Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[Nearly Sane]

I appreciate that, I was just putting on the style a bit 

FWIW I would not have a problem with making a cake with a pro ssm message on it, but I would object to being asked to make a cake with a "Abortion is a womans right to choose" message. Both are political statements yet thanks to what IMHO is a badly constructed law, it is illegal to refuse the former, yet legal to refuse the latter.

There is an additional wrinkle in the cake case that in NI there is legislation against political discrimination as well for reasons that are historically obvious. I think the bakery should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake in the specifuc case but not if it had been an enagagement cake for a gay couple.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

There is an additional wrinkle in the cake case that in NI there is legislation against political discrimination as well for reasons that are historically obvious. I think the bakery should have had the right to refuse to bake the cake in the specifuc case but not if it had been an enagagement cake for a gay couple.

As far as I am concerned, in the "gay cake" case then the gay couple had a case for breach of contract, and it should have been left at that. I don't know enough about the NI civil court system to suggest a remedy, in England it would have been a small claims court case.

[Rhiannon]

As a result of this thread I've noticed that the Comment section on Premier is quite lively.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Equality Legislation went through in 2007 and Farron had a problem with it because as a Liberal, he wanted an amendment to protect freedom of expression and the amendment was rejected.

Strange how virtually all of the rest of the Liberal Democrat party recognised that voting for ending discrimination is what a liberal would do, rather than voting to maintain discrimination.

To put numbers on this - just 4 LibDems (including Farron) out of 62 LibDem MPs voted against.

[Nearly Sane]

Strange how virtually all of the rest of the Liberal Democrat party recognised that voting for ending discrimination is what a liberal would do, rather than voting to maintain discrimination.

To put numbers on this - just 4 LibDems (including Farron) out of 62 LibDem MPs voted against.

OOI  is there any indication what the reasons for the other Lib Dems voting against were?

[ProfessorDavey]

OOI  is there any indication what the reasons for the other Lib Dems voting against were?

Who knows - is there any reason why:

Alan Beith (President of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum)
Colin Breed (Methodist Lay preacher)
Bob Russell (brought up in the Congregational Church and now in the United Reformed Church)

would also have voted to maintain discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Beats me

[wigginhall]

Very amusing.  'Protecting freedom of expression' is code for 'I need my Christian prejudices'. 

[Nearly Sane]

Just to cover any question about Peter Tatchell on this

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/08/tim-farron-apologises-for-claiming-peter-tatchell-opposed-equality-law/

[Robbie]

As a result of this thread I've noticed that the Comment section on Premier is quite lively.

After reading your above post I found Premier & eventually managed to find Tim Farron's interview with subsequent comments. What an eye opener! I really don't feel comfortable with that website, never liked Premier Radio on the odd occasion I tuned in years ago.

I've read the posts on this thread and can't add anything that hasn't been said already.

Someone earlier in the thread said that Christians cannot expect similar opinions from those with different views.  Basically we judge ourselves by certain yardsticks but do not sit in judgement on anyone else who isn't Christian (not that it is only Christian who have such views).Upholding the law is important and if our secular laws go one way we must uphold them. We can only judge ourselves - everyone falls short.  Politicians need to ensure that the law is upheld and everyone treated fairly within the law, no assessment by our own religious beliefs.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said much the same and no-one seems to mind him being in a good political position (except for being a Tory (shame!), but that's another matter). Second time I've mentioned him but sometimes I admire qualities in politicians of a different slant to my own.

Very amusing.  'Protecting freedom of expression' is code for 'I need my Christian prejudices'. 

Certainly true for some wigginhall & often blatantly obvious. Let's be glad Tim Farron has come clean, dunno what future he has as a politician though.

(FTR my personal belief is that SSM is right and just.)

[ProfessorDavey]

Someone earlier in the thread said that Christians cannot expect similar opinions from those with different views.  Basically we judge ourselves by certain yardsticks but do not sit in judgement on anyone else who isn't Christian (not that it is only Christian who have such views).

I don't think that is true at all. Society, and individuals, are pretty judgemental over those who express racist, sexist or homophobic views. Just look at the row over the girlfriend of the UKIP leader, in which she was (quite righty) soundly condemned), but also Henry Bolton's fitness for public office is still under question due to guilt by association/bad judgement.

Now I have no idea if either are christians, certainly I'm not aware of it having been mentioned.

Actually I think that those expressing extreme views (e.g. racist, sexist or homophobic views) are treated much, much more leniently when they justify those views on the basis of religion compared to other justifications. We allow things to be said in the name of religion without challenge/condemnation that we'd never allow as a society when not justified on the basis of religion.

