The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[T Fearon]

Oraisteach this is perfectly reasonable.Allows Christian businesses to stay true to their beliefs while avoiding any offence to members of the gay community.

[Milltown Row2]

Oraisteach this is perfectly reasonable.Allows Christian businesses to stay true to their beliefs while avoiding any offence to members of the gay community.

Hitler had the similar beliefs Tony, was he reasonable?

[T Fearon]

Hitler believed in businesses having gay friendly signs? Ffs he gassed people for less

[Oraisteach]

Tony, does your 'this' refer to Emily Virgin's amendment?  You do know, right, that her aim is to have discriminatory businesses own up to their biases by forcing them to acknowledge openly that they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.?  Her intent is to shame and additionally dissuade heterosexuals from patronizing openly offensive discriminatory businesses, not protect their 'religious liberty'.

Nothing like having the Klan kum out out of kloset and kommunicate their kind of kristianity.

[T Fearon]

But they're not discriminating.They will not serve any customers who ask for goods/services that contradict with their religious beliefs,be that customer black,white,gay,straight,Christian,Muslim,old,young.That is the point.

[Oraisteach]

So, in sum, Tony, any form of discrimination is acceptable (gays, blacks, Muslims, the disabled, the old, the poor, the Catholic seeking a job in the six counties, the breathing) as long as you say it offends your religious beliefs.  O Brave New World. 

[T Fearon]

No discrimination is not acceptable,including discrimination against Christians,who should not be legally compelled to act against their religious beliefs

[Hardy]

No discrimination is not acceptable,including discrimination against Christians,who should not be legally compelled to act against their religious beliefs

Does this apply to Christians only or do you extend this consideration to Jews and other religions?

[Sidney]

No discrimination is not acceptable,including discrimination against Christians,who should not be legally compelled to act against their religious beliefs

So what you're saying is that any form of discrimination is acceptable?

[Hardy]

Interestingly, the result to date of the gaaboard poll, including both those who have a vote and those who don't, correlates closely with that of the latest national poll by Red C.

If we remove from our poll those who don't have a vote, the poll shows a slightly more conservative tendency than both the nation at large and the gaaboard at large. That is a little surprising. Those without a  vote are presumably overwhelmingly Northern and I would have expected a more conservative Catholic attitude from that constituency.

We have more non-voters than voters participating, reflecting the geographical demographics of the board. And, maybe not surprisingly, those without a vote are more sure of their position (fewer undecided) than those who actually have a vote. But it's a small sample.

Red C poll:
Yes 76%
No 18%
Undecided 8%
Excluding undecideds:
Yes 81%
No 19%

Gaaboard poll (voters and non-voters):
Yes 76%
No 20%
Undecided 4%
Excluding undecideds:
Yes 79%
No 21%

Gaaboard poll (voters only):
Yes 64%
No 27%
Undecided 9%
Excluding undecideds:
Yes 71%
No 29%

[T Fearon]

No one in business,of amy faith,Christian,Jew,Muslim etc,should be legally compelled to supply goods or services that are contrary to their beliefs.Those who are denied goods/or services on account of the religious beliefs of any business owner,have plenty of alternative options in this increasingly secular country and world. To describe them as victims of discrimination is laughable

[Oraisteach]

So, Tony, by your terms, a Catholic in Northern Ireland, denied advancement in the Civil Service, or membership of a reserve police force, or work in a shipyard, because he or she is not a member of the Orange Order, an organization whose very belief system finds Catholicism anathema, is not in fact a victim of discrimination.

Or a black family making a trek across the US throughout most of the last century, denied a room in hotel after hotel, or B&B after B&B, because their skin color is against the proprietor's belief system has no cause for complaint because the owner is within his rights.

And please do not hide behind that bogus viable options argument.  The number of options has no bearing whatsoever on whether a discriminatory act meets the discrimination standard.  Discrimination is discrimination per se regardless of alternatives.

The only thing laughable is that you may actually believe what you're writing and that you're not simply reverting to WUMness.  Neither is an admirable trait.

[T Fearon]

No.This is not the same thing.I certainly do not believe that people should be denied goods or services simply because they belong to any grouping,be that based on religion,colour,gender or sexual orientation etc.

But if the provision of a particular good or service directly conflicts with the beliefs of the business owner,then the business owner should not be legally compelled to provide such goods or services.

[Oraisteach]

Tony, your statement is contradictory.  You can't say, on the one hand, that you don't think that people should be denied goods or services based on gender, race, or religion, and then, on the other, uphold the right of a person to deny those goods and services because a person's gender, race or religion is against the denier's belief system.

[T Fearon]

People's rights are contradictory.How can anyone who is a Christian be reasonably expected to provide goods or services facilitating gay marriage when it is a total anathema to them and their beliefs?