Getting equal
The government today to remove a loophole in Northern Ireland's anti-discrimination legislation. is the title of the public consultation on new "proposals to outlaw discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services in Northern Ireland". Today also marks the start of Belfast's week-long annual , but I understand that the launch date is purely coincidental.
Under these proposals, businesses turning away gay or lesbian customers because of their sexuality will have broken the law. I recall chairing a phone-in show on radio last year when we discussed the case of a gay couple who were not permitted to lodge at a family-run guesthouse because the owners were uncomfortable with their sexual orientation. This is the kind of scenario these new proposals are designed to capture.
Religious organisations are to have exemptions if a particular service is "linked to religious observance or pracices that arise from the basic doctrines of a faith" (Getting Equal, p. 39), but no exemptions are proposed in cases where a service is provided for commercial purposes or in cases where a religious organisation offers a service with a social or welfare focus (such as a social group for the elderly or a parents and toddlers group).
Take the case of a gay couple with an adopted child who wish to join a parents and toddlers group at a local church. If that church refused them admission to the group because, for example, other parents were uncomfortable with a gay couple being part of the group, or because the church claimed it did not wish to give the appearance of moral acceptance vis-a-vis the gay couple's relationship -- in either case, the new proposals recognise that the church will have discriminated against the couple (a breech of the civil law, rather than a criminal offence).
I'll explore these and other scenarios on tomorrow's Sunday Sequence with PA Mag Lochlain, president of the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association, Bob Collins, the chief commissioner of the , and , MLA and spokesperson for the Christian campaign group Caleb.
Comments
Very interesibg topic, William.
Unsurprisngly I rather agree with Storey insofar as the advance of the Gay agenda through this kind of legislation is a not-so-subtle mechanism for attacking those who hold to the Biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin. Eternal truths do not go down well with a Government that would not recognise the truth if it bit it, nor with the militant gay lobby who seek to become the moral arbitrators in this post-Christian world into which we are slipping. However just because they can't recognise truth does not make it invalid. This is perverse legislation and entirely in keeping with what one expects from NuLabour and its friends.
I can't believe David Vance actually listened to the programme itself, with Mervyn Storey reducing the entire discussion on air to childish name-calling. PA was extremely patient - imagine having to sit there and listen to those insults? When the equality commission chief threatened to walk out of the studio because of the muck-raking I couldnt agree more.
I am a democrat. I don't want to live in the Afghanistan of the Taliban. I don't want to live in a fundamentalist christian taliban state either, where gay and lesbian citizens are persecuted legally. Storey said today in the radio programme that he wanted a restaurant to have the freedom in law to throw out a gay couple just because they are holding hands over dinner on Valentine's Day!
He is entitled to his moral and religious views (though not all Christians agree with him). It's another thing to say that his moral and religious views should be the law of the land. God help us all.
David Vance: you make strong arguments for a libertarian worldview. What part of libertarianism does this sound like?
Mervyn and his ilk are a relic of the views of the last century in N Ireland - concentrated by the emigration of the best young minds to Universitys in UK and Europe - due to the lack of places here and the desire of these young people to get away from the likes of him (and prob parents like me ) - the rest of the UK have moved on and it's one good reason for not restoring a devolved gov here
- and David - I hope we are surging to a post-christian world!
Interesting article from Will. Also David Vance's comments were interesting. I am a Libertarian and I think that Government that interferes less is great government. On the other hand, we must remember that any society that does these tyoes of legislation prepares for its own destruction.
"Breech of civil law"- might be better as "breach of civil law"
Thought I'd get to you before Mark Adair this time :)
R
Not for publication!
GB Shaw would have written Breech. What's the 'a' doing there, except misleading us as to the pronunciation!
"This kind of legislation is a not-so-subtle mechanism for attacking those who hold to the Biblical truth that homosexuality is a sin"
So let me get this straight (no pun intended);
By creating legislation that enables equality for ALL, you percieve this as an attack on the majority?
"Eternal truths do not go down well with a Government that would not the truth if it bit it... However just because they can't recognise truth does not make it invalid"
So is it the role of the Goverment in a free society to uphold 'biblical truth', or is it the role of the Government to ensure a free and fair society for all?
You obviously have no conception whatsoever of the subjective nature of 'biblical truth'. I'll let someone else burst that particular bubble for you.