So earlier there was mention of the Ashers bakery case - and while there was condemnation, it wasn't universal with many people defending their right to express (and act on their religious beliefs). Do you really belief there would have been such tip-toeing around the issue had it been a racist baker refusing to make a cake supporting Black History month and civil rights, and justifying it (without reference to religion) on the basis that he thinks that black people aren't equal to white people in society. Nope - I suspect the condemnation would have been pretty well universal.

As a society we allow people to express views when justified by religion that we'd never accept in a non religious context.

[floo]

I think any decent person should be judgemental of those who hold racist, homophobic and sexist views.

[Rhiannon]

I think any decent person should be judgemental of those who hold racist, homophobic and sexist views.

Why? What does that achieve?

[Aruntraveller]

Why? What does that achieve?

Yes being judgemental is so very often counterproductive. I understand the urge but I do try to resist it when possible. IMO always much better to try to persuade, engage in discussion, etc.

Of course if all else fails - then feel free to call them bigoted halfwits or stronger.

[Rhiannon]

Yes being judgemental is so very often counterproductive. I understand the urge but I do try to resist it when possible. IMO always much better to try to persuade, engage in discussion, etc.

Of course if all else fails - then feel free to call them bigoted halfwits or stronger.

I think it’s inevitable that we make judgements in our head, but as you say, voicing them doesn’t often help and can make opposing positions more entrenched. And sometimes there are reasons why people hold the views that they do - not excuses, but reasons nevertheless.

And I’ve no clue what is ‘decent’ about being judgemental.

[floo]

Yes being judgemental is so very often counterproductive. I understand the urge but I do try to resist it when possible. IMO always much better to try to persuade, engage in discussion, etc.

Of course if all else fails - then feel free to call them bigoted halfwits or stronger.

You know much better than I do about how it must feel to be condemned by ghastly bigots because of your sexuality. I make no apology for challenging people with those views. Similarly, having a black adopted son, I have a little insight into how awful it must be to side lined, or much worse, just because you are not white. I get even more annoyed when bigots use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness.

[Rhiannon]

You know much better than I do about how it must feel to be condemned by ghastly bigots because of your sexuality. I make no apology for challenging people with those views. Similarly, having a black adopted son, I have a little insight into how awful it must be to side lined, or much worse, just because you are not white. I get even more annoyed when bigots use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness.

Challenging views isn’t the same thing as judging people for them.

[floo]

Challenging views isn’t the same thing as judging people for them.

I make no apology for judging people, I don't see it as a problem.

[Rhiannon]

I make no apology for judging people, I don't see it as a problem.

Then you have to expect that people will judge you if they see your views as ill informed, ignorant or unkind.

Judging people is often very revelatory about the individual making the judgement, without saying much about the one being judged at all.

[floo]

Then you have to expect that people will judge you if they see your views as ill informed, ignorant or unkind.

Judging people is often very revelatory about the individual making the judgement, without saying much about the one being judged at all.

I say what I think and if others don't like what I have to say, it is no skin off my nose.

[Aruntraveller]

I say what I think and if others don't like what I have to say, it is no skin off my nose.

The problem, as is so often the case in public discourse nowadays, is that it forces people into entrenched opposing views (regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation) and this then has the effect of having two sides shouting Yah, boo, sucks at each other, instead of any meaningful dialogue being achievable.

Even if you are correct about gay rights or racism or misogyny or any one of a number of different issues - if you just judge without any further input you are not going to win hearts or change minds. You just amplify the resistance to your viewpoint.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

You know much better than I do about how it must feel to be condemned by ghastly bigots because of your sexuality. I make no apology for challenging people with those views. Similarly, having a black adopted son, I have a little insight into how awful it must be to side lined, or much worse, just because you are not white. I get even more annoyed when bigots use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness.

1. Why the Bible in particular?

2. The only group that I can think of who use the Bible as basis for racial segregation are the white supremacist fruitloop group who call themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ Christian", who are not representative of Christianity.

3. Trent gives me the impression that he considers himself to be an ordinary bloke who happens to be gay. How he deals with those who are prejudiced against him for this one aspect of him, is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else.

[ProfessorDavey]

How he deals with those who are prejudiced against him for this one aspect of him, is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else.

I'm not sure I agree with you there.

I don't think that dealing with prejudice is something that we simply 'privatise' to the individual suffering prejudice or discrimination. As a society we take a view and we take action. The reason being that there is a basic right, enshrined in fundamental human rights, that an individual should be able to live their life free from prejudice and discrimination on the basis of those key attributes enshrined in human rights declarations and in the law in many countries.

