Quote:

The Victorian Government has cast the rules of Parliament aside to reintroduce a bill that will allow faith-based groups to discriminate on grounds such as religion, marital status or gender. source

This is so wrong, so backwards, so dark ages. Those that will wear the brunt of this draconian law will be women and homosexuals.

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:59pm:

Quote: The Victorian Government has cast the rules of Parliament aside to reintroduce a bill that will allow faith-based groups to discriminate on grounds such as religion, marital status or gender. source This is so wrong, so backwards, so dark ages. Those that will wear the brunt of this draconian law will be women and homosexuals.

And the alternative is dictating that (religious) people may not live their lives according to their principles and beliefs.  

That sits fine with you?

... wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:02pm:

And the alternative is dictating that (religious) people may not live their lives according to their principles and beliefs.   That sits fine with you?

Denying people the right to discriminate is not the same thing as denying the faithful their right to live their religion.

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:06pm:

... wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 5:02pm: And the alternative is dictating that (religious) people may not live their lives according to their principles and beliefs.   That sits fine with you? Denying people the right to discriminate is not the same thing as denying the faithful their right to live their religion.

What's the difference?  
If their religious beliefs condemn homosexuality, and the vast majority agree that it does, denying them the right to live according to those principles most certainly IS discrimination.

... wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:11pm:

What's the difference?   If their religious beliefs condemn homosexuality, and the vast majority agree that it does, denying them the right to live according to those principles most certainly IS discrimination.

It's one thing to preach against homosexuality in your church or bible study group... it's a whole other thing to preach that on the secular streets of Victoria. And anyways... there is nothing in the bible that says you should preach against homosexuality... merely that to engage in homosexual behaviour in an abomination in the eyes of god.

But now, thanks to this stupid Vic Gov... faith based groups can denigrate homosexuals as abominations publicly and legally. That's wrong.

Meantime, it's not OK to let out the odd expletive in public!?

To that, I would say: bugger these self-righteous control-freaks!

Quote:

Wesley Pipes wrote... What the?  Preaching on the streets?  What's that got to do with anything? FAITH-BASED organisations can live and act according to the tenets of their FAITH.  That is all. You know that whole 'seperation of church and state' bizzo?  Yeah - it works both ways.

PS: Sorry Wes... I stuffed up your original quote when responding to it, but have captured all you said nonetheless.

... wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:44pm:

Quote: Wesley Pipes wrote... What the?  Preaching on the streets?  What's that got to do with anything? FAITH-BASED organisations can live and act according to the tenets of their FAITH.  That is all. You know that whole 'seperation of church and state' bizzo?  Yeah - it works both ways. PS: Sorry Wes... I stuffed up your original quote when responding to it, but have captured all you said nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkAjiiCHtpA

Allowing faith based groups to discriminate means more of this ^^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooi-ah73aC4

Weeeell i didn't see anyone being pulled from a wheelchair, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that it did actually happen, and won't get into the game of 'who started it'

But, the exemptions don't go so far as allowing assault, so it's really irrelevant.

How do you feel about certain gyms, fernwood for example, being allowed to choose memebrs on the basis of their gender alone?  That too is legal discrimiantion, yet you never hear anyone complaining that that's grossly unfair.

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:59pm:

a bill that will allow faith-based groups to discriminate on grounds such as religion, marital status or gender.

Thank God for that!

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 5:36pm:

... wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 5:11pm: What's the difference?   If their religious beliefs condemn homosexuality, and the vast majority agree that it does, denying them the right to live according to those principles most certainly IS discrimination. It's one thing to preach against homosexuality in your church or bible study group... it's a whole other thing to preach that on the secular streets of Victoria. And anyways... there is nothing in the bible that says you should preach against homosexuality... merely that to engage in homosexual behaviour in an abomination in the eyes of god. But now, thanks to this stupid Vic Gov... faith based groups can denigrate homosexuals as abominations publicly and legally. That's wrong.

Sappho there is a distinction between discrimination and bashing gays publicly. Obviously the Church has a right to discriminate against people of the wrong religion, orientation etc in choosing people to fill roles within the organisation.

What you are talking about seems more like vilification which is covered (barely) under a different set of laws. We are still allowed to say things that aren't nice about gays, blacks, women or whatever and do not need any special justification to do so.

