Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Bionic on 16 January 2013, 04:05:11
-
:D
Surely the world has gone bananas when some old biddy takes a company to court because she was requested not to display in plain sight, (she was not told not requested not to wear) a crucifix. She stated that it there to signify her religious beliefs. What about the other religions who are offended by the sight of the crucifix and yet come into contact with her? Have they not the same right to be offended? In my view her employers did exactly the right thing by requesting that it was worn under her clothing and so out of sight and therefore unable to cause offence to anyone else. Religious she might be but a fool she most definitely is considering that it is we, the tax payer again, who has had to foot the costs of her ridiculous legal action in the High Court. No doubt her barrister was pleased with his share of the proceeds! As for the ones in silly stockings and wigs who made the judgement, well we already know that they live on a different planet anyway.
I hope her employers remember her action and ensure that her contact with the general public is now limited to ensure that any other religious person using their facilities are not given the opportunity to take offence at the sight of her prominently displayed cross.
To me this is but one more reason why religion should be remembered for what it has proven to be over the centuries.......one big fantasy and a tool whereby wars, discrimination and torture are legalised! Quite apart of course to there NEVER having been any scientific proof that such an entity ever existed in the first place. To me it is but a tool of support for the weak willed and those of low moral fibre as my old SGM used to say (shout), those who need the constant support of a fantasy to believe in. Faith? How about being like many others who are not religious but yet believe in themselves and live quite happy, love filled, morally decent and successful lives without the need for a 'higher being' to believe in?
She should be made to pay all of her legal expenses herself....or ask her religion to! One thing sure is that they would refuse.......
::) Waiting for the BB's to rabbit their nonesense now.............
-
Did you set your alarm clock so you could get that lot off your chest ? ;D ;D
-
The climate in recent years has been such that there has been pretty much complete freedom of expression of religious beliefs, and complete tolerance of this has been rigidly enforced - apart from Christianity.That has been attacked and undermined from many different angles.This has been a Christian country for centuries,but people whose agenda requires that to be changed or eliminated have worked very hard at achieving their goal.It has become a type of reverse ethnic cleansing.This judgement has gone a little way towards redressing the balance imo.
-
The climate in recent years has been such that there has been pretty much complete freedom of expression of religious beliefs, and complete tolerance of this has been rigidly enforced - apart from Christianity.That has been attacked and undermined from many different angles.This has been a Christian country for centuries,but people whose agenda requires that to be changed or eliminated have worked very hard at achieving their goal.It has become a type of reverse ethnic cleansing.This judgement has gone a little way towards redressing the balance imo.
Very well put Albitz and very true
-
Yes, and also the balance between employer and "Associate", "Resource", "Operative" or whatever nondescript term they choose to describe the people who spend a quarter of their adult life toiling for them. >:(
-
Yes, and also the balance between employer and "Associate", "Resource", "Operative" or whatever nondescript term they choose to describe the people who spend a quarter of their adult life toiling for them. >:(
I think the correct term is "Serf" these days, no? ;)
-
Yes, and also the balance between employer and "Associate", "Resource", "Operative" or whatever nondescript term they choose to describe the people who spend a quarter of their adult life toiling for them. >:(
I think the correct term is "Serf" these days, no? ;)
Oh, that's it.
No, wait! That's what the politicians call us. >:(
-
Yes, and also the balance between employer and "Associate", "Resource", "Operative" or whatever nondescript term they choose to describe the people who spend a quarter of their adult life toiling for them. >:(
I think the correct term is "Serf" these days, no? ;)
Oh, that's it.
No, wait! That's what the politicians call us. >:(
I thought that was "plebs"
-
The climate in recent years has been such that there has been pretty much complete freedom of expression of religious beliefs, and complete tolerance of this has been rigidly enforced - apart from Christianity.That has been attacked and undermined from many different angles.This has been a Christian country for centuries,but people whose agenda requires that to be changed or eliminated have worked very hard at achieving their goal.It has become a type of reverse ethnic cleansing.This judgement has gone a little way towards redressing the balance imo.
Very well put Albitz and very true
I agree as well! :y :y
A Christian must be always free to display a "badge", in this case the classic crucifix, to confirm their allegiance to that set of beliefs, just as any other religion or political party is allowed to in our secular but tolerant nation. :y :y
We are a democracy, with freedoms hard won. This case was a disgrace and should never had arisen.
-
Slow news week again. Or was until that idiot flew into a crane.
-
That idiot was a very experienced and respected pilot apparently, who did a lot of work on well known films among other things.
No-one knows yet what caused the crash,could have been any number of things,but a big assumption being made there. ::)
-
That idiot was a very experienced and respected pilot apparently, who did a lot of work on well known films among other things.
No-one knows yet what caused the crash,could have been any number of things,but a big assumption being made there. ::)
Indeed. Just for effect ;)
But the just of the comment stands still.
-
It will all be sorted out once the UK becomes a Caliphate. ::) ::) ::)
-
That idiot was a very experienced and respected pilot apparently, who did a lot of work on well known films among other things.
No-one knows yet what caused the crash,could have been any number of things,but a big assumption being made there. ::)
Indeed. Just for effect ;)
But the just of the comment stands still.
Have you borrowed Gixers gaypad?
-
Drugs I suspect. ;) ;D
-
Maybe I am missing something here...I admit I did not watch the news too closely, but I understand she won her case as it was found that the cross was part of the christian belief so she should be allowed it.
Forgive me if I am wrong here, but did another christian lose his case for not counselling gays. Now, I thought the christian religion was one that does not 'codone' gay marriage, etc. (excuse terminology if not correct)
So if the cross is a major part of the religion, and another part of that religion does not follow the 'gay' regime, as has been in the news recently with the synod vote, etc.....how can this fellow lose his case. It seems total hypocrosy to me. ???
I hope this makes sense, a bit difficult to put in print to make sense. what I am trying to say......
-
Maybe I am missing something here...I admit I did not watch the news too closely, but I understand she won her case as it was found that the cross was part of the christian belief so she should be allowed it.
Forgive me if I am wrong here, but did another christian lose his case for not counselling gays. Now, I thought the christian religion was one that does not 'codone' gay marriage, etc. (excuse terminology if not correct)
So if the cross is a major part of the religion, and another part of that religion does not follow the 'gay' regime, as has been in the news recently with the synod vote, etc.....how can this fellow lose his case. It seems total hypocrosy to me. ???
I hope this makes sense, a bit difficult to put in print to make sense. what I am trying to say......
One woman won, one woman lost.
The one who lost - the nurse - lost because her employer had offered to allow her to pin her cross to her uniform, but she insisted on being allowed to wear it on a dangling necklace.
-
I think what I'm trying to say is if you look more deeply than some of the media show, there is far more to it than we are lead to believe.
-
I believe there were three Christians who lost their cases at the same time as the BA employee won hers.They were registrars who were of traditional Christian faith who stated that their faith and conscience could not allow them to perform ceremonies involving same sex couples.
The fact that the councils who employed them had enough "manpower" to allow them to be excused from those duties without causing any serious backlog or simialr cut no ice.They had to agree to perform same sex ceremonies or lose their jobs.
How the world has changed.Throwing the baby out with the bathwater,yet again imo. :(
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mike-judge/christians-win-right-to-wear-cross_b_2479734.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk%7Cdl5%7Csec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D146285
-
As I said, Albs.....total hypocrosy. Depends on how they feel on the day !!!!!
I think your link showed well what I was trying to say :y