Happy Atheist Forum

I was out in London on saturday night and I popped into a corner shop to be greeted by this headline in the always awful rag 'The Daily Mail'.   >:(

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg195.imageshack.us%2Fimg195%2F7291%2Fmaildk.jpg&hash=8fdd323452e1e28b44e88e7c67de1a0169f3cf6e) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/maildk.jpg/)

the accompanying article in the Daily Heil (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099300/Councils-BANNED-saying-prayers-meetings-sparking-fury-Government-church-leaders.html)

All because an atheist councillor in Devon objected to Christian prayers being said before every council meeting, and a court upheld his objection, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The place for Christian prayers is in a church, not in a town hall. I wouldn't want to have to put up with Christian prayers if I was a councillor, much as I wouldn't subject other councillors to a diatribe on why gods don't exist before every meeting.

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'.

anyway, here's the other side of the story, from the National Secular Sopciety who helped support the atheist councillor's case;

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/02/council-prayers-unlawful-rules-high-court

Institutionalised superstition is for the heart, home and place of worship. Beyond that it should have no remit or need to get involved in public life. This sort of ruling is IMO simply putting religion back where it should be.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
and lots of rubbish being written by Christians about us being 'a Christian country', and Christianity being 'our heritage'.

This really gets on my nerves. If the UK is a Christian country then we are also equally a Pagan country, everything that is celebrated over here has its routes in the old gods and many people practice the Pagan traditions over the Christian traditions when they overlap.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 03:17:15 PM

anyway, here's the other side of the story, from the National Secular Sopciety who helped support the atheist councillor's case;

Sopciety?   ;D
is that anything like a society?

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 14, 2012, 04:09:40 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 03:17:15 PM

anyway, here's the other side of the story, from the National Secular Sopciety who helped support the atheist councillor's case;

Sopciety?   ;D
is that anything like a society?

Were you just taking the 'p' there?

Little comic relief and all that.

I thought that edition of the Daily Mail was a classic! Amongst all the other superb journalism it contained, the "Christianity Under Attack" theme was demonstrated with two stories, the one you mentioned, Too Few Lions, and the heart-rending story of these two decent and lovely bed and breakfast owners


. . . who have had their rights trampled upon by the horrid gays and the anti-Christian courts.  >:(

Mail Online | "Your rights are trumped by gay equality, B&B owners who refused to let couple share a room are told" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099570/Your-rights-trumped-gay-equality-B-amp-B-owners-refused-let-couple-share-room-told.html)

oh those lovely homophobic Christian B&B owners, 'persecuted' by being told they couldn't discriminate against gays. I'd had a few beers on Saturday night catching up with friends when I saw that daily Mail headline, it really made my blood boil, for a minute or two.

sorry about the typo G85, I was surreptitiously typing while at work inbetween doing job related things (O & P are next to each other on the keyboard - most of my typos occur that way!)

totally agree with you Tank and Crow, this country was unfortunately Christian for a thousand odd years, but it was non-Christian for thousands of years before that, and it's now happily secular.

As much as those two Inn owners look like the biggest idiots in the world, I do actually agree with their right to exclude whoever they want from their B&B. They're a private business. Most private businesses have the stipulation that they can "refuse service to anyone for any reason."

I think the best way to react to arseholes like that is to publicly shame them and boycott them for ever (I, for one, know where I won't be staying if I ever find myself in Cornwall). I still like to error on the side of liberty when it comes to governments dictating how we behave to one another.

The courthouse thing, though? I absolutely agree that that is foolishness.  

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 12:14:53 AMAs much as those two Inn owners look like the biggest idiots in the world, I do actually agree with their right to exclude whoever they want from their B&B. They're a private business. Most private businesses have the stipulation that they can "refuse service to anyone for any reason."

As far as I know, it's legal for B&B owners to discriminate based on age ("adults only" accommodations) in the UK, but I doubt that it's legal to exclude somebody on the basis of ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. I also doubt that the common poster which asserts the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is defensible in court. Maybe it's different in the UK, but I know for certain that in the US, discrimination based on the criteria I mentioned is illegal.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
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'
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/02/council-prayers-unlawful-rules-high-court

This is the standard MO for the poor widdle persecuted Christians here in the US.  "What?!?  My children are free to pray any time at all they like, but the teacher won't lead it and thus try to coerce your children into praying too?  Persecution!!!!" ::)  Sorry that mentality has spread to your side of the pond.  One of the US's most pernicious exports? (Well, that and McDonald's.)

Quote from: Recusant on February 15, 2012, 01:10:21 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 12:14:53 AMAs much as those two Inn owners look like the biggest idiots in the world, I do actually agree with their right to exclude whoever they want from their B&B. They're a private business. Most private businesses have the stipulation that they can "refuse service to anyone for any reason."

As far as I know, it's legal for B&B owners to discriminate based on age ("adults only" accommodations) in the UK, but I doubt that it's legal to exclude somebody on the basis of ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. I also doubt that the common poster which asserts the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is defensible in court. Maybe it's different in the UK, but I know for certain that in the US, discrimination based on the criteria I mentioned is illegal.

Whether it's legal or not, I don't think the way to fight bigotry is to legislate bigots from acting like bigots. I'd argue the same point if this couple didn't want to serve Jews or Atheists or Circus clowns. They're assholes, sure, but I just don't think preventing that kind of assholery should be the domain of the courts.

Of course, I know a lot of people feel very differently.

Quote from: Guardian85 on February 14, 2012, 04:09:40 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 03:17:15 PM

anyway, here's the other side of the story, from the National Secular Sopciety who helped support the atheist councillor's case;

Sopciety?   ;D
is that anything like a society?

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 10:50:33 PM
sorry about the typo G85, I was surreptitiously typing while at work inbetween doing job related things (O & P are next to each other on the keyboard - most of my typos occur that way!)

I find it very disappointing that sopciety was a typo, it's an excellent word.
Sop: A concession given to mollify or placate.

I think we offer sops to the religious but it's only temporary, we can only put up with this crap for so long.

To add to my last thought:

Say we wanted to open up our own little HAF-Inn. Should we not be allowed to do that because it discriminates based on religion? Part of the reason we like HAF so much is because we're able to make our own community, based on our own rules, and we fully acknowledge that we discriminate (we don't allow preaching). If one of us owned a business that was a known "Atheist-hang out", should we legally, HAVE to allow people that we would ban on the forum as trolls into our business? Even if it completely destroyed the ethos of the place? I'm not convinced that we should.

I mean, these are Inn keepers. Their business is probably, literally, run out of their home. It's not Walmart or a fortune 500 that employs 15,000 people, should we really treat them exactly the same because they're both "businesses"?

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 02:13:14 AM
To add to my last thought:

Say we wanted to open up our own little HAF-Inn. Should we not be allowed to do that because it discriminates based on religion? Part of the reason we like HAF so much is because we're able to make our own community, based on our own rules, and we fully acknowledge that we discriminate (we don't allow preaching). If one of us owned a business that was a known "Atheist-hang out", should we legally, HAVE to allow people that we would ban on the forum as trolls into our business? Even if it completely destroyed the ethos of the place? I'm not convinced that we should.

I mean, these are Inn keepers. Their business is probably, literally, run out of their home. It's not Walmart or a fortune 500 that employs 15,000 people, should we really treat them exactly the same because they're both "businesses"?

Yes you would and it's to try and stop bigotry happening on a larger scale. If an individual chooses to open up a business that deals with providing a service that will attract a varied clientele then they better be prepared to do business with that varied clientele.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 01:31:09 AMWhether it's legal or not, I don't think the way to fight bigotry is to legislate bigots from acting like bigots. I'd argue the same point if this couple didn't want to serve Jews or Atheists or Circus clowns. They're assholes, sure, but I just don't think preventing that kind of assholery should be the domain of the courts.

Of course, I know a lot of people feel very differently.

Government is a fact of life and it's going to have an effect on the society of which it is a part. Bigotry creates harm within society and if there are no laws addressing that harm, then essentially the government is condoning it. It's not just hurt feelings we're talking about here, either. People have been killed for being gay; the bigotry which motivated those killings is the same bigotry that motivates many homophobes. I support laws which attempt to address the overt expression of bigotry when it results in harm, and as far as I'm concerned, discrimination in the management of public accommodations is harmful, even though clearly not on the same level as physical gay-bashing.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 02:13:14 AMSay we wanted to open up our own little HAF-Inn. Should we not be allowed to do that because it discriminates based on religion?

