Comments on: Catholic adoption agency CAN discriminate against gay couples, High Court rules

By: Redsinger

Redsinger — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:31:49 +0000

Sorry guys but the actual legal decision IS logical even if we disagree with it morally- here’s why: The act as it was drafted had a loophole which allowed LGBT charities to target THEIR services at LGBT people so that they couldn’t be sued by straights who couldn’t use LGBT focussed services. The judges in this case are saying that if an LGBT charity is allowed to specificy that it’s services are for LGBT people, then other charities can specify their services to be for straight people. Looked at in this way it’s the principle of EQUAL right for straight charities compared to the rules in place for LGBT charities. Remember how we always ask for EQUAL treatment- well this is exactly that. Only this rime the shoe is on the other foot I’m afraid!

By: TangoJuliet

TangoJuliet — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:01:06 +0000

I think a lot of you are missing the larger picture of this piece of legislation over your haste to put the boot into the catholic church (the gods know it needs it). The question is: should the state legislate what a community (in this case a church) should and should not think or do. While, in my opinion, it is wrong for the RCC to descriminate against gays in such a matter it is equally wrong for parliament to force the RCC to act in a proscribed manner.

(While there are some natural prohibitions, ie murder, rape etc, there are valid reasons for these as an individual suffers harm of some form or another. In the case of gays wanting to adopt, they get refused but can go to another agency and try again with a better chance of success.)

Think about it, a bunch of faceless idiots deciding for you what you should think and do. While some people may welcome such state control, after all many germans, chinese and russian did, I for one do not. My opinions, beliefs, thoughts, ideals are my own; how I choose to live my life and treat others is up to me, provided I do not physically harm other.

While you can all slap each other on the back for another blow struck against god/religion and enjoy some hand shandies, you all ignore the fact that this legislation can be employed against anyone for any reason that someone feels ‘descriminated’ against. Freedom of conscience has been thrown onto the dustbin with the rest of our ancient liberties and all so a left wing party can score a few points at the expense of organisations they have always hated; namely because they take people’s minds away from the good and pure entity that is the party.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:22:12 +0000

BarrieJohn, what i meant was, the judge was probably right in his interpretation of the current law. It’s a crap law.
But didn’t he just say they could go back to the Charity commission for an opinion? or did I misunderstand that? This battle is not yet over. I hope.

By: Angelo

Angelo — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:19:26 +0000

A LGBT couple who goes to a catholic adoption agency, whilst there being other gay-friendly ones handy, well, maybe is not very reasonable. Better boycott catholic and discriminating agencies and telling other people to do so.
I agre with GSW:
t would be a far far better thing if we campaign to bring in a single, simple law:
A public service will continue to receive public funding as long as it serves the general public.
Any service practising discrimination receives no public funding.

This would conform not only to the tenet of freedom central to all atheist thinking, it would also stop the rubbish about religious persecution and allow religious institutions, working with religious donations, to offer these services to those who have paid them.
Just another commercial business.

By: Buffy

Buffy — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:20:16 +0000

So then they’d be OK if a business or agency refused to provide services to Catholics on the basis that it was against the “deeply held beliefs” of the individuals who ran the business/agency?

By: tom

tom — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:00:19 +0000

Perhaps if the BNP set themselves up as a religion (tax exempt)and made their propaganda Sacred Texts they would find the courts just as sympathetic….. Worth thinking about lads.

By: Angela_K

Angela_K — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:03:11 +0000

gsw, excellent idea. Also, it does beg the question: why do some LGT people go to religious institutions for potential adoptees when there are lots of other sources? Further – and it has been said many times here – why on earth do certain LGT people support religions that hate them; seem bonkers to me. Hobson’s choice if you happen to be born LGT, you learn to live with it; but the individual is free to choose or lose religion.

By: barriejohn

barriejohn — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:28:15 +0000

There is a lot to commend your idea, gsw, and religious institutions definitely need to receive no more tax breaks or other public funding (particularly if they are going to be so obstreperous), but the fact is that even private employers in the UK are not allowed to flout equality laws, however bigoted and sincerely held their prejudices may be, so why should an organization like the Roman Catholic Church be treated any differently?

By: gsw

gsw — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:02:18 +0000

I have to agree with NeoWolfe (hope that’s ok with you).

I would seriously like to suggest that these campains STOP trying to force RCs to go against their teaching.

It would be a far far better thing if we campaign to bring in a single, simple law:
A public service will continue to receive public funding as long as it serves the general public.
Any service practising discrimination receives no public funding.

This would conform not only to the tenet of freedom central to all atheist thinking, it would also stop the rubbish about religious persecution and allow religious institutions, working with religious donations, to offer these services to those who have paid them.
Just another commercial business.

By: NeoWolfe

NeoWolfe — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:36:50 +0000

JohnMWhite,

I’ve been wondering for years. I have watched excerps of Rush Limbaugh, video of Fred Phelps, and worse, video of the site where the followers of Jim Jones died, laying on top of their own children, and the videos of Applewhite’s massacre, as a species are we too stupid to live? How do we rescue what is worthy of saving???

NeoWolfe