• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

It's perfectly expected to refuse to hire someone who is obviously not qualified for the job and who doesn't possess the necessarily personality traits to handle a multicultural environment. It's not okay to refuse employment based solely on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

This is a perfect example of why we have fireman who can't rescue people from a burring building.

If it is a private company they certainly can fire or not hire someone based on whatever reason they like. It is called freedom of choice.

Fortunately here in the US, we understand this.

No one is being forced to hire anyone. They're just being told that sexual orientation alone is not a valid reason to refuse someone employment when they are otherwise perfectly qualified for the job.

In most states in the US they have what is called "at will" employment. They can hire and fire for whatever reason they like.

This works.

I understand the concept of sin just fine. I grew up Catholic. As such, I was told to hate the sin and love the sinner. But, like everything else, they were just meaningless, empty words. As the reaction of the Pope himself proves, when it comes to gays, the new motto seems to be "hate the sin, hate the sinner, ostracize him/her". Too bad they don't feel the same about the bad apples in their midst. If they did, at least I could commend their consistency.

Obviously you don't understand.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

No idea. If they don't, can't they still discriminate? Anyone but gays, for instance.

I don't think they discriminate against anyone other than gays. But if they did, I don't think they should be granted special permission to do so. I believe discrimination is harmful to society and minorities should be protected. I can understand a stated preference for Catholic employees, but there's no valid reason to refuse a Jewish or Muslim doctor if he comes highly recommended. It can only benefit the hospital to have the best people on staff.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

I don't think they discriminate against anyone other than gays. But if they did, I don't think they should be granted special permission to do so. I believe discrimination is harmful to society and minorities should be protected. I can understand a stated preference for Catholic employees, but there's no valid reason to refuse a Jewish or Muslim doctor if he comes highly recommended. It can only benefit the hospital to have the best people on staff.

I agree it shoudln't be a special permission for Catholics. It should be consistently applied.

I think minorities should not be given special allowance. They should not be guaranteed jobs, that take those jobs from others more qualified (no affirmative action). If a firm wants to discriminate, it should be their prerogative. A government owned business (Universities, CIty hospitals, police, etc...) should not discriminate. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to take the more qualified gay doctor, then they can.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

This is a perfect example of why we have fireman who can't rescue people from a burring building.

If it is a private company they certainly can fire or not hire someone based on whatever reason they like. It is called freedom of choice.

Fortunately here in the US, we understand this.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm talking about hiring the best person for the job and you tell me about totally useless firemen? :confused:


In most states in the US they have what is called "at will" employment. They can hire and fire for whatever reason they like.

This works.

Obviously. It results in firemen who can't even do their job. Score. :lol:
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

I agree it shoudln't be a special permission for Catholics. It should be consistently applied.

I think minorities should not be given special allowance. They should not be guaranteed jobs, that take those jobs from others more qualified (no affirmative action). If a firm wants to discriminate, it should be their prerogative. A government owned business (Universities, CIty hospitals, police, etc...) should not discriminate. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to take the more qualified gay doctor, then they can.

I don't agree with affirmative action either. It's not needed anymore. I'm not talking about them being guaranteed jobs. If they're not qualified, they shouldn't get the job. Anti-discrimination laws aren't about making sure people get hired, they're about ensuring they stand the same chance as everyone else to get the job. In theory, of course. In practice, people will covertly discriminate regardless of the law.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Actually the 'Pope' is an elected office, he is elected by a conclave of his Peers, they being the Cardinals of this disgusting Religion.

That 'office' is elected to represent UK and create legislation? Well I'll be damned :roll:
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Have you ever refused to go on a date with someone? Have you ever avoided certain areas in London? Do you have a specific group of people you associate with, or do you become friends with every single person you meet?

No. Yes. No.

I see what you are getting at and I clarified it a bit more when discussing it with Ikari previously.
But to me the Pope seems to be defending discrimination and somehow deluding himself into demanding that religious institutions should be above the law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm talking about hiring the best person for the job and you tell me about totally useless firemen? :confused:

Female fireman could not lift the 150lb dummy up a flight of stairs and was not hired. She sued for discrimination and they had to hire her.

