www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... uples.html Given that a charity must operate within its charitable objects, this seems a wierd thing for the Charity Commission to argue. I assuume (not checked) that the Catholic charity's objects will involve observance of Catholic philospophy. If that's the case aren't the Charity Commission likely to cause the trustees of this (and maybe thousands of other charities) to have to breach their objects (and thereby potentially lose their charitable status)?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... uples.html Given that a charity must operate within its charitable objects, this seems a wierd thing for the Charity Commission to argue. I assuume (not checked) that the Catholic charity's objects will involve observance of Catholic philospophy. If that's the case aren't the Charity Commission likely to cause the trustees of this (and maybe thousands of other charities) to have to breach their objects (and thereby potentially lose their charitable status)?

No not really.

You can't hide behind beliefs in order to circumvent the law as an individual or as a business - I might believe that I can drive perfectly well on ten pints of lager but it doesn't make it any less illegal, my opinion or belief is irrelevant as is the church's particularly as their belief is not founded on any morsel of technical or scientific fact that they could have offered the courts int hese past five years.

That was not the point I was making.

If the Charity Commission can help to remove some unpalatable bigotry from the world, then no, it isn't stupid.

You can't say bigot, it's a nasty horrible word (even when totally justified, as it is in this case), apparently.

It's difficult to see who wins out of this case.

I guess it's like saying "candyman" 5 times, say the word and your local neighbourhood bigot pops up!

You seem to be saying that a charity should be allowed to keep its charitable status as long as it stays within its own remit.
Would I be allowed to set up a charity that only dealt with adoption by gay couples? No, I would not and for exactly the same reasons.

Quite apart from that, the Catholic charity is being uncharitable.
If it would take its head out of its backside, it would realise that.

That'll be because of the hugely uncharitable anti-gay blinkers you choose to wear, apparently justified by a wilfully gross misconstruance of a double translation of something that someone 2000 years ago might or might not have remembered correctly someone else having said decades earlier.

I see where you're coming from, but the fact is they [iare[/i being charitable, it's just that they are acting within the consciences of their benefactors.

I fail to see who exactly benefits from this ruling. The agency is likely to close. The children, many of whom are difficult cases, will undoubtedly suffer through this further lack of provision. Whilst all the time gay couples, who wouldn't have been able to use the service anyway, are no better off.

Let me repeat this: Less children finding placements. All so that the same number of gay parents can adopt as before.

And all in the name of equality

Nonsense.
The "charity" can continue, it just can't be a registered charity or enjoy the benefits of social approval and tax breaks.

Hopefully the children, who can be sent to a loving home without having someone prejudiced and ignorant deciding what's best for them.

A bigot will never know when he/she is a bigot.

Oh the irony: [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9650627/Catholic-Church-accuses-Stonewall-of-intolerance-over-bigot-prize.htmlCatholic Church accuses Stonewall of intolerance over bigotry prize[/url

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said Stonewall's announcement last night "reveals the depth of their intolerance and willingness to attack and demean those who don't share their views."

Is this a joke?

LOL



And and explanation of why Stonewall nominated the Cardinal..



Intolerance, willingness to attack and demean, intimidatory tactics, how does that phrase go "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ???

Bigot of the Year is fairly tame compared to what some would use...

As I intimated in the OP there is a wider issue here. The Charity Commission is now suggesting (arguably in contravention of charity law) that Christian charities may not be entiteled the charitable status. They have had a 7 year battle with the Plymouth Bretheren. There is a feeling (expressed in yesterday's Sunday Times) that the charity commission is effectively acting on behalf of the Hampstead Heath liberal set rather than the wider public. This is a grave issue that goes to the very heart of our society and its tolerance. The gay minority (less than 1.5%) and so called Mentoploitan liberals are steamrolling the mainstream and shout "bigot" whevever they are questioned. They are a danger to democracy, a danger the freedom of speech and ultimately a danger to freedom. Luckily, I have faith in the silent majority - who have shown throughout history that when pushed too far they can be an unruly lot who can stamp on unfairness.

I think the Charity Commission is pushing it and suspect they will hit an Establishment backlash at some point - and rightly so.

So you are quite happy to have religious sects remain unchallenged and unaffacted by discrimination law in anythign they do, basically remain above the law as long as they can state "Its our belief" ?

What is happening is the result of a couple of decades worth of decline in organised religion in this country and a new questioning of exactly what it is they provide to our society for their tax breaks and their ability to ride rough-shod over discrimination laws that would have any other business severely reprimanded, fined and probably ruined.

If their opinion is that discrimination law is wrong and should not apply to them, then they shoudl simply say so and we'd all know where we and they stand, instead they try and defend their opinions and attack the ones who are pointing our their failings, they are simply not accustomed to being questioned for blind allegience is the only way to join their exclusive little clubs.

Are you happy that the gay "community" they have had large chunks of public money thrown at them because of their sexuality?

Are you happy that a few loud mouths can undermine people and insititutions by calling them "bigots" however well reasoned their views?

Are you happy that all religious organisations have huge amounts of public money thrown at them via tax exemptions (charitable status) and have been routinely consulted on matters of policy for some years, up to and including some religious leaders sitting in the House of Lords for no other reason than their role within their religion?

Any gay support group that is publically funded is funded because there is a requirement for them, if I tried to set up a support group for white middle class middle aged men with a decent income and two cars in the family, then I doubt that I'd get public funding, rightly so.

You can only have an all-inclusive society (if thats what you truly want) by including all sectors of that society and if a sector can prove that they are discriminated against then they SHOULD have public funding to campaign against it, and part of the campaigning is to draw publicity, which is exactly what the Bigot of the Year award is, a publicity stunt which worked.

Or not.
The issue is with the narrow-mindedness and lack of real charity that this "charity" has.


Not because they are christian, per se, but becuase they are restrictive.


Relevance?


Do give over.
Unless you can show us a representative poll, "there is a feeling" is meaningless.


This is the best bit.
Well, the funniest.
Defending bigotry (yes, I'm using that word again, whether you whinge about it or not) on the grounds of "tolerance" ... that really takes the biscuit.
Or wafer.

Less than 1.5 %? Where did you get that stat from?


If the cap fits, wear it.


Oooh, because people want to treat people fairly, the sky is going to fall in.


Do you include yourself in the "silent majority" ?




See comments above about tolerance, same applies regarding unfairness.


I think you'll find that the Charity Commission is actually an establishment body.

Oh, I'd missed Dally's comments about the Plymouth Brethren.



I had family who were in that particular denomination/sect.

Fundamentalists. The descendants of the Puritans.

He's doing what all the bigots do in this situation.

When you want to make the group seem small and insignificant qoute them at their lowest, in this case I'd guess people in same sex relationships.

When scare mongering throw in anyone who's homosexual, bisexual, anyone who's kissed the same sex in a game of spin the bottle and if you're really despesprate say abnormal or not biblical and you can add pedophiles, beastiality and necrophilia.

He's doing what all the bigots do in this situation.

When you want to make the group seem small and insignificant qoute them at their lowest, in this case I'd guess people in same sex relationships.

When scare mongering throw in anyone who's homosexual, bisexual, anyone who's kissed the same sex in a game of spin the bottle and if you're really despesprate say abnormal or not biblical and you can add pedophiles, beastiality and necrophilia.