Does it really matter how big or small a minority is? It could be just 2 people. The whole point of equality is that everyone gets treated the same way regardless.

I also find it funny when opponents of equality then go ahead and use equality in their own arguments. Their bizarre point of view being that because they hold a discriminatory view they have a right to discriminate because those who don't hold a discriminatory view have a right to not discriminate.

I loved Lord Grantham's comment on Downton Abbey last night, "My god, if I had a shilling for every boy who tried to kiss me at Eton I'd be a very wealthy man by now".

Couldn't help but think that the scriptwriter was having a lark at certain Government Minister's expense.

I got the percentage from a debate on the BBC (that well known homophobic institution!),

No one is arguing against that but why vociferous minorities (of all types) be setting the agenda in our country? It is unjust.

Taking your point to it's logical conclusion, if we have two sets of people in a tribal society with mutually exclusive views / beliefs and ones that simply cannot be accomodated by the other group of people how should the tribal elders decide whose views should prevail (assuming it is impossible for both sets of views to co-exist through strength of feeling)? If it's close to a 50% : 50% split, then they'd no doubt end in civil war. If it was more like 95 : 5% they'd have to find for the 95% otherwise the 5% would need to be banished from the tribe or face slaughter, In other words, wisdom would drive the elders and the 5% to toe the line.

If all they are wanting to do is be treated as the majority, no.

Well it depends who said it, in what context and if it's true not what platform.

So your solution is we should become more like cavemen?

No it isn't. A minority, vociferous or otherwise, has the right to be treated equally along with the majority. What is unjust is to discriminate against that minority.


Except that is not a logical conclusion. It's a batsh[ii[/it looney tunes conclusion. We don't live in a tribal society, we live in a modern, civilised (relatively) democracy.
Although I would agree that those who believe in discriminating against homosexuals should indeed realise they are in the minority and toe the line.
Discrimination against a minority is not a legitimate point of view that is to be somehow balanced against equality.

That could involve evolution for some on here - hey Mr Coddy?

The same principle applies though. When push comes to shove any legislature in a democracy will need to protect the majority if there are fundamental, irreconcilble differences. The reason I spelled it out in illustrative tribal terms was that some people can't see through the chaff of political correctness and indoctrination to the basic fundamentals. It is a fact that rights are granted by society as a whole (ie the majority in a democracy) and if those rights become seen as abused then they will be taken away.

But in this particular instance, which party is abusing its right to lobby for change, and how do the majority need to be protected from them ?

If we are trying to pretend that we live in a free society where homosexuals can freely go about their business without abuse or fear of prosecution (only recently granted), while at the same time being totally discriminated against by a registered charity purely for their sexual genre, then is this a free society, would you accept the same discrimination from Shelter for instance, or a hospice ?

The point I am trying to make is that religious charities have long-enjoyed charitable status (for long before the gay rights movement was even thought of). A charity must act within its objects. If those objects encompass a particular religious philosophy (and I am NOT saying that Catholic Care's objects say that) then such a charity's trustees would be wrong not to follow that philosophy as they would be acting outside their objects and so uncharitably.

No it doesn't, in that case the state needs to protect the minority. The majority doesn't need protecting, they are in the majority. Plus there aren't fundamental irreconcilable differences between the majority and the homosexual minority. There are fundamental differences between a minority who believe they should be allowed to discriminate, and the majority who believes in equality.
I'm glad you said that rights are granted by society (ie the majority in a democracy). The majority believes in equality and granted minorities (and everyone) the right of equality, it is only 1 minority (those who believe in discrimination v homosexuals) who, in this case, are opposed to the right of equality applying to another minority (homosexuals).
Exercising one's right to equality is not abusing the right to equality.

A charity cannot be allowed to act within its objectives if those objectives are illegal regardless of whether religious fundamentals state that they are perfectly acceptable.

A charity to promote the stoning to death of adulterers would share the same privileges as your example charity were that not the case.

Why would it be a joke? Stonewall are intolerant. They are intolerant of anyone else's position on gay rights. I remember their first act of controversy - as it was considered to be when they acted it out. They marched into a church service demanding equal rights for gay men within the church. If you think that's moderate or seeking the middle ground then you're deluded. Imagine now if a bunch of straight Catholic priests went marching into a gathering Stonewall found very important and dear to their hearts demanding their own point of view. Nobody here would class the Catholic priests as anything but intolerant.

Stonewall and the Catholic Church are two of the most intolerant and intransigent organisations around today. Neither backs down from their position and so both end up insulting each other, which does neither any credit and certainly doesn't win converts from the opposite side.

Both have valid points. Unfortunately neither is willing to accept that and work on finding a solution to their differences in a balanced way.

What a silly post. An organisation with such objects would not be granted charitable status in the` first place.

If I were the Charity Commission I would be looking closely at the Stonewall Equality Ltd charity just to be sure it is playing the game correctly.

Don't we? Surely we only need to look at sport to realise that actually tribalism is alive and kicking in our society. I think what we don't do is subscribe to a government based upon tribal lines although if you take a cursory look at the 1980s you may disagree with that statement.


I prefer nobody to have to 'toe the line' myself as that way lies totalitarianism. It is a healthy aspect of a free society that people are able to express their views, including their prejudices (perceived or real). After all, we all hold prejudices of some form or other.


