• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

We are all equall - ish!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    We are all equall - ish!

    'No opt-out' for Church adoption

    The cardinal said Catholic adoption agencies would have to close
    The Roman Catholic Church is not expected to win an exemption from new anti-discrimination laws, following the row over adoption by gay couples.
    Its agencies are demanding an opt-out, so that they are not required to place children with homosexual people.

    Reports that Tony Blair has "caved in" to Cabinet members who are against an exemption have been described as "ridiculous" by Downing Street.

    But No 10 has suggested agencies may be allowed time to adapt or close.

    Tony Blair has met Labour MPs over the issue and an announcement is expected next week.

    'Strong views'

    The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Catholic leaders say its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will close if bound by the rules.

    You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it

    Harriet Harman, Constitutional Affairs Minister

    Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, has denied claims that he is using "blackmail".

    The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its attempts.

    Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning".

    Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman, the latest minister to voice an opinion on the issue, has said there was no scope for exemptions to the legislation.

    "We will stay true to our commitment in tackling sexual discrimination in terms of sexual orientation," she told the New Statesman magazine.

    "You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it. You can't be a little bit against discrimination."

    Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, who is a Catholic, is reported to be pushing for an exemption.

    HAVE YOUR SAY
    Since when have the laws of England not applied to the church?

    Greg Skinner, Loughborough


    Send us your comments

    But Labour MP Stephen Pound, who is also Catholic, does not support a religious exemption but believes the adoption row has put Ms Kelly in a difficult decision.

    "We seem to be living in a world where people who have strongly held views are somehow derided for that," he told the BBC.

    "In Ruth's case there is demonstrably a conflict. Is it right for us to expect someone to abandon everything they believe in because of the prevailing majority view? Does she abandon her ambition or her faith?"

    The National Secular Society said that allowing an exemption for the Church would open the "floodgates for a never-ending series of demands".

    It would seem that in NL PC Britain, it is wrong to offend homosexuals, but acceptable to offend christians. Another sad day for Democracy, but that is no surprise really. Clearly we are all equal, but some are more equal than others again!
    “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

    #2
    Could I have a glass of water please, Shaunbhoy is making sense again.
    I am not qualified to give the above advice!

    The original point and click interface by
    Smith and Wesson.

    Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by shaunbhoy
      It would seem that in NL PC Britain, it is wrong to offend homosexuals, but acceptable to offend christians. Another sad day for Democracy, but that is no surprise really. Clearly we are all equal, but some are more equal than others again!
      Just another example of the minorities hijacking the State
      How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

      Comment


        #4
        Why would a TRUE christian be offended by a homosexual ?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by foritisme
          Why would a TRUE christian be offended by a homosexual ?
          Because god said it is wrong.
          I am not qualified to give the above advice!

          The original point and click interface by
          Smith and Wesson.

          Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by foritisme
            Why would a TRUE christian be offended by a homosexual ?
            Because it's against their teachings? & It's not just Christians - other religions have problems with it -
            How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by shaunbhoy
              It would seem that in NL PC Britain, it is wrong to offend homosexuals, but acceptable to offend christians. Another sad day for Democracy, but that is no surprise really. Clearly we are all equal, but some are more equal than others again!
              Bollocks. This ruling says that we are all equal before the law: that the law is there to protect a basic human right, and so no-one is exempt from it.

              We are all equal. Not all ideas are equal. The idea that sexual orientation is a personal choice is highly regarded. The idea that a divine revelation excuses one from recognising that is not.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by expat
                Bollocks. This ruling says that we are all equal before the law: that the law is there to protect a basic human right, and so no-one is exempt from it.

                We are all equal. Not all ideas are equal. The idea that sexual orientation is a personal choice is highly regarded. The idea that a divine revelation excuses one from recognising that is not.
                I'm not sure if you are saying pro or anti - if you are agreeing that orientation is a choice thing, then the divine revelation bit doesn't make sense
                How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by zeitghost
                  "Stone 'im, stone 'im"...
                  Who threw that?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Troll
                    I'm not sure if you are saying pro or anti - if you are agreeing that orientation is a choice thing, then the divine revelation bit doesn't make sense
                    I am not saying anything about whether I am pro or anti homosexuality, religion, or even tolerance.

                    I am saying that the law is indeed treating everyone equally here, in fact that is precisely the point of this ruling; and SB is incorrect when he says that it treats people unequally. It does not: it treats ideas unequally.



                    PS it is interesting that you take it that a posting on this thread will be either pro or anti one or other of the groups involved! "Which side are you on, then?".

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X