Proposed future law - Incitement to cause hatred against Homosexuals

[Googleberry 10]

You are clearly confusing the statistical average term, "the norm", with "normal", a value judgement on gay people's lifestyles.

 

I think the argument over 'normality' is largely pointless. Do homosexuals have to be 'normal'? Is it not possible to be accepted without being normal? Normal could be considered boring! What's wrong with being a bit different?

[mr_busdriver 10]

Will this law be enforced as vigourously as burglary?

[Tony 10]

You are clearly confusing the statistical average term, "the norm", with "normal", a value judgement on gay people's lifestyles.

 

Hmm, an interesting point which leads me to ask what part of the 'deviance' of 'deviants' has any effect on the lives of 'normal' people?

 

Simply put... gay or straight, what difference does it make?

[mr_busdriver 10]

 

Simply put... gay or straight, what difference does it make?

 

 

 

Nail on the head, who cares what people are.

 

I do have to say though, I'm against any new laws for incitements

[Cyclone 10]

Perhaps our views differ a tad - I see being forced to employ somebody whose lifestyle and mannerisms offend me as being directly equivalent to somebody trespassing in my home; in fact, it would be worse - because the law would support the unwanted employee being forced upon me.

 

I think perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way.

 

No one is forcing you to employ anyone. What they are doing is forcing you to ignore sexuality as a selection criteria because it is simply and completely irrelevant to the ability to do a job.

 

Personally I've never been asked my sexuality in an interview, and if I was the interviewer would probably end up sacked or in a tribunal to explain why they'd asked.

 

Do you routinely ask? It's just as off limits as asking female interviewee's whether they have or might consider having children, an irrelevance that can only be used in a prejudicial way.

[Cyclone 10]

Okay, let's look at it differently.

 

Would you employ member of combat 18 with swastikas tattooed on his neck and forehead, knowing that his hobbies included going out at weekend to beat up Asians, and that he would support a party if it proposed gassing all non-whites and homosexual.

 

No? Well, that's discrimination. You should just let him get on with his life and pay him the money he needs to get on with his hobbies.

 

I'm sure you can see why this isn't the same.

You can sack staff for behaving in a way that brings them and through them the company into disrepute, and that includes assaulting people.

Political affiliation is different, if someone is so misguided as to support the BNP then you can argue with them about it, but it's not grounds to sack them unless it's going to interfere with serving non white customers or cause problems interacting with non white staff.

[Cyclone 10]

This proposal against incitement of hatred towards homosexuals isn't all that's contained within this bill. Another element is to ban violent porn images.

 

In other words if some consenting adults want to act out and film an S&M scene and then other consenting adults watch it, this would be illegal. Despite the fact that S&M is perfectly legal, watching it would become illegal.

 

Not only that but the law specifies "possession" of these explicit images, so if a couple make an S&M video for their own pleasure, never show it to anyone else but are caught with it in their own house, they could be arrested.

 

This law is puritanical, illiberal and should be vehemently opposed. What consenting adults get up to is no business of the state.

 

I'm completely with you there, what people want to do and video in their own homes and with consent is no business of the state.

[UKSentinel 10]

Interesting views I've read. I'd like to add that last night a car full of Asian lads drove past the club where I work, shouting the usual homophobic profanity. Bit stupid really doing that in a car, especially as I've now got their registration number and have passed this on to the police. Can you imagine what would have happened if a car full of white lads had driven by the local mosque and shouted racial remarks? I'll leave you to consider that one.

[bensonhedges 10]

I think the argument over 'normality' is largely pointless. Do homosexuals have to be 'normal'? Is it not possible to be accepted without being normal? Normal could be considered boring! What's wrong with being a bit different?

 

You are so absolutely right - it was just the grammarian in me coming out (the gay part of me came out many years ago).

 

I reckon under those criteria I am completely normal, work 9-5 to pay the mortgage, drive an average car, have a drink occasionally, love my mum and dad, feed the cat etc etc etc. I am as normal as they come - I just have a boyfriend rather than a girlfriend.

[SpiderPete 10]

What are bi-sexual men classed as ?, are they normal or abnormal.

 

Yet again a questioned not answered.

[AJ sheffield 11]

Yet again a questioned not answered.

 

Neither, their either greedy or lucky....or both.

[tom3t0 10]

An employer should have rights, they have plenty. You can hire people based on qualifications, personality, looks in certain situations. You can sack them for bad time keeping, inability to do the job, misconduct, etc... You can make them redundant if you don't have enough work, and the pay is completely up to you so long as it's above minimum wage.

But to not hire someone because you don't like their sexuality, well that's just prejudice unless you can justify how it would interfere with the work, and prejudice should not be accepted in any case or situation.

 

I don't follow your analogy, hiring someone and trespassing, I'm not getting it?

 

What if you wanted to only hire people to promote a family orientted business?