melthebell Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 old age pensioners are the most vulnerable. they dont have special laws to protect them they get those cold winter payments..............thats discriminate why dont we? in fact so do the long term unemployed, tch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googleberry Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I will only be able to take this proposal seriously, should it become law, if every person involved in the printing, distribution, sale or giving of bibles, korans and other such texts, are prosecuted. Having read these works, I find that they are full of incitement to hatred of homosexuals, and to hatred other of religions for that matter! Anyone reading aloud from them in a church or mosque would very quickly find themselves contravening the law, unless they were very selective about which bits they read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googleberry Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_busdriver Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Will this law be enforced as vigourously as burglary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_busdriver Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKSentinel Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts