Diversity Schmeristy
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
leggedstruggle  Croydon 31 Jul 15 1.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 31 Jul 15 1.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Blame the Queen, its an exception by Royal Decree, based on the fact that Sikhs in military service were not required to wear helmets. At the time there was a history of discrimination against Sikhs in the Midlands around their religious practice of wearing turbans and uncut hair. The decree allows anyone with religious grounds or requirements exemption from the 1976 Act. However that individual must be wearing that religious headwear at the time (ie Sikhs are only exempt if they are wearing a turban).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 The Sash  Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 31 Jul 15 1.46pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 31 Jul 15 1.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 31 Jul 15 3.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life, well, to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? The elderly heating allowances or free travel ? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.40pm)
As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 31 Jul 15 3.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm) Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 31 Jul 15 3.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 3.41pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm) Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment. Only in some... Absolutely wheelchair access is about rights - a right, up to very recently that was one that was not generally provided and certainly not legally enforceable to be catered for. So what you are saying that difference and needs should be recognised for minority groups just not all minority groups ?? Who is the arbiter for the deserving and underserving then ? Its is precisely why we have legislation that allows a balanced interpretation of who gets what and why - what's permissible and what's not, what breaks the law, what has a detrimental affect on others etc etc etc Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 4.05pm)
As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 31 Jul 15 3.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life, well, to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? The elderly heating allowances or free travel ? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.40pm) Lazy scroungers, every one of them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnfirewall 31 Jul 15 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
We're not really set up for situations with gays not being able to buy cakes, or Muslims/Jews not being able to buy Halal/Kosher meat, or men in drag being allowed to go in the ladies toilets if everyone has their rights and everyone else has the right to take offence. In the past, a landlord would refuse to rent a room to a black man, an irish man or dog with the two gentlement being upset and the dog being very fortunate to be oblivious, with everyone else going about their business. Now we're in a better time, but the reluctant landlord, the racist neighbour and the dog are pissed off, along with a lefty meddler who has overheard argument and Tweeted about it thus enraging the rest of society.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 31 Jul 15 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.56pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 3.41pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm) Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment. Only in some... Absolutely wheelchair access is about rights - a right, up to very recently that was one that was not generally provided and certainly not legally enforceable to be catered for. So what you are saying that difference and needs should be recognised for minority groups just not all minority groups ?? Who is the arbiter for the deserving and underserving then ? Its is precisely why we have legislation that allows a balanced interpretation of who gets what and why - what's permissible and what's not, what breaks the law, what has a detrimental affect on others etc etc etc Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 4.05pm) You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. Certainly not all minority groups. I Don't see why we have to pander to various religions' superstitions. Similarly I don't see why we have to pander to the sexual mores of various minority groups causing the prosecution of others. I certainly don't think we should turn a blind eye to child rape gangs and inciters of terrorism due to their unofficial 'right' of being able to get away with it because law enforcers are afraid of appearing racist.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 31 Jul 15 4.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 4.36pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.56pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 3.41pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm) Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment. Only in some... Absolutely wheelchair access is about rights - a right, up to very recently that was one that was not generally provided and certainly not legally enforceable to be catered for. So what you are saying that difference and needs should be recognised for minority groups just not all minority groups ?? Who is the arbiter for the deserving and underserving then ? Its is precisely why we have legislation that allows a balanced interpretation of who gets what and why - what's permissible and what's not, what breaks the law, what has a detrimental affect on others etc etc etc Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 4.05pm) You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. Certainly not all minority groups. I Don't see why we have to pander to various religions' superstitions. Similarly I don't see why we have to pander to the sexual mores of various minority groups causing the prosecution of others. I certainly don't think we should turn a blind eye to child rape gangs and inciters of terrorism due to their unofficial 'right' of being able to get away with it because law enforcers are afraid of appearing racist. You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. No having seats on a bus is not a right
You don't. Just leave people to live their lives without being discriminated against. The way to avoid prosecution is to not break the law. People aren't allowed to open shops that only serve white people or men or heterosexuals
And no one else does either. The few councils involve deserve all of the s*** that falls upon them for the decisions of a handful of people
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 31 Jul 15 4.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Sedlescombe at 31 Jul 2015 4.43pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 4.36pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.56pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 3.41pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 3.17pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.59pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 1.46pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 1.23pm
Quote The Sash at 31 Jul 2015 12.05pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 31 Jul 2015 7.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.33pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 4.26pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 3.11pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 30 Jul 2015 1.14pm
Quote The Sash at 30 Jul 2015 12.32pm
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.29pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Jul 2015 11.53am
Quote fed up eagle at 30 Jul 2015 12.49am
Quote johnfirewall at 29 Jul 2015 11.44pm
Quote fed up eagle at 29 Jul 2015 10.57pm
For me Diversity is reverse racism. It gives ethnics and black people the chance to exclude white people and stick the boot in. It also gives them the chance to bang on about things that happened hundreds of years ago like the slave trade and blame us for what our ancestors did. The whole diversity industry should be banned/outlawed along with political correctness and all that other PC b**ls**t. The concept of 'misappropriation' is often used to aid this exclusion. It can allegedly cause distress to those whose cultures are being 'misappropriated' but I personally think that's all utter b0ll0cks. I hate middle-class people hanging out in Peckham in sportswear emulating poor people and would like to exclude them back to suburbia but this has fcuk all to do with the fact that they are white people, in a black area that was previously white so I don't accept that people can have a valid gripe over someone doing something that other races usually do. Granted, the UKIP guy's Calypso song was more offensive than Boy George, or Ali Campbell, or Sting, The Clash etc. but the notion of misappropriation didn't exist then, while racism obviously did. I despise Trustafarians and I'm pretty upset that I can't take issue with them misappropriating my culture but I'd rather have universal tolerance than see white people with the wrong hairstyle being cast in to the same pit as the Black & White Minstrels Edited by johnfirewall (29 Jul 2015 11.45pm)
Edited by fed up eagle (30 Jul 2015 12.53am) My problem is with people who think that diversity is about giving more rights to groups they dislike, rather than actually applying the same legal rights. What disturbs me most is how easily people seem to jump on the idea that giving say gay citizens the same rights as straight people is somehow wrong.