If you're attempting to make a direct analogy to this forum, it fails. People of any religion are welcome to join and participate, as long as they abide by the house rules.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 02:13:14 AMPart of the reason we like HAF so much is because we're able to make our own community, based on our own rules, and we fully acknowledge that we discriminate (we don't allow preaching).

HAF is not providing a public accommodation; it's not making a profit by being open to the public. Because of this, the rules here are more akin to those of a private club.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 02:13:14 AMIf one of us owned a business that was a known "Atheist-hang out", should we legally, HAVE to allow people that we would ban on the forum as trolls into our business? Even if it completely destroyed the ethos of the place? I'm not convinced that we should.

Again, there is a difference between a private club and a public accommodation. It is legal (in the US) to establish a private club which does not allow behavior on its premises which is otherwise legal, and in fact a private club can discriminate in ways that are not legal for public accommodations to do.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 02:13:14 AMI mean, these are Inn keepers. Their business is probably, literally, run out of their home. It's not Walmart or a fortune 500 that employs 15,000 people, should we really treat them exactly the same because they're both "businesses"?

Here, I think you have a point. There is a similar suit taking place in Hawaii (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/lesbian-couple-denied-stay-bed-and-breakfast-files-lawsuit). It will be interesting to see how that is judged, since as far as I know, small B&Bs do not qualify as public accommodations according to federal law. I'm not as familiar with UK law, and it may be that B&Bs are considered public accommodations (or whatever equivalent term is used).  

I think that what this is about is whether a business owner who caters to the public should have the power to decide that some people do not qualify as members of the public based on their sexual orientation.

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.

Oh, those christians... I don't get why they are so upset about such a silly thing.  It's about respecting other people's beliefs and non beliefs.
They pull that persecution card a lot, when ironically they are constantly doing the persecuting.

Surprised to see this happening in the UK, I must say. Though I guess my perception is colored by the idea that Europe is a more secular continent. Even the US doesn't have an official church.

Yes, we're in the strange situation of having an established church which has no power and very little influence.  Like so many things here, it exists because it's been around for a long time.

I'm not 100% against it, myself, because the day may come when we need to use it as a bulwark against Islam.

This is kind of related so I thought it doesn't really deserve its own thread. Did anybody catch what Baroness Warsi said about militant secularism in the UK. Here is the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831 she is seriously one of the worst politicians the conservatives have, with her constantly ill conceived statements and that's not mentioning what she said about homosexuality and the BNP or the fact that she hasn't won a general election yet is on the torry cabinet.

Quote from: Crow on February 16, 2012, 02:07:48 PM
This is kind of related so I thought it doesn't really deserve its own thread. Did anybody catch what Baroness Warsi said about militant secularism in the UK. Here is the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831 she is seriously one of the worst politicians the conservatives have, with her constantly ill conceived statements and that's not mentioning what she said about homosexuality and the BNP or the fact that she hasn't won a general election yet is on the torry cabinet.

she's a horrible woman, and one of the many reasons why I could never vote Tory. I do like Richard Dawkins' comment at the end of the article though.

Heh, here's a strange piece (more or less on topic) from The Independent.

"No secularism please, we're British" by Peter Popham (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/no-secularism-please-were-british-6917549.html#disqus_thread)

I say strange, because the first few paragraphs are fairly reasonable (I disagree with some of the points, but overall Popham is making a kind of sense), then the thing wobbles and weaves for a bit before veering sharply into gagaland when Popham comes out with the following astoundingly ignorant and prejudiced regurgitation of a canard favored by the worst sort of soldier for Christ:

QuoteWhat is staggering about the secularists is their arrogance and the shortness of their memories. The materialist utopianism of the Communists and Nazis is to blame for all the worst atrocities of the past century. Dawkins may appear to make sense, but it is incredible that we should be ready to pay serious attention to a prophet whose message is the same as those whose schemes led straight to the hells of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge.

