|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 13:16:31 GMT
Of course they did. But they were wrong. Don’t tell me you think that every judgement handed down by a foreign court is perfect and definitive, especially when it comes from a bible thumping country like the USA? It would have been easier to have said "I am a racist". It would have been easier, though incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 13:18:13 GMT
Well of course it depends on what you mean by “homophobic”. If you had been to a proper school you would know that the “phobic” bit means an extreme fear, typically an irrational fear. However when someone displays symptoms of homophobia it is hard to know what is behind it, whether it is a conscious fear, an unconscious fear or something else (that the person themselves may not even know). But what we can do is to define the sort of behaviour typical or homophobes and that is one of discrimination on grounds of non-straight sexual orientation. Refusing to make a cake with a message supporting something to do with homosexuality, for a gay customer, is a decision based on discrimination and thus the act and the perpetrator are homophobic, as is the judgement and as are people who support the judgement. Dislike of something is not the same as fear of something . True but why dislike something that doesn’t affect you unless there is some underlying fear? Anyway, don’t blame me, I didn’t invent the word. Poof-hater would probably be a better (hyphenated) word |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 13:22:13 GMT
I disagree. I did explain this earlier but perhaps with the impediment of your improper schooling you don’t get it. Homophobic becaviour is typified by discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is what is supported by the judgement. If you support some discriminatory attitude, behaviour or position the only feasible explanation is that you agree with the sentiment and thus you yourself are (in this case) homophobic. By definition, the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that such a stance was not homophobic. Not in the eyes of the court, perhaps. But are you sure? Perhaps the decision was that it’s OK to be homophobic if to not be would be against your religion. After all, we should remember that the New Testament is all about stoning poofs to death and not at all about loving one’s neighbour (who might happen to be of the same sex). I didn’t bother to read the full text of the judgement to find out. Anway, even if they did specifically declare it not to be homophobic to discrimate on grounds of sexual orientation if your religion tells you it’s ok so to do (which of course it doesn’t, but never mind) that is only in their opinion, which is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 19, 2018 13:26:51 GMT
Dislike of something is not the same as fear of something . Quite. The 'phobic label which is hurled around is a bit strange.
People who dislike Islam are labelled Islamaphobes, but people who dislike Jews are labelled Anti-Semitic, not Semetiphobes. It seems a bit inconsistent. I doubt if many anti-homosexual people are actually irrationally afraid of them
I agree with the first bit but disagree with the last bit. I really do think some people have a phobic reaction - irrationally fearing them without really knowing why (the irrational bit!). Not all, of course. Some people are just programmed to hate anyone slightly different from them. It’s a tribal thing I guess. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 14:25:50 GMT
Quite. The 'phobic label which is hurled around is a bit strange.
People who dislike Islam are labelled Islamaphobes, but people who dislike Jews are labelled Anti-Semitic, not Semetiphobes. It seems a bit inconsistent. I doubt if many anti-homosexual people are actually irrationally afraid of them
I agree with the first bit but disagree with the last bit. I really do think some people have a phobic reaction - irrationally fearing them without really knowing why (the irrational bit!). Not all, of course. Some people are just programmed to hate anyone slightly different from them. It’s a tribal thing I guess. Your being gay seems to be more of an issue for you, than it is for me. Perhaps this is the underlying problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 16:04:09 GMT
By definition, the Supreme Court ruling made it clear that such a stance was not homophobic. Anway, even if they did specifically declare it not to be homophobic to discrimate on grounds of sexual orientation if your religion tells you it’s ok so to do (which of course it doesn’t, but never mind) that is only in their opinion, which is wrong. In fact, it's not even about religion, it is about tradition. For thousands of years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. If a person feels that this is a tradition which should continue, then that is a perfectly reasonable and logical viewpoint to hold. In the Belfast case the most salient point is that the baker declined to promote a message with which he disagreed, he did not refuse to serve the customers simply because they were a pair of sperm burpers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:18:37 GMT
As far as I am concerned the darkies should go back to where they came from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:45:31 GMT
Not even a little bit funny, sorry.
I wouldn't normally comment, but as I started the thread I feel responsible.
Consider your wrists slapped.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:56:32 GMT
Anway, even if they did specifically declare it not to be homophobic to discrimate on grounds of sexual orientation if your religion tells you it’s ok so to do (which of course it doesn’t, but never mind) that is only in their opinion, which is wrong. In fact, it's not even about religion, it is about tradition. For thousands of years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. If a person feels that this is a tradition which should continue, then that is a perfectly reasonable and logical viewpoint to hold. In the Belfast case the most salient point is that the baker declined to promote a message with which he disagreed, he did not refuse to serve the customers simply because they were a pair of sperm burpers. This country has a tadition of bear baiting, dog and cock fighting, press-ganging crews for the navy etc. etc. Tradition is a really poor argument. We grow and develop as a society thank goodness. It's only a very few years ago Alan Turing was chemically castrated, vilified, and subsequently committed suicide, because homosexuality was 'traditionally outlawed'. I think the Supreme Court judgement is utterly and irrefutably wrong, and gives the wrong message too. I don't believe jenlyn or anyone else has expressed homophobic views either, but I understand the 'heat' in this discussion. I hope one day soon the discussion becomes a total irrelevance. Rog |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:58:18 GMT
Not even a little bit funny, sorry. I wouldn't normally comment, but as I started the thread I feel responsible. Consider your wrists slapped. Rog Consider yours slapped too  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 16:59:52 GMT
Telemachus would understand. I would not expect you to  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 17:11:48 GMT
Telemachus would understand. I would not expect you to Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Rog |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 17:24:28 GMT
I don't really understand your objection. The thread started as a comment on an area of the canal system without any racist things then it seemed to go off into the whole very very boring gay thing that sometimes happens punctuated by funny comments from Mr stabby.
Then I did the "I hate the wogs" line and you throw the toys out of the pram then quote Clark gable or was it dirk Bogarde ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 17:32:16 GMT
Not even a little bit funny, sorry. I wouldn't normally comment, but as I started the thread I feel responsible. Consider your wrists slapped. Rog Throw the toys out of the pram? Really? I believe your comment was intended to be humorous and ironic. A visitor to this site would rightly think it racist and appalling, and I wished to declare my concern. In the context of the discussion, it was also inappropriate at best. I am able to ignore comments I find distasteful on here, but on a thread I started I wished to declare my position. Hope that explains things, although I honestly didn't think it would be necessary, hence the initial post. Rog |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jun 19, 2018 17:34:13 GMT
Not even a little bit funny, sorry. I wouldn't normally comment, but as I started the thread I feel responsible. Consider your wrists slapped. Rog Throw the toys out of the pram? Really? I believe your comment was intended to be humerous and ironic. A visitor to this site would rightly think it racist and appalling, and I wished to declare my concern. In the context of the discussion, it was also inappropriate at best. I am able to ignore comments I find distasteful on here, but on a thread I started I wished to declare my position. Hope that explains things, although I honestly didn't think it would be necessary, hence the initial post. Rog Rog... Let it go. |
|
