Wow, the hubris of the SNP GE campaign now knows no bounds. I have always got annoyed on here when ever I have seen SNP supporting posters arrogantly telling posters from other parts of the UK that they don't have a clue about Scotland. In over a decade of posting on this site, I have had heaps of folk challenge or disagree with my comments. But never once have I had anyone tell me I don't have a clue about England, Wales or NI when I discuss general politics in an attempt to undermine or dismisses my arguments and ban me from the debate!! But now we have a new phenomena, a claim that the other Scottish political parties up here don't have a clue about Scotland, and despite the fact these folk are Scottish and live in Scotland?! Welcome to the cult of the SNP, and one where no scrutiny or criticism is tolerated inside or outside their party ranks.
Not only are the SNP not Scotland, their current divisive policies are causing huge division among fellow Scots. So lets translate Dair's attempt to dismiss the elephant in the room when it comes to the other Scottish parties attacking Sturgeon and the SNP on the issue of another Independence Referendum. Sturgeon like Miliband has had a very real Achilles Heel in this GE campaign, and for Sturgeon its been her inability to rule out the looming threat of an other Independence Referendum. Its also worth pointing out that tonight in the Scottish Leaders debate, Sturgeon has now moved on from her threats of voting down a Conservative Minority Government in favour of imposing a Labour minority Government to now threatening to vote down a Labour minority budget if she didn't get want she wants in return.
But in both these scenarios, there is only one Westminster/UK wide outcome, total economic chaos and instability while a wee women in Bute House who is not even elected to Westminster tries to make unrealistic demands. Now it doesn't take a genius to realise that is an extremely worrying ransom position for all parts of the UK to be placed in right now. Sturgeon's biggest mistake tonight was to threaten to take her baseball bat to the UK economic recovery who ever was in charge at Westminster, and with it a clear and present threat of another Indy Ref as soon as next year if the SNP are re-elected. Right now, the SNP have not only split Scotland via the Indy Referendum, they are going to keep opening these raw wounds at the GE and Holyrood next year.
They really, really don't get it about a Second Referendum on this Debate and in their campaigns.
Do they block out the polls mentally? Rely on the Daily Records Comfort Reporting of questions about another Referendum?
It's actually getting moronic. They are gifting votes to the SNP and it can only be based on none of the other parties have a clue about Scotland. It's also insulting to the electorate to think they can't understand how big a Baseball Bat not ruling out another Referendum is.
Law should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Nobody should, within reason, be prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. But nobody should be compelled by law based on a religion that they don't share.
Yet people *are* prevented by law from practicing their own religious choices. Being forced to photograph or provide cakes for gay weddings under threat of legal sanction is a good example; being unable to turn away unwanted custom in guest houses and so on.
Freedom of choice remains a chimera in the UK and we are all the poorer for that.
Tough. Religion is subservient to the law not superior to it. That's why I said you should be free within reason to act on your own principles. Breaking the law is outside of those limits. If you want to discriminate illegally then don't run a company that isn't allowed to.
Does that mean that a mosque should be obliged to hold a gay wedding?
Should the Catholic church be obliged to ordain female priests?
They just wanted to be left alone to run their business.
Well, that's not really how it works, is it? You cant just run a business how you please. You have to comply with the relevant rules and regulations. I mean they might want to prepare their food without washing their hands first but that's not on. They might want to discriminate against certain sections of society but nowadays the law often wont allow that either.
They just wanted to be left alone to run their business.
Well, that's not really how it works, is it? You cant just run a business how you please. You have to comply with the relevant rules and regulations. I mean they might want to prepare their food without washing their hands first but that's not on. They might want to discriminate against certain sections of society but nowadays the law often wont allow that either.
Well, yes, actually it is. Thanks to Obamacare, which made businesses - even the Catholic Church - effectively provide free contraception to its employees.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Several states have put laws into effect giving standing to businesses who feel their religious beliefs are being trampled on. Several companies have gone to court and won on the religious freedom issues of Obamacare.
It was such a law in Indiana which started the pizza fuss.
The new guy at Sporting Index charged with introducing some interesting political markets for the General Election, certainly has an active imagination with the likes of "Night of the Long Knives", "What's that Tory, mourning glory?", "Labour Pains", and "Libs to the slaughter".
