Evangelical extremist?

[Hope]

Yep. A minister/pastor cannot be forced into conducting a marriage against his conscience.

That is certainly true - but there is no longer a ban, as such.

[Anchorman]

There never was - under Scots law. Marital law was always separate in Scotland and England under the 1707 Act of Union.

[Hope]

There never was - under Scots law. Marital law was always separate in Scotland and England under the 1707 Act of Union.

Thanks for that, Jim.  I suppose that the CofE's ban was a hang-over from the RCC position.

[Anchorman]

Thanks for that, Jim.  I suppose that the CofE's ban was a hang-over from the RCC position.

Yep.
Remember the to's and fro's of the Tudors passed Scotland by. The RC Church was outlawed in 1567 and remained so till the nineteenth century.

[Spud]

Yep.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that if people are legally allowed to marry then those empowered to conduct the legal requirements of marriage should do so equitably. If organisations, via their suitably qualified staff, can't do so then they, as they say, should consider their position and either get out of the legal marriage business or stop discriminating.

I heard yesterday that in Hungary, only civil marriages are legally valid (though they do not have same sex marriage). Religious ceremonies where the couple repeat their vows before God have to be conducted separately.

There could be another problem if religious organisations do what you have suggested. They will face the same problem when they conduct non-legal ceremonies, because they will find it necessary to discriminate against same sex couples in these ceremonies as well.

[Gordon]

I heard yesterday that in Hungary, only civil marriages are legally valid (though they do not have same sex marriage). Religious ceremonies where the couple repeat their vows before God have to be conducted separately.

So it can be done.

There could be another problem if religious organisations do what you have suggested. They will face the same problem when they conduct non-legal ceremonies, because they will find it necessary to discriminate against same sex couples in these ceremonies as well.

True, but at least the legal entitlement to marriage is then being applied without discrimination in all cases.

Should religious organisations still decide to discriminate in their post-marriage ceremonies then that would still be shameful and, ironically, since the legal aspects are now separate, they would be discriminating against some of their fellow Christians on a solely religious basis: hard to see how any sense can be made of such a position, which seems also to imply a 'no true Scotsman'.

[Spud]

So it can be done.

True, but at least the legal entitlement to marriage is then being applied without discrimination in all cases.

Should religious organisations still decide to discriminate in their post-marriage ceremonies then that would still be shameful and, ironically, since the legal aspects are now separate, they would be discriminating against some of their fellow Christians on a solely religious basis: hard to see how any sense can be made of such a position, which seems also to imply a 'no true Scotsman'.

I understand how you would feel that way. But the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous that sexual relationships - and by implication marriage - between people of the same sex, is against God's will. There would thus be no sense in them saying vows before God.

I mentioned it because I could foresee similar situations to the B&B owners or the bakers from N. Ireland occurring, where same sex couples might take a church to court because they felt discriminated against; so i wondered what you thought about that.

[Shaker]

I understand how you would feel that way. But the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous that sexual relationships - and by implication marriage - between people of the same sex, is against God's will.

Other opinions are available.

[Gordon]

I understand how you would feel that way. But the Bible is quite clear and unambiguous that sexual relationships - and by implication marriage - between people of the same sex, is against God's will. There would thus be no sense in them saying vows before God.

As you'd no doubt imagine, Spud, I regard ancient claims about 'God's will' with utter disdain when these claims are used to discriminate against homosexual people in the 21st century.

I mentioned it because I could foresee similar situations to the B&B owners or the bakers from N. Ireland occurring, so i wondered what you thought about that.

I think bakers should concentrate on baking stuff, and in that context they should keep their non-bakery opinions to themselves.

[Spud]

Other bakers were available, G...

[Gordon]

Other bakers were available, G...

No doubt: the issue here though is about bakers who discriminate.

[Hope]

No doubt: the issue here though is about bakers who discriminate.

But its also about a company's right not to serve someone.

[Gordon]

But its also about a company's right not to serve someone.

That depends on the grounds they cite for refusing to provide their service.

[Hope]

As you'd no doubt imagine, Spud, I regard ancient claims about 'God's will' with utter disdain when these claims are used to discriminate against homosexual people in the 21st century.

And I regard society's claim to be developed and caring with similar utter disdain when it spends so much time pandering to the wants of minorities whilst ignoring the needs of the majority, Gordon - and before you jump in with the obvious, I'd include the attitude it takes to the church in the former.  The church can stand on its own two feet without the state intervening as it does.

I think bakers should concentrate on baking stuff, and in that context they should keep their non-bakery opinions to themselves.

Unfortunately, it is hard to divorce the one from the other because we are dealing with humans, not robots.

[Hope]

That depends on the grounds they cite for refusing to provide their service.

No, a shopkeeper or restauranteur can refuse to serve anyone, without giving cause.

[Gordon]

No, a shopkeeper or restauranteur can refuse to serve anyone, without giving cause.

They did give cause though, by citing their objections to the requested icing: so they were discriminating, which is unreasonable.

This is very different from declining the request by, for instance, noting that they were unable to provide the order due to having inadequate business capacity to meet it on schedule due to the volume of preexisting orders, which is perfectly reasonable and non-discriminatory.   

[Gordon]

And I regard society's claim to be developed and caring with similar utter disdain when it spends so much time pandering to the wants of minorities whilst ignoring the needs of the majority, Gordon - and before you jump in with the obvious, I'd include the attitude it takes to the church in the former.  The church can stand on its own two feet without the state intervening as it does.