I (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)'d. Also, Popham needs to learn that secularism ≠ atheism. There are Christians who support a secular society. P.P. gets a big fat purple FAIL from me.

QuoteBut, stripped of fanaticism and self-righteousness, religious faith can do what secularism cannot: open doors on to areas of human experience – compassion, altruism, serenity, even enlightenment – which have no meaning for the secularists. The statement "there are no atheists in foxholes" may be a canard, but genuinely non-egoistical behaviour is much more likely from those for whom the ego and its grasping needs do not define ultimate reality.

That's from the same article Recusant quoted, same old can't be good without god crap.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 04:11:34 AM
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.

Well said, En_Route (and I'm not saying that just because I agree with you).  :)


The chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission gives his view on the subject (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9087775/Christians-arent-above-the-law-says-equalities-chief-Trevor-Phillips.html):

QuoteReligious rules should end "at the door of the temple" and give way to the "public law" laid down by Parliament, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.

He argued that Roman Catholic adoption agencies and other faith groups providing public services must choose between their religion and obeying the law when their beliefs conflict with the will of the state.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on February 17, 2012, 12:20:03 PM

QuoteBut, stripped of fanaticism and self-righteousness, religious faith can do what secularism cannot: open doors on to areas of human experience – compassion, altruism, serenity, even enlightenment – which have no meaning for the secularists. The statement "there are no atheists in foxholes" may be a canard, but genuinely non-egoistical behaviour is much more likely from those for whom the ego and its grasping needs do not define ultimate reality.

That's from the same article Recusant quoted, same old can't be good without god crap.

yeah, that article was full of crap. Why are newspapers so full of bullshit? This bit got my goat too;

Quote"To deny the existence of God is to accept the categories of monotheism... Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians' God is still a Christian world.

Only a Christian would be stupid enough to try and define atheism as a rejection of the Christian god. Atheism is older than Christianity and a non-belief in all gods, not just their one. What a moron.

Quote from: Recusant on February 17, 2012, 11:54:46 AM
I (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2)'d. Also, Popham needs to learn that secularism ≠ atheism. There are Christians who support a secular society. P.P. gets a big fat purple FAIL from me.

What makes that article a failure for me is that it doesn't successfully argue why Britain should go back to Christianity, Britain has been secular for a long time already and the church of England is operating in a primarily secular fashion and is part of their mandate to become more inclusive rather than exclusive (it may as well loose the religious element and become a humanist organisation imo). The only arguments the article makes is that Christianity has history in Britain; which is a pointless and a stupid argument that gives it no authority over how the future of the country develops as it will always remain part of our history regardless, just as the old religions have remained part of our cultural identity. With the other argument being that secularism creates totalitarian regimes that create more harm than good; which is a total fallacy as the examples he gave were anything but secular and have never represented the idea of secularism. The article could be a poe as it is conceived using the generalised arguments that have no foundations or are just plain wrong assertions whilst using quotes that strengthen the case for secularism.

Quote from: En_Route on February 17, 2012, 01:21:53 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 04:11:34 AM
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!

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 17, 2012, 04:49:45 PMHow 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.

Wearing something and/or expressing your opinion is far different than not providing a public service to everyone but a certain group. I think there are far too many differences between the two things to make a tenable conflation.

You would have to say that the paper boy is delivering to everyone but LGBT. Or the Avon lady would sell to everyone but LGBT.

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 (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.

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.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 17, 2012, 04:49:45 PM

Quote from: En_Route on February 17, 2012, 01:21:53 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on February 15, 2012, 04:11:34 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 14, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
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.

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" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082136)

QuoteCommunities 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."

Bugger Eric Pickles!  >:(

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.

this kind of 'RIP England' crap is why I hate the Daily Mail... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104359/RIP-England-We-witnessing-systematic-destruction-beloved-institutions.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Quote from: Too Few Lions on February 23, 2012, 12:25:32 PM
this kind of 'RIP England' crap is why I hate the Daily Mail... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2104359/RIP-England-We-witnessing-systematic-destruction-beloved-institutions.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

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.

Quote from: Ali on February 17, 2012, 05:16:45 PM
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.