Something out of place here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again if it turns out that the people you think are misinterpreting there experiences are religious people then that in itself smacks of religious experience dodging.

No it doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly we aren't talking about discrimination or persecution against churches but the provision of special privileges. Surely if churches don't want any state interference that should apply to special privileges too, which they should refuse as these are also state interference.
In reality it is cake and eat it - effectively more than happy to accept any special privileges from the state, but fight tooth and nail if anyone dares to suggest there should be a level playing field with other organisations. And try to remove a special privilege and you will see the huge organisation of religions swing into action, harnessing all their establishment links and the likes of the christian legal centre will be shouting 'persecution' in the loudest and shrillest of voices.

The state must do what it must do and will depart from church on the ground of morality especially where zeitgeist is the ruling factor.
So Law is changed to coerce churches to go through the motions of a holy matrimony. Please feel free to argue that you wouldn't just be going through the motions.

Churches and Clergy either go along. How would this be policed?
Churches and clergy perform such marriages but give couples a warning that God may not participate in accordance with state wishes. How would that be monitored?
Churches and Clergy refuse to carry out marriages altogether. How are you going to field social expectations on that one?
Churches and clergy then carry out underground holy matrimony services according to how they see it. What does the state do about that?
Churches and clergy openly carry out Holy matrimony in accordance with scripture. What are you going to do there?

If you have no answer to the questions a change in legislation. Why should I think you are serious about it?

[Stranger]

Again if it turns out that the people you think are misinterpreting there experiences are religious people then that in itself
smacks of religious experience dodging.

Nope. It is (as I explained and you ignored) a simple and inescapable fact that at least most religious people are misinterpreting their experiences because the interpretations contradict each other.

Even if that weren't the case, would you say you are (for example) alien abduction experience dodging?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. It is (as I explained and you ignored) a simple and inescapable fact that at least most religious people are misinterpreting their experiences because the interpretations contradict each other.

But not in the key respects and certainly not toward atheism

[ProfessorDavey]

Churches and Clergy either go along. How would this be policed?

How would what be policed?

Churches and clergy perform such marriages but give couples a warning that God may not participate in accordance with state wishes. How would that be monitored?

Churches have no certainty that god is involved in any of their ceremonies. So if they are going to provide a warning in this instance why not in all the others.

Churches and Clergy refuse to carry out marriages altogether. How are you going to field social expectations on that one?

In exactly the same way that it occurs for many religions and denominations where their clergy aren't registrars. Couples would have a legal civil marriage followed by a religious ceremony (which has no legal status). That's what muslims, jewish people, hindus, buddhists etc and members of many christian denominations already do.

Churches and clergy then carry out underground holy matrimony services according to how they see it. What does the state do about that?

But if that was the case then the ceremonies wouldn't have any legal status - so they could do as they wished (within the confines of the law), provided they are clear that the couple would not be married unless they also have a civil marriage.

Churches and clergy openly carry out Holy matrimony in accordance with scripture. What are you going to do there?

If they were contravening the law then the church and the clergy might expect to be subject to the law in exactly the same manner as any other individual or organisation breaking the law.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

The state must do what it must do and will depart from church on the ground of morality especially where zeitgeist is the ruling factor.

So not totalitarianism after all then. Though so.

So Law is changed to coerce churches to go through the motions of a holy matrimony.

Another straw man. All that would happen would be that the homophobic exemptions in the equalities legislation would be removed. “The church” (ie, your homophobic part of it) wouldn’t be co-erced in to doing anything.

Please feel free to argue that you wouldn't just be going through the motions.

Gibberish.

Churches and Clergy either go along. How would this be policed?

In the same way that racist B&B owners were (and are) policed.

Churches and clergy perform such marriages but give couples a warning that God may not participate in accordance with state wishes. How would that be monitored?

Another straw man. If a gay couple sought a marriage service and were denied on the ground of their sexuality, the institution involved would no longer be safe from prosecution. Whether or not to prosecute would be a matter for the police. Same as for racist B&B owners. 
 

Churches and Clergy refuse to carry out marriages altogether. How are you going to field social expectations on that one?

