UK supreme court backs Christian bakery that refused to support gay marriage.

[95thrifleman]

first of all... are you pagan? what pantheon, germanic, roman? cant be many pagans around these days, right? interesting

secondly... i think religious freedom is highly overrated. Normal freedom is sufficient, and religion should only be tolerated as long as it keeps within that. People may believe what they want for whatever reason, but they should not be give any special treatment for it. faiths dont need protection.

Nordic

You think faiths do not need protection? The rise of anti-semitism proves otherwise.

[mongrel]

Nordic

You think faiths do not need protection? The rise of anti-semitism proves otherwise.

True. Remembering this is Northern Ireland where being of the wrong religion once affected your voting rights, your life chances, or in extreme cases got one killed.

[Aexodus]

Ironically, during that period Belfast had zero power to introduce a law respecting an establishment of religion. So I think some protections are in order.

Nordic

You think faiths do not need protection? The rise of anti-semitism proves otherwise.

True. Remembering this is Northern Ireland where being of the wrong religion once affected your voting rights, your life chances, or in extreme cases got one killed.

Although, it should be heavily stressed that both of those are ethnic conflicts first, and religious conflicts a distant second.

[Cyclops]

What I dislike is insulting the sincere beleifs of TWC's Christian membership by suggesting they are 'silly'.

Mate I respect people's faith but he's entitled to his position. Religious groups wield enormous power in Western secular societies. We've seen how easily they ran and protected rape factories for decades, probably for centuries, and how their "special" status was so vilely abused. It happens (among reasons) because religious power structures are not open and democratic.

Religion should not trump law. Sadly it does still get away with more than it should. The greasy and immoral way churches have squirmed out of fully compensating rape victims, and the protection they have received from politicians they pay and support electorally is an example of how religions still get a special deal.

The bigger question should be why Northern Ireland bans gay marriage when around 70% of its people would not object to a change in the law.

Indeed. I thinks its an example of the political deadlock larger British interests impose on Northern Irish affairs. There's entrenched anti-catholic feeling exploited by violent men in the UK military and Freemason establishment (I've met British army officers gleefully telling me how they'd like to "blow up Southern Ireland") and equally entrenched anti-British feeling stoked by violent men in the South and the US wanting nothing more than to freshen the blood on their hands with Protestant gore.

The Northern Irish have courageously turned their backs on this violence and its a credit to the country, and to the British and US government for restraining their worst elements from stoking more bloodshed. Its still hard to get things done, so the dead hands are still choking our Irish friends but they are making their way. Imagine if they left the UK for Europe? They'd be servants to different masters but at least their new masters wouldn't be setting them at on another's throats.

I take this stuff personally as I have ancestors in all three camps (Catholic, Presbyterian and CoI), many of whom converted across the divide (both for love and for money) and I hate the way Ireland has been used for cats-paw crusades or cock-fighting for the pleasure of remote evil men.

...secondly... i think religious freedom is highly overrated. Normal freedom is sufficient, and religion should only be tolerated as long as it keeps within that. People may believe what they want for whatever reason, but they should not be give any special treatment for it. faiths dont need protection.

This.

This case was about political freedom, not religious freedom. A lot of these posts are off topic, please read the OP and links.

Religions are protected like other systems of thought, to the extent that they don't break the law. No more special treatment for Christian sects, and no more rape factories thanks, religions can toe the line like the rest.

[AqD]

Nordic

You think faiths do not need protection? The rise of anti-semitism proves otherwise.

But anti-semitism is more of racism yes?

Why should we protect faith specifically? People used to believe in crazy things, like burning widows, covering faces in public, and listening to bs from self-proclaimed religious figures, many of such would be considered insane this century. Moreover, most people who have faith today did NOT choose it out of their own free will, nor were they born with it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nordic

You think faiths do not need protection? The rise of anti-semitism proves otherwise.