The particular issue Spud and I were discussing is the discrimination inherent in the 'church' with regard to homosexual people. In case you hadn't noticed the bit of society that you so disdain, and within which we both live, has removed discrimination surrounding legal marriage: it seems that any residual discrimination in respect of SSM is now mainly the perogative of the godly, and no amount of railing against society in general can mask that.

[Shaker]

And I regard society's claim to be developed and caring with similar utter disdain when it spends so much time pandering to the wants of minorities whilst ignoring the needs of the majority, Gordon

What were the "needs of the majority" with regard to marriage equality and gay rights in general, exactly? Given that a majority were and are in favour of both, I mean.

Does your disdain for the "wants of minorities" extends to minorities such as, say, ethnic minorities, the disabled, the elderly etc.?

Or is it just the queers again?

The church can stand on its own two feet without the state intervening as it does.

When can we expect the church to keep its beak out of the state, then? For example, no bishops of the established church (no established church, come to that) in the House of Lords trying to block legislation which (a) has majority public support and (b) was absolutely none of its damned business anyway. That would be a fair deal, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, it is hard to divorce the one from the other because we are dealing with humans twats, not robots.

Fixed that one for you.

[Spud]

As you'd no doubt imagine, Spud, I regard ancient claims about 'God's will' with utter disdain when these claims are used to discriminate against homosexual people in the 21st century.

Again, I totally understand. None of us like being told what we aren't allowed to do, as my sister pointed out when I spoke to her about this. Like a parent setting boundaries for children, God actually has our best interests at heart. The thing is that Christ actually offers to fill the gap left when someone gives up a particular form of sin. It can be through things like prayer or friendship. This is why the 'discrimination' you find unacceptable is actually not so. Unfortunately someone who doesn't know God finds it difficult to believe that it can work, but there are Christians with SSA who obey God and, despite struggles, find happiness in life. They can vouch for what I've said.

[Gordon]

Again, I totally understand. None of us like being told what we aren't allowed to do, as my sister pointed out when I spoke to her about this. Like a parent setting boundaries for children, God actually has our best interests at heart. The thing is that Christ actually offers to fill the gap left when someone gives up a particular form of sin. It can be through things like prayer or friendship. This is why the 'discrimination' you find unacceptable is actually not so. Unfortunately someone who doesn't know God finds it difficult to believe that it can work, but there are Christians with SSA who obey God and, despite struggles, find happiness in life. They can vouch for what I've said.

Christians who are homosexual can manage their sexuality in whatever way suits (with the consenting adults caveat); that is surely a personal matter for them and I doubt many of us have a problem with that. Christianity, however, isn't the arbiter of legal marriage and neither is 'scripture' binding on society at large.

That organised Christianity does have a role in legal marriage but in enacting this role they seek to discriminate against just some of those who are entitled to legally marry is, in my view, a problem. That they get away with doing so at all is an anachronism in this day and age.

[Sebastian Toe]

No, a shopkeeper or restauranteur can refuse to serve anyone, without giving cause.

...provided that it is not done on the grounds of race, sex, religion etc!!!

[Hope]

...provided that it is not done on the grounds of race, sex, religion etc!!!

But they aren't required to give a reason.  Legally, they can simply refuse to serve you.

[Hope]

Christians who are homosexual can manage their sexuality in whatever way suits (with the consenting adults caveat); that is surely a personal matter for them and I doubt many of us have a problem with that. Christianity, however, isn't the arbiter of legal marriage and neither is 'scripture' binding on society at large.

But neither is society the sole arbiter of legal marriage: there has to be a conscience clause in life - otherwise, we would not allow conscientious objectors.  Furthermore, we would never had the likes of Wilberforce or Tatchell, Elizabeth Fry or Nelson Mandela.

That organised Christianity does have a role in legal marriage but in enacting this role they seek to discriminate against just some of those who are entitled to legally marry is, in my view, a problem. That they get away with doing so at all is an anachronism in this day and age.

And what would that anachronism be, Gordon?  That there are some alive today who don't agree with the direction that society is going in?  That's by no means new, nor will it ever be the case that such people don't exist.

[Gordon]

But neither is society the sole arbiter of legal marriage: there has to be a conscience clause in life - otherwise, we would not allow conscientious objectors.

In terms of legislation surrounding marriage it is the political governance arrangements that do the arbitrating and like it or not they legislated to implement SSM. You can of course object but that doesn't extend to discriminating in relation to providing marriage services: the honourable course would be for clergy who can't in conscience meet their marriage registration role in full to relinquish this role.

Furthermore, we would never had the likes of Wilberforce or Tatchell, Elizabeth Fry or Nelson Mandela.

Nobody is suggesting there is no place for objections being articulated on any matter as part of the governance process. I'd suggest the more recent pair would probably be in favour of removing discrimination against homosexual people.

And what would that anachronism be, Gordon?  That there are some alive today who don't agree with the direction that society is going in?  That's by no means new, nor will it ever be the case that such people don't exist.

There are Luddites everywhere of course, and some seem to think that ancient middle-eastern religious books are relevant to progressive modern social legislation: and based on their stance on this issue I'd say anachronistic was an apt description.

[Sebastian Toe]

But they aren't required to give a reason.  Legally, they can simply refuse to serve you.

And if they do so for the reasons given, they will have broken the law.