Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:40 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Many if not most charities are exclusive. That is their nature. The Catholic church set up their adoption agency way before the secular government decided that being gay was now ok enough to adopt children. They have been providing couples of similar worldview with children for decades. The Catholic Church in a free society should be able to continue its work without harrassment and with its charitable status in tact because it operates as a charity in the same way other charities operate, serving a particular section of the community as all charities do...

You are dressing-up exclusion of a minority as "serving a particular section of the community".
That's waffle.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:44 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I love it when people get in a state about what I've typed

I am not in a state.

I was just pointing out that you were talking rhetorical bollox.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:50 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

I am not in a state.

I was just pointing out that you were talking rhetorical bollox.

Ah, nothing substantive to say and trying to take the moral high ground

What's your beef with gay people raising children?

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:54 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Ah, nothing substantive to say and trying to take the moral high ground

What's your beef with gay people raising children?

I have never said I have beef with gay people raising children. I said it was an entirely different question, and that the child would likely get some ribbing at school.

But that didn't stop you from reading what you wanted to read on this thread, as opposed to what was actually posted.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:07 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

... and that the child would likely get some ribbing at school...

In which case, we should stop anyone breeding who is likely to produce a child with ginger hair or short sight.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:58 pm  

Mintball wrote:

In which case, we should stop anyone breeding who is likely to produce a child with ginger hair or short sight.

That's actually not a bad idea.

Anyhow. It probably won't be long until fatties and people with ginger hair are 'protected' by some sort of discrimination legislation.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:21 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Anyhow. It probably won't be long until fatties and people with ginger hair are 'protected' by some sort of discrimination legislation.

And so they should be

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:13 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

That's actually not a bad idea.

Anyhow. It probably won't be long until fatties and people with ginger hair are 'protected' by some sort of discrimination legislation.

What about willful imbeciles?

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:28 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

That's actually not a bad idea.

Anyhow. It probably won't be long until fatties and people with ginger hair are 'protected' by some sort of discrimination legislation.

As it should be.

Quite illogical for it to be illegal to call someone a black c but not a ginger c.

What's the difference?

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:29 pm  

I must confess to not having paid too much attention recently but I can't immediately bring to mind the last time I saw someone with ginger skin and I'm sure I would remember it - it must be quite a striking image.