Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[scottycelt]

You're all wrong ... as usual!

[scottycelt]

As opposed to the Pope's pet agenda

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-conten...lintstones.gif

At least he can tweet in Latin ... so haud yer twittering wheesht, Flossie ...

[Flosshilde]

Which rather makes my point

[scottycelt]

Which rather makes my point

C'mon, Flossie, admit it ... you're only jealous you can't tweet in Latin.

[Flosshilde]

pipio

[scottycelt]

pipio

Ah, I see... you haven't even managed to tweet in English yet ...

https://twitter.com/pipioinc

[Flosshilde]

You know, Ams is perfectly right about you.

[AuntyKezia]

Reverting to msgs 120-122, I note that two of the European Court judges gave a dissenting opinion in the case of Lillian Ladele. They said that "a combination of back-stabbing by her colleagues and the blinkered political correctness of the Borough of Islington (which clearly favoured 'gay rights' over fundamental human rights) eventually led to her dismissal." They described her treatment as "discriminatory" and said "Instead of practising the tolerance and the 'dignity for all' it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness. It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience or face the extreme penalty of dismissal - something which ... cannot be deemed necessary in a democratic society."

[Flosshilde]

Reverting to msgs 120-122, I note that two of the European Court judges gave a dissenting opinion in the case of Lillian Ladele. They said that "a combination of back-stabbing by her colleagues and the blinkered political correctness of the Borough of Islington (which clearly favoured 'gay rights' over fundamental human rights) eventually led to her dismissal." They described her treatment as "discriminatory" and said "Instead of practising the tolerance and the 'dignity for all' it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness. It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience or face the extreme penalty of dismissal - something which ... cannot be deemed necessary in a democratic society."

Is the part I've highlighted your interpolation, or did the judges say that?

Either way, why aren't gay rights 'fundamental human rights'? It's a question of who's 'fundamental human rights' deserves more attention - those of people who might expect to be treated in the same way as anyone else, or those of people who think that their beliefs should allow them to treat some people as second-class citizens.

[AuntyKezia]

It's what the judges said.

[Flosshilde]

OK

[scottycelt]

Reverting to msgs 120-122, I note that two of the European Court judges gave a dissenting opinion in the case of Lillian Ladele. They said that "a combination of back-stabbing by her colleagues and the blinkered political correctness of the Borough of Islington (which clearly favoured 'gay rights' over fundamental human rights) eventually led to her dismissal." They described her treatment as "discriminatory" and said "Instead of practising the tolerance and the 'dignity for all' it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness. It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience or face the extreme penalty of dismissal - something which ... cannot be deemed necessary in a democratic society."

A rare breath of forum reasonableness ...

Modern Political Correctness = 'All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others'.

George O, you were not 'bonkers' as some 'emeritus professor' claimed on the Today programme only this morning, you got much of it pretty well right! (unfortunately).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9786000/9786626.stm

[Resurrection Man]

Is the part I've highlighted your interpolation, or did the judges say that?

Either way, why aren't gay rights 'fundamental human rights'? It's a question of who's 'fundamental human rights' deserves more attention - those of people who might expect to be treated in the same way as anyone else, or those of people who think that their beliefs should allow them to treat some people as second-class citizens.

Now we are not talking about the law if we start talking about 'fundamental human rights'. It seems to me that you are advocating that the fundamental rights of gays transcends the fundamental human rights of a Christian. Neither should be above other.

Your phrase 'should allow them to treat people as second-class citizens' is emotive, irrational and not based on any facts ....your own prejudices and value-judgements coming to the fore.

[Resurrection Man]

....
The legal and employment position is also that heterosexuals don't have the benefit of Civil Partnerships. These are exclusive to gays, and yet not a word about 'bigotry' and 'discrimination' from you and others here. There are no plans to change the law in this regard.

Does that, therefore, not automatically make you 'a bigot' and guilty of outrageous 'discrimination' just like myself ... ?

That's a damn good point you make, Scottycelt.

I am not surprised to see that it engendered much frothing at the mouth from the usual quarters. Quite amusing really. Leopards...spots. Remarkably blinkered and narrow-minded some folk.

[Barbirollians]

I see no reason why civil partnerships should not be available for couples of opposite sexes who do not wish to marry .

A lot of religious groups I imagine would regard it as more likely to undermine marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry.