"No, that's bullshite. The Police go wherever they damn well please (with appropriate warrants) and anybody who tries to obstruct them gets arrested."

No, thats just what they tell you.
The only one talking rubbish is you Toni.

- So if I posted a video entitled 'Muslim Mob Chases Cops from 'No Go Zones' in the UK' with 274,000 views, I suppose you'd say that doesn't exist?
http://youtu.be/Dao89RedIco

And if I posted a video entitled 'No-Go Zones: Lawless areas do exist and increasing in France - police' then let me guess?
Doesn't exist?
http://youtu.be/FmZRGjLZt_M

So you'd see this and be like:
Shocking scenes from a Muslim no-go zone in Europe
http://youtu.be/J04Ej1DYO4o
"Charter Boat? What charter boat?"

No, you wouldn't would you, because it doesn't exist?

You see in order to do this to our societies, they have to convince us it doesn't exist.

Rapes in Sweden? Doesn't exist?
If you want to be an ignorant or guillible fool that's fine but stop trying to peer pressure everyone else with your 'Charter boat' ideology.

Why don't you go read a book?
Start with 'Bloodlines of the Illuminati' since you say that doesn't exist either.
I started reading it yesterday and did the first 4 chapters, will finish it today.
Best book I ever read, I actually felt my IQ increasing reading it.
YOU ALL SHOULD READ IT.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare

The problem with you is you 'think' you're smart;
Or should I say: You think you know everything when you don't.
I don't claim to know everything - I learned long ago that it's easier to just say 'I don't bloody know' than to be caught out looking stupid.
I don't let my ego dig my own hole for me.
Obviously you haven't learned this, yet.

I voted for the proposal but with serious misgivings based on concerns about views such as those expressed by the author of this article.

I could not see a way to act in good faith on the first despite the latter. The survey unfortunately did not allow for people voting on a particular form of legislation (not did it explore related issues such as plural marriages which should have been explored at the same time).

My objection to the exemptions is that they don't go far enough. Anybody not in receipt of public money for performing a service or holding some kind of government imposed monopoly on that service should be free to provide that service or not based on their preferences, invisible friend or not.

That will of course hurt some but the idea of compelling people to engage in a business arrangement against their own principles is a far worse outcome.

I wonder how long before the author and those who think like him manage to destroy the good will that lead to the outcome of the vote by actions demonstrating a massive intolerance of others. By trying to make an example of someone trying to live by their own conscience and have them bullied into submission by the power of the state.

R0bert

AC, I have trouble reading large passages. I wonder off into space and get distracted to the point I get pissed off, and give it away. Try again another day. Anyway, as you are reading up on the 'illuminati', and you know it is one of my pet subjects, I would like to know your thoughts on what you find.
I realise it is off topic so maybe you can start a new topic to discuss the illuminati and the Rothschilds? Thank you.

Oh dear...runner's desperation and outright ignorance becomes more and more evident. Introducing 'pedophiles' is pathetic. Truly pathetic. People who resort to such tactics simply are not worth engaging with any further.

A marriage celebrant will have a certificate which authorises him on behalf of the state to conduct the marriage of any two adults qualified by law to marry.

The celebrant is obliged as a condition of retaining the celebrant's certificate to conduct the marriage of any qualified couple who ask him to do so.

The celebrant may be but is not required to be a cleric of a religious organisation, but no religious or other organisation can absolve a celebrant of the obligation of carrying out his duty to the state.

Of course "him" and "his" refers to "him or her" and "his or her". Duh!

None of that is rocket science.

The beat-up clamour for protecting religious rights is really about protecting unjustified religious privilege.

EJ,

A wedding celebrant is not required to to conduct the marriage of any qualified couple who ask him to do so. He can choose based on location, time and any set of variables that are convenient to him. He can also discriminate against gay couples if he so wishes, he does not even have to give a reason, only if the complainant can prove that it was discriminatory would he have any case whatsoever.