Not “church and clergy”, just the homophobic wing. Gay couples wanting “holy” matrimony could presumably just go to the non-homophobic part of the same church and clergy.

Churches and clergy then carry out underground holy matrimony services according to how they see it. What does the state do about that?

Same thing it would do if there were underground racist B&B businesses.

Churches and clergy openly carry out Holy matrimony in accordance with scripture. What are you going to do there?

See above.

If you have no answer to the questions a change in legislation. Why should I think you are serious about it?

I have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How would what be policed?
Churches have no certainty that god is involved in any of their ceremonies. So if they are going to provide a warning in this instance why not in all the others.
In exactly the same way that it occurs for many religions and denominations where their clergy aren't registrars. Couples would have a legal civil marriage followed by a religious ceremony (which has no legal status). That's what muslims, jewish people, hindus, buddhists etc and members of many christian denominations already do.
But if that was the case then the ceremonies wouldn't have any legal status - so they could do as they wished (within the confines of the law), provided they are clear that the couple would not be married unless they also have a civil marriage.
If they were contravening the law then the church and the clergy might expect to be subject to the law in exactly the same manner as any other individual or organisation breaking the law.

How are you going to check up that clergy are sticking to the law?

Holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly. What you are saying is that you are prepared to tolerate a bit of that. Take it from me I think if forced to rethink holy matrimony there would be more heterosexual couples refused. Besides you are assuming a laxness where does your assumption come from.

You haven't answered the questions head on and so it is a good job the decision to change the law is not in your pervue.
Moreover if you are not able to face the consequences of what you want then I don't think you should be taken seriously
You are just dodging the deliberate shitstirrers, the sneaks, the clipes, the new atheist grassing up, the prison sentences and prison beatings and worse that potentially follow on from legislation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

So not totalitarianism after all then. Though so.

Another straw man. All that would happen would be that the homophobic exemptions in the equalities legislation would be removed. “The church” (ie, your homophobic part of it) wouldn’t be co-erced in to doing anything.

Gibberish.

In the same way that racist B&B owners were (and are) policed.

Another straw man. If a gay couple sought a marriage service and were denied on the ground of their sexuality, the institution involved would no longer be safe from prosecution. Whether or not to prosecute would be a matter for the police. Same as for racist B&B owners. 
 
Not “church and clergy”, just the homophobic wing. Gay couples wanting “holy” matrimony could presumably just go to the non-homophobic part of the same church and clergy.

Same thing it would do if there were underground racist B&B businesses.

See above.

I have.

Holy matrimony is not a business.
What would be your reaction to clergy telling committed and believing gay christians that they, the priest may be going through the motions? What would the legal reactions be........Don't tell me Hillside the same reaction to a racist B & B owner who says I'm going to give you a bed for the night but it may not actually be there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

How are you going to check up that clergy are sticking to the law?

Fuck me, can you not read or something? If someone believed they’d been unlawfully discriminated against they could report it to the cops. Same with racist B&B owners. 

Holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly. What you are saying is that you are prepared to tolerate a bit of that. Take it from me I think if forced to rethink holy matrimony there would be more heterosexual couples refused. Besides you are assuming a laxness where does your assumption come from.

No-one forcing a re-think of the “holy” matrimony service – keep is just as it is for all I care. Some of us though would prefer that it wasn’t offered only on a homophobic basis.

You haven't answered the questions head on and so it is a good job the decision to change the law is not in your pervue.

This from someone who has never answered any question ever? Blimey! Anyway the question has been answered many times here.

Moreover if you are not able to face the consequences of what you want then I don't think you should be taken seriously

The only people who couldn’t face the consequences of removing the legal protections for homophobic church practices would presumably be the homophobic part of the church.

So what?

You are just dodging the deliberate shitstirrers, the sneaks, the clipes, the new atheist grassing up, the prison sentences and prison beatings and worse that potentially follow on from legislation.

You’ve collapsed into vituperative incoherence again. Was removing the protections for racist B&B owners “dodging the deliberate shitstirrers, the sneaks, the clipes, the new (non-racist) grassing up, the prison sentences and prison beatings and worse that potentially follow on from legislation” in your alternate reality too then? Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Holy matrimony is not a business.