Quote:

A GAY softball association in the US can limit the number of heterosexual players on its teams, a federal judge ruled today. The decision to allow the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAAA) to enforce a rule of two "straight" players came in a lawsuit filed by three bisexual men who claim they were kicked out of the Gay Softball World Series because they "weren't gay enough," the Courthouse News Service reported. US District Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling, "Plaintiffs have failed to argue that there is a compelling state interest in allowing heterosexuals to play gay softball." "NAGAAA might very well believe that given the history of gay exclusion for sports, the only way to promote competition for all persons, and ensure that gay athletes have the same opportunities as straight athletes, is to create an exclusively gay community with exceptions for a small number of straight players," the ruling states. "It is not the role of the courts to scrutinize the content of an organization's chosen expression." However, Coughenour said the lawsuit could proceed to trial because questions remained about the way the softball association applied its rule. The suit was sparked when three men playing for a San Francisco-based team in the Gay Softball World Series in Washington state in 2008 were challenged about their sexuality by a rival team. According to their complaint, the trio were summoned to a hearing room and quizzed about their sexual interests or attractions in front of around 25 people. The men said organizers told them, "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series." A trial is set for Aug. 1. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/gay-softball-league-can-limit-straight-players-judge-rules/story-e6frfku0-1226068573943#ixzz1OAtbvjSW

OK so it's not religious related, and it's in the US, but how do you feel about THIS discrimination?
Is this also so wrong, so backwards, so dark ages?  If not, why not?

cool

everybody should be allowed to discriminate

This is getting ridiculous.

Astroboy wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 1:28pm:

This is getting ridiculous.

The discrimination, or the people complaining about it?

Astroboy wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 1:28pm:

This is getting ridiculous.

Yes, identity politics is ridiculous.

This is what happens when making a judgement about a person becomes a non-no on account of the 'group' they 'choose' to belong to.

Astroboy wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 1:28pm:

This is getting ridiculous.

Yes, but also ethically interesting. Actually I don't think sporting bodies should discriminate on a gender basis at all. People should just play at a level they feel comfortable with and only suffer discrimination on their skill level.

So you oppose age based discrimination in sports?

I want to see mixed-gender greco-roman wrestling as an olympic sport.

Soren wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:19am:

I want to see mixed-gender greco-roman wrestling as an olympic sport.

;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 9:09am:

So you oppose age based discrimination in sports?

If there is any, yea, <where's 'e goin'>.

There is plenty of aged based discrimination.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:10pm:

There is plenty of aged based discrimination.

Well go on I'm interested :-)

They won't let me play in the under 10's any more, even though that is a fair representation of my skill level.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

They won't let me play in the under 10's any more, even though that is a fair representation of my skill level.

;D O-kay  ;D

So now you support discrimination? What's next? Forcing the church to allow gays to preach against homosexuality?

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:36pm:

So now you support discrimination? What's next? Forcing the church to allow gays to preach against homosexuality?

How can anyone honestly preach against homosexuality anyway? Any more than they can preach against left-handedness.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 6:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:36pm: So now you support discrimination? What's next? Forcing the church to allow gays to preach against homosexuality? How can anyone honestly preach against homosexuality anyway? Any more than they can preach against left-handedness.

A pain in the arse, isn't it?

smacking other blokes in the arse as a form of self actualisation versus holding your pen in your left hand - I can see how it's hard to tell the difference.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:47pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:59pm: freediver wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:36pm: So now you support discrimination? What's next? Forcing the church to allow gays to preach against homosexuality? How can anyone honestly preach against homosexuality anyway? Any more than they can preach against left-handedness. A pain in the arse, isn't it? smacking other blokes in the arse as a form of self actualisation versus holding your pen in your left hand - I can see how it's hard to tell the difference.

Both are abominations in the bible... In fact, I think left-handedness gets a bigger bum rap...

Sinister...

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 9:30pm:

Sinister...

Yairs... Guess even the dictators of church doctrine take a cafeteria approach to who's a front bottom by biblical decree...

Sinister is Latin for left. It was the unclean hand, still is in third world hell holes. It was seen as an invertion, being crack-handed,  like being a pr!ck-fancier. Not right.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Sinister is Latin for left.

Yep, knew that one.

Soren wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

It was the unclean hand, still is in third world hell holes. It was seen as an invertion, being crack-handed,  like being a pr!ck-fancier. Not right.

Was a sign of the devil as well... Some of the older generations here might remember a time when left-handed kids had their left hand tied behind their back. Or nuns going psychopathic at the sight of a left-handed kid making a left handed sign of the cross... Then ool offa sudden... It's OK to be left? What? God changed his mind?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:00pm: Sinister is Latin for left. Yep, knew that one. Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:00pm: It was the unclean hand, still is in third world hell holes. It was seen as an invertion, being crack-handed,  like being a pr!ck-fancier. Not right. Was a sign of the devil as well... Some of the older generations here might remember a time when left-handed kids had their left hand tied behind their back. Or nuns going psychopathic at the sight of a left-handed kid making a left handed sign of the cross... Then ool offa sudden... It's OK to be left? What? God changed his mind?

LOL...this lefty remembers being repeatedly rapped over the knuckles by no less than 3 different kindergarten teachers...

It sure was a bizarre initiation into the learning environment - and the injustice of the situation did nothing to promote my compliance with irrational rules or 'role models' - but I don't claim credit for the transient employment of said teachers...