Your post makes non sense. Anti-Semitism is disliking of people who belong to language group of Semites. A Semite can be Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim or Pagan, the list goes one. Semitic Paganism was literally one of the religions in Attilla Total War.
But yeah, racism is unfair because you judge someone based on something they never had to chose. Criticizing one's religious belief is fair and square, because pone choses his religion.

[Cyclops]

I think some Christian beliefs are silly. That's my problem and no insult to people of faith.

Being overly sensitive, and fragility on the part of believers to perceived "attacks on religion" makes them sad snowflakes. A Christian who claims all abortion is wrong and should be banned because of a particular religious view is allowed their POV even though its extremely offensive to someone who's been raped and impregnated (not to mention a recipe for crime waves and social misery).

Religion should get no special protection because its religion. In the real world it does because of the power and loyalty religions command (the extent rapists have their crimes concealed and victims are unjustly silenced) so there's no lack of protection (legal and illegal) for religions in our societies.

Given religions violently disagree among themselves I wouldn't be looking to them for truth or legally protecting their kaleidoscopic and often silly beliefs beyond the minimum guaranteed to freedom of thought and belief.

[mongrel]

I think some Christian beliefs are silly. That's my problem and no insult to people of faith.

I think you're being overly sensitive, and fragility on the part of believers to perceived "attacks on religion" makes them sad snowflakes. A Christian who claims all abortion is wrong and should be banned because of a particular religious view is allowed their POV even though its extremely offensive to someone who's been raped and impregnated (not to mention a recipe for crime waves and social misery).

Religion should get no special protection because its religion. In the real world it does because of the power and loyalty religions command (the extent rapists have their crimes concealed and victims are unjustly silenced) so there's no lack of protection (legal and illegal) for religions in our societies.

Given religions violently disagree among themselves I wouldn't be looking to them for truth or legally protecting their kaleidoscopic and often silly beliefs beyond the minimum guaranteed to freedom of thought and belief.

It's not your problem if you keep such views to yourself unless within the context of the thread.
Same rules about gratuitous off-topic attacking of the beliefs of TWC members apply to citizens, or referring to them directly as 'snowflakes' or so I'm told. If it isn't the case I expect to see a number of Notices of Censure I've earned 'insulting' racists to be withdrawn.

[Pontifex Maximus]

What a sad day where the UK is leaps and strides above US jurisprudence. Hopefully SCOTUS amends the idiotic gay cake decisions in order to maintain the fact that under the Constittuion of the United States, speech cannot be compelled on behalf of the government in order to achieve political ends.

[mongrel]

What a sad day where the UK is leaps and strides above US jurisprudence. Hopefully SCOTUS amends the idiotic gay cake decisions in order to maintain the fact that under the Constittuion of the United States, speech cannot be compelled on behalf of the government in order to achieve political ends.

Indeed. In the Belfast case it was quite obvious that the cake had an overt political emphasis. If the cake had been a traditional one, with figures of two grooms on top, the outcome may have been different.

[Cyclops]

Indeed. In the Belfast case it was quite obvious that the cake had an overt political emphasis. If the cake had been a traditional one, with figures of two grooms on top, the outcome may have been different.

We can be certain it would have been different.

When the question was framed as discrimination on the basis of lawful sexual orientation the decision was against the bakery. When the bakers appealed reframing the question as a political one the decision went their way.

Once again reading the links provided would clear up the confusion. This is a case about political freedom, its not a celebration of criminal religious prejudice.

[mongrel]

We can be certain it would have been different.

When the question was framed as discrimination on the basis of lawful sexual orientation the decision was against the bakery. When the bakers appealed reframing the question as a political one the decision went their way.

Once again reading the links provided would clear up the confusion. This is a case about political freedom, its not a celebration of criminal religious prejudice.

Its a civil case; just to be pedantic. No criminal harrassment was alleged or implied.

[Cyclops]

Its a civil case; just to be pedantic. No criminal harrassment was alleged or implied.

That's not pedantic, its correct. Thank you for the correction, I expressed myself poorly. I should have said "illegal religious prejudice".