Jake Daniels Blackpool

[canarydan23 4,060]

28 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

But Christian’s don’t get a free ride in the west. There are so many cases of people sacked for being Christian- from nurses refusing to perform abortion to bakers who didn’t want to be compelled to celebrate gay marriage. Most traditional Christian children report being discriminated against at school by staff as well as fellow pupils. Just look at this thread- far, far more hostility shown to Christianity - views mocked, sneered at, etc .

in the world, as you stare, it’s far worse. A full blown persecution but not reported in western press. Which itself says something. Just saying…

I don't know about the rest of the "west", but nurses in the UK are entitled to refuse to assist with abortions on moral objections. If anyone has been sacked for doing so, then they can instruct a lawyer to deal with the most straightforward unfair dismissal case possible. And as to your reference to the bakers, I'm pretty sure the UK Supreme Court sided with them. And I actually agree with it; as sad, petty and pathetic those bakers were being, it was their business, if they didn't want to make a certain cake then they shouldn't have to, regardless of how odd their view.

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

No, he just didn't like the flag and said he wouldn't drive it, so waited for a replacement driver (as per the link I enclosed). In other words, he couldn't drive it. In other words, he couldn't do his job.

But you've said it in your first sentence. Wouldn't. Not couldn't. Wouldn't. He wouldn't drive it. He could have. He didn't. And he's entirely free to make that decision and fair play to him. But his employer should also be entitled to sack him for it if they so wish (providing the driver didn't have any agreements upon commencement of employment and was hired on the basis that he would never be compelled to drive a big gay bus).

Edited May 17, 2022 by canarydan23

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

But you've said it in your first sentence. Wouldn't. Not couldn't. Wouldn't. He wouldn't drive it. He could have. He didn't. And he's entirely free to make that decision and fair play to him. But his employer should also be entitled to sack him for it if they so wish.

He could have. He didn't. Therefore he couldn't. And you've summed it up nicely for me in the last sentence. He should be sacked - for incompetence. Some just try to say this is religious intolerance though when in reality it's about the ability / willingness to carry out the job you're there to do under someone else's employ.

Edited May 17, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

He could have. He didn't. Therefore he couldn't.

I believe this is what they call a contradiction in terms.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

I believe this is what they call a contradiction in terms.

Disagree as the end result is the same - no service provided whether it is inability due to incompetence or unwillingness due to religious beliefs.

[Haus 259]

48 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Also I agree with your picture above. I wouldn’t dream of forcing gay people to become Christian. But why doesn’t it work the other way around? Today Christians must endorse homosexuality or be hammered. Tolerance can’t be a one way street 

Noones forcing you to be gay, calm yourself down and stop being so hysterical

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Just now, Haus said:

Noones forcing you to be gay, calm yourself down and stop being so hysterical

That wasn’t my point 

[canarydan23 4,060]

20 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Disagree as the end result is the same - no service provided whether it is inability due to incompetence or unwillingness due to religious beliefs.

This is what I don't get these days. There is nothing to disagree on in this instance yet people will still argue black is white, it didn't used to be like this. 

The driver could have driven the bus. He's driven countless buses, probably even the same bus he refused to drive. The fact that on that given day it was decorated with pride colours did absolutely nothing to inhibit his ability to drive the bus. He could have driven the bus. That's a fact.

I'm not debating what the end result was. Just the fact that driver could have driven the bus. If he couldn't have, he couldn't have been punished. He is being punished because he could have driven the bus but refused to.

Edited May 17, 2022 by canarydan23

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

This is what I don't get these days. There is nothing to disagree on in this instance yet people will still argue black is white, it didn't used to be like this. 

The driver could have driven the bus. He's driven countless buses, probably even the same bus he refused to drive. The fact that on that given day it was decorated with pride colours did absolutely nothing to inhibit his ability to drive the bus. He could have driven the bus. That's a fact.

I'm not debating what the end result was. Just the fact that driver could have driven the bus. If he couldn't have, he couldn't have been punished. He is being punished because he could have driven the bus but refused to.

Regarding the bold part, rightly so. I don't have an issue with him rejecting it, but you take the consequences if that's your stance. Saying that's "religious intolerance" (which essentially cropped up in that Iona Institute link pasted in) is a strawman.

The difference here in our stances is this; you look purely at ability to carry out the task. In contrast, I maintain if you refuse to do so for a reason that's not remotely related to the job in hand, you're incompetent.

[Mr Angry 1,561]

2 hours ago, GenerationA47 said:

Religious belief is (well, in secular parts of the world at least...) a personal choice and a philosophical position, not an existential unchangeable characteristic. An obvious difference from being gay, minority ethnic, disabled etc. Organised religion is also still closely associated with social and political power, unlike those minorities.

Also, popular theistic religions don’t hold back from ridiculing non/other-believers themselves, in fact their most hallowed teachings reserve special kinds of opprobrium for heretics and infidels. The God(s) can take a bit of robust discourse back.
 

Let the insults fly freely.*

 

 

*within forum rules

Religion or belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so people who are discriminated against because of their religion or belief are afforded the same rights and protection as under the other protected characteristics.

[Naturalcynic 631]

11 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Religion or belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so people who are discriminated against because of their religion or belief are afforded the same rights and protection as under the other protected characteristics.

And there’s a crossover into the area of hate crime legislation, so those who seem rather quick to ridicule others for their religious beliefs should perhaps think a bit more carefully before typing their “humourous” comments.  

[Mr Angry 1,561]

8 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

And there’s a crossover into the area of hate crime legislation, so those who seem rather quick to ridicule others for their religious beliefs should perhaps think a bit more carefully before typing their “humourous” comments.  

I follow Lloyd Cole on Twitter and I was surprised to see him describe Scottie Scheffler (sp) as a God botherer when he won the Masters a few weeks ago.

Just to add that I’m a Christian (although a not very devout one) and I’ve never experienced any negative words or actions. I’m also bisexual but only my 2 brothers and my wife are aware of that. Of the 2 characteristics, I know which one would attract more hatred.

[C.I.D 302]

29 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I follow Lloyd Cole on Twitter and I was surprised to see him describe Scottie Scheffler (sp) as a God botherer when he won the Masters a few weeks ago.

Just to add that I’m a Christian (although a not very devout one) and I’ve never experienced any negative words or actions. I’m also bisexual but only my 2 brothers and my wife are aware of that. Of the 2 characteristics, I know which one would attract more hatred.

MR ANGRY ? ....that's not very Christian is it ? 😉

Soz 😔

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I don't know about the rest of the "west", but nurses in the UK are entitled to refuse to assist with abortions on moral objections. If anyone has been sacked for doing so, then they can instruct a lawyer to deal with the most straightforward unfair dismissal case possible. And as to your reference to the bakers, I'm pretty sure the UK Supreme Court sided with them. And I actually agree with it; as sad, petty and pathetic those bakers were being, it was their business, if they didn't want to make a certain cake then they shouldn't have to, regardless of how odd their view.

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/student-midwife-forced-to-suspend-studies-over-pro-life-views
 

and before someone uses the “she couldn’t do the job” argument. The job of a midwife is to bring to birth live babies not destroy them. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/student-midwife-forced-to-suspend-studies-over-pro-life-views
 

and before someone uses the “she couldn’t do the job” argument. The job of a midwife is to bring to birth live babies not destroy them. 

Did you read the article before linking it?! It proves my point; she was punished for her pro-life stance and the University had to backtrack and are now bring pursued for an apology and compensation. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/student-midwife-forced-to-suspend-studies-over-pro-life-views
 

and before someone uses the “she couldn’t do the job” argument. The job of a midwife is to bring to birth live babies not destroy them. 

The bit in bold is inaccurate at best. Helping birth babies is only a small part of the remit as these links make clear. The job of a midwife is to aid any woman in her reproductive decisions, whether that be to give birth or to abort where required/desired.

My job as a midwife, defending women's rights | MSI Reproductive Choices UK (msichoices.org.uk)

abortion-statement.pdf (rcm.org.uk) (From the Royal College of Midwives)

Termination of pregnancy | Womens Health | Royal College of Nursing (rcn.org.uk) (From the Royal College of Nursing)

Lead Nurse/ Midwife : Another job on . Midwives Jobs | Official Royal College of Midwives Job Board (nice, practical job link showing that midwives do indeed carry out abortion in some cases).

