theVOID Wrote:On what grounds? That the child may develop an irrational hate of another group?

Sounds like big grounds to me. Preventing parents from being racist isn't normally a chance you get to take. Any chance - by reasonable means, such as preventing adoption - is a privilege.

(March 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 4:41 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 4:38 pm)theVOID Wrote: How are you going to prevent the beliefs from being taught?

Not allowing them the privilege of adopting is a great start. The state can't be seen as encouraging that kind of thing you know.

On what grounds? That the child may develop an irrational hate of another group?

And if that is your reason should we also disallow Feminists from adopting? How about Christians who have an irrational hate of atheists? Atheists who have an irrational hate of the religious? Blacks who still harbour racial prejudice that would teach their children the white people are out to get them? What about vegans who will raise their children to think people who eat meat are evil?

No. None of your examples include bigotry against protected classes*. A for effort though.

*Atheists & the religious are, but only when it comes to the workplace.

And it's an extremely slippery slope.

All of the examples I provided meet those criteria, do you accept all of them too?

@Jaysyn: Protected classes??? Protected by who and for what reason? Why are gays or minority races more deserving of protection than theist or atheists against bigotry? Surely if we were going to protect people against bigotry there should be no qualifiers.

(March 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm)theVOID Wrote: And it's an extremely slippery slope.

All of the examples I provided meet those criteria, do you accept all of them too?

No they don't. Since Adrian decided we can't use the plain subjective evil of racism & bigotry as a qualifier, I am just going by the legality of it. None of your examples are of bigotry against a protected class.

They aren't comparable to racism. Your race you're born with. You're not born a feminist. You're born an atheist but beliefs can change, you can't change your race. Race is a fixed part of a person that is very close to them and cannot be changed, to mock it, belittle it, ridicule it or attack it in anyway is the worst form of all bigotries. Homophobia is probably second worst because it attacks sexuality which is also very close to a person, although not quite as close as race because it's not necessarily purely genetic.

(March 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm)theVOID Wrote: And it's an extremely slippery slope.

And here I thought you didn't like logical fallacies

(March 3, 2011 at 7:24 am)Tiberius Wrote: Please point out the paragraph where it says parents cannot teach their child about their own beliefs. If it exists (and I doubt it does), then there's a lot of campaigning to be done!

The Local Authorities, foster carers and agencies must all abide by the Equality Act 2010 to ensure services, recruitment and general business do not discriminate on the grounds of any protected characteristic.

By investigating the couples overwhelmingly apparent bigotry and blatant disregard for equality and diversity policies and guidelines set down, the social worker in question was merely doing their job in this respect.

Quote:Why are a Christian couple being denied rights to foster a child. If their religious beliefs were protected as you say they are in the Equality Act, why have they been denied a child based on their religious beliefs?

Because sexual orientation and marriage or civil partnership are protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, whether you're Christian, Muslim and so on.

Quote:Ah, so despite you telling me that people's beliefs are protected under the law, you now admit that actually, they aren't.

So long as it does not discriminate on the grounds of any protected characteristic of Equality Act 2010.

-Age
-Disability
-Gender
-Gender Reassignment
-Marriage or Civil Partnership
-Pregnancy and maternity
-Race & Ethnicity
-Religion & Belief (or the lack thereof)
-Sexual orientation
-Religious beliefs

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx

@Jaysyn

Wow, are you kidding?

Firstly, that page is the wrong terminology for this scenario, as you should know, there is a BIG, BIG, BIG difference between the fallacy "If we let gays marry people will soon be having sex with children" and the notion that "making decision x about position y could lead to decision x being made about similar position z"

When people commit the "slippery slope fallacy" they use an assertion of inevitability, to raise a concern based on the similarity between two positions given some action proposed to be taken against one IS NOT the same thing.

If you'd bothered to apply any of my sentences to those examples you would have seen that for yourself, I had no causal assertion.

---

(March 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm)theVOID Wrote: And it's an extremely slippery slope.

All of the examples I provided meet those criteria, do you accept all of them too?

No they don't. Since Adrian decided we can't use the plain subjective evil of racism & bigotry as a qualifier, I am just going by the legality of it. None of your examples are of bigotry against a protected class.

Oh, so the legality is what matters now?

In the good ol' US of A and Nigeria then it is perfectly valid to allow people who deny gay rights to adopt children because it's illegal there, right?

(March 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm)theVOID Wrote: Oh, so the legality is what matters now?

Not to me, I'm just trying to be more objective on this subject for your sake.

(March 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm)theVOID Wrote: In the good ol' US of A and Nigeria then it is perfectly valid to allow people who deny gay rights to adopt children because it's illegal there, right?

If you think it's illegal to be gay in the USA you might want to do a little more reading on the subject. Or are you just being disingenuous? Sometimes I can't tell.

(March 3, 2011 at 5:01 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: You're not born a feminist.

I was talking about feminists having a bigotry towards men, you ARE born a man, so feminists should qualify.

Quote: You're born an atheist but beliefs can change, you can't change your race.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? Why does my ability to believe something else mean I should be less protected against bigotry for what I do believe?

Quote: Race is a fixed part of a person that is very close to them and cannot be changed, to mock it, belittle it, ridicule it or attack it in anyway is the worst form of all bigotries.

I don't see how it's any worse, it would be like someone being bigoted towards Muslims thinking "oh toughen up, you weren't born believing in islam, so i'm more justified in being bigoted towards you than I am someone who was born black"

Quote: Homophobia is probably second worst because it attacks sexuality which is also very close to a person, although not quite as close as race because it's not necessarily purely genetic.

It's not necessarily genetic? Says who?

(March 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm)theVOID Wrote: Oh, so the legality is what matters now?

Not to me, I'm just trying to be more objective on this subject for your sake.

Drop the legality part, it's obfuscation, get back to the principles involved.

(March 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm)theVOID Wrote: If you think it's illegal to be gay in the USA you might want to do a little more reading on the subject. Or are you just being disingenuous? Sometimes I can't tell.

I said gay rights, as in the right to marry. That's still illegal in most of the states last time I checked.