to agree with the red cross for sacking someone that protested about gay marriage

[pixie130]

I think I will donate to them in support of this action. The daily mail is outraged against this

I can see the argument for abortion (despite the fact I'm pro choice) as its one person having total control over another life. But gay marriage affects nobody other than the two people involved in the marriage, so in all honesty I fail to see why you're bothered about it?

Oh and for the record I'm not the thought police, you think what you like, but if you start spouting homophobic bollocks in public then I'm afraid that's a problem.

Fortunately the world is becoming ever more tolerant and I am confident that by the time my grandchildren are born, people with homophobic (and anti gay marriage) views will be regarded as "silly old farts" in much the same was as those opposed to interracial marriage are regarded now. HTH.

I think it's more an issue of this man's views on marriage rather than his views on homosexuality. He would probably protest polygamy as well, for example. It is not homophobic to disagree with gay marriage necessarily. I feel a bit sorry for him. Given his age, I would say he is saying what a lot of his generation feel, but feel intimidated to say. Yep, homophobia is in there for sure with many, but I don't think it's fair to assume it. Volunteering would have been important to him, I would think.He does have a right to protest,the same as anyone, surely, within the same framework re. violence etc. Free speech is vital in society, never more so than when someone is saying something we don't like. How else did gay marriage become legal in the UK? Because the debate was had, and those who advocated it were heard, no matter how unpopular the idea was with some.

I think my previous post has been misunderstood by some people. As I understand from the media, the man in question was not demonstrating against gay people, (and who would?) but was demonstrating against a LAW that had been, or was about to be passed, regarding gay marriages conducted in church. Presumably, this is where his religious views came into it. I don't condone his actions, but I am sorry if I offended anyone. That was not my intention.

I think you are quite right to make that distinction granny

I can see the argument for abortion (despite the fact I'm pro choice) as its one person having total control over another life

Fluffy the two sides of that argument are pro-choice or anti-abortion.

But gay marriage affects nobody other than the two people involved in the marriage, so in all honesty I fail to see why you're bothered about it?

And the Christian position on any marriage would never, ever be that it is a private matter between just two people, which might go part way to explaining the problem some people are having with the current reforms.

the Christian position on any marriage would never, ever be that it is a private matter between just two people

I get that, but think how it looks to say an atheist marrying an atheist in a registry office who is told he can't do that because somewhere there's a catholic (or whatever) who disapproves.

But that wouldn't happen Back.

The State is the State and the Church is the Church.

Everyone, gay or straight, can get married now.

If the church holds onto its doctrine and ignores the huge societal progress we are making, it will become more and more irrelevant and ridiculous (which is what I expect TBH), but that is the prerogative of the Church.

The State can't control it.

But we had a lot of opposition from the churches who didn't want that to go through. They made it clear that what two non-christians did in a registry office should be up to them.

As for "The State is the State and the Church is the Church" do I need to remind people that bishops sit in the House of Lords by right.

But it's gone through! It's a done deal. Protests are futile gestures. Theological debates are minority interests. It's all over bar the churches.

The House of Lords won't last much longer either.

In the UK, the head of state is also the head of the anglican church

caroldecker, that's true, but can you expand on that. I wasn't sure what you meant.

ArsenicSoup I agree really that we've won that one.

anti-religious cartoons in a Chapel which caused upset to the chaplain and a Christian evangelist

I am not sure to which incident you refer fuzzy, but there certainly was a similar incident in an airport and a multi-faith room under the ominous "religiously aggravated offences". what a fellow did was leave offensive cartoons in a multi prayer room (a public space from what I can tell) and was charged with "religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress"

Appalling law if you ask me. This will lead nowhere but a terrible place.

The fact that it is only rarely enforced, especially when people claim a religious basis for their bigotry, is irrelevant.

how is that irrelevant? It's precisely one of the many problems with anti-speech laws. inconsistent enforcement leads to implicit endorsement on the one hand, and unfair harassment on the other. You essentially have the police and govt deciding what should and shouldn't be said. Absolutely appalling. I hope we come to our senses.

This story today about a family run bakery being sued for refusing to make a gay marriage cake is pertinent...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824510/The-real-victims-bigotry-family-bakers-dragged-court-opponents-gay-marriage-persecuted-Tories-vowed-protect-them.html

This isn't even about freedom of speech, the goalposts have been so definitively moved that now freedom of thought is under attack.