The only one of interest value-wise for my money is "Labour Pains" where a sell at 24 looks OK with 5 of the 10 named Labour MPs appearing all but certain to retain their seats, thereby ensuring a maximum score of 25 and on that basis a maximum probable loss of just one unit. Of the other 5 MPs, 2 look certain to lose their seats and the other 3 are toss-ups, these being Dumfermline & West Fife, Edinburgh South and Renfrewshire South. Should one of this trio win, the make-up score would be 20 for a profit of 4 units, 2 winning would produce a M-U of 15 and a profit of 9 units and if all three won the M-U would be 10 for a profit of 14 units. Not a bad bet with any potential losses in prospect appeating to be minimal, but probably not enough on the profit side of the equation to tempt me, although in the unlikely event of Ed Balls losing at Morley & Outwood, I would stump up my losses to Sporting with considerable glee. As ever, DYOR.
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
Religion and pizza have nothing to do with each other. Should a restaurant be able to say no blacks, no Irish? If not I fail to see why it should be allowed to say no gays.
Wow, the hubris of the SNP GE campaign now knows no bounds. I have always got annoyed on here when ever I have seen SNP supporting posters arrogantly telling posters from other parts of the UK that they don't have a clue about Scotland.
They really, really don't get it about a Second Referendum on this Debate and in their campaigns.
Do they block out the polls mentally? Rely on the Daily Records Comfort Reporting of questions about another Referendum?
It's actually getting moronic. They are gifting votes to the SNP and it can only be based on none of the other parties have a clue about Scotland. It's also insulting to the electorate to think they can't understand how big a Baseball Bat not ruling out another Referendum is.
Fret not.
Remember how the Nats told us we 'didn't understand Scotland' in the run up to SindyRef?
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
I read what you wrote.
This is about companies having to adhere to the rules and regulations that apply to them. They cant cry out "I want to be left alone".
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
Religion and pizza have nothing to do with each other. Should a restaurant be able to say no blacks, no Irish? If not I fail to see why it should be allowed to say no gays.
The nub of the argument in Indiana and other states - using the pizza store merely as an example - is that anyone who walks into the pizza store, be they black, Native American, gay, straight or anything else is entitled to be served. Not doing so is an offense.
Merely serving someone in the store does not involve the pizza store with any challenges to their religious beliefs. They would probably not know if the customer was gay anyway. Even if they did, merely selling them pizza does not compromise any religious beliefs.
If however they were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would now be involved directly in an event which goes against their religious beliefs.
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
I read what you wrote.
This is about companies having to adhere to the rules and regulations that apply to them. They cant cry out "I want to be left alone".
They can if they feel it impinges on their religious beliefs, and we have a constitution that says so.
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
I read what you wrote.
This is about companies having to adhere to the rules and regulations that apply to them. They cant cry out "I want to be left alone".
They can if they feel it impinges on their religious beliefs, and we have a constitution that says so.
Someone should tell Mike Pence:
"The law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.”
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
I read what you wrote.
This is about companies having to adhere to the rules and regulations that apply to them. They cant cry out "I want to be left alone".
They can if they feel it impinges on their religious beliefs, and we have a constitution that says so.
Isn't the principle pretty simple?
If you offer a service to the public, you don't get to pick & choose which members of the public you serve.
If you don't want to do gay weddings - don't do weddings.
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
Religion and pizza have nothing to do with each other. Should a restaurant be able to say no blacks, no Irish? If not I fail to see why it should be allowed to say no gays.
The nub of the argument in Indiana and other states - using the pizza store merely as an example - is that anyone who walks into the pizza store, be they black, Native American, gay, straight or anything else is entitled to be served. Not doing so is an offense.
Merely serving someone in the store does not involve the pizza store with any challenges to their religious beliefs. They would probably not know if the customer was gay anyway. Even if they did, merely selling them pizza does not compromise any religious beliefs.
If however they were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would now be involved directly in an event which goes against their religious beliefs.
Hence all the religious freedom laws.
Hence why I said and I repeat: tough.
The rules and regulations prevent discrimination.
If the religion said not to serve an interracial wedding should that be allowed? Should all regulations become optional if someone claims following them is against their religion?
Really? Businesses are free to ignore any and all rules and regulations in going about their work? I've heard of light touch regulation...
I think you need to read what I wrote before replying.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
I read what you wrote.
This is about companies having to adhere to the rules and regulations that apply to them. They cant cry out "I want to be left alone".
They can if they feel it impinges on their religious beliefs, and we have a constitution that says so.
Isn't the principle pretty simple?
If you offer a service to the public, you don't get to pick & choose which members of the public you serve.
