Muslim and Jews join gay-laws protest
BY STEVE DOUGHTY Last updated at 22:00pm on 3rd January 2007
 
 Prominent Muslims and Jews united with Christians yesterday to voice concern at laws boosting gay rights.

Churches are organising demonstrations next week against the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which are due to come into force in April.

Campaigners claim the rules will force religious groups to promote homosexual rights in contradiction to their teachings and could persecute those who disapprove of homosexuality on moral grounds.

Dr Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, yesterday urged Muslims to join protests against the "unjust" laws, including a torchlight parade in Westminster to coincide with a Lords debate next Tuesday.

And for the first time the Board of Deputies of British Jews voiced concern over the legislation.

The regulations, which are in line with EU requirements, will punish businesses and organisations which discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

Hotels which refuse to let double rooms to gay couples could, for example, be taken to court.

Christian campaigners fear churches which refuse to let out parish halls or conference centres to gay groups would face legal action, as could schools which fail to teach that homosexuality is equal to marriage.

The Church of England has complained that vicars who refuse to bless civil partnerships may be also targeted. And the Roman Catholic church has threatened to close its nine adoption and fostering agencies if they are forced to place children with homosexual couples.

The outcry has piled pressure on Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly - a devout Roman Catholic who is thought to have approved the regulations reluctantly - to rethink the legislation.

Dr Katme made his plea to Muslims in a letter circulated to several hundred supporters and 40 imams, who are expected to publicise the issue during Friday prayers. Urging Muslims to "join our Christian friends in their campaign against the new proposed law on sexual orientation", he said: "It is against our religious rights and against our human rights and against our conscience and religious beliefs to have this new unjust law forced on all of us British Muslims."

Dr Katme, a prominent figure in campaigns against abortion and the decline of traditional family life, warned that the new laws would require "Muslims and Christian believers legally to accept and appoint homosexuals or anyone with any sexual deviation in our Muslim institutions and centres, mosques, schools, clubs, companies, hotels, business, shops etc".

He urged supporters to carry banners which were "polite, sensible and on the issue only".

Nadia Lipsey, spokesman for the Board of Deputies - the representative organisation of British Jewry - said yesterday: "It must be possible for people to live their lives in the manner in which they choose as long as it does not impinge upon the rights of others.

"We hope that to this effect the regulations will be framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction."

Miss Kelly has yet to publish final details of how the regulations will work. However, similar proposals for Northern Ireland say anyone found guilty of discrimination will face fines of between £500 and £1,000 for a first offence and up to £25,000 for repeat "serious" offences.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, which is organising the London demo, said: "The regulations not only force people to assist and promote activities contrary to the historic teachings of their faith, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, but also censor them from speaking freely about their beliefs."

Is this bigotry or belief in your opinion? Is the legislation just or an infringement of human rights?

Quote from: Anthrobot"We hope that to this effect the regulations will be framed in such a way that allows for both the effective combating of discrimination in the provision of goods and services whilst respecting freedom of conscience and conviction."

That sounds awfully damn sensible to me.  They're not complaining about the idea of combatting discrimination:  they're against (what they fear will be) a ham-handed law that will achieve its goal only at the cost of other people's freedoms.  And they're cautioning everyone who supports them to stay on topic, to be polite?

That's not even about belief.  That's just plain good citizenship.

That's pretty much a textbook example of bigotry.

Quote from: AnthrobotIs this bigotry or belief in your opinion?

Both, their beliefs are bigoted.

That said, a carveout for religious groups shouldn't be too hard to draft I shouldn't have thought.

Just what I'd expect from the desert cults.

I'm interested to hear some elaboration from the folks who think that this is bigoted.  What's the argument here?  Are they not allowed to believe, in the confines of their own conscience and within the structure of their religious practice, that certain behaviors are wrong?

Now, personally, I disagree with them on what's right and what's wrong.  But I support their right to their own conscience, so long as they are working to balance its mandates with the rights of others to do likewise.

So I ask seriously:  Where do you draw the line, such that they are such a "textbook example" of bigotry?

Quote from: TonyLBThat sounds awfully damn sensible to me.  They're not complaining about the idea of combatting discrimination:  they're against (what they fear will be) a ham-handed law that will achieve its goal only at the cost of other people's freedoms.  And they're cautioning everyone who supports them to stay on topic, to be polite?

That's not even about belief.  That's just plain good citizenship.

That doesn't read as sensible to me at all.

"Pass all the laws on discrimination you want, so long as we're still allowed to discriminate."

Kind of defeats the purpose of trying to combat discrimination in the first place, don't you think?

And yes, I think their beliefs are bigoted.

When they came for the X, I did not complain, because I was not X...

