Banned for your beliefs

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

4 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

I'm not Chicken, but I'll have a go if that's OK. We should fight against oppression of any kind, even oppression of those who wouldn't fight for us or perhaps even hate us.

The position is almost certainly naive, but I think it's an honourable one.

What, like we fought against oppression of women's rights in Afghanistan for a while and then walked away to leave them to the Taliban? How far do you want to go with these fights?

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[yellow hammer 114]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I would say the onus is always on those making the claim. They're claiming it's a "sin", "inferior", "deviant", or something where it shouldn't be tolerated. They're the ones claiming to have the framework saying it's "sinful" or "deviant" (usually falling back on their main book), so they need to demonstrate it.

What people like myself are saying is, from past experience, we very much doubt they've got anything at all to substantiate it. And if it cannot be substantiated, does it deserve to be respected?

I would back away from people making an argument on that kind of basis because of the reasons you give, that there is not much substance behind it. However, if someone was coming at this from a more quantifiable angle I would be happy to listen to their reasoning.

What worries me is that we are going to see this kind of clash-of-culture issues popping up much more frequently in the future.

[canarybubbles 2,149]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What, like we fought against oppression of women's rights in Afghanistan for a while and then walked away to leave them to the Taliban? How far do you want to go with these fights?

Surely that's a different issue? I'm not being antagonistic here, but I don't really see the connection.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

12 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Surely that's a different issue? I'm not being antagonistic here, but I don't really see the connection.

it's another issue supporting individual human rights to live their lives with access to equal opportunities, free from persecution, harrassment, and oppression. Different group; same principle.

Point is, if you're actually fighting people to support rights and protect people from persecution then that's one thing; bullying people to conform to pushing a particular view against their own conscience in a society with some of the highest standards of legal minority protections in the world as with the footballer is simply a different form of oppression.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 5,176]

1 hour ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

So every single living thing on this planet has homosexual behaviours, fine. Don’t dispute it. 

But the key part is, animals and other species do not choose to not reproduce. Being gay is making that choice and that does go against primal instinct.

I'll let my gay friends with children know they have chosen not to reproduce. Although it may come as a shock to the kids that they don't exist.

[chicken 3,008]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It is a political campaign i.e. a campaign to promote certain attitudes and behaviour in society. Stop trying to brainwash people otherwise.

You need to read up on the word 'toleration', an imortant concept in the harmonious function of liberal societies, especially one that supposedly embraces multiculturalism; many cultures don't approve of homosexuality.

We're not talking about other cultures though, we are talking about the French culture and the British culture. Not only that, we are not just talking about homosexuality.

The pride flag still doesn't represent a campaign. Just like the English flag doesn't represent a campaign.

You are trying to argue the case, hard, that it does so that it fits the argument you want to make rather than making it about the actual situation and discussion. Just the same as you continue to make it just about homosexuality.

But if we're on that subject, our society accepts it is legal and that homosexual marriage is legal. They are recognised as rights. The UN human rights act identifies homosexuality as a human right. As such this country, and France have ruled that anyone living in their nations don't have to "approve" of homosexuality but the country does and it's a legally binding approval that is internationally recognised.

You are free to "not approve" but if you try to silence any stance that is attempting to include those minorities - you have gone beyond disapproving. Equally, there are plenty of places where those disapprovals can be expressed, but if you expressed them in a public place in the UK, in a way that was discriminatory - some of which we have actually seen on this thread by the way, you can be arrested and charged for hate crime.

As I said before, this player could have said that he did not wish to where a shirt that supported such inclusivity because some of that community offend his chosen deity, the club/football association have a choice then to either provide a shirt without it for him or inform him that he will have to make a choice to play in the shirt as is or not play. Of course, we don't know whether this happened or not.

In either case what you are proposing is not a "liberal society" but one without laws or boundaries... anarchic. Shouldn't all groups be equally accepted? Shouldn't there be no need for such symbols and logos because everyone no matter of their identifying traits are accepted for who they are? How on earth do you think that we will achieve a true "liberal society" when you still have people with anti LGBTQ+ views? 

Edited June 1 by chicken

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

We're not talking about other cultures though, we are talking about the French culture and the British culture. Not only that, we are not just talking about homosexuality.

 

How many different cultures are entertained within the United Kingdom? How many minority cultures within our society hold very conservative views on sexuality? Do you wish to force all of them to stand up publicly in support of the LGBT cause? If not, why not ?What value is there to forcing people to making gestures like this in societies with some of the highest standards of protection of rights in the world while gay people around the world outside of our domains have their rights violated daily?

 

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[SwearyCanary 1,315]

4 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Isn’t a message board designed for discussion? Why is somebody holding a different opinion to you simply stirring in your eyes? Would you rather it simply be an echo chamber?

As for your Burger King example, that doesn’t really work in this scenario. He hasn’t said anything homophobic, he simply doesn’t want to be associated with a cause of somebody else’s choosing. I think it’s a sad reflection that many feel somebody should be punished for not joining a cause. 

How about if Burger King sold fries in a rainbow themed bag. Do you think an employee could refuse to sell people fries as a result and not be told to go home? 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

4 minutes ago, SwearyCanary said:

How about if Burger King sold fries in a rainbow themed bag. Do you think an employee could refuse to sell people fries as a result and not be told to go home? 

Interesting point. It makes a strong argument for commercial entities being banned from political messaging.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 3,008]

56 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

I stopped reading at this part. “Clearly” no, your opinion backed up by nothing.

It is. Evolution. Nature allows for not all of a species being able to produce, or to survive to an age where it can reproduce. As well as to mitigate that a certain % will end up as food for predators etc. It's fact old bean.

See, as humans, we have transcended much of that by advancing "tools" so far that the only real natural predator we ALL face on a daily basis is other humans. That and disease. Humans are the most dangerous things to other humans.

And as I already stated, many gay folks still reproduce. Nature, as it stands, doesn't require or need for every male human to produce at least a single child offspring. It hasn't done for centuries. In fact, men are less important to the human species than women in that sense. Very easy to demonstrate too. If you lost two thirds of this countries men suddenly to a rare disease impacting only men, the country would recover on it's own just fine. If the same happened but the other way around, problems occur. Either you have to start incentivising families to have more kids or you have to positively discriminate allowances for migrants coming into the country.

So like I say, nature has an inbuilt mitigation. The population of the world hasn't struggled and as homosexuality is mentioned in the bible and by the Romans and Greeks before the bible was written, we know that LGBTQ+ has been around for as long as there have been written records of anything going back thousands of years.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 858]

2 hours ago, yellow hammer said:

If one was born gay, then that would pre-suppose there is a gay gene. And if there was a gay gene then it would then be possible, after a bit of research, to switch off the gayness characteristic and everyone could be born heterosexual.

Now just imagine the explosion of outrage that would be visited on the idea of 'fixing' everyone who might be born gay. The accusations of eugenics would be heard once again. The rights of people to be as they were born would be held up as an unassailable human right. As a society we would hardly be able to manage the fallout and eventually, I think we'd come to the conclusion that messing around with genes that determine one's sexual attraction just isn't worth the bother.

If you were going to mess around with genes might as well just give everybody the Bi gene, decrease loneliness and reduce the number of single occupancy homes by doubling the chances of everybody finding a life partner. 

[mrD66M 149]

2 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

But the key part is, animals and other species do not choose to not reproduce.

Ahem... homosexuality has been observed in many animal species, sometimes even when there are "straight" mating partners available.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Stereotypes. Lazy.

Edited June 1 by mrD66M

[JonnyJonnyRowe 858]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Interesting point. It makes a strong argument for commercial entities being banned from political messaging.

Is it political though?

Take religion out of the equation and does this argument exist?

Feels like politics is talking the heat for religions or problems. 

If a club had a Labour Party logo on their shirt that would be a different proposition. Nobody will see the 'Anti Homophobia Party' on their ballot papers on 4th July. 

[chicken 3,008]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Interesting point. It makes a strong argument for commercial entities being banned from political messaging.

How does that work in a "liberal society"?

Lets say it's a restaurant. The restaurant is run by an LGBTQ+ couple. They want to make their restaurant a safe space for people from their community so put up a poster that displays the pride flag and says "you are welcome and loved" underneath.

Isn't it their liberal right to express that? They are a "commercial entity" but it's their business.

What if the decision to display the pride logo is part of a co-operative where all members unanimously support it and say it echo's their beliefs?

And once more - it is NOT political messaging. Otherwise we will be back to the very plain signage of days gone by the simply stated "Blacks and Irish welcome" outside.

Sounds very much like a "liberal but only where I say so" society.

And I hate to point this out but I will anyway, Norfolk is not known for being particularly liberal (outside of Norwich especially), nor particularly modern or ethnically diverse.

Lastly, this happened in Monaco, a principality in France. Shouldn't your liberal stance be arguing why the hell we are debating something that is in a different country where they have their own cultural and societal norms that may not translate to our own?

[yellow hammer 114]

12 minutes ago, chicken said:

In either case what you are proposing is not a "liberal society" but one without laws or boundaries... anarchic. Shouldn't all groups be equally accepted? Shouldn't there be no need for such symbols and logos because everyone no matter of their identifying traits are accepted for who they are? How on earth do you think that we will achieve a true "liberal society" when you still have people with anti LGBTQ+ views? 

I am of the opinion that LGBTQ+ should not be lumped together into one group as they are two different things.

There should one group LGB - which is founded on the principles of sexual attraction and another group T+ - which is founded on the principles of sexual identity.

Sexual Attraction is not the same as Sexual Identity, and treating them as the same causes problems.

I do not accept the Trans movement as it currently exists, for one reason. The claim that Trans women are women. Now I worked for a number of years in Thailand where Trans people exist in mainstream society. I had two Trans people working for me, so I am no transphobe. The difference is that in Thailand, if you ask a trans person if they are a woman, one hundred per cent of the time, they say  'no, I am a khatoey', which translates into Trans person and not woman. So if the Trans movement in the west wish to become mainstream accepted then as far as I am concerned they must first drop the claim of being women.

[Midlands Yellow 4,592]

Some thought provoking views on this thread. Interesting reading through it all and it cured my insomnia hour last night. 

[Nexus_Canary 1,162]

18 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cm553l77m5zo

Does anybody else find this type of behaviour by the French league to be very authoritarian. You don’t have to agree with the players opinion (and I don’t) but to ban a player for not wanting to participate in a movement that they don’t want to be a part of I find very troubling. Believe what we believe or we’ll punish you doesn’t seem very befitting of a free, tolerant society in my eyes

I think when it comes to tolerance - be it religious, sexuality or race there are no excuses. Be tolerant or do not be involved very simple.
its one thing covering up something to do with alcohol or gambling but he deserved the ban. Its not a case of believe what we believe its a case of following the ethos of your employer - which in this case is tolerance.

Long and the short of it - life is too short to be a bigot of any nature. 

 

 

[chicken 3,008]

4 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

I am of the opinion that LGBTQ+ should not be lumped together into one group as they are two different things.

There should one group LGB - which is founded on the principles of sexual attraction and another group T+ - which is founded on the principles of sexual identity.

Sexual Attraction is not the same as Sexual Identity, and treating them as the same causes problems.

I do not accept the Trans movement as it currently exists, for one reason. The claim that Trans women are women. Now I worked for a number of years in Thailand where Trans people exist in mainstream society. I had two Trans people working for me, so I am no transphobe. The difference is that in Thailand, if you ask a trans person if they are a woman, one hundred per cent of the time, they say  'no, I am a khatoey', which translates into Trans person and not woman. So if the Trans movement in the west wish to become mainstream accepted then as far as I am concerned they must first drop the claim of being women.

Two issues here, you've left off Q altogether and it is possible to be both trans and gay.

Also your entire paragraph is based around trans people who have transitioned from men to women. There are women to men as well. And not only that, there are trans who go completely through transition and those who don't. For example, in Thailand, many don't. So if you are asking them if they consider themselves women whilst they retain male genitalia, for example, it may not be culturally surprising for them to say they are not women.

Also, there are some trans people who do identify as trans and not male or female in the UK. Some trans people identify as asexual amongst many other things.

It's complicated and also important which is why as a society it is important for us to explore through genuine discussion, the way as a society we go forwards finding ways that we can be as inclusive as we possibly can whilst protecting the path of progress made with laws. 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

19 minutes ago, chicken said:

How does that work in a "liberal society"?

 

Companies aren't people; they're organisations for the production/sale of goods or provision of services; they have no part to play in shaping society outside of input regarding democratic decision-making regarding commercial considerations.