Actually in some way it is, but it’s not relevant in any case. All that's relevant here is that it’s a service offered on a homophobic basis.
 

What would be your reaction to clergy telling committed and believing gay christians that they, the priest may be going through the motions?

The same as my reaction to racist B&B owners telling black guests that they were going through the motions too. So far as I’m aware that’s not unlawful, so I don’t suppose a homophobic cleric trying the same line would be unlawful either. 

What would the legal reactions be........Don't tell me Hillside the same reaction to a racist B & B owner who says I'm going to give you a bed for the night but it may not actually be there.

You’ve fucked up again here. For the analogy to work you’d need a racist B&B owner who did provide the bed, but told the black guest he was still a racist.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Fuck me, can you not read or something? If someone believed they’d been unlawfully discriminated against they could report it to the cops. Same with racist B&B owners. 

No-one forcing a re-think of the “holy” matrimony service – keep is just as it is for all I care. Some of us though would prefer that it wasn’t offered only on a homophobic basis.

Well that's bollocks from start to finish.

You want us to rethink the term Holy.

Some of us want? So what what is that makes you special or, and this is your point of failure more moral than anyone else.

You have a view of equality which says we must have it at all costs and we must be continually be searching out more and more situations where we must be ruthless. Some of us don't share that picture of equality. In fact the Law is shaped by such as I.....and not you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Actually in some way it is, but it’s not relevant in any case. All that's relevant here is that it’s a service offered on a homophobic basis.
 
The same as my reaction to racist B&B owners telling black guests that they were going through the motions too. So far as I’m aware that’s not unlawful, so I don’t suppose a homophobic cleric trying the same line would be unlawful either. 

You’ve fucked up again here. For the analogy to work you’d need a racist B&B owner who did provide the bed, but told the black guest he was still a racist.

No your analogy is shit, mine is better but but since you've bored away hundreds from this message board it no longer matters.

[ProfessorDavey]

How are you going to check up that clergy are sticking to the law?

In the same manner as you check that lawyers, medics, teachers, civil registrars, B&B owners etc etc etc and members of the public are sticking to the law.

[ProfessorDavey]

Holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly.

Marriage should not be taken lightly, but it sometime is regardless of whether it takes place in a civil or religious ceremony. I'm struggling to see why this is in the slightest bit relevant to the legal issues here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Well that's bollocks from start to finish.

So no argument then.

You want us to rethink the term Holy.

Moe lying wont help you. You can define “holy” any way you like. I really, really don’t care what you think it means. I just think that whatever you think it is shouldn’t be offered on a homophobic basis.   

Some of us want? So what what is that makes you special or, and this is your point of failure more moral than anyone else.

There was no claim of being special. I was just telling you that I would rather there were not homophobic exemptions in the legislation for the same reason that I would rather there are not racist exemptions in the legislation.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

You have a view of equality which says we must have it at all costs…

“At all costs” is pushing it, but I do think you should have quite exceptional circumstances to deviate from it yes. Why don’t you?

…and we must be continually be searching out more and more situations where we must be ruthless.

Are you feeling unwell or something? We have already “searched out situations” and found homophobia to be wrong. The problem is that there are special exemptions for the religious.

Some of us don't share that picture of equality.

As it’s largely a picture of your own invention that doesn’t surprise me.

In fact the Law is shaped by such as I.....and not you.

Er, not it isn’t. The law is “shaped” by governments representing the will of the people who voted them in. Sometimes these government allow unpleasant and retrograde measures, but I’m optimism that this I one will disappear over time as so many other “isms” have over the years.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Holy matrimony is not a business.

Equalities legislation doesn't just apply to businesses - it applies to all organisations providing goods or services to members of the public, including religious organisations. The CofE is an organisation just as much as any other and if I go them and ask whether they will marry me I am requesting a service which that organisation provides.

Why we know that they are de facto covered by the equalities legislation is because they need a specific legal opt out. Were they not covered de facto by the legislation no opt out would be necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

No your analogy…

Be careful here – remember that you have no idea what the word “analogy” means…

…is shit,…

Still no argument then…

…mine is better…

I have no idea what you think your analogy is, but given your history here that seems unlikely.

…but but since you've bored away hundreds from this message board it no longer matters.