Now I am not naive in thinking that as a society we will always be successful - of course prejudice and discrimination still occur, but I think we need to accept a failure on the part of society each and every time that happens. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination, not cast them adrift with a shrug of the shoulders and a murmer of 'you're on your own, mate', which seems to be the implication of the notion that dealing with prejudice 'is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else'.

If Trent suffers prejudice and discrimination then I, as a member of society, need to recognise that this is my issue too and not just Trent's.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not sure I agree with you there.

I don't think that dealing with prejudice is something that we simply 'privatise' to the individual suffering prejudice or discrimination. As a society we take a view and we take action. The reason being that there is a basic right, enshrined in fundamental human rights, that an individual should be able to live their life free from prejudice and discrimination on the basis of those key attributes enshrined in human rights declarations and in the law in many countries.

Now I am not naive in thinking that as a society we will always be successful - of course prejudice and discrimination still occur, but I think we need to accept a failure on the part of society each and every time that happens. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination, not cast them adrift with a shrug of the shoulders and a murmer of 'you're on your own, mate', which seems to be the implication of the notion that dealing with prejudice 'is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else'.

If Trent suffers prejudice and discrimination then I, as a member of society, need to recognise that this is my issue too and not just Trent's.

Agree very much with this, ProfD. I can't decide how Trent feels about the prejudice that he has encountered any more than he can decide how I should feel about the sexual harassment and victim shaming that I've encountered as a woman. But each of us can decide how we feel about bigotry and prejudice and see how we can tackle them in society, starting with questioning our own thinking and prejudices. We need to be clear about what kind of society it is that we want to live in.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Strange how virtually all of the rest of the Liberal Democrat party recognised that voting for ending discrimination is what a liberal would do, rather than voting to maintain discrimination.

To put numbers on this - just 4 LibDems (including Farron) out of 62 LibDem MPs voted against.

Strange that you find it strange that there are different interpretations of liberalism. Strange also how you seem to have dropped all your other points and continue to focus on Farron's vote on a 10 year old piece of legislation while ignoring his stated views in interviews over the last few years that I have linked to, where he says he supports legislation to prevent discrimination when supplying goods and services and adopted a different position to Peter Tatchell by supporting the Court of Appeal ruling against Asher's Bakery.

Up to you if you want to discard more recent evidence and what you want to believe - I already said you can't be a very good academic if this is your version of looking at the evidence - but you are wasting your time trying to convince me to focus on Farron's voting record from 2007 and ignoring more recent evidence.

Also, I don't think it is strange that some people prioritised freedom of belief or freedom of speech more than other people did in 2007, and that this difference of opinion still exists today.

One of the key back and forth arguments was the extent of religious exemption - with one side sincerely believing that religious belief was not entitled to an exemption and the other side sincerely believing that there should be freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of belief and the right to act on those in certain circumstances. Another issue was the worry that as it was secondary legislation, it had faced less scrutiny and debate.

And the bit that naturally most concerned some Christians was the legislation did not appear to have any safeguards against over-zealous restrictions of freedom to uphold or preach a particular interpretation of their religion, which could lead to expensive litigation, and they therefore wanted such legislation properly debated in the Commons.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70321-0014.htm

People who aren't Christian are also concerned about preserving the same freedoms. Peter Tatchell has been critical of legislation that restricts freedom of speech despite the protection it affords to minorities, but feel free to label anyone who ever disagreed with your current position or still disagrees with your current position as racist, sexist or homophobic...or all 3 if you like.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/oct/10/hatespeechvfreespeech

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not sure I agree with you there.

I don't think that dealing with prejudice is something that we simply 'privatise' to the individual suffering prejudice or discrimination. As a society we take a view and we take action. The reason being that there is a basic right, enshrined in fundamental human rights, that an individual should be able to live their life free from prejudice and discrimination on the basis of those key attributes enshrined in human rights declarations and in the law in many countries.

Now I am not naive in thinking that as a society we will always be successful - of course prejudice and discrimination still occur, but I think we need to accept a failure on the part of society each and every time that happens. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering prejudice and discrimination, not cast them adrift with a shrug of the shoulders and a murmer of 'you're on your own, mate', which seems to be the implication of the notion that dealing with prejudice 'is a matter for Trent, not for somebody else'.

If Trent suffers prejudice and discrimination then I, as a member of society, need to recognise that this is my issue too and not just Trent's.

Actually society is made up of lots of individuals who have individual views on what we subjectively perceive as racist, sexist or homophobic and how we want to tackle these issues. I have no intention of standing shoulder to shoulder with your self-righteous assessments on these issues, given your cavalier approach to evidence and your limited ability to see other perspectives.