In the end the Fire Dept's had to lower their standards so they could hire more females.

Obviously. It results in firemen who can't even do their job. Score. :lol:

This is bull**** as we know now. :2wave:

All your kind of thinking on this does is lower the overall standards. It has come to the point that company's hire unqualified people because of the race or sex etc. It does the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Female fireman could not lift the 150lb dummy up a flight of stairs and was not hired. She sued for discrimination and they had to hire her.

In the end the Fire Dept's had to lower their standards so they could hire more females.

Or, on the opposite extreme, a number of men who PASSED a chief's exam were refused promotions because not one person who passed was black. That must have been the fault of the white men who passed, so they were punished.

New USSC Justice Sotomayor, famous for her talking latina vagina, ruled as an appellate judge, that this was clearly not discrimination. The Supreme Court overturned her ridiculous claim.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Female fireman could not lift the 150lb dummy up a flight of stairs and was not hired. She sued for discrimination and they had to hire her.

In the end the Fire Dept's had to lower their standards so they could hire more females.



This is bull**** as we know now. :2wave:

All your kind of thinking on this does is lower the overall standards. It has come to the point that company's hire unqualified people because of the race or sex etc. It does the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.

Well, if you'd given me the details from the start instead of being needlessly cryptic, we could have carried on a more useful conversation, don't you think?

Anyhoo, if your account is correct, it has very little to do with what I'm "trying to accomplish". My goal is not for unqualified people to be given any kind of undeserved preference in the hiring process. Quite the opposite in fact. The problem in your story is not the anti-discrimination laws, but the baffling stupidity of your courts. It boggles the mind that anyone so ridiculously unqualified for a position would not only sue but actually win the lawsuit. What kind of kangaroo court was that?

The protection against discrimination should never, ever mean protection against blatant unsuitability for a job. There is a world of difference between refusing to hire a woman who does not possess the required physical strength to handle her job and refusing to hire her simply because she's a woman. If she can't perform, then she shouldn't get the job and any judge that would rule that she should has got his head so far up his PC backside it's not even funny.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Well, if you'd given me the details from the start instead of being needlessly cryptic, we could have carried on a more useful conversation, don't you think?

It is a well known news story from years ago.

Anyhoo, if your account is correct, it has very little to do with what I'm "trying to accomplish". My goal is not for unqualified people to be given any kind of undeserved preference in the hiring process. Quite the opposite in fact. The problem in your story is not the anti-discrimination laws, but the baffling stupidity of your courts. It boggles the mind that anyone so ridiculously unqualified for a position would not only sue but actually win the lawsuit. What kind of kangaroo court was that?

It is the same for most court's in the world, as judges are just people. Prone to the same prejudices etc.

If we would just let private company's hire who they want, the whole problem would end.

We don't need the government to solve every problem we have. In fact like discrimination laws, they just aggravate it.

Affirmative action is a good example. Even before it was enacted blacks were making good in roads in the work places etc. With hard work and good grades, those first few overcame the racist obstacles. They set a good example for the community and accomplished more by themselves than Affirmative action ever did. Would it have taken a little longer overall? Yes. Would the outcome have been better? Absolutely. Instead of people like Collen Powell, having people say it was just affirmative action. They would be saying what a man.

All we have today because of it is unqualified people giving others a bad name.

Great job government.

So yes, people with the same "lets use the government to make it fair" attitude like yours are part of of the problem.

The protection against discrimination should never, ever mean protection against blatant unsuitability for a job.

And yet more often than not, this is exactly what it accomplishes.

There is a world of difference between refusing to hire a woman who does not possess the required physical strength to handle her job and refusing to hire her simply because she's a woman. If she can't perform, then she shouldn't get the job and any judge that would rule that she should has got his head so far up his PC backside it's not even funny.

I can say exactly the same thing about anti discrimination laws.
 
Last edited:
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

It is a well known news story from years ago.

