The Forum > General Discussion > Gays can discriminate but Christians cannot?
Gays can discriminate but Christians cannot?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 18 October 2010 4:42:22 PM
| |
I disagree, it is very much a topic designed to bait. I notice a lot of your topics are worded in similar ways. Anyway, I'll leave you to it. I certainly won't be taking you seriously. If anyone wants to get baited, that's their choice.
Posted by Rudy, Monday, 18 October 2010 4:48:47 PM
| |
Truly it has been said: Those who respect the law and like sausages should watch neither being made.
Posted by Michael B, Monday, 18 October 2010 4:57:21 PM
| |
Rudy...this is not a troll topic....it is of serious concern.
You want to know just HOW serious? see this link please. Yeah! Serious about discriminating against GAY people. AL At least gays are real. If my sister every comes across you with that out look, you just might talking funny for a few weeks your self mate. smile. I'll just let you know, that she can kick-start her vibrator, roll her own tampon, and she can suck the chrome off a tow-bar! You want to be careful where you poke your god stick mate! coz she/or he and her many many many friends might just find a new place for it. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CC0QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motorcycletourers.org.au%2Flinks.php&rct=j&q=Lesbian%20bikers%20pictures&ei=GPa7TL79AoquvgPRvJnmDQ&usg=AFQjCNFjDkCqHQD62zqXEnVIBVoDLaiaVA&cad=rja Just joking AL. There very nice people, just like you. Tolerance for all I say. SMILE> TT Posted by think than move, Monday, 18 October 2010 5:31:45 PM
| |
""" Yet another Troll type topic from Al, designed purely to bait people. """
Spoken like a true troll. """ Why is he allowed to do it? """ It's pretty simple really, it's called free speech. It's really good for you did you know? Yes ALGOREisAtrOlL, it would seem you must think what is moral and then reverse it to avoid being in the right, err... or was the wrong :) Posted by RawMustard, Monday, 18 October 2010 5:35:25 PM
| |
Two entirely different cases with determinations arrived at for two different reasons.
One is done to prevent the abuse of homosexual men in a social setting. One is discriminating on the basis of sexuality without any corresponding risk to others by using the facilities. Christian schools are still able to discriminate in regard to teaching staff often advertising "must be a committed Christian" etc. Women and men have single gender clubs and mentor groups specifically aimed at women, girls, boys or men. Not all perceived discrimination is done for 'discriminatory' purposes. Discrimination that actively seeks to label a person in a derogatory way for being gay, black, ethnic or religious and denying them access to facilities available to any other group, is different to protecting from abuse or violent reprisals by neanderthals. Why the organisers of the camp actively chose the CB camp facilities ('scuse the pun) I can't fathom. Why give your hard earned money away to foster a group who are intent on victimising gay people? Posted by pelican, Monday, 18 October 2010 10:27:50 PM
|
You want to know just HOW serious? see this link please.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/apr/01/religion.gayrights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577982/Bishop-fined-in-gay-discrimination-case.html
You need to look very closely at how the law was used/interpreted in this case as it is the same law we have here.(Vic)
I'm interested in how we can have a LAW which is crystal clear... and a magistrate then afford protection of an exemption from that law for one group..but not another.
That IS 'discrimination'.
Bugsy.. I don't believe it is neccessary for any organization to apply for an exemption when the exemption is already included in the law.
The judge viewed CYC as a 'business' even though it is owned by the Brethren Trust, which is a Church trusteeship.
I believe this is an error in law, and just like the 2 Dannies case, should be appealed.
The exemptions to the Equal Opportunity Act are there to protect both gay clubs and Churches from being forced to accept people who are diametrically opposed to their foundation principles.
You might note the POLITICAL parties are also protected..and can shove out the door any applicant of the wrong political flavor to be 'receptionist'
So.. it comes back to the LAW. Why should Christians NOT be protected by that law but Gays are?
This is just one further example of the deliberate marginalization of Christians by secular/progressive (regressive) interests.