Here are some comparable American situations. Can the Boy Scouts exclude gay Scoutmasters? Those excluded appealed and, in 2000, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled against them, reversing a lower court ruling. Another question much in the public eye concerns whether a pharmacist (chemist) can refuse to dispense the morning-after pill because of his personal convictions in the matter or if a doctor can refuse to advise his patient about an abortion: the question has vocal partisans on both sides.
Where's PB when you need him?
Fear not John Wright - PB returns (from Krypton! ;-D )
Guys, whether we will admit it or not this is a battle of two worldviews; one will be imposed on the other.
D Smyth, the culture, benefits, freedoms and rights of our entire society are founded on the bible (Magna Carta/10 commandments anyone?); In a democracy people will and do decide to move further and further away from this (apostasy) and the more we do the more social problems we create.
There is no bubble to burst; In the bible only heterosexuality is blessed continually from Genesis to Revelation
and homosexuality is never mentioned but negatively. Even gay former Tory MP Matthew Parris says the gay lobby should not be allowed to overturn 6000 years of unbroken Judeo-Christian teaching; These heresies only began in late 20th century and are not accepted by any mainstream church, bar some modern gay 'churches'. The Anglican dispute is a frontal assault on 6000 years of these truths.
Historians Plutarch and Gibson (Decline and fall of the Roman Empire) both said such sexual libertinism was a symptom
of a civilisation nearing its end; most of us are too short sighted and prejudiced/narrow minded to listen to them.
This is not at heart a debate about gay rights; It was normal in the old heathenism to sacrifice unwanted babies and elderly; to worship trees, animals and the earth itself, to practise sex with anyone and anything one wanted to and to be anti-semitic.
The bible plainly predicts a mass return to this old-time Baal worship and the battle lines are already clearly drawn; not surprising how most people are already either strongly for or against the re-popularisation of all these practises. They are all spiritually linked.
But we blaspheme this neo-Baal worship at our peril, increasingly the new Inquisition will treat us as the new heretics!
As has been suggested previously on this blog, this is all moving to the point where reading out the bible in public will land you in jail. Serious questions for you pro-homosexuality human-rights campaigners; where does this leave freedom of
1) religion, 2) speech/expression, 3) conscience and also 4) scientific enquiry, esp for Muslims, Jews, Christians and scientists all around the globe?
PB
I correct myself ref churches; I understand no mainstream church in Ireland accepts homosexuality as biblically valid. The Roman Catholic church worldwide has condemned it, the Anglican church is fighting to maintain its traditional position, I have not heard any eastern Christian denominations accept it. Scottish Presbyterianism does bless gay partnerships, I believe.
However, the bible also says thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; many say only subjective biblical interpretation forbids homosexuality but I suspect the vast majority of such people have never seriously looked at it for themselves, as it just does not stand up (see my entry above).
I challenge anyone to actually make a serious argument *here* that the bible allows it; when you actually see the arguments they are so weak they are *ridiculous*.
Pro-gay lobby, you have 6000 years of Judeo-Christian scholarship to catch up on.
PB
Shame on Sunday Sequence for trying to make out the sin of Sodomy was purely injustice/inhospitality.
Jude 7 in the Amplified Bible says;
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjaecent towns, which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice
and sensual perversity are laid out, [in plain sight], as the exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire
[the wicked are sentenced to suffer]."
PB's take on Jude 7 is not the only possible reading of it. Have a look at this link, which suggests another possible interpretation, namely, that the "perversion" of Sodom was an attempt to have sex with angels ("strange flesh"). Things are not always as they seem at first, eh?
Allen, the point I clearly made was that Sodom and Gomorrah were detroyed for sexual immorality. Your contribution does not dispute this, whether there is any validity in it or not.
Say there are 100 examples of homosexuality in the bible and you try to provide a wormtongue interpretation for each; in the end, each comment you make will be a defensive one on the backfoot, there is not one hint of endorsement for homosexuality in the bible, it is ALL negative in context.
And the flip side of the coin is that heterosexuality if blessed and promoted from start to finish with no equivocation.
Ergo, actually Allen, in this case things really are as simple as they seem at first.
PB
Also, care to declare any interests you brought with you to the bible when you read it on this?
Does that guy PB always have to be so rude and agressive when making his points?
Apolgies daniel and allen,
point taken.
PB