If you don't want to do gay weddings - don't do weddings.
Exactly. All these ridiculous attempts to skirt around the law should be treated with the contempt that they are. You have freedom of religion within the law not freedom to break the law if you so please.
The Bible gives repeated instructions to kill in certain circumstances in the old testament but anyone who did so would still be a murderer and not exercising their first amendment rights.
All these ridiculous attempts to skirt around the law should be treated with the contempt that they are.
The law is different in different places. If we were talking about the UK 20 years ago discriminating against gays in the provision of goods and services was perfectly legal. I suspect the same is true of Arkansas today.
Unfortunately for the pizza joint in Indiana the law doesnt allow them to discriminate there.
Comments
Not only are the SNP not Scotland, their current divisive policies are causing huge division among fellow Scots. So lets translate Dair's attempt to dismiss the elephant in the room when it comes to the other Scottish parties attacking Sturgeon and the SNP on the issue of another Independence Referendum. Sturgeon like Miliband has had a very real Achilles Heel in this GE campaign, and for Sturgeon its been her inability to rule out the looming threat of an other Independence Referendum. Its also worth pointing out that tonight in the Scottish Leaders debate, Sturgeon has now moved on from her threats of voting down a Conservative Minority Government in favour of imposing a Labour minority Government to now threatening to vote down a Labour minority budget if she didn't get want she wants in return.
But in both these scenarios, there is only one Westminster/UK wide outcome, total economic chaos and instability while a wee women in Bute House who is not even elected to Westminster tries to make unrealistic demands. Now it doesn't take a genius to realise that is an extremely worrying ransom position for all parts of the UK to be placed in right now. Sturgeon's biggest mistake tonight was to threaten to take her baseball bat to the UK economic recovery who ever was in charge at Westminster, and with it a clear and present threat of another Indy Ref as soon as next year if the SNP are re-elected. Right now, the SNP have not only split Scotland via the Indy Referendum, they are going to keep opening these raw wounds at the GE and Holyrood next year.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Several states have put laws into effect giving standing to businesses who feel their religious beliefs are being trampled on. Several companies have gone to court and won on the religious freedom issues of Obamacare.
It was such a law in Indiana which started the pizza fuss.
The only one of interest value-wise for my money is "Labour Pains" where a sell at 24 looks OK with 5 of the 10 named Labour MPs appearing all but certain to retain their seats, thereby ensuring a maximum score of 25 and on that basis a maximum probable loss of just one unit. Of the other 5 MPs, 2 look certain to lose their seats and the other 3 are toss-ups, these being Dumfermline & West Fife, Edinburgh South and Renfrewshire South. Should one of this trio win, the make-up score would be 20 for a profit of 4 units, 2 winning would produce a M-U of 15 and a profit of 9 units and if all three won the M-U would be 10 for a profit of 14 units.
Not a bad bet with any potential losses in prospect appeating to be minimal, but probably not enough on the profit side of the equation to tempt me, although in the unlikely event of Ed Balls losing at Morley & Outwood, I would stump up my losses to Sporting with considerable glee.
As ever, DYOR.
This is to do with the Pizza store and its religious views. That's it. I never mentioned anything about businesses being able to ignore any rules and regs.
Remember how the Nats told us we 'didn't understand Scotland' in the run up to SindyRef?
How did that turn out for them?
This is about companies having to adhere to the rules and regulations that apply to them. They cant cry out "I want to be left alone".
Labour calls on Tories to 'come clean' over Lynton Crosby
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-04/labour-calls-on-tories-to-come-clean-over-lynton-crosby/
Merely serving someone in the store does not involve the pizza store with any challenges to their religious beliefs. They would probably not know if the customer was gay anyway. Even if they did, merely selling them pizza does not compromise any religious beliefs.
If however they were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would now be involved directly in an event which goes against their religious beliefs.
Hence all the religious freedom laws.
"The law does not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples.”
If you offer a service to the public, you don't get to pick & choose which members of the public you serve.
If you don't want to do gay weddings - don't do weddings.
The rules and regulations prevent discrimination.
If the religion said not to serve an interracial wedding should that be allowed? Should all regulations become optional if someone claims following them is against their religion?
The Bible gives repeated instructions to kill in certain circumstances in the old testament but anyone who did so would still be a murderer and not exercising their first amendment rights.
Unfortunately for the pizza joint in Indiana the law doesnt allow them to discriminate there.