Would You Let a Gay Man Teach Your Children Performing Arts?

nilagin said:
Who said I was a Christian? Being born in a predominantly Christian country I have as you said had an upbringing based on Christianity as has the law of this country which is why until other means were supplied, you had to swear an oath on the bible in court. You only see religion for what you want to see of it, not for what it may or may not be. Some of us are just more tolerant and not so narrow minded as yourself.
Click to expand...
Your tolerance has shone through your remarks regarding homosexuality :)

As above, I'm far from narrow minded, people are free to 'believe' what they like, what they're not free to do is treat people differently based on those beliefs, particularly if those actions are contrary to the equal opportunities act.
 
Cobra said:
Do you remember the "bakers" from last year?
I can't find any reference to a court case though.
(Sorry about the link source :D )

A letter from the Commission said: ‘We have advised Mr Lee that you have acted unlawfully and contrary to Regulation Five of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 which prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services to a person seeking or obtaining to use those goods, facilities or services on the grounds of sexual orientation.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...logan-support-gay-marriage.html#ixzz3stFoLPi1
Click to expand...

Unless I'm reading it wrong, that's in reference to a business. The quote is in context of a letter from the commission to the baker, agreeing with Mr Lee (the complainant).
 
BRASH said:
Not all Christians will share the beliefs of the 'many' you know. I don't think anyone has to justify their beliefs. It is my view that you cannot pick and choose what you believe. If you believe it you believe it if you don't you don't. You gave no control over that imo. That's not to say you can't realise certain beliefs are wrong but that in itself doesn't cause you to change that belief it's just an acceptance that it's wrong. That's how my mind works anyhow and that's how it's been all my life. Works for me.
Click to expand...
But people are free to choose what they believe.

That is how we work, we can choose what we believe.
 
Phil V said:
But people are free to choose what they believe.

That is how we work, we can choose what we believe.
Click to expand...

I disagree, as referenced in my previous post. I don't believe you can choose to believe something, I believe your mind chooses that for you (not you specifically of course). At least for me and I won't be convinced otherwise unless my subconscious mind dictates it.
 
Phil V said:
Your tolerance has shone through your remarks regarding homosexuality :)

As above, I'm far from narrow minded, people are free to 'believe' what they like, what they're not free to do is treat people differently based on those beliefs, particularly if those actions are contrary to the equal opportunities act.
Click to expand...
I've made no remarks over homosexuality other than it shouldn't be afforded any more than someone's religious belief. The Equal Opportunities Act states that you can't discriminate on the grounds of colour, race, religion, sexuality etc. It doesn't state that one sets a precedent over another they should all be treated as equal. And whilst the man, as a service provider. is duty bound to act under the EOA, a customer is not.
Your reactions to the woman's beliefs, shows how narrow minded and bigoted you really are.
 
In answer the the OP, n o it would not bother me in the slightest. If it was April 1st I'd have thought it was a joke!

It is sad people think like this but over time these sorts of opinions will become less and less in the same way racism has reduced against certain minorities in this country. Sadly their always tends to be a new target once it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against one section of society, currently something like this (anecdotal and off the top of my head):

Discrimination, stereotyping and abuse unacceptable: Black, Asian, People with disabilities

Discrimination, stereotyping and abuse acceptable: Muslims, Eastern Europeans, Anyone Ginger, various nationalities (french, US etc)

Somewhere in the middle: Homosexuals, people with mental health issues

Mocking and calling people stupid or less pleasant names is never a way to change someone's mind, as has been seen here over and over again and will be seen on various other threads on forums across the world. Whilst I thoroughly disagree with the lady's views, and I agree with his points about thinking about professions, both sides should have kept it private. I thought her message itself was polite and reasoned (whether you agreed with the reason or not). His giving the money to that organisation was deliberately inflammatory. Next time this comes about, instead of having the opportunity to change someone's mind, there will simply be a I'm not attending the class anymore which won't help anyone.
 