Their employees, on the other hand, do have rights and shouldn't be coerced by their employers to behave according to the views of the company's management.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 3,008]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A) Companies aren't people; they're organisations for the production/sale of goods or provision of services; they have no part to play in shaping society outside of input regarding democratic decision-making regarding commercial considerations.

B) Their employees, on the other hand, do have those rights and shouldn't be coerced by their employers to behave according to the views of the company's management.

A) So what you are saying is that a group of people in any setting, decide to support something they feel strongly about they are not permitted to do so through their work? For the sake of this argument "group" will mean two or more people.

B) Burger King again, they'll owe me advertising fees at this rate. I am pretty sure their policy is to serve all customers equally. If a (for sake of argument) couple of chaps enter the restaurant and approach to order food holding hands and having shared a peck on their journey to the till, is it ok or not for an employee to refuse to serve them based upon their personal beliefs? 

Edited June 1 by chicken

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

So what you are saying is that a group of people in any setting, decide to support something they feel strongly about they are not permitted to do so through their work? For the sake of this argument "group" will mean two or more people.

That's correct. Which fits perfectly well with the fact businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against people regarding who they provide services to, regardless of religious views, race, sexual preference, etc.

What people support in their spare time is up to them.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

A) So what you are saying is that a group of people in any setting, decide to support something they feel strongly about they are not permitted to do so through their work? For the sake of this argument "group" will mean two or more people.

B) Burger King again, they'll owe me advertising fees at this rate. I am pretty sure their policy is to serve all customers equally. If a (for sake of argument) couple of chaps enter the restaurant and approach to order food holding hands and having shared a peck on their journey to the till, is it ok or not for an employee to refuse to serve them based upon their personal beliefs? 

Regarding the point B you added, that's already covered in my previous answer; the company is required by law to serve them; it's not a matter of the employer making a special demand of the employee.

[chicken 3,008]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's correct. Which fits perfectly well with the fact businesses aren't allowed to discriminate against people regarding who they provide services to, regardless of religious views, race, sexual preference, etc.

What people support in their spare time is up to them.

I am afraid old chap that the country would cease to be able to operate.

I hate to point it out but politicians are at work, they are paid. What is more, political parties make money, they are businesses. What's more local councillors are too as is local government.

Most charities and organisations are businesses that offer consultancy or advice as well as training etc.

You'd essentially be saying the only wheels of progress would be confined purely to entities purely using only someone's personal time. Which also rules out things like legal challenges etc. There are groups who exist purely to fund legal challenges to laws etc even just to highlight how unexclusive they are.

Religions are businesses too. So you know, sorry Imam's, Priests, Vicars - the big boss upstairs may have written texts etc but you are not allowed to preach them within your work hours, those services must be held post 5pm, outside your place of work.

[chicken 3,008]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Regarding the point B you added, that's already covered in my previous answer; the company is required by law to serve them; it's not a matter of the employer making a special demand of the employee.

So the law is to treat everyone equally. It is ok for the business, whatever it may be to impress that upon it's employees - but it is not ok for that business or any business to put that in writing or display imagery that might suggest that they support that law?

Eg, back to the restaurant with two owners putting up a poster saying everyone is welcome accompanied by symbols that represent all people straight or otherwise? 

Edited June 1 by chicken

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

8 minutes ago, chicken said:

I am afraid old chap that the country would cease to be able to operate.

I hate to point it out but politicians are at work, they are paid. What is more, political parties make money, they are businesses. What's more local councillors are too as is local government.

Most charities and organisations are businesses that offer consultancy or advice as well as training etc.

You'd essentially be saying the only wheels of progress would be confined purely to entities purely using only someone's personal time. Which also rules out things like legal challenges etc. There are groups who exist purely to fund legal challenges to laws etc even just to highlight how unexclusive they are.

Religions are businesses too. So you know, sorry Imam's, Priests, Vicars - the big boss upstairs may have written texts etc but you are not allowed to preach them within your work hours, those services must be held post 5pm, outside your place of work.

That's utter nonsense. The presence or absence of rainbow flags on burger boxes doesn't have any impact on the flow of commerce. Politicians are public servants employed by the public to represent them politically and act on their behalf.

Charities are not commercial entities; they're non-profit organisations  that cross heavily into the political arena, many of which will campaign politically according to the social purpose of the charity. ; it's very unlikely that anyone would either work for or volunteer for a charity that went against their personal values anyway. People who object to the purpose of the charity will not work for it in the first place.

