Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:07 am  

Standee wrote:

You mean like the relentless, vindictive, hate filled christians?

indeed, how tolerant

remind me, doesn't one of the commandments say "do unto others", or did you miss that page in your comic?

Not a commandment, I don't think, but one of Jesus's statements. But hey, Christians can ignore Christ too.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:08 am  

kirkstaller wrote: Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view: reasonable adjustments should be made so that everyone is happy. In this case I admit there is a clash of rights. The rights of the gay couple to live openly and freely ought to be respected, but likewise the Christian couple should have the freedom to manifest their sincerely held beliefs, even in the workplace. The law is quite clear that, in cases like this, the Christians lose. I accept that decision, and can understand why the judges reached such a conclusion. However it is my view that the law is wrong and favours sexual orientation over religion. If you have a look at the Bulls' judgement, even the judge could see that this is a delicate legal balancing exercise and that a higher court might want to offer some clarity on the matter. That is why the Bulls were given permission to appeal. You could say that the B&B owners shouldn't be running a business if they want to act in this way. However when they started their B&B business the UK did not even have civil partnerships. Why should they be forced out of business because the law now views civil partnerships as equal to marriage (even though the concept was never sold as such when it was being introduced)? I'm sure some compromise could be reached whereby both parties are satisfied. But the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving gay complainants refuse to turn the other cheek. Instead, they want revenge. How tolerant. So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her

kirkstaller wrote: Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view: reasonable adjustments should be made so that everyone is happy. In this case I admit there is a clash of rights. The rights of the gay couple to live openly and freely ought to be respected, but likewise the Christian couple should have the freedom to manifest their sincerely held beliefs, even in the workplace. The law is quite clear that, in cases like this, the Christians lose. I accept that decision, and can understand why the judges reached such a conclusion. However it is my view that the law is wrong and favours sexual orientation over religion. If you have a look at the Bulls' judgement, even the judge could see that this is a delicate legal balancing exercise and that a higher court might want to offer some clarity on the matter. That is why the Bulls were given permission to appeal. You could say that the B&B owners shouldn't be running a business if they want to act in this way. However when they started their B&B business the UK did not even have civil partnerships. Why should they be forced out of business because the law now views civil partnerships as equal to marriage (even though the concept was never sold as such when it was being introduced)? I'm sure some compromise could be reached whereby both parties are satisfied. But the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving gay complainants refuse to turn the other cheek. Instead, they want revenge. How tolerant. So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:23 am  

SmokeyTA wrote: So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her She is simply arguing for the right to wear her crucifix at work. She feels compelled to manifest her faith in her workplace and that should be respected. The bottom line is, you should be able to discriminate against customers on any basis you like, but not employees. It is unreasonable for someone to lose their livelihood, it is not unreasonable for someone to go to the B&B/shop down the road. In today's free market people can vote with their feet if they don't like it.

SmokeyTA wrote: So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her She is simply arguing for the right to wear her crucifix at work. She feels compelled to manifest her faith in her workplace and that should be respected. The bottom line is, you should be able to discriminate against customers on any basis you like, but not employees. It is unreasonable for someone to lose their livelihood, it is not unreasonable for someone to go to the B&B/shop down the road. In today's free market people can vote with their feet if they don't like it.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:28 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

She is simply arguing for the right to wear her crucifix at work. She feels compelled to manifest her faith in her workplace and that should be respected.

Why should it? Does it have any affect on her job or her performance? She's got the wrong end of the stick if she thinks the "breaking strain" of her chain is an issue too

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:36 am  

Why? Its my business.

My belief is that Christianity is offensive, I don’t like it, I think it is wrong, I think it is unnatural. Why should I be forced to not only employ someone whose beliefs I find offensive, but allow them to manifest them and publicly display them in what isn’t only my place of business but my place of work?

And I assume by your last sentence you would have no problem with business refusing service to Christian customers?

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:50 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Why? Its my business.

My belief is that Christianity is offensive, I don’t like it, I think it is wrong, I think it is unnatural. Why should I be forced to not only employ someone whose beliefs I find offensive, but allow them to manifest them and publicly display them in what isn’t only my place of business but my place of work?

Because everyone has a right to work without fear of discrimination.

And I assume by your last sentence you would have no problem with business refusing service to Christian customers?

Exactly right.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:56 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

Because everyone has a right to work without fear of discrimination.

