Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Again ... missing the point by a country mile. Humanity dictates vs. Book dictates is trite, and not a choice anyone with a deeply held, sincere faith would recognise. I don’t know whether you were brought up without a faith or whether you’ve rejected one somewhere along the way, but your understanding of faith appears to be based on casually-held parodies. If that’s the case it’s unsurprising that this judgment has surprised you - our law and our most senior judges still have a more rounded and dare I say mature understanding of how faith works in individuals and communities, hence the result the Ashers won this week (which, IMO, was never in doubt once the case reached the Supreme Court - the law simply doesn’t legislate against moral objections to political causes, no matter how worthy you think those causes are).
|
I just realised a long time ago there is no god.
However, I understand many people need that belief and the fellowship they get from religion. Having deeply and sincerely held views.
What I do not agree with, is the use of that religious belief to treat people differently or less favourably. Societal expectations are just as bad, with such as a caste system holding people unfairly as somehow lesser.
The
idea that people who love one another should not be allowed to legally marry based on a book, or campaign to have that marriage accepted when it genuinely harms no one, I have great difficulty with.
The use of belief as reason to treat someone less favourably because of a political view, whilst agreed by the Supreme Court, also feels morally wrong.
In this case tit for tat has already started.