State versus Religion

[Namyeknom]

Over the past couple of weeks a storm has been brewing over anti-discrimination laws in the UK. The laws effect is to 'outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation', and will be coming into effect in April.

Many religious groups and individuals have argued that this law effectively forces people to chose between their religious views and the state when running businesses.

The argument turned eventually to the impact on Catholic adoption centres, that would have to allow gay couples to adopt.

So what are you're views? Does a government have the right to impose this kind of legislation upon religious groups? Is it right to say religious businesses should either act against their own beliefs, or shut up shop? Or should exemptions be allowed for religious based businesses?

(This is a very brief overview, more in depth coverage can be found here and here.)

 

[Romanoffia (Guest)]

'outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation'

Same crap going on in some states in the US. The key to what is done is the term 'services'. The whole thing is a (pardon the euphemism) a back door approach to the whole issue of gay 'marriage' insofar as the civil application of marriage laws by the government might be considered a 'service' of the state.

The second issue is involving whether or not a person, because of his religious convictions, can deny someone 'service' in a business because of religious convictions.

The 'gay marriage' issue is utterly silly and inane in totality because by definition marriage (by law and tradition) is already defined. Gay people are not denied any rights under marriage laws that Heterosexual people are give - Gay people and Straight people have the right to marry anyone they wand as long as that other person is a member of the opposite sex. The descrimination issue is factitious as per marriage just as claiming that legalizing or illegalizing abortion is descriminatory against women since only women can have abortions and such a law, either way, would only apply to women and not men.

The second issue is the important one, [/I]viz, can a Moslem taxi cab drive driver or store owner refuse to 'serve' a Christian, Jew or a drunk patron because his particular sect prohibits him from doing so? The answer is yes and no to that. The Moslem taxi cab driver or store owner can plainly refuse service to an alcohol intoxicated patron if and only if that parton/customer poses a threat to individual or public safety in the course of providing that service, etc., under the priciple of the reasonable man clause as per common law. However, he cannot deny service to someone because they are not of the same religion if he is running a business that is public or quasi-public.

What the deeper issue involved here is how far are we willing to tolerate the intolerance of others and how far are we willing to bend over backwards to tolerate those who (presumably) immigrate to our respective cultures and then refuse to assimilate or tolerate the norms of the dominant culture.

It all boils down to granting extra rights to certain groups and denying certain rights to other groups based upon religion. If someone who is in the minority comes to a country to benefit from their tolerance they should not expect that everyone should change to meet their peculiar needs and demands.

So, if you want to run a business, then you had better be willing to comply and offer your wares to everyone equally, regardless of any peculiar considerations, or one needs to move to a place where descrimination along those lines is tolerated - like Iran or Syria.