::)

Equitist wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:06pm: Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:00pm: Sinister is Latin for left. Yep, knew that one. Soren wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:00pm: It was the unclean hand, still is in third world hell holes. It was seen as an invertion, being crack-handed,  like being a pr!ck-fancier. Not right. Was a sign of the devil as well... Some of the older generations here might remember a time when left-handed kids had their left hand tied behind their back. Or nuns going psychopathic at the sight of a left-handed kid making a left handed sign of the cross... Then ool offa sudden... It's OK to be left? What? God changed his mind? LOL...this lefty remembers being repeatedly rapped over the knuckles by no less than 3 different kindergarten teachers... It sure was a bizarre initiation into the learning environment - and the injustice of the situation did nothing to promote my compliance with irrational rules or 'role models' - but I don't claim credit for the transient employment of said teachers... ::)

Yet thinkest thou, that thou canst now flaunt thine sinistral disposition even upon the hallowed ground that dost beareth our Mother Church?

Muslim worker sues Catholic diocese for religious discrimination


http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10610

She refused to take a lunch break during Ramadan. She wasn't told to eat lunch, only to take a break.

Quote:

Freediver - So now you support discrimination? What's next? Forcing the church to allow gays to preach against homosexuality?

Agreeing that under ten sports do disallow participation on the grounds of age is NOT supporting discrimination. You might say that I DO support discrimination in those circumstances. Not because I said so, but because I do in fact admit to it now. That comes under the rights of the child not to have their games mucked up by big fat bozos.

As for what happens in pulpits I have no interest whatsoever and nothing would surprise me. :)

Grey you make it very hard to disagree with you when you keep changing your mind.

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 7:58pm:

Grey you make it very hard to disagree with you when you keep changing your mind.

While I reserve the right to change my mind FD, (if I never did I'd be in danger of being a bigot) I don't accept that's what I've done here. As a general rule I'm against discrimination in sport. You've quite rightly drawn attention to an exceptional case. I don't think any reasonable person could point to it as evidence I'm a complete snowflake  ;D

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 4:59pm:

[quote] This is so wrong, so backwards, so dark ages. Those that will wear the brunt of this draconian law will be women and homosexuals.

Women can discriminate and exclude men, from their groups
Homos can dicriminate and exclude straights from their groups
Murris can discriminate and exclude whites from their groups

The law only applies to one group who are never allowed to discriminate or excludeanyone and that is white hetrosexual males, everyone else has an exemption.

The law was never meant to make a more inclusive and non-discriminatory society only to remove power from white hetro males. It has done that so stop ya b1tchin.

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 6:43am:

Sappho wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 4:59pm: [quote] This is so wrong, so backwards, so dark ages. Those that will wear the brunt of this draconian law will be women and homosexuals. Women can discriminate and exclude men, from their groups Homos can dicriminate and exclude straights from their groups Murris can discriminate and exclude whites from their groups The law only applies to one group who are never allowed to discriminate or excludeanyone and that is white hetrosexual males, everyone else has an exemption. The law was never meant to make a more inclusive and non-discriminatory society only to remove power from white hetro males. It has done that so stop ya b1tchin.

A lesbian blogger who helped unmask the Syrian lesbian blogger as a middle-aged American male has herself been revealed to be a middle-aged American male:

In an apology to its readers, one of the other owners, Linda Carbonell, wrote: “The past three days have been devastating for all of us on LezGetReal. ‘Paula Brooks’ has been a part of our lives for three years now.”

Mr Graber told the Associated Press news agency he set up LezGetReal to advance the gay and lesbian cause. He said he felt he would not be taken seriously as a straight man.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269535/every-lesbian-blogger-middle-aged-man-mark-steyn


I am myself a lesbian trapped in a man's body- and I want some funding/compo/praise for that.

:D

Grey wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 12:57am:

freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 7:58pm: Grey you make it very hard to disagree with you when you keep changing your mind. While I reserve the right to change my mind FD, (if I never did I'd be in danger of being a bigot) I don't accept that's what I've done here. As a general rule I'm against discrimination in sport. You've quite rightly drawn attention to an exceptional case. I don't think any reasonable person could point to it as evidence I'm a complete snowflake  ;D

It is not exceptional at all. It is the norm. They won't let me into the women's wrestling team either. Nor can I compete at the special olympics. And don't get me started on the masters tennis circuit. To make matters worse, I qualify for the US open, but they still won't let me play because I'm 'not good enough' (now there's a euphemism if I ever heard one). For some reason people have such a knee-jerk reaction to the term discrimination that they are blind to how common and how positive it is.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2011 at 8:56pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 14th, 2011 at 12:57am: freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 7:58pm: Grey you make it very hard to disagree with you when you keep changing your mind. While I reserve the right to change my mind FD, (if I never did I'd be in danger of being a bigot) I don't accept that's what I've done here. As a general rule I'm against discrimination in sport. You've quite rightly drawn attention to an exceptional case. I don't think any reasonable person could point to it as evidence I'm a complete snowflake  ;D For some reason people have such a knee-jerk reaction to the term discrimination that they are blind to how common and how positive it is.

Ah, but words derive their meaning from the context of the language game within which they are used.... 'Discrimination' is not one word with only one meaning... said a Kraut once.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.