Tuesday, January 09, 2007

CHURCH AND STATE

AMERICA HAS IT RIGHT?


At least in theory the separtion of powers enshrined in the Amercian constituion is in my humble opinion the best idea, the idea that there would be any 'national religion' repulses me.

Before anyone out there gets their knickers in a twist I know that the separation of powers in the American Constituition does not do what it says on the tin. I realise that the Religous groups in Amercia have an extreme influence on the agenda and the laws, although they are supposed to be separate you only have to look at the Roe Vs Wade debate to testify to this, however the idea that there would be no 'national religion' has merit.

Why should anyone be able to refuse anyone else a service simply because of their beliefs? How will they do it? Will they have signs saying no gays here?

As Angela Eagle MP (Labour) suggests ...

"We're not curtailing religious freedom, people can argue against the practice of homosexuality if they must. What this law does is say it's wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'...That is right, proper and moderate."

2 comments:

RightForScotland said...

But why should the government tell private people how to run their private businesses?

In a free market economy people it is right that if someone wants to refuse to take money from someone because of their sexuality, colour or any other discriminating factor they should. It should be up to the consumer to then decide whether they want to patronise establishments that display such attitudes.

I would imagine that in today's world such businesses would be run into the ground very quickly and rightly so, but it will be the consumer that decides, not the government.

It is not Governments job to tell private businesses how to run their affairs.

If I were Prime Minister and I passed a law that required all councillors to vote to pass a bye-law that allowed the rich to pay no council tax and the poor to pay 500% more. The only way to avoid voting for this would be to resign. What would you do in response? And why?

Rayleen Kelly said...

RightForScotland(RFS): First things first, by your logic we should have no equality laws, people should be able to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, or age, is that realy what you think?

Secondly, the Prime Minister CANNOT pass such a law, in fact he CANNOT PASS ANY LAW I think you should go back to your standard grade modern studies and look at the UK system of Government to find out who does pass the laws!

The PM similarly cannot compel anyone to vote in any particular way, so the point is invalid! If you are trying to get me to say that if I disagreed enough and felt passionately enough about a issue that the group was going in a different direction I would vote against it and take my punnishment, whether it be to be asked to resign or to be chucked out!

Having read some of your ideas on your blog you would probably favour such a law, I cannot assure everyone I do not!

WEB DISCLAIMER

Please note all postings on this blog are of a personal nature and do not reflect the opinions of either Renfrewshire Council, the Scottish Labour Party or Renfrewshire Labour Group. NB No annonymous comments will be published on this blog if you have something to say have the courage to identify yourself.