Looks like Ireland's referendum on gay marriage is a Yes.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Wanting a blessing from a belief system that frowns upon as sinful the very thing you want a blessing for seems illogical.

Wouldn't it be better to not bother asking a belief system to whose fundamental principles you do not agree to go against it's principles and grudgingly 'accept' something it has been legally forced to. It isn't a real blessing and it isn't real acceptance.

It has all the logic of the Bacon Society asking for a Jewish or Muslim blessing.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth isn't everyone who believes in Christianity born a sinner?

a reply to: woodwardjnr

There's a question!

Why anyone should be so concerned about what other consenting adults get up to in private is really quite beyond me.

And as for using religious dogma to justify one's own prejudice is quite staggering.

In a world full of hate I really fail to see why some people have such passionate dislike of others finding a little bit of happiness.
I suspect that says far more about those who oppose this than those who might benefit from it.

Well done the Republic of Ireland.....but it really should be a non-issue.

This reminded me of an old joke:
How can you tell if an Irishman is gay?
He likes women more than he likes whiskey.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Here there has been a lot of Christian baiting about it, for example a Christian bakers was sued after it refused to decorate a gay marriage cake.

Apples and Oranges.

A church is a church has a legal right to discriminate because it is in itself a religious organization. A business is not. They are a public service and therefore are not able to discriminate against any of their patrons, barring abuse from them, or danger to themselves or their other patrons.

Being offended by whatever your client is buying your product for is not a good enough reason to deny them service. If they want to do that, then they need to have a Members Only business, where the public must sign up for membership and adhere to a certain code of conduct, like a church would have or a golf club for example.

The only can of worms that opens up is making sure that public businesses can't just decide to stop serving people because it offends them. I could easily argue that I don't have to serve black people because my religion thinks they are the devil.

That's just as insane as the argument of the baker for not baking a cake for a wedding.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

It opens a legal can of worms however it is looked at. It is an example of baiting that has been happening a lot recently, pushing religious people and organisations into accepting something they are against. If they had asked a Jewish or Muslim baker to do that, chances are the discrimination suit would have been the other way round.

My answer to it, if religious organisations have the right to exist (and they do) and their people have the right to practice their religion (which they do) there should be something that essentially protects them from being sued for trade decisions that are consistent with their beliefs. Perhaps a business disclaimer, to only allow orders their religion defines within the realms of decency. Otherwise calling themselves Christian / Jewish / Muslim etc businesses. For example, listing their business as religious compliant, such 'Christian standards compliant' a 'Jewish organisation' etc. and to have that visible in their company advertising and literature.

I would prefer that society isn't going down that route but it is inevitable when businesses, especially small local businesses risk being sued for their personal religious beliefs.

Here is an example, I am an artist and if I was asked to paint a ''Sodomy rules'' (it doesn't)/ ''F the Queen /Pope /whoever'' painting I wouldn't do it. That shouldn't mean being potentially sued. It is in my interest to have a disclaimer to say ''the artist decision is final on the choice of work accepted''.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

It opens a legal can of worms however it is looked at. It is an example of baiting that has been happening a lot recently, pushing religious people and organisations into accepting something they are against. If they had asked a Jewish or Muslim baker to do that, chances are the discrimination suit would have been the other way round.

People are really having a hard time comprehending this issue it seems.

It's NOT the same thing. A Jewish or Muslim baker caters primarily to their own little group of clients in well established markets. They generally aren't serving people who are ' out of the ordinary '. Apples vs Oranges.

It's not forcing religious people to do anything. They themselves, chose to serve EVERYBODY equally under the law, when they opened a PUBLIC business. The right they have to be offended, does not extend them rights to deny services.

PERIOD.

My answer to it, if religious organisations have the right to exist (and they do) and their people have the right to practice their religion (which they do) there should be something that essentially protects them from being sued for trade decisions that are consistent with their beliefs

There is, it's called a private member's club.

I would prefer that society isn't going down that route but it is inevitable when businesses, especially small local businesses risk being sued for their personal religious beliefs.

They risk being sued because they fail to understand the basic principles of business law. They're OWN misgivings and personal opinions are what cause the problem NOT the patron who comes in requesting their services.

Here is an example, I am an artist and if I was asked to paint a ''Sodomy rules'' (it doesn't)/ ''F the Queen /Pope /whoever'' painting I wouldn't do it.

That's not a good example. There's no 'artist' stores that you go in a ask for customer stuff generally. You buy art that's already been produced by an artist.

~Tenth

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: tothetenthpower



Here is an example, I am an artist and if I was asked to paint a ''Sodomy rules'' (it doesn't)/ ''F the Queen /Pope /whoever'' painting I wouldn't do it. That shouldn't mean being potentially sued. It is in my interest to have a disclaimer to say ''the artist decision is final on the choice of work accepted''.

This example simply doesn't work for your argument. Anti-discrimination laws do not mean that one has to make special products for anyone. Anti-discrimination laws mean that you must sell the same product to one group that you sell to everyone else. It means that if a baker doesn't want to specially decorate a cake with a penis on it, he/she doesn't have to. It means that if a baker sells a white wedding cake with pink roses on top to the public, then he/she must be willing to sell that white wedding cake with pink roses on top to EVERYONE regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation (in the states that list sexual orientation as a protected group).

a reply to: tothetenthpower

You seem to be being selective as to which religions these rules apply to and that is the point.

Legally, saying ''Jewish bakery owners generally cater to their own so it doesn't matter'' when they are running a business just like any other religious bakery owner is a form of discrimination.

They aren't running ''exclusive members clubs'' either so the law has to be consistent WHICHEVER the religion.