Interestingly too - this is precisely the reason Nigel Farage gave for UKIP not supporting gay marriage. Not that he had any objection to gay marriage per se, but that he could forsee it would be used to persecute those with religious convictions. And here we have exactly that.

Interestingly too - this is precisely the reason Nigel Farage gave for UKIP not supporting gay marriage. Not that he had any objection to gay marriage per se, but that he could forsee it would be used to persecute those with religious convictions. And here we have exactly that.

indeed. Although, it's absolutely silly of someone to support the trampling of rights on the off chance that there will be further trampling of human rights down the road, even though he was right. The correct stance for him would have been to support the right to marriage and oppose these thought crime laws.

This isn't even about freedom of speech

That's true it isn't about freedom of speech. They are providing a service and they want to be able to refuse it to people they hate.

Would it be ok if printers refused to print leaflets for the Conservative Party? Or maybe just for black candidates.

That's true it isn't about freedom of speech. They are providing a service and they want to be able to refuse it to people they hate.

they didn't refuse to make a cake for gay people. They refused to make a cake supporting gay marriage. Very different.

Yes it would be ok to refuse to print leaflets for the Conservative Party, as it would for the BNP and any other party. I assume you can tell the distinction between a political party (whose members are all voluntary) and a racial group (black people).

You ok with the electricity company refusing to supply electricity to Churches? After all a church furthers the cause of Christianity.

Here's the thing. You've lost the fight. We're going to drag you into the 21st century and into a country where you are allowed to despise people, but not to discriminate against them. You will hate it at first, but after a bit you'll get used to it and you'll wonder why you wanted to be that way in the first place.

Utilities and bakeries are very different. And, as I pointed out, they refused not to bake a cake for gay people, but to bake a pro-gay cake. I fully agree that the bakery shouldn't be able to refuse to bake a cake for gay people, but they should be able to refuse to bake a cake with a message with which they disagree.

Can I go to a jewish bakery and force them to bake me a cake with a big swastika on it? What if I am from India where the swastika symbol is ubiquitously used, though doesn't have the same meaning as in Europe? I wouldn't be trying to offend, I just need THAT cake from THAT baker.

You've lost the fight.

no, we have all lost the fight if we accept this encroachment on our right to freedom of speech and conscience.

For the record, I am pro gay marriage, so that's not where I am coming from. But freedom of conscience is too valuable to throw under the bus.

Completely with you on this writtenguarantee. I find some of the vitriol appearing on this thread quite frightening. People simply unable to distinguish between an objection to gay marriage and homophobia.

I do not practice any faith and I am indifferent to gay marriage. I very much supported civil partnerships as the status of gay couples before their introduction was indefensible and manifestly unjust. However, I didn't consider it a priority to extend this if, as is the case, most religious organisations would not co-operate.I also thought at the time, and still do, that it was only being touted by Cameron as a means of detoxifying the nasty party at zero cost to the Treasury.It now seems to be used as a vehicle to bash religion and the religious.

Where in the world in the history of time has the oppression of religious faith and freedom of conscience had a happy outcome.

Longtime lurker first time poster.

I personally support gay marriage and am against discrimination against people on the basis of their race, sex, sexuality or religion.

It seems to me that the man shouldnt have been asked to stop working with the red cross simply for exercising his legal right to protest provided he did not let his personal views interfere with his duties ie refusing to work with gay people or making homophobic remarks.

Just because something is legal doesnt mean that you shouldnt be allowed to protest against it. Nuclear power is legal (as are nuclear weapons ) however that doesnt mean that people shouldnt be allowed to protest against that.

One of the great things about living in the UK is that we have freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest provided we dont incite violence or deliberately cause fear and alarm protesting against gay marriage is very different to for example demanding the death penalty for homosexuality. The country would be a poorer place if people were shouted down and banned from expressing their opinions simply because those opinions are unfashionable.

I'd go many steps further than you Worried. I am an atheist and support gay marriage, so I really have very little in common with the Irish Christian bakers. But silencing people you disagree with never ends well. As someone mentioned, incidence like these are being used to as reasons to keep gays for marrying.

it's all a mess once you start picking whose speech can be spoken.

Sadly I think that continued acrimony on both sides is only going to lead entrenched views and heartache. Freedom of thought and expression must prevail.