If your beliefs prevent you from doing part of the job, that's your problem. Now if they are willing to redesign the job to accommodate, then fine. If other staff are willing to swap around with you to accommodate so they do the abortions but you do jobs they don't like in return, then again, not an issue.  

But if you won't, and they can't, you're not fit for purpose.

[canarydan23 4,060]

12 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If your beliefs prevent you from doing part of the job, that's your problem.

Not in the case of midwifery, as your links demonstrate. A midwife is legally protected from any repercussions from their refusal to participate in a termination on moral grounds. And rightly so in my opinion. There is a whole galaxy of a difference between refusing to drive a bus because it's promoting Pride and refusing to terminate what you believe is a sacred, living being. It's why the law protects one but not the other.

Edited May 17, 2022 by canarydan23

[Naturalcynic 631]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

But if you won't, and they can't, you're not fit for purpose.

Another of the protected characteristics is disability.  Would you apply the same principles to that?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Not in the case of midwifery, as your links demonstrate. A midwife is legally protected from any repercussions from their refusal to participate in a termination on moral grounds. And rightly so in my opinion. There is a whole galaxy of a difference between refusing to drive a bus because it's promoting Pride and refusing to terminate what you believe is a sacred, living being.

I'm not convinced at all on that, but fair enough. Then again, I have the exact same stance for doctors who won't carry out certain surgeries (especially those who won't carry out tubal ligations on women / vasectomies on men when requested) but that will knock the discussion onto a totally different tangent so no need to go further there.

The primary crux of those links was to dispel the lie that all midwives do is birth babies. They have been involved in abortions for a very long time.

3 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Another of the protected characteristics is disability.  Would you apply the same principles to that?

False equivalence. One is due to inability due to self-imposed belief systems, the other is due to chance.

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

A womans body is her own and I could not give a rats carcass about pro life arguments.
End of argument.

 

[C.I.D 302]

8 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

The most remarkable thing in this story is that there have been thousands of comments & tweets in the media and no-one has called him Jack.

 

Probably haven't got the bottle 😉

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'm not convinced at all on that, but fair enough. Then again, I have the exact same stance for doctors who won't carry out certain surgeries (especially those who won't carry out tubal ligations on women / vasectomies on men when requested) but that will knock the discussion onto a totally different tangent so no need to go further there.

The primary crux of those links was to dispel the lie that all midwives do is birth babies. They have been involved in abortions for a very long time.

Indeed they have, and even those who make a conscientious objection to termination must still assist women before and after the procedure or rightly face punishment or dismissal. And they can't argue that it's somehow against their religious beliefs, even Catholics, as Pope Francis stated that the sinner must come before the sin.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Indeed they have, and even those who make a conscientious objection to termination must still assist women before and after the procedure or rightly face punishment or dismissal. And they can't argue that it's somehow against their religious beliefs, even Catholics, as Pope Francis stated that the sinner must come before the sin.

I fundamentally agree with that first sentence - we do seem to agree on that part in terms of facing punishment or dismissal. I suppose Popes can see some matters a bit differently though, Francis looks more liberal in many matters than Benedict, who struck me as much more fundamentalist.

[canarydan23 4,060]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I fundamentally agree with that first sentence - we do seem to agree on that part in terms of facing punishment or dismissal. I suppose Popes can see some matters a bit differently though, Francis looks more liberal in many matters than Benedict, who struck me as much more fundamentalist.

Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air compared to Benedict. Sadly they tend to swing between extremes; John Paul II was quite a liberal Pope, Benedict followed and was (is) very conservative, then very liberal (for a Pope) Francis will likely be followed by someone horrible.

I'm sympathetic towards pro-lifers, at the end of the day if you believe a several weeks old foetus is a sentient being, you're hardly going to advocate for allowing it to be terminated, or in their eyes, killed. But as a man it's not my place to dictate what a woman does or doesn't do in that situation. Personally if I got a woman up the duff and she wanted rid of it for reasons other than threat to life if the pregnancy continued, I wouldn't give her my blessing to terminate and would pledge to take care of the child, entirely on my own if needs be (the minor parts of carrying it and giving birth aside!), but wouldn't hate her if she still elected to abort. So I guess I'm a bit of a fence sitter.

But I agree with the laws of the land that a midwife should be free to refuse direct involvement in a termination and not be punished.