Exactly right.

Everyone has the right to live their life without fear of discrimination, its not just work.

But how can a gay man have the right to work without fear of discrimination if a Christian has the right to manifest and display their beliefs at work?

If Shirley Chaplin is compelled to manifest her beliefs in that way at work, and you want that right to be protected, would that extend to my right to manifest and display, at work, my belief that Christianity is a childs fairy tale, that it is unnatural, that parts of it are pretty sick, and that I find it a bigoted and offensive religion?

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:53 am  

I'm not as clear on this case as i think i should be, yes i disagree with gay people being discriminated but at the same time even though it's a business, it is run from home and has that personal touch, the personal touch also being the values of the owners.

If they say on their brochures we don't allow non married people to share then i can respect that, forget religion for a moment, some people still believe that part of moral decency (rightly or wrongly) is not having sex without first committing to each other.

But the thing is this is a way of live for both parties, ok so one is a natural love the way they were born of two people of the same sex and one is a book about magic people YET they both believe strongly in what they are, i think.... I don't know what to think, i feel for both parties even though something inside says i should be on the side of the gay couple i really can't make my mind up.

Maybe people should be allowed to incorporate their own values in a b&b and clearly state what they are and then if someone else's view contradicts that then they know not to stay there.

I hate religion as much as the next atheist but these people are not evil people, they just chose a way of life that is incompatible with other peoples way of life and as long as they are not hurting or killing people then i'm kind of ok with that.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:57 am  

A spokesman for Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust said: 'Whilst it would be inappropriate due to employee confidentiality to discuss a named individual member of staff, our uniform and dress code policy does not allow our staff to wear necklaces, with or without anything attached to it.
'We have a duty of care towards our patients and our staff, and the Trust considers the wearing of a necklace to be a risk, albeit small, within a clinical setting because patients, particularly those who may be confused, do sometimes grab for items when being moved.

This sounds like a total copout to me. It is patent rubbish.

What risk of injury is there though?

Are Muslim female employees allowed to wear a hijab? If the confused patient was minded to reach out and grab something in the area of the nurse's throat, they could get a much better grip and much more purchase by grabbing a head covering that fits around the head and throat. On the face of it, if there really is a "grabbing" risk, in what way is it greater for a necklace than for a hijab?

In case any idiot concludes I am either supporting "rights" to wear religion-related items, or picking on any religion, I'm not. I am questioning what is the REAL reason for this so-called rule. The "grabbing" issue really is a made-up non-issue, and in truth, the patient who was confused and compelled to "grab" could just as easily grab the lapels, say, of a non-hijab wearing, non-necklace wearing nurse and so far as I can see the risks would not be materially different. Indeed, there was a suggestion that you could pin some symbol to your lapel, albeit on the "inside" of your lapel. How is that safer? If a confused patient firmly grabs by a lapel where there is any form of pinned badge, there's an obvious risk of injury there, minor injury yes, but certainly to my mind a no less than any such risk posed by a necklace, and probably more.

I do not support the right of any employee to wear religious symbols of any sort, because I do not accept there is any such "right". At the same time, the employer should be frank as to what they really aim to do and why, and not cover up their bad decisions by flannel and bullcrap. If a person wants to manifest some form of clothing or jewellery or apparel, whether religion-related or anything else, then as long as it complies with a sensible clothing policy, let them. In the case of a nurse, I cannot see why either a hijab, or a necklace, with or without crucifix, poses any sort of problem and anyone who banned either on H&S grounds would be indulging in unadulterated "fear of compensation culture" nuttiness that should be stamped out wherever it rears its ugly head.

Necklace? Risk? Give me a break.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:09 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

The bottom line is, you should be able to discriminate against customers on any basis you like, but not employees. It is unreasonable for someone to lose their livelihood, it is not unreasonable for someone to go to the B&B/shop down the road.

In today's free market people can vote with their feet if they don't like it.

You're picking and choosing your viewpoint now though, its clearly a ridiculous standpoint to take to state that a business can discriminate against anyone or anything, except their own employees - and why would they want to ?

Fact of the matter is that as a business owner you abide by the current laws of the land and there are a myriad of them to comply with, there is no cop-out excuse that says you can ignore them if you were trading before they became law or for any special religious beliefs - your place of business is subject to all laws, its not a pick-and-mix situation.

The fact that their place of business is also their house is totally irrelevant.