There are so many ridiculous ‘rules’ in the old testament. This whole debate just proves how people still think they can say and do anything they like and think religion can justify their discriminatory actions. Argue about the law all you want; she has shown just herself to be ignorant, using her religion as an excuse. And she will perpetuate this to her children unless they choose to listen to what they hear in assemblies, PSHE and RE at school.
 
nilagin said:
I've made no remarks over homosexuality other than it shouldn't be afforded any more than someone's religious belief. The Equal Opportunities Act states that you can't discriminate on the grounds of colour, race, religion, sexuality etc. It doesn't state that one sets a precedent over another they should all be treated as equal. And whilst the man, as a service provider. is duty bound to act under the EOA, a customer is not.
Your reactions to the woman's beliefs, shows how narrow minded and bigoted you really are.
Click to expand...
It doesn't! She's welcome to her beliefs, she's not entitled to discriminate based on them though. It's a significant difference, that has nothing to do with my narrow mind, it's the way of the world.

So for the 5th time (at least) the law states that your rights never override someone else's nor can your freedom to believe be used to circumvent the law. So you're free to believe what you like, but you're not free to discriminate against someone based on those beliefs.

So you can be a Mormon, or other religion which permits multiple marriages, but you're not free to be a bigamist. You're free to be a Methodist, which makes you free to not enter a bookies, but not free to smash their windows. You can be a Muslim and believe that homosexuality is wrong, but you can't refuse them service in your shop.

The only question that remains: Will you understand it this time? Or will you see those facts as just a sign of me being a bigot?
 
BRASH said:
I disagree, as referenced in my previous post. I don't believe you can choose to believe something, I believe your mind chooses that for you (not you specifically of course). At least for me and I won't be convinced otherwise unless my subconscious mind dictates it.
Click to expand...
In the previous 'locked' thread, a very tolerant and lovely Christian man told me that my free will was given to me by God! Go figure?
 
Phil V said:
In the previous 'locked' thread, a very tolerant and lovely Christian man told me that my free will was given to me by God! Go figure?
Click to expand...

That certainly wasn't me. Go, eh refigure!!
 
BRASH said:
That certainly wasn't me. Go, eh refigure!!
Click to expand...
I'm aware it wasn't, it was a gentleman with tolerance and intelligence.

And whilst I thought his point was somewhat delusional, it came from a good place.
 
Phil V said:
I'm aware it wasn't, it was a gentleman with tolerance and intelligence.

And whilst I thought his point was somewhat delusional, it came from a good place.
Click to expand...

I'm in a good place. 100% know who, what and why I am and 100% comfortable with every aspect of that warts and all. Not a lot of folk can in all truthfulness can say that. I digress tho.
 
BRASH said:
I don't believe you can choose to believe something, I believe your mind chooses that for you (not you specifically of course).
Click to expand...

Make your mind up.
Or have your mind make itself up for you.
:ROFLMAO:
 
nilagin said:
The bible states that men shouldn't lay with another man as they would a woman. Meaning men shouldn't have sex with men. Yet the law states that you can't discriminate against that, so the law is discriminating against the bible on which it bases it's laws. Get your head out of the sand accept that people do have religious beliefs even if you don't, even though a lot of how you conduct your life will be based on religious belief passed down over generations for 2000yrs. The fact is you just pick and choose which of those beliefs you want more than a Christian and whilst they wish to call themselves a Christian, .
Click to expand...

But that's not a Rule given to Christians, and the New Testament clearly states that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament rules. It's exactly the same in law, new rules override the old ones.

Which part of that don't you understand? For 'Christians' to claim homosexuality is a sin based on the Old Testament is incorrect, just as much as the following the other 'rules' would be. They've been superceeded.

In the case of law, I'm presuming you follow the Church of England, the supreme governor of the c of e is the queen, whose ministers manage the laws of this country on her behalf. Therefore there is a link between the church and the laws of this country.
 
viv1969 said:
Make your mind up.
Or have your mind make itself up for you.
:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are as thick as you somtimes come across. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not going to explain it again.:rolleyes:
 
If you're not religious, then the religious rules don't apply to you. And the religious rules were just made up rules to suit those who had the power a long long time ago. When a lot of inequality and injustice was possible. These days we are much more enlightened. So looking back and respecting and quoting or interpreting old scripts as if they were relevant is, to non religious people, irrelevant. Don't expect us to respect that.
 
Last edited:
Since we're following rules in Leviticus, do you eat shellfish? How about pork? Have you ever had a loan and paid interest on it? Been overdrawn? Does any female wear makeup?

Of course, that's because those old rules have been superceeded. Hebrew 8:13.


See, I've actually read the bible, Quran, and other teachings from lots of other religions. Religion is a set of rules on how to live your life, generally based on tolerance of others.