Edited May 17, 2022 by canarydan23

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

24 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air compared to Benedict. Sadly they tend to swing between extremes; John Paul II was quite a liberal Pope, Benedict followed and was (is) very conservative, then very liberal (for a Pope) Francis will likely be followed by someone horrible.

I'm sympathetic towards pro-lifers, at the end of the day if you believe a several weeks old foetus is a sentient being, you're hardly going to advocate for allowing it to be terminated, or in their eyes, killed. But as a man it's not my place to dictate what a woman does or doesn't do in that situation. Personally if I got a woman up the duff and she wanted rid of it for reasons other than threat to life if the pregnancy continued, I wouldn't give her my blessing to terminate and would pledge to take care of the child, entirely on my own if needs be (the minor parts of carrying it and giving birth aside!), but wouldn't hate her if she still elected to abort. So I guess I'm a bit of a fence sitter.

But I agree with the laws of the land that a midwife should be free to refuse direct involvement in a termination and not be punished.

Re. the middle bit, I'll keep it ultra-short as it would be a monstrous derail (mebbe you could start a new thread in non-football?) but if you've not followed Guttmacher Institute statistics on unplanned/insufficiently planned pregnancies, and statistics on condom use amongst men, I'll simply say my stance in that matter is less amenable to compromise than yours.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 hour ago, Nexus_Canary said:

A womans body is her own and I could not give a rats carcass about pro life arguments.
End of argument.

 

Utterly simplistic non-argument.

[canarydan23 4,060]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Re. the middle bit, I'll keep it ultra-short as it would be a monstrous derail (mebbe you could start a new thread in non-football?) but if you've not followed Guttmacher Institute statistics on unplanned/insufficiently planned pregnancies, and statistics on condom use amongst men, I'll simply say my stance in that matter is less amenable to compromise than yours.

I've not heard of that, unless it's that study that pretty much proved a link between a massive and sudden reduction in crime figures in the US 16-21 years after Roe v Wade. Essentially, the criminals were no longer being born!

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

Utterly simplistic non-argument.

 

A womans body is her own. How much more simple do you need it?
When you know someone who has been assaulted and does not want to carry that baby to term come back and spout that inhumane poison. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by Nexus_Canary

[Monty13 2,234]

36 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air compared to Benedict. Sadly they tend to swing between extremes; John Paul II was quite a liberal Pope, Benedict followed and was (is) very conservative, then very liberal (for a Pope) Francis will likely be followed by someone horrible.

I'm sympathetic towards pro-lifers, at the end of the day if you believe a several weeks old foetus is a sentient being, you're hardly going to advocate for allowing it to be terminated, or in their eyes, killed. But as a man it's not my place to dictate what a woman does or doesn't do in that situation. Personally if I got a woman up the duff and she wanted rid of it for reasons other than threat to life if the pregnancy continued, I wouldn't give her my blessing to terminate and would pledge to take care of the child, entirely on my own if needs be (the minor parts of carrying it and giving birth aside!), but wouldn't hate her if she still elected to abort. So I guess I'm a bit of a fence sitter.

But I agree with the laws of the land that a midwife should be free to refuse direct involvement in a termination and not be punished.

Majority of us are fence sitters Dan.

It’s why thankfully in this county we have a fairly sensible approach to abortion IMO.

The problem with people who just say a “woman’s body is her own” without thinking of the logical issue with that is that the idea that a woman could terminate a pregnancy at any stage it’s inside her is abhorrent (although some extremists advocate that).

That’s why legally it isn’t her own past a certain point.

The only logical area of debate for me is simply one of where that line is drawn, and it can only be a minor move in either direction due to the consequences.

People are free to believe what they want as long as it doesn’t negatively affect those that don’t in my opinion.

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

6 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Also I agree with your picture above. I wouldn’t dream of forcing gay people to become Christian. But why doesn’t it work the other way around? Today Christians must endorse homosexuality or be hammered. Tolerance can’t be a one way street 

As a Christian you have every right to say, you think being gay, is wrong, those that disagree with that have every right to call it bigoted.

Ps Nurses who refuse to do legal procedures have no right to be in hospitals putting at risk patients.

Thankfully we have laws that restrict bigotted views.