As for being an artist, it applies, I have a registered business as an artist and I do commissioned work. My legal rights to choose work supersedes demands to do work and my right to refuse should not be challenged.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Maybe you should read the article to which the law suit applied as you just demonstrated the point I am making. It also wasn't the US, it was the UK, NI specifically.

Christian-owned bakery which refused to make 'Bert and Ernie' gay marriage cake found GUILTY of discrimination
Ashers Baking Company guilty of discrimination for refusing to make cake
Christian-owned firm refused to 'go against the bible' for gay marriage cake
Judge made landmark ruling after bakery was taken to court by Gareth Lee
He ordered a cake which featured an image of Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie below the motto 'Support Gay Marriage' but order was rejected

Christian groups and lawyers now fear that owners of businesses will be stripped of the right to run in accordance with their deeply held beliefs after the ruling.
They claimed the 'test case' will have a powerful impact on entrepreneurs of all religious faiths and none.
The wider implications of the judgement became clear after Belfast County Court, district judge Isobel Brownlie ruled that the defendants 'have unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff on grounds of sexual discrimination.

Paul Givan MLA, of the Democratic Unionist Party, described today's ruling as a ‘huge disappointment’.
'What we cannot have is a hierarchy of rights and today there is a clear hierarchy being established that gay rights are more important than the rights of people who hold religious beliefs and we need to move in the assembly to strike the balance.’

Among the Christian supporters was former Stormont health minister Edwin Poots and Paul Givan MLA of the Democratic Unionist Party, who is seeking to introduce a 'conscience clause' into equality legislation.

Prior to the hearing, Mr McArthur spoke outside court about the 'difficult time' the bakery had experienced since the Northern Ireland Equality Commission began legal proceedings last March.
Reading from a pre-prepared statement, he said: 'We did not do this because of anything to do with the customer but because of the message – a message supporting a cause with which I and my family fundamentally disagree.
'We happily serve everyone but we cannot promote a cause that goes against what the Bible says about marriage. We have tried to be guided in our actions by our Christian beliefs.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... dcM

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

I can't comment on what goes on in northern Ireland. I can comment on U.S. anti-discrimination laws, which work exactly the way I described.

a reply to: kaylaluv

But the comment to which you replied was specifically about a specific case in NI.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Well I'd have to read the anti-discrimination laws for Northern Ireland, but it seems to me that this particular judge may have ruled incorrectly. I'd say the bakers have a good chance at an appeal. I've never heard of any anti-discrimination law that forced anyone to make a special product for someone that they wouldn't normally produce for anyone.

Well speaking of churches being forced to marry gays, why don't they force Mosques or Synagogues?

Why is the focus always on the Church?

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church
Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Exactly, discriminating against Christianity and not ALL religions is itself an act of discrimination. Hence the opening of a large can of worms.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Legally, saying ''Jewish bakery owners generally cater to their own so it doesn't matter'' when they are running a business just like any other religious bakery owner is a form of discrimination.

My point was that you KNOW when you are in a Jewish or Muslim Bakery/Business. They are in business to serve a specific demographic.

It's always CLEARLY marked, considering they cater to a specific, religious group 9 times out of 10.

A "christian" bakery, would not have such clearly defined clientele. It's far more likely for them to be put in this situation than any other kind of Bakery.

That being said, even the Jewish or Muslim bakery could not deny service to somebody who wanted a wedding cake, IF they sell the same cakes to other people.

As for being an artist, it applies, I have a registered business as an artist and I do commissioned work. My legal rights to choose work supersedes demands to do work and my right to refuse should not be challenged.

Right, but as was stated above, if you painted one thing for a person, but refused to do the same painting for another person, because that painting will be hung at their gay wedding, that would be discrimination.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

This is the UK, most Jewish and Muslim businesses here do not proclaim their faith on the shop front and they are registered businesses like others.

I suggest a religious dispensation to ''choice'' of work is potentially the way forward.

As I said to yourself and to another member on the thread, the case is SPECIFIC and it was for a SPECIFIC commission asking for SPECIFIC decoration, it was not just selling something they already sell. See a few comments above for the link to the article and quotes.

I am also referring to SPECIFIC requests for commissioned work as an artist. Rather than ''off the shelf'' artwork.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Is there separation of church and state in Denmark?

I don't think there is.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

This is a different situation than in the U.S., where there IS separation of church and state.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It was the state church that was forced, which is Lutheran.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Church of Denmark or Danish National Church (Danish: Den Danske Folkekirke or simply Folkekirken, literally: "the People's Church"), formally known in English as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Denmark, is the state church and largest denomination in Denmark and Greenland. Since the Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein, the church has been Evangelical Lutheran and Denmark's state church with the Danish monarch as its supreme authority. The 1848 Constitution of Denmark designated the church "the Danish people's church".[2] The church is financially supported by the state, but membership is voluntary.[3][4] The reigning monarch is the supreme authority, but not the head, of the Church,[5] with the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, currently Marianne Jelved, as the highest administrative authority of the Church. The theological authority is vested into a college of bishops, 10 bishops in mainland Denmark, each overseeing a cathedral, and two bishops from the Danish Realm, one from the Faroe Islands, and one from Greenland. There is no archbishop; the Bishop of Copenhagen acts as a primus inter pares. The Folketing (Danish parliament), is the supreme legislative authority for the church. As of 1 January 2014, 78.4%[6] of the population of Denmark are members of the National Church.

Constitutionality[edit]
A further controversy is that this new practice may be against the Danish constitution; §4 of the Danish constitution states: "The evangelical Lutheran church is the church of the Danish people and is as such supported by the state." [1]

§4 not only establish "Folkekirken" as the state church, but also gives certain boundaries as to what the state church is. It is forced to follow the Lutheran doctrines and if, as some critics claim [2], the Lutheran doctrines explicitly state that homosexuality is a sin then it is a violation of the constitution to allow gay marriages in the state church.