Pope attacks Labours 'Equality' Law

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ality-law.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...tolerance.html

The Pope faces a wave of demonstrations over his planned visit to Britain in the wake of his condemnation of Labour's equality laws. Humanists, gay groups and academics last night joined politicians in criticising the Pontiff 's unprecedented intervention in domestic politics. The row will ramp up fears of angry protests greeting Benedict XVI when he arrives in the UK on a date - yet to be confirmed - later this year.

In a lecture to English Roman Catholic bishops in Rome on Sunday, the Pope described Harriet Harman's Equality Bill as 'unjust', restricting religious freedom and violating 'the natural law' - in other words, Christian teaching. Historians said it was the first direct intervention in British politics by a Pontiff in 300 years. For centuries, Popes have avoided any comments on domestic politics to free British Catholics from the smear that they are loyal to a foreign power.

The National Secular Society yesterday signalled it would organise protests among gay groups, feminists, pro-abortion campaigners and victims of sexual abuse by priests. Its president Terry Sanderson said: 'The taxpayer in this country is going to be hit with a bill of some £20million for the visit of the Pope. 'He has already indicated that he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.' Prominent gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: 'The Pope's criticism is a coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people.

Liberal Democrat equality spokesman Evan Harris said: 'Equality laws protect both Catholics and gay people from unfair discrimination, and in employment we are governed by exactly the same rules as Catholic Italy.' And Labour MEP Stephen Hughes said: 'As a Catholic, I am appalled by the attitude of the Pope. Religious leaders should be trying to eradicate inequality, not perpetuate it.' Benedict XVI's attack came as Miss Harman tries to convince Christian leaders that the Equality Bill will not damage their rights to refuse to hire gay staff or allow followers to disapprove publicly of gay lifestyles.

Benedict XVI said in his lecture that the effect of some equality legislation 'has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance-with their beliefs'. 'In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed,' he said. Miss Harman, in Cadiz for a conference of women's ministers, said: 'We have never insisted on non-discrimination legislation applying to religious jobs . . . however, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law.'

Somebody said on this forum the other day (forget username) that vote Labour, get equality. How is it equal for somebody to be hired over someone more qualified (a white, straight man) based on the colour of their skin, sexuality or race? (because thats what will happen, you get people complaining about how their being 'mistreated' hence lengthy court battles and so forth, companies are scared stiff) - I don't find that equal, I find that a disgrace. All these gay groups (why we need gay groups I have no idea, there goes the notion of seeking normality out the window) who have never been elected and don't represent the majority of gay people who just want to get on their lives need to preach gay rights with everything and condemn anything which has an opinion that differs to that of theirs as 'homophobic' really irritates me.

We now have a country which rewards people not by their merit, but by who they are and that is totally wrong. Its all good intentions (well it was), but will just stir up more hatred and anger and make the whole thing worse. If Harman ever becomes Prime Minister then we really are doomed.

Thoughts?

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Moderator): Thread closed as it has decended into arguments that do not add anything further to the thread.

[Technologic]

Religion does nothing but **** things up.

[GommeInc]

It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed.

Gay Equality Groups will exist for a very long time, because there are still barriers put infront of homosexuals which they find unjust. It will always happen, it's to knock prejudice walls down that exist or the odd error or misjudgement, for example a fight happening in a club where a gay man doesn't get justice for homophobic slurs, when the straight man is just given a slap on the wrist. Women still have groups for example over work hours and pay, and some men have groups where they want the right to have their children other than the women/ex-wife etc after a divorce or disagreement. Same goes for moderate drinkers and drug users, or workers who are let off or warned for what they believe in (wearing the crucifix for example).

The Pope doesn't live in modern day society, he has no reason to meddle. We have computers and Google, he has the Bible and God.

The Pope is just going to give the silent majority of Christians and other religions a bad name, when no-one particularly cares about him or his institution.

[Technologic]

It's common sense that someone who is more qualified and equipped for a job should have that job based on those principles and nothing else. All this crap about getting women or certain people in to do jobs for the sake of equality is stupid, irrational and a waste of time. So that's dismissed.

Gay Equality Groups will exist for a very long time, because there are still barriers put infront of homosexuals which they find unjust. It will always happen, it's to knock prejudice walls down that exist or the odd error or misjudgement, for example a fight happening in a club where a gay man doesn't get justice for homophobic slurs, when the straight man is just given a slap on the wrist. Women still have groups for example over work hours and pay, and some men have groups where they want the right to have their children other than the women/ex-wife etc after a divorce or disagreement. Same goes for moderate drinkers and drug users, or workers who are let off or warned for what they believe in (wearing the crucifix for example).

The Pope doesn't live in modern day society, he has no reason to meddle. We have computers and Google, he has the Bible and God.