They use it as a platform for demonising certain elements of society, complementing their own divisive ends and downright exclusion The soppy tart at Goldmsiths being a prime example Apart from people being sacked for using the word 'black' in the wrong context,carte blanche for certain 'communities' to organise child abuse gangs, the right of certain 'communities' to carry knifes and be excused from wearing crash helmets, the right of gay activists to prosecute people who decline to make cakes supporting same-sex 'marriage' even though it is illegal in the region in which the bakery is., the 'right' of certain communities to praise and encourage terrorism.
You mean the ones who took the reservation, and then refused them the room because they were gay. That's not more rights, that's the same rights as everyone else. The beliefs of owners are not covered by free speech or expression, as a business may not discriminate in the provision of services or goods. If its a Christian only business, it should advertise itself specifically as such. As a business owner, you have legal obligations to treat customers reasonably and fairly. I have a small business, I'm a service provider, the law is pretty clear that once I engage in business or contract, my personal beliefs are not a basis for breaking that agreement, without consequence. A B+B is not a Christian organization. Its a place that offers bed and breakfast. Is the right of Sikhs to not wear crash helmets whereas non-Sikhs would be fined or banned, the "same rights as everyone else"? Religious rights. Christian church's can dispense wine without being licensed, even to minors. I also suspect that it applies to any white Sikhs. So you agree that minorities are given rights over and above those of the majority. But they aren't 'over and above' - some may be different depending on situation, type of organisation etc etc etc but minority groups getting more than their fair share - nah How is Sikhs being excused crash helmets not 'over and above'? Couple of things.. Seriously ???? That's not 'over and above' - its a slight loosening of the law (as Jamie has pointed out below) which recognises a deep cultural and religious belief. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims et al also have similar looser or different interpretations applied to some law around the practices of their religions - I think someone pointed out earlier, strictly speaking in law churches should have an alcohol licence - but they don't and are not required to do so. Are they above and beyond - of course not. Secondly, how does the fact that someone, on religious grounds doesn't haven't to wear a helmet should they adhere to other criteria affect anyone other than the rider himself ? f*** me, anyone NOT wearing a helmet on a motorbike may as well bash their own skull open and save themselves the time.
Any 'over and above' rights given to Christians are wrong too. The fact is obvious - minorities are given rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority of the population - yet you and Jamie deny it.
To apply a logic that dictates we should all be exactly the same and treated exactly the same in every single facet of life well to follow that line you might as well question.... Why should those lazy wheelchair users get ramps ? Why should the blind get a cheap TV licence? They are minorities who are getting something 'above and beyond' too... Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 3.19pm) Providing wheelchair access is nothing to do with rights, it is merely providing facilities. Similar to facilities for children, older people, male and female toilets etc. Cheaper TV licences for blind people is more problematic - deaf people pay full price for example. My previous postings were in answer to Jamie and those of a similar ilk who maintain that minorities do not get rights over and above the majority. They do, often for religious reasons, which should not happen and causes resentment. Only in some... Absolutely wheelchair access is about rights - a right, up to very recently that was one that was not generally provided and certainly not legally enforceable to be catered for. So what you are saying that difference and needs should be recognised for minority groups just not all minority groups ?? Who is the arbiter for the deserving and underserving then ? Its is precisely why we have legislation that allows a balanced interpretation of who gets what and why - what's permissible and what's not, what breaks the law, what has a detrimental affect on others etc etc etc Edited by The Sash (31 Jul 2015 4.05pm) You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. Certainly not all minority groups. I Don't see why we have to pander to various religions' superstitions. Similarly I don't see why we have to pander to the sexual mores of various minority groups causing the prosecution of others. I certainly don't think we should turn a blind eye to child rape gangs and inciters of terrorism due to their unofficial 'right' of being able to get away with it because law enforcers are afraid of appearing racist. You might as well say having seats on buses is a 'right'. No having seats on a bus is not a right
You don't. Just leave people to live their lives without being discriminated against. The way to avoid prosecution is to not break the law. People aren't allowed to open shops that only serve white people or men or heterosexuals
And no one else does either. The few councils involve deserve all of the s*** that falls upon them for the decisions of a handful of people
Religious groups are granted 'rights' over and above those enjoyed by the rest of the population. A bakery in Northern Ireland (where same sex marriage is illegal) was prosecuted for refusing to produce a cake in support of same sex marriage. It therefore appears that gay rights extend to forcing people to express support for something that is in itself illegal.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.