I really don't understand how 'Christians' can deny the teachings of the New Testament, those deliberately written for them, and choose instead to cherry pick odds and sods (pun intended) instead.

Of course the New Testament isn't without it's issues. Paul said women shouldn't speak in church, nor men have long hair.

Quite like the Buddhist approach these days, do no harm to anyone.
 
BRASH said:
I don't believe you are as thick as you somtimes come across. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not going to explain it again.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which in turn makes sense to everyone else :lol:
 
By the way, if anyone wants to read what the bible says about sex, the Leviticus 15 is worth a read. I hope you both bathe completely afterwards and consider yourself unclean until the evening.

Also don't touch your wife during her period as that will make you unclean until the evening. Don't forget your wife is unclean for 7 days and on the 8th day you must take 2 young pigeons or doves to the priest for sacrifice to atone for her uncleanliness.
 
Phil V said:
It doesn't! She's welcome to her beliefs, she's not entitled to discriminate based on them though. It's a significant difference, that has nothing to do with my narrow mind, it's the way of the world.

So for the 5th time (at least) the law states that your rights never override someone else's nor can your freedom to believe be used to circumvent the law. So you're free to believe what you like, but you're not free to discriminate against someone based on those beliefs.

So you can be a Mormon, or other religion which permits multiple marriages, but you're not free to be a bigamist. You're free to be a Methodist, which makes you free to not enter a bookies, but not free to smash their windows. You can be a Muslim and believe that homosexuality is wrong, but you can't refuse them service in your shop.

The only question that remains: Will you understand it this time? Or will you see those facts as just a sign of me being a bigot?
Click to expand...

Phil,

Absolutely correct that your rights don't override someone else's (well not in most cases - there are exceptions, for example someone returning from maternity leave to a role that is being made redundant, has rights that directly disadvantage other colleagues that may be at work and part of the same selection pool, but they are quite specific).

Also absolutely correct that your right to follow a particular religion does not place you above the law (although again there are exceptions, for example the gender discrimination that takes place is legal).

In your Methodist example, property damage is illegal; in your Mormon example, bigamy is illegal. In your Muslim example, refusing to serve in your shop on the grounds of sexuality is illegal.

There is not however a law that I can find, that makes choosing where and when you give your custom illegal even if it is on the basis of the protected characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010, simply because that act does not apply to individuals.

The ladies actions are not against the law anymore than if she had objected to the dance teacher based on his religious beliefs.

Now, had she started a public campaign on the matter, started to tell others not to attend because of his sexuality, she could fall foul of the 2010 legislation that brought inciting hatred based on sexual orientation in line with the 2006 Racial and Religious hatred act, but she didn't; hers was a private message.
 
Furtim said:
The quote is in context of a letter from the commission to the baker, agreeing with Mr Lee (the complainant).
Click to expand...
Correct, there was mention of it not being illegal, to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, that letter say's otherwise.

I did also say that I couldn't find any evidence of a follow up court case, so I guess the "jury" is still out on that one ;)
 
BRASH said:
I believe what my mind tells me.
Click to expand...

Do you not possess the wherewithal to sometimes question what your mind initially tells you?
 
viv1969 said:
Do you not possess the wherewithal to sometimes question what your mind initially tells you?
Click to expand...

If you'd read my previous posts you'd see I clearly inferred that to be the case but that doesn't cause an unregulated change in my beliefs. The rational and ability to questions ones beliefs, their legitimacy, accuracy, viability, definitiveness and exactitude, does not automatically lead to such change but may well indicate there is a differential in the beliefs and perhaps what one should believe if that choice were available.
 
Furtim said:
Phil,

Absolutely correct that your rights don't override someone else's (well not in most cases - there are exceptions, for example someone returning from maternity leave to a role that is being made redundant, has rights that directly disadvantage other colleagues that may be at work and part of the same selection pool, but they are quite specific).

Also absolutely correct that your right to follow a particular religion does not place you above the law (although again there are exceptions, for example the gender discrimination that takes place is legal).

In your Methodist example, property damage is illegal; in your Mormon example, bigamy is illegal. In your Muslim example, refusing to serve in your shop on the grounds of sexuality is illegal.

There is not however a law that I can find, that makes choosing where and when you give your custom illegal even if it is on the basis of the protected characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010, simply because that act does not apply to individuals.

