Gay Rights Regulations Passed in UK; Christians Protest

[5stringJeff]

This is the extremist pro-gay agenda: forcing people to carry out business with people they don't care to, on moral grounds.

---------------
by Maria Mackay
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007, 9:53 (GMT)

An eleventh-hour attempt from a Conservative peer to overturn controversial gay rights regulations was last night defeated in the House of Lords.

The motion put forward by Baroness O’Cathain in objection to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations was defeated by 168 to 122 votes.

As the debate was taking place, around 1,000 Christians gathered outside the Houses of Parliament to take part in a prayer vigil organised by Christian Concern for Our Nation against the regulations.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, said the passing of the regulations marked “the imposition of a new morality”.

She said that ordinary Christians may now be sued if they refuse to provide a good or service to homosexuals on grounds of conscience.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gay.rights.regulations.passed.christians.protest/10058.htm

[darin]

It's only going to get worse. Christians' rights will be steadily reduced and eliminated as time goes by. :(

[LiberalNation]

Good for the UK. People don't have the right to descriminate based on sex or race why should they be able to against gays.

[darin]

Good for the UK. People don't have the right to descriminate based on sex or race why should they be able to against gays.

Because 'gay' is only a habit or inclination...it's immoral to most people...Why do you support Legislating morality? ;)

[LiberalNation]

I support not descriminating against people. You can have your morality. Not mistreating gays or having to associate with them in business setting is not infringing on your right to have your own moral beliefs.

[darin]

I support not descriminating against people. You can have your morality. Not mistreating gays or having to associate with them in business setting is not infringing on your to choose your moral beliefs.

This law discriminates against Christians. But that's okay with you, right?

[LiberalNation]

How does it descreminate against christians.

[darin]

How does it descreminate against christians.

Christians aren't allowed to follow the tenants of their faith - MORALITY is being forced upon them.

[LiberalNation]

What tenet of their faith. This does not force them to be gay. It does not force a gay lifestyle on them. It just protects gays from their bigotry.

That's like saying civil rights laws infringe on the rights a racists to be racists. After all that's what they believe and you're not allowing them to practice that belief.

[5stringJeff]

What tenet of their faith. This does not force them to be gay. It does not force a gay lifestyle on them. It just protects gays from their bigotry.

That's like saying civil rights laws infringe on the rights a racists to be racists. After all that's what they believe and you're not allowing them to practice that belief.

Let's say a pro-gay organization wants to print some pamphlets, telling teens why being gay is cool, fun, etc. They take their pamphlet to a printer, who is Christian and views homosexuality as sinful and harmful behavior. This new law forces the Christian printer to do business with the pro-gay group, against the printer's conscience. That is absolutely wrong.

[LiberalNation]

Not really, his job is to print not judge the people he's printing for. Why work as a public printer if he's only willing to print things he agrees.

[darin]

Let's say a pro-gay organization wants to print some pamphlets, telling teens why being gay is cool, fun, etc. They take their pamphlet to a printer, who is Christian and views homosexuality as sinful and harmful behavior. This new law forces the Christian printer to do business with the pro-gay group, against the printer's conscience. That is absolutely wrong.

...or a CHURCH who wants to hire a person to help with their YOUTH..now, they'd NOT be able to refuse a homo - which contradicts / is incompatable with MAJOR religions - such as Christianity.

[5stringJeff]

Not really, his job is to print not judge the people he's printing for. Why work as a public printer if he's only willing to print things he agrees.

No, his business is to do printing jobs for people he wants to do business with. That's called economic liberty. In general, a business owner would do business with as many people as he can, to maximize profits. However, if someone doesn't want to do business with a certain customer, that should be their right.

[LiberalNation]

Normally I would agree but qhwn you allow that you allow things like widespread descrmination. If lots of businesses owner didn't want to do business with a certain group of people like blacks or gays it would lead to problems.

[Dilloduck]

Normally I would agree but qhwn you allow that you allow things like widespread descrmination. If lots of businesses owner didn't want to do business with a certain group of people like blacks or gays it would lead to problems.

and he's free to take the risk that there will be problems.

[5stringJeff]

Normally I would agree but qhwn you allow that you allow things like widespread descrmination. If lots of businesses owner didn't want to do business with a certain group of people like blacks or gays it would lead to problems.

What problems? The problem of liberty? Like your flag says: "Don't tread on me!"

[LiberalNation]

No like widespread descrimination, like blacks had it in the south before the civil rights movement. Denied good job, ect, which led to a lot of problems.

[avatar4321]

I support not descriminating against people. You can have your morality. Not mistreating gays or having to associate with them in business setting is not infringing on your right to have your own moral beliefs.

So are you against discriminating against people who kill others as well?

What about liars?

And Thieves?

Or Child molestors?

Bad behavior should be discriminated against.

[LiberalNation]

Only when it causes harm to others ie murder, stealing, ect.

[Hobbit]

I'm going to have to don some asbestos after saying this, but here it goes.

Non-government entities should have the inalienable right to descriminate against whoever they want for any reason without providing said reason.

There. I said it. It's your business. If you only want to hire hot, buxom young women (like a certain restaurant), then you should be able to. If you want your business to only employ whites, that should be your right. If you don't want to sell something to some guy because you think his mustache looks funny, go for it. Capitalism will sort it out. If enough people have a problem with your descrimination, you'll go out of business. If you can descriminate and still stay in business, then those you descriminate against are just going to have to either live with it or convince others not to do business with you. Once you start dictating certain criteria on who a privately owned business MUST do business with, you begin stepping on individual freedoms and you can never know how far it will be allowed to go.

[5stringJeff]

I'm going to have to don some asbestos after saying this, but here it goes.

Non-government entities should have the inalienable right to descriminate against whoever they want for any reason without providing said reason.

There. I said it. It's your business. If you only want to hire hot, buxom young women (like a certain restaurant), then you should be able to. If you want your business to only employ whites, that should be your right. If you don't want to sell something to some guy because you think his mustache looks funny, go for it. Capitalism will sort it out. If enough people have a problem with your descrimination, you'll go out of business. If you can descriminate and still stay in business, then those you descriminate against are just going to have to either live with it or convince others not to do business with you. Once you start dictating certain criteria on who a privately owned business MUST do business with, you begin stepping on individual freedoms and you can never know how far it will be allowed to go.

I agree. In the long run, it is bad for businesses to discriminate against hiring people, because you will tend to miss out on quality employees that possess an "undesirable" trait (i.e. wrong race, gender, etc.). And if one discriminates against doing business with a certain type of customer, one runs the risk of losing out on a particular market. However, as Hobbit said, both should be within the limits of the law.