All points of view are legitimate simply because they are just that: points of view.

Oh I don't know, all they would have to do according to your specification is to state in their opening paragraph "It is our deeply rooted and long held religious beliefs, as confirmed in the bible/koran, that ...." and then add whatever bat lunatic philosophy they wish at the end.

And your philosophy is less 'bat' I presume? After all, you'll have a philosophy. But your own prejudice and intolerance does not allow other people's to be seen as valid. Ironic really that you and those who take your kind of approach to the views of others are as intolerant and prejudiced as those you mock as being intolerant and prejudiced.

LOL at religion playing the persecution card...

And that is relevant to my post how?

You need to look up the definition of the term 'philosophy' if you think it relates only to religion.

No. We don't. If you think we do I'd suggest you think seriously about what the term "tribal society" actually means instead of bringing up irrelevant tosh.


There is nothing wrong with people expressing their views. But when they do they shouldn't be surprised when other people discuss that viewpoint. But "expressing views" is not the basis of this thread. If it were then you should be applauding Stonewall for expressing their view that certain people are bigots. When one minority is attempting to limit the rights of another it goes way beyond "expressing a view".


No, they are not. My view that York City are the best football club in the world is not a legitimate viewpoint and should be derided, not held up there as an equally valid viewpoint with someone who holds the view that Barcelona are the best club in the world. Neither may be 100% true or accurate or agreed to by many people. But it is undoubted which is a valid view and which is not.
In the same way that someone who thinks black people are an inferior race does not hold an equally valid view as someone who believes in equality.

All peoples are tribal. Tribalism is expressed in many ways in the UK. We just don't subscribe to a traditionally perceived tribal form of government.


I have no problem with Stonewall expressing their view. I have no problem with the Catholic Church expressing their view. I have no problem with views being expressed. In fact, I prefer views to be expressed, rather than repressed, even when they fly in the face of my own views.


Except of course you don't actually believe this, as would be evidenced by your reaction to considering the rights of paedophiles or maybe pyschopaths. Both are minorities but I am sure you would want to limit the rights of both groups.

The Catholic Church is not seeking to limit the rights of Stonewall. Stonewall is, however, advocating that the right of the Catholic Church to determine who should or should not be free to use the church's own adoption service should be limited to those whom Stonewall think should be free to use it. So in the case referred to in the OP, it is Stonewall who is seeking to limit rights and not the Catholic Church. Whether or not you or I agree with that right is irrelevant to the fact that Stonewall want to limit it.


In your view maybe but in mine, since I can't stand soccer and never watch it, your view about York City is as valid as someone else's about Barcelona. In addition, whether yours is the more accurate view or not is irrelevant to validity not least because the measure against which accuracy is determined may in itself be based upon a point of view. What makes the best team exactly? Number of trophies won? Style of play? Success at bringing through young players? Financial stability? Consistency?


Their view is valid because it is a view. However, I find it a disagreeable view to hold. I find lots of views disagreeable but I don't want them suppressed.

As a teacher I have a legal right to withdraw from teaching religious education in school just as a parent has a legal right to withdraw their child from being taught religious education at school. I like both those rights. They are fair and balanced. They recognise and respect the personal nature of faith but also the importance of that faith to the person adhering to it. Likewise, a GP has a legal right to abstain from offering advice on abortion based upon conscience. I like that right too because it recognises that GPs are involved in some very personal stuff which may cause trouble to their conscience. Conscience is a forgotten matter in contemporary society and that is a shame as remembering it could actually prevent a lot of pain for a lot of people.

I don't doubt that bigots exist within the Catholic Church. I don't doubt that bigots exist within Stonewall. Bigots exist everywhere that humans exist. However, a genuine matter of conscience is not bigotry. In my philosophy, the Catholic Church should be able to choose who uses their service in the same way as GPs should be free to follow their conscience on the matter of abortion and teachers on the matter of religious education.

So you are admitting we don't actually live in a tribal society.


Not at all. I think both groups should have exactly the same rights as everyone else.




are you serious? The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. That is limiting a minority's rights.
Stonewall are not trying to restrict who can use the Catholic Church adoption service, they are trying to widen who can use it beyond the Catholic Church discriminatory view. Enforcing equality is not discrimination against those who discriminate.
But nice swerve, since the 2 minorities in question are not Catholics or Stonewall but are those who discriminate v homosexuals and homosexuals.


No it isn't. Your lack of knowledge does not mean the 2 views are suddenly equally valid. The other stuff is irrelevant guff over the vague nature of the question not the validity of the viewpoints.


Once again, not all views are valid simply because someone holds one, and they certainly aren't all equally valid, holding some kind of moral balance or equivalence. To think that is simply ridiculous.
Once again, nice swerve. Nobody has talked about suppressing viewpoints. The only people who want to suppress anything is those who wish to suppress homosexuals right to equality.


Irrelevant guff.
Why does those people's consciences who discriminate against homosexuals override homosexuals rights to equality? Or the majority's conscience which says homosexuals should have equality?


Bull. In that case racist doctors can refuse to treat black people. That is why we have equality legislation which the majority agrees with.
Jefferson had it right - All men are created equal
Not - Only those who agree to our style of living are created equal