More incoherence. The “holy” matrimony service from one wing of your church is denied to some on the ground of an innate characteristic – namely sexual orientation. That’s why it’s homophobic. The racist B&B service was denied to some on the ground of another innate characteristic – colour. That’s why it was racist.     

Can you see now why the analogy isn’t shit at all?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

Be careful here – remember that you have no idea what the word “analogy” means…

Still no argument then…

I have no idea what you think your analogy is, but given your history here that seems unlikely.

More incoherence. The “holy” matrimony service from one wing of your church is denied to some on the ground of an innate characteristic – namely sexual orientation. That’s why it’s homophobic. The racist B&B service was denied to some on the ground of another innate characteristic – colour. That’s why it was racist.     

Can you see now why the analogy isn’t shit at all?

No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex. It is a gender issue.....except, obviously, in your head.

[Aruntraveller]

No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex.

Tortuous or what.

You do know how pathetic and faintly odious that sounds?

Please tell me you realise what an absolute tit you've just made of yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tortuous or what.

You do know how pathetic and faintly odious that sounds?

Please tell me you realise what an absolute tit you've just made of yourself.

No, if the facility is there then it cannot be said not to be. Basic logic although I fear this topic is highly emotionally laden.

Any issues with God, take it up with God in any emotion you feel.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Homophobe,

No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex. It is a gender issue.....except, obviously, in your head.

I’ve already dealt with that contemptible little lie. Would the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets) be not anti-semitic if he did sell them 99s but only provided they pretended to be not Jewish?

Go and give your head a wobble willlya. 

[Outrider]

The church will always oppose the idea of a state controlled church like the ones they have in totalitarian countries and in atheist wankfantasies.

I'm pretty sure that, in your understanding of (*checks notes*) 'atheist wankfantasies'* that the churches wouldn't be state-controlled, they'd be shut down and turned into community centres and eclectic housing.

* shouldn't 'wankfantasies' be hyphenated? I mean a straw man argument is one thing, a straw man ramble another, but poorly grammaritisated straw men, that's just beyond the pale.

Holy matrimony for those who stick with scripture will go underground and then the ball will be in your court.

Oh, no.... anyway.

Again it's render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's. God is not Caesar's.

No, but marriage is.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Homophobe,

I’ve already dealt with that contemptible little lie. Would the ice cream van owner who won’t sell the 99s to the Jewish kids (but will sell them the plain cornets) be not anti-semitic if he did sell them 99s but only provided they pretended to be not Jewish?

Go and give your head a wobble willlya.

You are equating what one does with Hector with holy matrimony . Not sure that is meat or right to do.

Outside that I don't know what your issue is here. Are you making an argument that A gay person is more likely to commit adultery than a serial shagger who marries?

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it isn't denied on the ground of sexual orientation. Since a gay person could be married to a gay person of the opposite sex. It is a gender issue.....except, obviously, in your head.

Firstly it isn't - it is clearly being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation.

But for the sake of arguments let's pander to your delusional notion a little. So let's assume it is being denied on the grounds of sex - in other words a person is being denied a marriage because of their sex, as this is the same as their spouse (while they'd not been denied had they been of the opposite sex). Well there are, of course, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. So were the church to claim that their discrimination is on the basis of sex rather than sexuality, they'd still fall foul of the law - but in this case they don't have an opt out.

The discrimination is clearly on the basis of sexuality - if it were on sex then the church would be clearly open to prosecution on the basis of sex discrimination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly it isn't - it is clearly being denied on the grounds of sexual orientation.

But for the sake of arguments let's pander to your delusional notion a little. So let's assume it is being denied on the grounds of sex - in other words a person is being denied a marriage because of their sex, as this is the same as their spouse (while they'd not been denied had they been of the opposite sex). Well there are, of course, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. So were the church to claim that their discrimination is on the basis of sex rather than sexuality, they'd still fall foul of the law - but in this case they don't have an opt out.

The discrimination is clearly on the basis of sexuality - if it were on sex then the church would be clearly open to prosecution on the basis of sex discrimination.

I wouldn't deny them a marriage but were I a clergyman I would not feel at present able to provide them with holy matrimony.