Religions also are not commercial entities; in fact you'll find that they all will be entitled to provisions regarding charities.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

12 minutes ago, chicken said:

So the law is to treat everyone equally. It is ok for the business, whatever it may be to impress that upon it's employees - but it is not ok for that business or any business to put that in writing or display imagery that might suggest that they support that law?

Eg, back to the restaurant with two owners putting up a poster saying everyone is welcome accompanied by symbols that represent all people straight or otherwise? 

Businesses have every right to impress on their employees their legal obligations; they have no right to force them to promote political views they may not agree with.

If a restaurants owners put up signs saying everyone's welcome then that's a nothing statement; they are legally required to make everyone welcome. A restaurant putting up a sign saying they won't serve Jews because of Gaza would be breaking the law.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 3,008]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's utter nonsense. The presence or absence of rainbow flags on burger boxes doesn't have any impact on the flow of commerce. Politicians are public servants employed by the public to reresent them politically and act on their behalf.

Charities are not commercial entities; they're non-profit organisations  that cross heavily into the political arena; it's very unlikely that anyone would either work for or volunteer for a charity that went against their personal values anyway.

Religions also are not commercial entities; in fact you'll find that they all will be entitled to provisions regarding charities.

Sort of. Charities might be non profit but it doesn't make them "not-for-profit". It's another topic at the moment that often gets discussed as charities are murkier than you'd think.

For examples, a lot of Private Schools set up their own charities that pay into the school. The charity might be non-profit but it is set up to pay into a very profitable system. In many cases it's to take advantage of tax relief on donations to charities and knowing that their pupils come from wealthy families. That's just one example.

Some charities are set up directly by corporate bodies so the body itself can donate to charity to get tax relief.

Then there is the entire sponsorship of charities to promote PR and again tax relief. And as you say, they can be political in some way, shape or form, so businesses shouldn't be allowed to promote those either - so none of those Tesco blue token things, or charity collection boxes etc.

[SwearyCanary 1,315]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Interesting point. It makes a strong argument for commercial entities being banned from political messaging.

Think we are just going to have to agree to disagree that it is political messaging. That’s not what I was saying (ans well you know) and you can try to twist it to your viewpoint, but as I say, that’s where our viewpoints won’t ever converge. Commercial entities can market their products essentially how they want within reason and money talks, so if it led to a mass protest and downturn in sales then they’d have their answer. Either way it is a theoretical scenario. I acknowledge you will suggest it is an argument over free speech for you, but it does seem in my opinion to be a thinly veiled subtext to your personal views on LGBTQ. I may be wrong and I also acknowledge you have previously strongly argued against other popular viewpoints, like Smith being sacked - you were dead against that I recall. Perhaps your motivation is just to have an argument, like the reason people get drunk and have a scrap on POW on a Friday night but more middle class in nature?

Either way, I think the debate has run its course for now. No need to reply (unless you can’t hear not to have the last word, in which case I’ll let you have it) 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,058]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

Sort of. Charities might be non profit but it doesn't make them "not-for-profit". It's another topic at the moment that often gets discussed as charities are murkier than you'd think.

For examples, a lot of Private Schools set up their own charities that pay into the school. The charity might be non-profit but it is set up to pay into a very profitable system. In many cases it's to take advantage of tax relief on donations to charities and knowing that their pupils come from wealthy families. That's just one example.

Some charities are set up directly by corporate bodies so the body itself can donate to charity to get tax relief.

Then there is the entire sponsorship of charities to promote PR and again tax relief. And as you say, they can be political in some way, shape or form, so businesses shouldn't be allowed to promote those either - so none of those Tesco blue token things, or charity collection boxes etc.

They're not businesses.

Edited June 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[chicken 3,008]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Businesses have every right to impress on their employees their legal obligations; they have no right to force them to promote political views they may not agree with.

If a restaurants owners put up signs saying everyone's welcome then that's a nothing statement; they are legally required to make everyone welcome. A restaurant putting up a sign saying they won't serve Jews because of Gaza would be breaking the law.

Right so the difference for you is some words. If the logo on the shirt simply said everyone is welcome over the Pride flag it's fine? Or if it was on the a banner outside/inside the stadium?

It's also ok to impress legal obligations upon employees but it's not ok for their uniforms to in any way reflect those legal obligations because that's "promoting political views"?