'Christianity under attack' in UK!

[Ali]

In CO, a guy that worked at 711 got fired supposedly because we wore a "border patrol" hat during his off hours and then someone shot up the 711 and the owners assumed they were shooting at him.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/6/clerk-blames-firing-on-illegals-debate/?page=1

Not black and white to me at all because he was wearing the hat on his off hours.  I hate that "border patrol" crap, but I do think people should be allowed to be dicks on their own time.

Same thing with the racist paperboy shirt, or the homophobic Avon lady.  I don't like those attitudes in the least, but to a certain extent I think that people should be allowed to have and even express them.

[Sweetdeath]

I don't  think hate should be expressed so openly. It really bothers me when people seem to accept homophobia or rascism or sexism... :\
Freedom of expression to an extent. No one should be allowed to protest a person's funeral. That is beyond disgusting.

[En_Route]

I understand the issue of causing harm, but it's still a balance of rights. You have to agree that bigotry, on some level, has to be allowed in a free society. Bigotry causes harm, but how do we measure it? How do we measure the harm in policing morality - because I think there's a real, legitimate concern there, too. So where do we draw the line?

It seems that you're proposing the line be drawn at all businesses. But I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that governments get to decide who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are for us, or that the decision be made for emotional reasons. Where is the line between the "business" and "personal" sphere anyway? It might seem black and white, but in some cases, like a small business owner, I think it's grayer.

And don't get me wrong, I hate, homophobia. The "god" father of my child is gay. I've donated to the Matthew Sheppard foundation. One of my good friends got a black eye from some guy on the street who called him a "fag" and punched him for absolutely no reason. I get it, I really do.

But I worry about a society legislating morality for emotional reasons. I don't think saying "it causes harm" is enough. If these kind of bigoted owners actually cause real, measurable harm that out-weighs any reasonable appeal they have to liberty,then fine, I'd be all on board. But you can't say that stamping out bigotry is more than just "hurt feelings" but totally dismiss the implications of telling people how they have to live in their own house because they run a business and because we don't like the fact that they're assholes.  

Anyhoo. I understand your points, and I know I'll be the minority on this, but I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a bit.

The"own house" point seems weak to me.Once you decide to open up where you live to the paying public for profit then you can't complain if different rules apply. You will be subject a whole raft of legislation and regulation,including a prohibition on discrimination against people on grounds of their sexuality.A society that permits such discrimination in the supply of goods and services is legitimising the treatment of people as inferior in terms of the rights they enjoy on the grounds of their sexuality.That is unwarranted in itself and is conducive to a zeitgeist where emotional and physical violence against such people can flourish.

I get what you're saying, but, again, in a free society, we have to let people behave like assholes to a certain extent. Even if it legitimizes issues we find problematic.  How about a paperboy? He's conducting a business, should he be allowed to wear a racist t-shirt? Should an Avon-lady be allowed to have a homophobic bumper sticker? It's all varying degrees and my only point was really that "business" and "personal" are not as black and white as we'd like to think when dealing with people we don't like.

Beyond that, with regards to the article Recusant posted, when I think of religious societies, I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't crack the top 20 for me. In a good way!

This is I think an example of the "slippery slope" fallacy viz." A differs from Z by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn.Therefore, there is really no difference between A and Z."
Here the argument that if we prevent businesses from practising  discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation,the next thing we'll find is that newspaper  boys  are being taken to court for wearing inappropriate tee-shirts proceeds on this basis. It is possible to draw lines, notwithstanding they may be blurred at the edges.

[statichaos]

No, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based upon sexual orientation.  If they wish to, however, they could put crosses in every room, Bibles on every pillow, and have a lovely stack of "pray away the gay" literature available to their clients.  That way everyone gets to believe as they wish, and no one is discriminated against for their beliefs.

[Sandra Craft]

We're getting a lot of this in the UK at the moment, Christians claiming they're being persecuted because they can no longer automatically subject everyone else to their mumbo jumbo, and lots of rubbish being written by Christians about us being 'a Christian country', and Christianity being 'our heritage'.

Welcome to our world.

[Recusant]

The story isn't over regarding prayer at (not before, but during, mind you) council meetings in the UK.

BBC News | "Councils win prayer 'rights' as Localism Act powers fast tracked, ministers say"

Communities secretary Eric Pickles says he is "effectively reversing" the High Court's "illiberal ruling" that a Devon council's prayers were unlawful.

He says part of the Localism Act that aims to give councils greater powers and freedom will be brought in early.

The National Secular Society questioned the act's reach and said the move could be challenged in court.

The group opposes prayers in "a secular environment concerned with civic business".

. . .

"The High Court judgement has far wider significance than just the municipal agenda of Bideford Town Council," said Mr Pickles.

"By effectively reversing that illiberal ruling, we are striking a blow for localism over central interference, for freedom to worship over intolerant secularism, for Parliamentary sovereignty over judicial activism, and for long-standing British liberties over modern-day political correctness."

He added that the Bideford council case should be "a wake-up call".

"For too long, the public sector has been used to marginalise and attack faith in public life, undermining the very foundations of the British nation. But this week, the tables have been turned."

. . .

The communities secretary has fast-tracked the parliamentary order activating the power, hoping it will "give councils that want to continue holding formal prayers the confidence and legal standing to do so".

The power can be exercised by all major local authorities in England from Saturday, and should be available to smaller town and parish councils - like Bideford - by the end of March.

The National Secular Society had called the High Court ruling "an important victory for everyone who wants a secular society, one that neither advantages nor disadvantages people because of their religion or lack of it".

In response to Mr Pickles' latest statement, its executive director Keith Porteous Wood said: "A number of senior lawyers have expressed doubt whether the Localism Act will, as Mr Pickles hopes, make prayers lawful, and the Act was clearly not passed with that express intention.

"His powers to pass legislation are not, as he implies, untrammelled. Council prayers increasingly look set to become a battle between the government and the courts at ever higher levels."

[Tank]

Bugger Eric Pickles! 

[Crow]

Looks like this is going to become a rather ugly affair.

I have no problem with the idea of a session of silence prior to meetings as people can do whatever they want; be it preparing notes, pray, listen to some music, or play a game on their phone. However to insist its a session for prayer is flipping moronic. I am getting sick of people saying that this country is Christian even though I do agree it has a cultural heritage, but that doesn't make it a christian country just as having a Chinese takeaway in every village, row of shops, town or city center doesn't make the British diet Chinese.

[Too Few Lions]

this kind of 'RIP England' crap is why I hate the Daily Mail...

[Sandra Craft]

this kind of 'RIP England' crap is why I hate the Daily Mail...

I know this sort of thing well -- it's the same old "the world is ending because I'm not number 1 any more" whine-a-thon.

I hate that "border patrol" crap, but I do think people should be allowed to be dicks on their own time.

Same thing with the racist paperboy shirt, or the homophobic Avon lady.  I don't like those attitudes in the least, but to a certain extent I think that people should be allowed to have and even express them.

I definitely want those attitudes expressed.  I'd much rather know what people are really thinking, esp. if it's something not good for me, then have it toned down or hushed up.  A coat of whitewash is no one's friend.