The ladies actions are not against the law anymore than if she had objected to the dance teacher based on his religious beliefs.

Now, had she started a public campaign on the matter, started to tell others not to attend because of his sexuality, she could fall foul of the 2010 legislation that brought inciting hatred based on sexual orientation in line with the 2006 Racial and Religious hatred act, but she didn't; hers was a private message.
Click to expand...
In choosing not to use the service, I'm sure there's no evidence that any laws have been broken, but in writing the letter, I'm not sure the same is true.
But I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be.
 
BRASH said:
If you'd read my previous posts you'd see I clearly inferred that to be the case but that doesn't cause an unregulated change in my beliefs. The rational and ability to questions ones beliefs, their legitimacy, accuracy, viability, definitiveness and exactitude, does not automatically lead to such change but may well indicate there is a differential in the beliefs and perhaps what one should believe if that choice were available.
Click to expand...
So, in essence; your thinking can change your beliefs.

Who'd a thunk it?
 
Phil V said:
So, in essence; your thinking can change your beliefs.

Who'd a thunk it?
Click to expand...

No. It's all subconscious. The act of thinking may highlight the existence of discrepancies in the 'legitimacy, accuracy, viability, definitiveness and exactitude' of said beliefs but does not result in an automated change in that beliefs.

I'll ignore your final comment other than to point out it was unnecessary, as you well know.
 
BRASH said:
No. It's all subconscious. The act of thinking may highlight the existence of discrepancies in the 'legitimacy, accuracy, viability, definitiveness and exactitude' of said beliefs but does not result in an automated change in that beliefs.

I'll ignore your final comment other than to point out it was unnecessary, as you well know.
Click to expand...
No one said automatically.

I don't know what you mean about unnecessary, it was just an attempt to keep it light hearted :)

(Clearly failed) :(
 
Phil V said:
I don't know what you mean about unnecessary, it was just an attempt to keep it light hearted :)

(Clearly failed) :(
Click to expand...

Yes I'm afraid I thunk it did.;)
 
Phil V said:
In choosing not to use the service, I'm sure there's no evidence that any laws have been broken, but in writing the letter, I'm not sure the same is true.
But I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to be.
Click to expand...

Neither am I. However, I am capable of reading the summaries of the act, and it is clear to me that act does not apply.

I can't see any incitement either - it was a private message, with no superlatives or hatred, setting out the authors motivation for withdrawal.

I could write a similar letter telling my kids martial arts teacher that I'm withdrawing them because he's a Christian and I don't want my kids to be influenced by someone who believes is magical sky fairies.

Or I could choose not to use the local corner shop because it's run my Jehovahs Witnesses and write to tell them I was doing so because of their stance of blood transfusions.

I won't because I really couldn't care less. Well I say that, but a few years back we had a Scientology shop open in town, and I did have a strong view.

I blame a p*** poor F1 Grand Prix for my added Google time today; I'll stop and wait for someone to identify the actual law that applies.
 
Phil V said:
No one said automatically.
Click to expand...

I believe certain things about certain subjects, whether it's religious, sexuality, criminals, terrorists, paedophiles, hunting, shooting, fishing, refugees, politics, Christ the price of cheese, whatever. Some of these beliefs may be wrong and certainly lots of folk would consider some to be so. My point is that, with me anyhow, thinking about these beliefs and identifying any defect therein, does not automatically cause that belief to be changed. I have no control over that function.
 
viv1969 said:
That's rather sad.
You have my pity :(
Click to expand...

It's not sad at all. Like I said, I'm 100% happy with what and who I am and 100% comfortable with the reasons, experiences, knowledge and trials and tribulations that have formed me into such.

I don't look for nor do I want your, or anyone elses sympathy or pity so please keep that.
 
Phil V said:
It doesn't! She's welcome to her beliefs, she's not entitled to discriminate based on them though. It's a significant difference, that has nothing to do with my narrow mind, it's the way of the world.


The only question that remains: Will you understand it this time? Or will you see those facts as just a sign of me being a bigot?
Click to expand...
And even though you have different beliefs, that doesn't entitle you to discriminate against her beliefs as you have done so in several posts, which makes you a narrow minded self centered bigot.
The law does not state under what circumstances a person can chose to take their custom. That is freedom of choice afforded to all races, sexualities etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top