The Pope is just going to give the silent majority of Christians and other religions a bad name, when no-one particularly cares about him or his institution.

And i tell you what, searching "homosexuality" on google is a hell of a lot more fun than searching it in the bible. :p

[GommeInc]

And i tell you what, searching "homosexuality" on google is a hell of a lot more fun than searching it in the bible. :p

There's a strong belief now that the mention of homosexuals in the Bible actually refers to rent boys, and it does kinda make sense

[ifuseekamy]

Harriet Harman is one of those politicians who wants to produce statistics rather than results. As long as people leave school with straight As and workplaces have black transexual muslims as the majority it's all good.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gay Equality Groups will exist for a very long time, because there are still barriers put infront of homosexuals which they find unjust. It will always happen, it's to knock prejudice walls down that exist or the odd error or misjudgement, for example a fight happening in a club where a gay man doesn't get justice for homophobic slurs, when the straight man is just given a slap on the wrist. Women still have groups for example over work hours and pay, and some men have groups where they want the right to have their children other than the women/ex-wife etc after a divorce or disagreement. Same goes for moderate drinkers and drug users, or workers who are let off or warned for what they believe in (wearing the crucifix for example).

Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone. These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general. Some people don't agree with homosexuality and believe its wrong, their opinion and they are fully entitled to it.

[dbgtz]

To what gommeinc said, being homophobic is no different to insulting someone normally (as an offense if you get my drift). There's always going to be people who don't like their choice of life, they should just go away and get on with their own.

Anyway religion has no power in our society, in a way extremist acts encourage us to be like "why should we listen to you?". Anyway the pope is dead, what's the point on him visiting anymore. In terms of religion I don't get why there is a pope? Yes a man must wear robes and tell people stuff like I supposedly did even though half of the bible was ripped off of willy wonka (sorry if that insults someone but I don't see how this exists and it's funny how it changes in conjunction to the time where over religions remain strong in pretty much all aspects).

Finally it could be worse, he could say gays should be killed or tortured for the wrong choice of life.

[GommeInc]

Nobody elected these militant groups, they are not accountable to anyone. These groups are nothing more than to flaunt it in everyones face, militant homosexuality just turns people against homosexuality in general. Some people don't agree with homosexuality and believe its wrong, their opinion and they are fully entitled to it.

Why do they need to be elected? They're clearly wanted if they've formed a group, and the majority of groups are not malicious. The group that's against the impression that all homosexuals are walking talking STDs (and so should not give blood/organs) are a peaceful group. And anti-feminist groups and feminist groups are (mostly) peaceful. If people have a problem, they put forward their objections. It's pretty narrow-minded of you to assume every single group needs to be elected, especially when you suggest that, for example, homosexual groups are malicious and are the reason for homophobia, when alot of these hgroups are against discrimination for things like homophobic remarks by an individual are let off lightly - hardly malicious or not needed, if you have no interest then you don't pay much attention :/

I think you've muddled up the word "group", believing that a group follows the same principals as Islam4UK and therefore assume all 'anti-' groups are malicious and useless, and not needed. Heck, suggesting this suggests that we must be happy with our current rules or governments. So yeah, no need for Labour to step down. We only need one party according to your logic, kinda shows seeing as you love the Daily Mail

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do they need to be elected? They're clearly wanted if they've formed a group, and the majority of groups are not malicious. The group that's against the impression that all homosexuals are walking talking STDs (and so should not give blood/organs) are a peaceful group. And anti-feminist groups and feminist groups are (mostly) peaceful. If people have a problem, they put forward their objections. It's pretty narrow-minded of you to assume every single group needs to be elected, especially when you suggest that, for example, homosexual groups are malicious and are the reason for homophobia, when alot of these hgroups are against discrimination for things like homophobic remarks by an individual are let off lightly :/

These groups do not represent me, people do not need to belong to a Gay Group or have gay views simply because they are homosexual. These groups have heavy influence on the government and the modern-day Conservative Party;- nobody asked me if they represent me but it seems they are instantly to be the representation of homosexuals. They are militant and turn people against homosexuals, these groups who organise what I find poor taste parades to flaunt their sexuality in the face of others - that turns people against homosexuals, like it or not.

I think you've muddled up the word "group", believing that a group follows the same principals as Islam4UK and therefore assume all 'anti-' groups are malicious and useless, and not needed. Heck, suggesting this suggests that we must be happy with our current rules or governments. So yeah, no need for Labour to step down. We only need one party according to your logic :/

UKIP are an anti-EU group so I really don't know where you have got this idea from, theres no point/logic you are making here. It is very simple, these groups do not represent the majority and have far too much power over government. If homosexuality is to be accepted, people need to stop thinking of themselves as homosexuals and think of themselves as individuals.