Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.

You then validate that prejudice. You say people should have the right to treat gay people worse. Would you do the same for black people? If not, why not?

[Gordon]

I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.

So, what does 'the right of people to be prejudiced' actually mean?

[SteveH]

So, what does 'the right of people to be prejudiced' actually mean?

Seems clear enough to me.

[Roses]

Seems clear enough to me.

Certainly not to me, explain.

[Outrider]

I don't support the prejudice against you (or anyone). I do, within narrow limits, support the right of people to be prejudiced, which is not the same thing.

It is the same thing as soon as you can foresee a situation where one of the prejudices people might choose to manifest is against him.  You can't have prejudice independent of the people it's aimed at - you can't be homophobic and not consider that it's targetted at gay people.

At the same time, you can't control what people think - all we can do is try to create a society where we educate children to be better, and implement laws to limit what the people with the prejudices can do to manifest those into problems for people in their everyday life.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Seems clear enough to me.

And to me- it means you want people to be allowed to be actively prejudiced against homosexual. It means you support a society based on prejudice against homosexuals. It means that you are homophobic.

[Nearly Sane]

It is the same thing as soon as you can foresee a situation where one of the prejudices people might choose to manifest is against him.  You can't have prejudice independent of the people it's aimed at - you can't be homophobic and not consider that it's targetted at gay people.

At the same time, you can't control what people think - all we can do is try to create a society where we educate children to be better, and implement laws to limit what the people with the prejudices can do to manifest those into problems for people in their everyday life.

O.

And Steve is actively supporting keeping that prejudice in society. He wants children to be taught that is legal to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks some people should have the right to do so.

[SteveH]

Certainly not to me, explain.

People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)

[Aruntraveller]

Steve.

Keep on digging.

I have a spare shovel if needed.

[Outrider]

People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)

A right based on what?  Or is this just a fundamental human right, you think, to judge an entire group of people based on no knowledge of them as individuals but out-grouping them based on an immutable trait?

O.

[SteveH]

A right based on what?  Or is this just a fundamental human right, you think, to judge an entire group of people based on no knowledge of them as individuals but out-grouping them based on an immutable trait?

O.

And how do you propose stopping them being prejudiced - lobotomies?

[Outrider]

And how do you propose stopping them being prejudiced - lobotomies?

I've already said that you can't control what people think, but you can put limitations on what people do.  You framing this as a right, you suggesting that people should be allowed to discriminate - that's not failing to control what they think, that's failing to control what they do.

You're advocating people being penalised because of what they are.

What 'right' is it that you're seeing here?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)

I'm not confused you support some people's right to be act in a prejudiced manner against homosexuals in some circumstances. You support it to be legally enshrined that they have that right. You are a homophobe.

Again would you support the right to be prejudiced against black people in certain circumstances? If not, why not?

[Roses]

People have a right to be prejudiced. How much simpler can I put it? (Not, except within narrow limits, to act on their prejudice, if that's where the confusion lies.)

Why have they a right to be prejudiced?

[SteveH]

Why have they a right to be prejudiced?

Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?

[Nearly Sane]

Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?

Disingenuous. You are supporting people's rights in certain circumstances to act in a prejudicial manner to homosexuals - so portraying it as simply freedom of thought is not in line with that.

[Roses]

Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?

So freedom of thought and speech, which is racist or homophobic is a fundamental right is it?

[Outrider]

Because freedom of thought and speech is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Do you disagree with it?

What you're suggesting, though, goes beyond merely letting people think or say what they feel, you want them to have the right to deny service.  I fully support freedom of speech, I don't see any way to prevent freedom of thought even if I were so inclined; neither of those, though, extends to prejudicial behaviour.

O.

[SteveH]

Discrimination against gays and women is already enshrined in law in certain areas. Religious bodies are allowed not to appoint female or actively homosexual priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. I dislike the attitude as much as anyone here, and think that the CofE wet much too far in accommodating the misogyny of Backward In Bigotry, but I don't want to completely remove their right to appoint whom they want - and neither do MPs, apparently, most of whom are not homophobes or misogynists. However, I would certainly agree to religions, denominations and individual congregations which discriminate losing charitable status, tax-exemption, and other privileges.

[SteveH]

And to me- it means you want people to be allowed to be actively prejudiced against homosexual. It means you support a society based on prejudice against homosexuals. It means that you are homophobic.

*Sigh...*
I am emphatically not a homophobe, but neither do I support the idea of thought-control.

[SteveH]

So freedom of thought and speech, which is racist or homophobic is a fundamental right is it?

Yes. If you want to live in Orwell's 1984, fine; I don't.

[Nearly Sane]

*Sigh...*
I am emphatically not a homophobe, but neither do I support the idea of thought-control.

I didn't say you did. I said you want legally people to have the right to discriminate against homosexuals in certain circumstances. You are supporting homosexuals being treated as second class citizens. You are a homophobe

[Outrider]

Discrimination against gays and women is already enshrined in law in certain areas. Religious bodies are allowed not to appoint female or actively homosexual priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. I dislike the attitude as much as anyone here, and think that the CofE wet much too far in accommodating the misogyny of Backward In Bigotry, but I don't want to completely remove their right to appoint whom they want - and neither do MPs, apparently, most of whom are not homophobes or misogynists.

The argument could be made that abetting misogyny or homophobia is complicity.  That you dislike the attitude is the most important thing here, I'd not really acknowledged or appreciated that.

I'm not sure I'd agree that I see grounds for one particular type of group to be permitted to continue their discrimination. The law, as written, grants people the right to discriminate if doing so is justifiable to achieve some other benefit (i.e. to redress existing imbalances, to acknowledge physiological differences).  I don't see how the right of the religious to persist with misogyny and homophobia fulfils those criteria.

However, I would certainly agree to religions, denominations and individual congregations which discriminate losing charitable status, tax-exemption, and other privileges.

Fair enough.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Discrimination against gays and women is already enshrined in law in certain areas. Religious bodies are allowed not to appoint female or actively homosexual priests, imams, rabbis, or whatever. I dislike the attitude as much as anyone here, and think that the CofE wet much too far in accommodating the misogyny of Backward In Bigotry, but I don't want to completely remove their right to appoint whom they want - and neither do MPs, apparently, most of whom are not homophobes or misogynists. However, I would certainly agree to religions, denominations and individual congregations which discriminate losing charitable status, tax-exemption, and other privileges.

But you have already said that you support the right of people in certain circumstances to legally discriminate against homosexuals. Adding in MPs is simply an attempt to appeal to authority and numbers. You support treating homosexuals as second class citizens - that is why you are a homophobe.

[SteveH]

I can only take so much self-righteous sanctimoniosity, so I'm off this tread for now.