What Tony is saying, I think, is that you are running into the situation where someone's behavioral "right" is running up against what here in America is considered one of the fundamental 1st Amendment rights - freedom of religion. So what happens when someone's religious belief is that homosexuality is wrong? Do you force someone with those beliefs to open up their private business even if it's against their fundamental religious belief?  Of course, you'll probably say "sure, they're bigots." But that's not really the question, is it?

Now we can all point to the optimistic view that we all agree that discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation is bigotry.  But what happens when they decide that discriminating against someone based on, oh, I don't know, political ideology is illegal? Will you be so ready to defend that? I doubt it. Would it be OK if we forced liberal think tanks to accept the membership of neo-conservatives? Hell no.

So it's all good as long as we can all point at "those desert cults" and agree to chastise them for their beliefs.  What happens when it's your belief under the gun?

I've stayed out of this and the majority rule thread, but there are certain truths about humans that you can't avoid.  You cannot control the way people think. Laws that try to do so only breed contempt.

And yet, there comes a point, where beliefs must step aside for the good of the rest of society.  

The Klan takes it as a matter of religious belief that black people are inferior scum.  Should we make legal exceptions for their lynchings?

Some cultures are so disgusted by femal sexuality that they will carve out a young girls' clitoris.  Should we make legal exceptions for them?  It is their beliefs after all.

"This is just what I believe" ceases to be a good excuse when it harms other people.

But more so than that, I think it is a matter of basic course that all people should be treated equally.  There's no physical harm in forcing all black people to drink from seperate fountains, but there's certainly a psychological harm in treating them like second class citizens.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd yet, there comes a point, where beliefs must step aside for the good of the rest of society.

And when they decide your beliefs have to be put aside for the good of the rest of society?  See, it's always easy when you agree with the toughts to be controlled; not so good when you don't.  

Quote from: J ArcaneThe Klan takes it as a matter of religious belief that black people are inferior scum.  Should we make legal exceptions for their lynchings?

Umm, lynchings? So you're equating some idiot refusing a room to someone in a hotel (the irony for Christians is too much!) to hanging someone from a tree? That's just - well - I expect more from you. You certainly aren't going to pass a law that people can't be bigots, are you?  How do you enforce it? How do you enforce it without becoming a horrific tyranny?

Quote from: J ArcaneSome cultures are so disgusted by femal sexuality that they will carve out a young girls' clitoris.  Should we make legal exceptions for them?  It is their beliefs after all.

Again - physical agression is the same thing? Come on, at least be serious in your attempt to debate.

Quote from: J Arcane"This is just what I believe" ceases to be a good excuse when it harms other people.

And telling someone they can't buy milk from your corner store is the same? How long will that business last?

Quote from: J ArcaneBut more so than that, I think it is a matter of basic course that all people should be treated equally.  There's no physical harm in forcing all black people to drink from seperate fountains, but there's certainly a psychological harm in treating them like second class citizens.

As Technomancer points out in the other thread, when it comes to public facilities and government services, absolutely.  It's a slippery slope when you start telling people how to think and act in their personal life.

Good for that legislation.  No, excellent for that legislation.  These religious groups should be ashamed of themselves.

There are certain truths that I believe are self-evident.  That nobody should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation is one of them.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd yet, there comes a point, where beliefs must step aside for the good of the rest of society.

Yes, there is ... and determining where that point is in a given instance is a fine purpose for polite, topical public debate.

Isn't that exactly what the folks being described in the article are trying to achieve?

As I said, I don't share their convictions, but I sure wish more people (both ones I agree with and ones I disagree with) were as willing to raise their concerns in a manner this productive.

Quote from: RedFoxGood for that legislation.  No, excellent for that legislation.  These religious groups should be ashamed of themselves.

There are certain truths that I believe are self-evident.  That nobody should be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation is one of them.

Amen.

I don't believe in a "right to discriminate".  

QuoteIsn't that exactly what the folks being described in the article are trying to achieve?

They're not interested in debate, they're interested in screaming and yelling until they get their way.  Demonstrations of this sort amount to childrens' temper tantrums.

*Shrug*

If churches don't want to be affected by laws on discrimination in the workplace, they have an option open in their own text...  They can cease to be a workplace.

I don't recall "Jesus said you will be paid for your time, and will organize as a fiscal hierarchy." anywhere.

Churches as bodies of believers are great.  Churches as institutions suck.

Quote from: J ArcaneAmen.

I don't believe in a "right to discriminate".

Ummm, wow.  So we are not free to think and act in a manner we choose as long as we are not involved in physical harm or fraud?

Quote from: J ArcaneThey're not interested in debate, they're interested in screaming and yelling until they get their way.  Demonstrations of this sort amount to childrens' temper tantrums.

Just curious - were you of the same thoughts about the demonstrations against the war in Iraq? How about the demonstrations in the US against illegal immigration?  How about abortion demonstrations? Anti-abortion demonstrations?

I thought screaming and yelling to try and get your way was exactly the kind of thing classical liberals want to see - it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.