Which are, in themselves, discriminatory.Originally Posted by kalniel
A can say things about B because B doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws protecting them.
B can't say anything about A because A is protected by anti-discrimination laws.
Society starts to become one sided because reasonable debate ends up being crushed under "anti-discrimination" laws.
Just because *some* acts are discriminatory, doesn't mean all are.
this. We need tolerance laws, not anti-discrimination. tolerance is respecting those whose views are different to yours. It is not saying nothing that someone else might disagree with. Everyone holds different views about most things. We will never all agree about everything.
Edit: That said, I'm glad we do have some form of law preventing nasty racialism. Equally we see cases where it is misapplied. Hard to get the balance right I guess.
Discrimination laws aren't selective. They apply universally and protect all of us.
Untrue. The way they are implemented means one party is inevitably discriminated against. For example religious conscience is routinely seen as a lesser reason than sexual preference in court findings.
Both parties have the same protection - the sexual preferences of both are equally defended for example and discrimination isn't tolerated.
So the Human Right as defined by the European Human Rights Act for freedom of religious belief is therefore deemed to be lesser than the expression of sexual preference. Discrimination - against human right as defined in law!
Can you give me an example of this?
In the US, there's a lot of noise about religious freedom that actually means freedom to discriminate, but I'm wondering if there are actual scenarios where religious belief is considered lesser in the UK.
It's not discrimination - one persons sexual preference is not worth more than another's sexual preference. One person's religious preference is not worth more than another's religious preference.
There was a case where a couple tried to argue that their religious preference gave them a right to discriminate against sexual preference. This was of course thrown out in court. Their religious preference was never discriminated against because they were not treated any differently to a person of different religious preference.
That's the same silliness that happens here. That doesn't mean religious belief is 'lesser', reverse the scenario and the result would be the same.
it was a Bed and Breakfast i.e paying guests rent a room in your house. The Christian couple wanted to be able to select who stayed in their home, and objected to a gay couple staying there. The gay couple sued and won for discrimination. Now, if a gay couple had rejected a Christian couple from staying there I bet you any money they would not have won if they'd tried to sue.
Other examples are medics being made to perform abortions, even when it is against their religious belief that all life is special from the moment of conception.
then there's the case of Debenhams being made to stop playing Christmas carols in the Christmas window display due to it disturbing shoppers while the hip-hop busker is still allowed to belt out his tunes at Oxford Circus tube station entrance, and the Islamic mosques are allowed to issue calls to prayer near goodge street.
Edit I can only find news reports that it was stopped for "noise pollution" http://www.smh.com.au/world/carols-banned-on-busy-london-shopping-strip-20081120-6csi.html. Fairly sure the print reports I read at the time went further. And if that's the case, why have we had pop-up shops with loud hailers, hip hop buskers, beat-boxers, and live amplified bands all along Oxford St allowed to keep on, and only the Christmas Carols got stopped?
Last edited by ik9000; 16-11-2015 at 12:00 AM.
The dubious Debenhams aside, those are all examples of people being prevented from discriminating. Sorry, all of those are correct outcomes. If a gay couple refuses Christians, that would also be wrong, and I believe the outcome of a lawsuit would be the same. What if the couple said 'No Blacks' or 'No Muslims'? Religious freedom does not mean freedom to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against others.
So it's ok for someone to made to kill a life against their wishes?
What do you mean by 'Kill a life'? Do you mean perform an abortion? Because that's the phrase you need to use if you want to be taken seriously.
But, of course, no one is being made to perform an abortion. There is no slavery in the UK, let alone for doctors. If they don't want to perform abortions, they don't have to. There are plenty of hospitals where they are not performed, and plenty of specialties for doctors that don't require them to perform them. If they are part of the description for a specific job, then in order to meet the requirements for that job, they have to be willing to perform them. Imagine an Islamic doctor who doesn't want to treat women. Should he have the right to that religious accommodation when he applies for a gynecologists position?
wrong. if you want to practice medicine in the UK, be it as a nurse or as a doctor then you are no longer able to opt out of aborting (taking the life of) a baby.
it was this case that started the shake up: http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014...v-doogan-anor/
not sure how that had been implemented more widely. will ask my medic friends what the latest is as the BMA website still states conscientious objection as being a legitimate reason for not doing abortion.
your example of that gynaecologist is dumb in the extreme. interesting though are the number of patients who refuse to be seen by a certain medic because they're either wanting a female doctor (and not because it's lady stuff) or because the doctor is a woman (certain parts of the world) or because the doctor is not white etc.
Last edited by ik9000; 16-11-2015 at 03:14 AM.
Go ahead and read the rulings on the page you linked to.
The overwhelming majority of doctors and nurses in the UK have nothing to do with abortions. There are plenty of jobs for midwives in the NHS that don't involve working on a Labour and Delivery Ward where abortions are performed. Please explain the difference between this and our gynecologist. Calling an argument dumb because you don't like it doesn't refute it.
A gyneacologist who doesn't want to treat women won't have any patients, ergo won't have a job, and won't be a gyneacologist. That's a dumb example. That's like a pilot taking all his qualifications just to turn round and say he doesn't want to fly. He is not therefore a pilot.
A general nurse whose shift manager asks her to assist with abortions because they are short staffed and won't rearrange rosters to allow for her conscientious objection is discriminating against her. She should be able to work in another role, but the choice is not always respected. In theory she should therefore be able to complain - but it doesn't quite work like that in practice. That's anecdotal evidence, I can't reference it on the web. (it's not in the press SFAIK)
This is slightly detracting from the thread however. Feel free to start a new one. But coming back on track - it's time to start calling it Daesh folks: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hear-presi...1.html#ITJ9gZT
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote