Double victory?

The much argued over Sexual Orientation Regulations were subject to a legal ruling today and both religious groups and LGB groups are claiming victory. While Justice Weatherup rejected the claim evangelical Christians were treated differently, he did set aside the harrassment section of the regulations because of the lack of consultation.

  • Sam Hanna

    Great News! The Pink Fascists have been givena blow.

    We need to get rid off all legislation that forces private companies and employers to discriminate in their favour.

    It is amazing you can call Evangelical Christians whatever you want, slander the Bible but state that the lifestyle of these inverted people are perverse and you are attacked vociferously.

  • Gerry Lvs Castro

    Sam I don’t think anyone is suggesting that you can’t voice your opinion on other people’s sexuality. If however your actions discriminate against someone because of their sexuality, that is an entirely different matter.

  • joeCanuck

    Agree Gerry.
    You can legislate actions but you can’t command what people should think.
    That is how it should (must?) be.

  • wild turkey

    We need to get rid off all legislation that forces private companies and employers to discriminate in their favour.’

    Sam, the law does not say you have to discriminate in ‘their’ favour.

    What employment and equality law does say is that the next time my company goes through a selection and recruitment exercise, if you turn out to be the best candidate I must, in spite of your classic burning bush screeds, offer you the job.

    On that note I think I’ll pour an on the rocks triple of my nom de plume.

    wild turkey

  • Sam Hanna

    These regulations mean that I can refuse my guest house/School to BNP members, paedophiles, polygamists, bestiality practicers but not to people who engage in unnatural sodomite actions that I am repulsed by and that offend my religious beliefs.

    Can anyone give me a logical reason for this.

  • exile

    Yes Sam, it’s because they are blameless human beings, harming no one by following their most fundamental instincts. Comparing them to the rest of your list is something you should be ashamed of. Maybe you would like to check on the bed habits of married couples to make sure their activities don’t offend you. I know my wife and I do things of which you wouldn’t approve.
    If people, in all their wonderful variety, offend you, you shouldn’t be in the hospitality business.

  • wild turkey

    Sam

    polygomists: sorry but you have to offer admitance to fundamentalist members of the Church of Latter Saints.

    Bestiality: Call the USPCA for guidance and advice.

    Sodomites: Thats a tough one. Polygomists would show up to the guest house with multiple wifes. Pretty obvious. Bestiality, any guest who asks for a few bales of hay would be immediately suspect. But sodomites? How do you know? C’mon tell us. You could be sitting on a goldmine.

  • Dawkins

    “… unnatural sodomite actions that I am repulsed by and that offend my religious beliefs.

    Can anyone give me a logical reason for this.”

    Sam, do let me try before the drink completely dulls my senses. Your repulsion of those acts stems from the unnaturally rapid development of the neocortex, a growth that virtually left standing the development of the rest of the human body. The result? The mammal known as Homo Sapiens became prematurely conscious of itself, and has the distinction of being the sole animal with knowledge of its own mortality. No bad thing, taken in the round.

    Unfortunately this accelerated sentience led to various anomalies, the revulsion you mention being one. As modern humans, we’re repulsed by much that’s no big deal to our fellow primates. We have, for instance, an unnatural antipathy towards body odours, bodily fluids, faeces and all that joins us to the rest of the animal kingdom. We’ve invented taboos on behaviour or life choices found everywhere in the natural world, such as homosexuality and bisexuality. You could call it a reaction to an awareness that we share a gene pool with the lower animals. We imagine in our arrogance that we ought to have risen above “all that”.

    I suppose, Sam, what I’m trying to say is that I understand your revulsion. I’m also saying that there are logical reasons for it. If I were you, I’d explore anthropology and find out where we came from — right back to African Lucy. I do think the answers you seek can be found there. OK, you won’t much like a lot of what you find, but this is us, this is where we came from. We ignore our roots at our peril.

    Lastly, I believe you should consider that sexuality can take many forms. I’m assuming you’re heterosexual — though statistically speaking you’re bisexual to a certain extent; yet another unpalatable fact for you. Really, in the great scheme of things, you’re nothing special. Nor is the gay gentleman living down the road from you. You both have your places. You each represent a facet of human nature and behaviour. The one is not “right” or orthodox. In that regard you ought not judge your gay neighbour or consider him in some respect “sinful”. You’re both naked apes. Rejoice in the fact, and help each other make sense of this crazy universe. After all, we humans are the only beings who can.

  • Gerry Lvs Castro

    Sam are you for real or is your middle name troll?

    ‘I can refuse my guest house/School to BNP members, paedophiles, polygamists, bestiality practicers’

    School? How many school children practice any of the above?
    If you run a guest house, how do you find out if someone is a BNP member? The other three practices you mention are not only illegal but are somewhat unlikely to crop up in a guest house situation.

    ‘unnatural sodomite actions that I am repulsed by and that offend my religious beliefs.’

    I rather doubt anyone is likely to force you to watch Sam, though your obsession with the homosexual act says rather more about you than you may care to admit.
    Your religious beliefs are entirely arbitary on this subject. Homosexuality is certainly condemned in the bible, as is eating shellfish and working on the sabbath, amongst many others. You have chosen to condemn gay people purely through your own prejudice.
    Perhaps you should ask yourself; what would Jesus do? The answer is absolutely nothing, as he failed to mention homosexuality even once.

    Grow up Sam — homosexuality between consenting adults is perfectly legal in this country and that’s exactly how it should be. The overwhelming majority of gay people did not choose their sexuality — there is ample evidence of individual homosexuality in the animal kingdom — whoever your God is obviously created the gay gene as well as the ‘straight’ one which you (probably) possess. The homophobic gene however is entirely man-made.

  • The Spectator

    Not to make you look any worse Sam, but you’ll probably find banning BNP members from your establishment is already usually illegal and has been for ages.

    See Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 as amended, specifically Articles 3 (“definition of discrimination including discrimiantion on grounds of political opinion”) and 28(2)(b) – (forbidding discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, explicitly including hotels).

    Actually if the Polygamist is a mormon or a Muslin, you might want to watch yourself there for possible indirect religious discrimination under FETO too.

    Wasn’t a great example, was it, Sam?

  • Fraggle

    it never ceases to amaze me how supernaturalists like Sam choose to describe the entirely natural phenomenon of gaysexual bottomism as ‘unnatural’. Coming from a follower of an invisible sky-fairy, this is bizarre.

    in using the term ‘sodomites’, is Sam supporting father-daughter incest the way his god did in the same section of his holy text?

  • Dawkins

    Fraggle,

    “in using the term ‘sodomites’, is Sam supporting father-daughter incest the way his god did in the same section of his holy text?”

    Faith and Gomorrah I think he may well be.

  • when you think of the wonderful contributions to music and film by gay stars like Bogart, Mercury, Elton John, REM fella and their zest for life you just have to wonder whether these bigots might in fact not be some left-over dinosaurs that escaped extinction!

  • I Wonder

    I was wondering if someone acted within the law by “permitting” a gay couple to stay in their B and B – and then remained within the law by voicing their views of the couple during the entire time of their stay – in their room – that would be within the law but still a completely impossible situation for the couple concerned to accept or tolerate.

  • Rory

    Humphrey Bogart a bugger? Sam Spade a shirtlifter? When he went down those “dark mean sreets” was he cruising? What are you trying to do to us, Parci? Is nothing sacred? Did Lauren Bacall know?

    I love the imagery invoked by this ruling. I can just envisage a crop of boarding house signs springing up all over Antrim, “Christian Guest House – Filthy Faggots Tolerated by law”. They can plant ads on the gay web sites “Sodomites Accommodated – but not welcome”. That should do the trick.

  • The law wasn’t overturned on any meaningful grounds, it was overturned because of an ‘inadequate’ consultation periods; while there seems to be an issue of NI Civil Servants not being able to run consultations according to the legislation, I’m not convinced that the judiciary aren’t using the increasing complexity and bureaucracy of consultation rules as a pretext for striking down legislation they don’t like.

    PS – who follows a sky-fairy?

  • Rory

    Naughty p.s. there, Sammy. Enough to make an Anglican bishop blush.

  • apologies to Rory for not distinguishing between the eminent Humphrey and the even equally eminent Dirk my previous commentarianisms…. clue Bogart, as in ” don’t bogart that joint my friend pass it over to me “

  • The Spectator

    Sammy

    Actually, if you look at the judgement, harassment was not struck down because of adequacy of consultation period. Weatherup J thought that was acceptable.

    It was struck down principly because the consultation document stated that they didn’t intend to include harrassment, so when they did following, pressure from the LGB lobby, the Christians were able to claim that since they had not seen the need to comment on the issue given the initial stance, they had not been properly consulted on the changed position.

  • Different Drummer

    Errrm

    We seem to got a little side tracked.

    ‘Homosexual proselytizing’ used to be a phrase of the ring wing tablods – and I think the ruling is significant as it clearly discrimates against one from of ‘proselytizing’ over another.