I'd never heard of it. Must be that pesky ocean between our two continents. Not everything that hapens over there makes it over here.

In any case, I got curious and went looking for the story, but no matter how many different ways I googled it I couldn't find the case you're referring to. I found other related cases about gender discrimination and harrassment involving female firefighters, as well as allegations that recruiters were lowering their hiring standards or simply passing the female recruits even though they were clearly failing many of the physical strength tests. This was all due to some PC non-sense about quotas. None of which has anything to do with anti-discrimination laws, but more with affirmative action which I am not in favor of.



It is the same for most court's in the world, as judges are just people. Prone to the same prejudices etc.

If we would just let private company's hire who they want, the whole problem would end.

We don't need the government to solve every problem we have. In fact like discrimination laws, they just aggravate it.

Affirmative action is a good example. Even before it was enacted blacks were making good in roads in the work places etc. With hard work and good grades, those first few overcame the racist obstacles. They set a good example for the community and accomplished more by themselves than Affirmative action ever did. Would it have taken a little longer overall? Yes. Would the outcome have been better? Absolutely. Instead of people like Collen Powell, having people say it was just affirmative action. They would be saying what a man.

All we have today because of it is unqualified people giving others a bad name.

Great job government.

So yes, people with the same "lets use the government to make it fair" attitude like yours are part of of the problem.



And yet more often than not, this is exactly what it accomplishes.



I can say exactly the same thing about anti discrimination laws.

I still contend that anti-discrimination laws are a good thing for society and that it is the governement's job to protect minorites.

The fact that certain courts do a lousy job at interpreting these laws and get them confused with affirmative action laws is not a good enough reason to strike these protections down. The problems you mention don't result from the anti-discrimination law itself. They are due to an overly litigious society and a justice system too lazy, or worse, too weak to interpret the laws as they should be.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

I still contend that anti-discrimination laws are a good thing for society and that it is the governement's job to protect minorites.

Why shouldn't private firms be able to discriminate if they wish?
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Why shouldn't private firms be able to discriminate if they wish?

Like I said, I think it's very harmful to society to allow certain specific groups to be repeatedly discriminated against. Private firms are as much part of society as you and I and they should abide by these laws.

Tell me, if the government doesn't step in to protect the rights of minorities, who will?

I'm not willing to live in an Indian-style type of society, with a caste system that ensures that millions will forever be second, third or even fourth-class citizens with no hope of ever moving up. It's uncivilized and unworthy of us.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Like I said, I think it's very harmful to society to allow certain specific groups to be repeatedly discriminated against. Private firms are as much part of society as you and I and they should abide by these laws.

Tell me, if the government doesn't step in to protect the rights of minorities, who will?

I'm not willing to live in an Indian-style type of society, with a caste system that ensures that millions will forever be second, third or even fourth-class citizens with no hope of ever moving up. It's uncivilized and unworthy of us.

I have no problem with government organization being required to not discriminate. I do see a problem with government forcing anti-discrimination on a private firm. This falls into the same category as other regulation I think.

When a company discriminates, I don't think the rights of minorities have been violated.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

I have no problem with government organization being required to not discriminate. I do see a problem with government forcing anti-discrimination on a private firm. This falls into the same category as other regulation I think.

When a company discriminates, I don't think the rights of minorities have been violated.

You're right, it does fall in the same category as other regulations. Those regulations are usually in place to prevent private businesses from damaging the environment, poisoning or endagering the lives of their customers and/or their employees etc... Private companies cannot operate in any manner they wish to when they are interacting with the rest of us. They aren't allowed to harm society at large. I see anti-discrimination laws in the same way. If we can regulate the way a company operates in order to protect the environment, I see no reason why we can't impose regulations in order to protect human beings as well. We don't live in a vacuum, like it or not, we all have social responsibilities. Private companies do not get a free pass.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

When a company discriminates, I don't think the rights of minorities have been violated.

