion to you, so why should somebody who is gay have any less rights?
I've noticed the very same thing happening with Americans, British people seem to latch on to them and blame them personally for all the ills of the Bush administration.
Consider this scenario, for example. A young woman comes in to see a Catholic doctor. She wants to know how she can get an abortion. I don't think the doctor should be forced to tell her, as he's more likely than not to be against abortion - he may see it as a form of murder. However, I don't think that he should be forcing his view on her either, so I would suggest he delegates this issue to another doctor. It seems a fair compromise to me.
The trouble is, there's so much confusion and spin going around at the moment regarding this act that it's hard to tell just what it will and won't do. Why, oh why, in the 21st century, isn't it possible for some people to discuss this in a sensible, orderly manner?
They are paid by the NHS, they should follow the NHS line.
If you have a problem with, for example the issue of abortion then maybe you should be in a different profession. That's not to say that Catholics cannot be doctors, it is just that if your religious views or political views affect how wellyou do your job then maybe you should have chosen another profession.
You know what I mean, that was just an example.
... and a Chef who's jewish should have to prepare pork?
Sorry, that's just bollocks.
Remember abortions are elective procedures and there are other ways of securing support frmo a doctor. I know of many OB/GYN surgeons who won't perform them, ditto anaesthetists...
That said, it's not like they would then refuse to treat that person for something else, including complications. The issue at stake here is discrimination generally and I fail to see what the religious groups problem is, it isn't a sin for them to associate with homosexuals and according to their beliefs the homosexual person will face judgement at "the Pearly Gates" anyway...
Well it's not true is it?
Although, admittedly I do also save some of my anger for 'selective' press, as they feed the ignorance with their selective 'truths'.
Whether I approve of homosexual behaviour or not has no bearing on treating all people with a basic level of respect and decency. I can say to someone, I don't think actively pursuing a homosexual lifestyle is ok, and that have no impact on how I actually treat them.
Exactly, I have a feeling there might be some sort of christian teaching covering that sort of thing.