The EU debate - Part III

Just responding in kind....

 

Could be worse, it could be the leftwing rag, Bloombum, you keep using which often gets it wrong.

 

Kustard, are you even aware of who Michael Bloomberg is?

Calling it a left wing rag, just demonstrates how completely ignorant you are!,..

 

What if it was the otherway around a Christian or a Jew refused to sell an item to a Muslim, all hell would break lose.

 

As reported in The Express. Maybe I was wrong and Dull is actually as thick as Kustard

 

Yes, but everything you post from the website are often leftwing/leaning authors.

 

Don't be afraid all the time, the world's really not that scarey. I can see why you maybe think it is, given your confused view of it.

If the law is in place to protect religious beliefs, then it should be applied evenly, and it clearly isn't. To pretend otherwise, is generally the position of those misguidedly protecting Islam.

 

Bloomberg left wing....brilliant Kustard. You're a special kind of stupid

 

If they did it on the basis of the buyer's religion, the it would, yes.
That's not what happened here though, is it?

Thanks for demonstrating that you also don't understand the issue. That's 2 for 2.

 

In your kind perhaps, most of your replies are simply childish and ridiculous, with no real substance.

 

Of course, that will be somehow different.

 

You've completely ignored my comment and just attempted to attack me, so I'll just direct you to a previous comment posted today:

Would you like to try again?

 

Nope, I'm happy with it. I didn't ignore your comments, as blinkered as they are.

 

You didn't address anything that I said, preferring to insult me and claim that I'm scared about... something, instead.

You don't understand why the two instances are different, do you?
I've explained why and what the problem with the one that you provided was.
Would you like me to clarify it?

 

You're just ranting now.

A youngster can work in a shop selling cigarettes, even though they can't sell them, they simply buzz for an adult, which is what she should have done, rather than refusing. She's wrong anyway, because the religion does permit her to sell it, plenty of them do. Her beliefs can't be that strong if she's happy to take the percentage of her wage that comes from the sales.

If she can refuse on religious grounds, then someone in their own business can do the same too. Either both are right, or both are wrong.

EDIT. I know what you're trying to say about discrimination, I just don't see it as valid. We live in a country where we can drink and buy alcohol, if her belief's are so strong, the onus is on her to find employment that fits her, not expect the world to change to suit.

 

She did refer the customer to someone else, so that he could get served.
She did exactly what you think that she should've done.

I didn't back her stance and I've already said that she should've just served him, as her religion doesn't prohibit that.
Nobody on here has disagreed with that, yet.

You don't understand the difference between this and the gay couple, despite it being explained already.
I'll try again, but I'll make it even clearer, just for you.

The Muslim woman refuses to sell alcohol to anyone, as she (wrongly, in my opinion) believes it's against her religion to do so.
This is not discrimination. She won't sell it to anyone, regardless of who they are.

The Christian couple are renting rooms to everyone, except for gay people, as they (wrongly, in my opinion) believe that this is against their religion.
This is discrimination. They will offer this service to anyone, except for gay people.

Now, I've made that very, very obvious. This should be simple.
Do you see the difference now? I'm not asking if you agree with it. Can you see why the two situations aren't the same?

 

I answered that earlier. I explained why and how I disagree with your view.

 

Coming from you!...

 

Cool brexit story bro.

 

No, you didn't, despite making an edit after I'd quoted the comment, albeit pretty quickly.

One case is discrimination and the other isn't. That's the difference.
You haven't addressed that.