New Catholic Church/ DUP coalition! Is this they way forward?

[LCohen]

You prove the point.If the printer was biased against homosexuals he wouldn't have done business with them at all.

Tony I don't think you will convince anyone with such an illogical argument.

If a "protestant" eatery said it was prepared to serve catholics but only if used segregated seating at the rear of the building would you believe that represented discrimination?

Surely you can see that merely being willing to serve a customer does not obsolve you of the accusation of discrimination. To avoid the accusation of discrimination then you have to prepared to serve the customer on an equal basis.

You clearly have failed to grasp the very basic premise of equality

[T Fearon]

According to law,or soon it will be,gays will be allowed to marry in the South.That will be their legal right.It is the legal right similarly of Christians to have beliefs and practice same.However one set of rights should not be allowed to override the other.

As to your analogy of the Protestant eatery,I'm no Petrocelli but I would have thought segregated seating,though perverse,is legally ok as long as all sects are served the same food at the same prices.

[LCohen]

Paedophiles are also God's creation,but they are still repugnant,as are murderers etc.

Religion is largely down to faith.As I said God's existence can not be proved or disproved.I was interested to learn that Beulah Printing will not commercially endorse binge drinking (eg Stag weekends) or anything else the Company's proprietors deem to be contrary to their beliefs.

This is no crusade against gay people,it is simply a matter of business owners trying to live out their faith in all aspects of their life.This is admirable in this day and age,and they should be commended not condemned.

The bit in bold is perfectly true.

But if you are seeking to influence law or public policy then you will have to produce some form of evidence.

I think that is where you will your friend Poots fell down on his decisions on blood donations

[LCohen]

One of the owners of the printing firm in Drogheda took the time and trouble to visit the hairdresser in his premises to explain clearly why he was unable to fulfil his order (to print wedding invitations to a gay marriage) and he listed other orders in the past he was unable to fulfil due to his religious beliefs.He then offered a handshake to the hairdresser who declined it.

Now in all objectivity who was the reasonable and non bigoted person here?

This is another one of your idiotic contributions. I don't think there is a single person with a functioning brain that will be convinced by the argument that if explain the grounds of your discrimination that that you are not actually discrimination.

To argue that if someone explains the source of their bigotry that that somehow makes then non-bigoted or even reasonable displays a frankly staggering level of stupidity

[LCohen]

According to law,or soon it will be,gays will be allowed to marry in the South.That will be their legal right.It is the legal right similarly of Christians to have beliefs and practice same.However one set of rights should not be allowed to override the other.

I'm afraid that you continue to fail to grasp an understanding of the debate in which you are involved. Freedom to believe and to congregate in belief is protected. As it should be. Freedom to act in line with your faith but against the law of the land is not protected. Nor should it ever be. If faith, without evidence and irrespective of what you believe, is allowed to excuse people from compliance with the law then we are doomed. Doomed in a real and earthly sense.

As to your analogy of the Protestant eatery,I'm no Petrocelli but I would have thought segregated seating,though perverse,is legally ok as long as all sects are served the same food at the same prices.

So yes or no? In your view will the catholic punters have been discriminated against? Simple stuff. If your belief extends to a faith in your own argument then you will provide the yes or no answer.

[T Fearon]

Tut tut,now we are so blinded by anti Christianity we cannot even recognise far less acknowledge that a business owner went out of his way to explain to a customer why he couldn't offer him a particular service (and by so doing showing the customer the utmost respect,a trait not usually associated with bigots),and offered him a handshake that was refused?

[T Fearon]

I do not believe the Catholic punters would suffer discrimination by being placed in segregated seating as long as the quality of seating is the same for all other customers.

[LCohen]

Tut tut,now we are so blinded by anti Christianity we cannot even recognise far less acknowledge that a business owner went out of his way to explain to a customer why he couldn't offer him a particular service (and by so doing showing the customer the utmost respect,a trait not usually associated with bigots),and offered him a handshake that was refused?

Are you still arguing that if you explain the basis of your discrimination that that means you are not discriminating?

[T Fearon]

You are explaining the basis of your faith which does not allow you to fulfil the particular order in question (all previous orders have been fulfilled over the last 4 years) this is not discrimination in any way shape or form,as any reasonable person would concur.

[LCohen]

You are explaining the basis of your faith which does not allow you to fulfil the particular order in question (all previous orders have been fulfilled over the last 4 years) this is not discrimination in any way shape or form,as any reasonable person would concur.

There are many problems with that but the key one is that faith based discrimination is no better than discrimination. Especially so when you cannot evidence your faith in any way.

[T Fearon]

You can only discriminate wholly against a person,not partially.That's why these cases initiated by gay lobbyists (and funded by all tax payers,many of whom are Christians by the way) will be laughed out of court.

The fact remains they were not discriminated against in any way due to being gay,they were denied specific services by suppliers because those services are contrary to the religious beliefs of suppliers,who quite happily supplied a vast range of other services to these same gay customers.

You might as well argue that businesses which don't open on a Sunday are being discriminatory against atheists.That's how daft this is.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

Pope Francis' point about atheists seems to be in direct contradiction to Mark 16: 16:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

--Jebus 

[muppet]

No investigations in this case.Cant see how Ashers or Beulah can lose.No one was treated less favourably,as neither would produce a slogan endorsing gay marriage for anyone,homosexual or hetrosexual

But Tony, your whole argument is based on sin.

Either you are genuine in your beliefs that you are avoiding sin and acting on your Christian conscience, in your case by denying the gay couple a room, or you are simply bigoted.

Assuming your are acting on your Christian conscience, as I said before, why is it not sufficient to simply report the sin to your religious  superiors and wash your hands of it?

'No investigations in this case' is not an argument. If the gay couple said it is ok because the Cardinal is investigating would you then give them the room?

[muppet]

Pope Francis' point about atheists seems to be in direct contradiction to Mark 16: 16:

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

--Jebus

Matthew, Mark and Luke are not given the highest credence in the Catholic Catechism. That is reserved for both John, which was written after the others, and the writings of St. Paul.

For example the first 3 Gospels state that The Last Supper took place on the first day of Passover. John states that it was the last day of Passover.

The accounts of the women going to the tomb are all different. Who exactly went to the tomb is completely different in each of the Gospels. Who they met there and whether or not they went in, is also different. None explains properly why Mary Magdalene was there and why the resurrected Jesus appeared to her first.

This is pretty big stuff I would have thought and surely there should have been some consensus.

This is what two Gospels said about what the women did afterwards:

Matt. 28:8
8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples.

Mark 16:8
8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Also Catholics continue to worship Mary as a virgin. I am not going to get into whether or not she was a virgin for the birth of Jesus, but the Gospels say Jesus had brothers and sisters. Why ignore that?

You have to conclude that the authors of the Gospels had different views as they were human. This would be normal with any humans and any event. They may have employed poetic license or even had their own agendas. But either way, to accept their contradictory accounts as, well, 'Gospel', seems strange.

[Jell 0 Biafra]

I'm not suggesting that there isn't conflict between gospels.  Or that there aren't lots of conveniently ignored passages in the bible denouncing, e.g., loaning money for interest, or not obeying proper form when selling one's daughter.   So I'd agree with the general claim that interpretation is required if one is going to use the bible as some kind of moral guide.

But if the claim is that the bible doesn't say that you have to believe in Jesus to get into heaven, then that is clearly false.