So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

You're right, it does fall in the same category as other regulations. Those regulations are usually in place to prevent private businesses from damaging the environment, poisoning or endagering the lives of their customers and/or their employees etc... Private companies cannot operate in any manner they wish to when they are interacting with the rest of us. They aren't allowed to harm society at large. I see anti-discrimination laws in the same way. If we can regulate the way a company operates in order to protect the environment, I see no reason why we can't impose regulations in order to protect human beings as well. We don't live in a vacuum, like it or not, we all have social responsibilities. Private companies do not get a free pass.

There is a difference between regulations that protect the environment and the lives of customers or employees and protects the market place from unfair business practices, on the one hand, and regulations that force a company to certain hiring demographics. What is being protected? We should not over-regulate as we will become a socialist country in all but name and the government will make market decisions.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:

You're disgraceful for using that term. I would hope a company wouldn't use it, but perhaps they will. I do not have a problem if a company wanted to behave that way. I like to think that the market will punish them for it.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:

If the company did say something like that, how long do you think they would be in business?

We don't need the government to tell us who we can or cannot associate or do business with.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

I'd never heard of it. Must be that pesky ocean between our two continents. Not everything that hapens over there makes it over here.

Nuff said.

This was all due to some PC non-sense about quotas. None of which has anything to do with anti-discrimination laws, but more with affirmative action which I am not in favor of.

What????

Quota's are a direct result of anti discrimination laws.

Your hearts in the right place, but involving a PC and over reacting government is just plain stupid. This is what you are advocating.

I still contend that anti-discrimination laws are a good thing for society and that it is the governement's job to protect minorites.

And in the process it widens the racial divide and directly causes quota's, jealousy and an entitlement mind set.

They are doing more harm then good.

The fact that certain courts do a lousy job at interpreting these laws and get them confused with affirmative action laws is not a good enough reason to strike these protections down.

Affirmative action IS AN ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAW. They are not separate.

The problems you mention don't result from the anti-discrimination law itself. They are due to an overly litigious society and a justice system too lazy, or worse, too weak to interpret the laws as they should be.

The problems I mentioned are a direct result of anti discrimination laws. They and the associated problems are a direct result courts or not.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

You're right, it does fall in the same category as other regulations. Those regulations are usually in place to prevent private businesses from damaging the environment, poisoning or endagering the lives of their customers and/or their employees etc... Private companies cannot operate in any manner they wish to when they are interacting with the rest of us. They aren't allowed to harm society at large.

They aren't allowed to physically harm others or their property.

I see anti-discrimination laws in the same way.

And you're wrong about that.


If we can regulate the way a company operates in order to protect the environment, I see no reason why we can't impose regulations in order to protect human beings as well.

Because not getting hired doesn't harm a human, he/she/it simply has to find another prospective employer, and maybe control that lisp in the interview next time.

We don't live in a vacuum, like it or not, we all have social responsibilities. Private companies do not get a free pass.

No one has a "social responsibility" to hire people they don't like.

Get over it.

It's called "freedom".
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

Affirmative action IS AN ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAW. They are not separate.

Affirmative Action is a law codifying government sanctioned racism.

In other words, it's a discrimination law, not an anti-discrimination law.
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

There is a difference between regulations that protect the environment and the lives of customers or employees and protects the market place from unfair business practices, on the one hand, and regulations that force a company to certain hiring demographics. What is being protected? We should not over-regulate as we will become a socialist country in all but name and the government will make market decisions.

I don't really see any difference. Why is one regulation acceptable when it involves protecting the environement from damage, but another is not when it involves protecting minorities from discrimination?
 
Re: Pope launches attack on UK equality law

So you have no problem with a company stating it aint hiring no ni***s and Jews? :roll:

Anyone having a problem with such a company has an appropriate means of expressing their disdain.

They don't do business with that firm, and encourage their friends to boycott them also.

After all the disasters socialism has brought to Europe, why are Europeans so insistent that they give their governments again the powers to control the people?

Well, whatever, no nation in Europe was founded on the ideal of personal liberty and justice. The United States is different.
 
Back
Top Bottom