Equalisation laws?

British laws attempting equalisation of justice on racial, sexual, age etc.,
etc. grounds have become hopelessly tangled, regulation-bound and are often,
now, .'more equal' for the minorities and can result in downright
absurdities.

The latest absurdity is that single sex couples be allowed to adopt ... so,
therefore, prominent adoption agencies (such as the RCs) who are vehemently
against such a practice either have to comply (against their faith) or
close.

Whatever one's thoughts about single sex couple adoption, it is absurd and
tragic that this (very much minority) interest should demolish other such
major providers!

Why cannot 'equality' laws still encompass equality for all interests? For
instance:

Single sex couples are now allowed to adopt - via any/all agencies who are
happy to provide this service.

Smokers can continue to smoke in public areas - in those premises that have
openly elected to allow this and which may then be avoided, if wished, by
non-smokers (and vice-versa of course).

All races/ages have the right to seek employment - whilst employers have the
right to select (in the UK, just days ago, a press advertisement seeking
German-speakers to deal with German clients was deemed illegal!).

Laws are expected to provide justice for all, not some.

Why all these draconian one-sided laws?

It's pretty simple to do, isn't it?

Has that been forgotten?

It has in Blair's Britain, which is one major reason why it's now in such a
bloody mess.

Surreyman

a.spencer3 wrote:

British laws attempting equalisation of justice on racial, sexual, age etc.,
etc. grounds have become hopelessly tangled, regulation-bound and are often,
now, .'more equal' for the minorities and can result in downright
absurdities.

The latest absurdity is that single sex couples be allowed to adopt ... so,
therefore, prominent adoption agencies (such as the RCs) who are vehemently
against such a practice either have to comply (against their faith) or
close.

They get public money for this service. It's as simple as that.

Their position is flawed anyway- they allow single gay and lesbians to
adopt, but not couples. My guess is that they won't actually close- I
think this was more of a threat, and if they did close over something
like this, it begs the question whether the interests of the child
(which they maintain is their interest) was really paramount after all?

Whatever one's thoughts about single sex couple adoption, it is absurd and
tragic that this (very much minority) interest should demolish other such
major providers!

If you have equality laws, then when public money is concerned, the law
should apply equally.

Why cannot 'equality' laws still encompass equality for all interests? For
instance:

Single sex couples are now allowed to adopt - via any/all agencies who are
happy to provide this service.

[]
Smokers can continue to smoke in public areas - in those premises that have
openly elected to allow this and which may then be avoided, if wished, by
non-smokers (and vice-versa of course).

Easier said than done.

All races/ages have the right to seek employment - whilst employers have the
right to select (in the UK, just days ago, a press advertisement seeking
German-speakers to deal with German clients was deemed illegal!).

So if an employer says that they don't want to select muslims or women,
when there is nothing about the job which requires it, is that OK?

Laws are expected to provide justice for all, not some.

Why all these draconian one-sided laws?

It's pretty simple to do, isn't it?

Has that been forgotten?

It has in Blair's Britain, which is one major reason why it's now in such a
bloody mess.

I think this legislation is one of the better and more progessive things
he's done.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Following up to (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) :

and if they did close over something
like this, it begs the question whether the interests of the child
(which they maintain is their interest) was really paramount after all?

I agree with you. It looks like they have the interests of the RC church
more at heart.
--
Tim C.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:49:54 GMT, "a.spencer3"
wrote:

British laws attempting equalisation of justice on racial, sexual, age
etc.,
etc. grounds have become hopelessly tangled, regulation-bound and are
often,
now, .'more equal' for the minorities and can result in downright
absurdities.

The latest absurdity is that single sex couples be allowed to adopt ...
so,
therefore, prominent adoption agencies (such as the RCs) who are
vehemently
against such a practice either have to comply (against their faith) or
close.

The less said about RC and children the better.
I saw this as a distinct advantage.


Whatever one's thoughts about single sex couple adoption, it is absurd
and
tragic that this (very much minority) interest should demolish other such
major providers!

Why cannot 'equality' laws still encompass equality for all interests?
For
instance:

Single sex couples are now allowed to adopt - via any/all agencies who
are
happy to provide this service.

Smokers can continue to smoke in public areas - in those premises that
have
openly elected to allow this and which may then be avoided, if wished, by
non-smokers (and vice-versa of course).

This is the current situation. It doesn't work for the 2/3 of the
population who
don't smoke.


All races/ages have the right to seek employment - whilst employers have
the
right to select (in the UK, just days ago, a press advertisement seeking
German-speakers to deal with German clients was deemed illegal!).

Source: Daily Mail?

Laws are expected to provide justice for all, not some.

Why all these draconian one-sided laws?

It's pretty simple to do, isn't it?

Has that been forgotten?

It has in Blair's Britain, which is one major reason why it's now in such
a
bloody mess.

Which group did you intend to post this too?

Political rants ---- uk.politics.
--


Well, if you're a smoking, gay, Sanskrit-speaking visitor/employment seeker?
:-))

"Martin" wrote in message
...
This is the current situation. It doesn't work for the 2/3 of the
population who
don't smoke.


Precisely my point.
So let 1/3 of the facilities retain the choice.

Surreyman

On Jan 31, 1:13 pm, "a.spencer3" wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message

...

This is the current situation. It doesn't work for the 2/3 of the
population who
don't smoke.

Precisely my point.
So let 1/3 of the facilities retain the choice.

Surreyman


or help the 30% (who only started smoking cos they thought it was big
and clever) to give up.

British laws attempting equalisation of justice on racial, sexual,
age etc. etc. grounds have become hopelessly tangled, regulation-
bound and are often, now, .'more equal' for the minorities and can
result in downright absurdities.

The latest absurdity is that single sex couples be allowed to adopt ...
so, therefore, prominent adoption agencies (such as the RCs) who are
vehemently against such a practice either have to comply (against
their faith) or close.

They already ARE allowed to adopt. An individual gay person can apply
to adopt, and such applications have been routinely granted for years.
The proposed change is a very minor one - allowing two gay people to
adopt *jointly*. The number of additional adoptions under the proposed
new law would be minute.

Christian-run publicly-funded social service agencies have been allowed
to get away with spending govermment money to promote bigotry for years.
About time somebody got it stopped. (Church-run care homes that won't
employ non-Christian cooks and refuse to allow the old people they're
looking after to drink, for example).

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/ for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Magda wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:01:21 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Martin

arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:49:54 GMT, "a.spencer3"
wrote:
...
... British laws attempting equalisation of justice on racial, sexual,
age etc.,
... etc. grounds have become hopelessly tangled, regulation-bound and
are often,
... now, .'more equal' for the minorities and can result in downright
... absurdities.
...
... The latest absurdity is that single sex couples

As opposed to double sex couples??


"No Sex, Please, We're British"...???

--
Best
Greg

Following up to Magda :

... The latest absurdity is that single sex couples

As opposed to double sex couples??

yes, that's exactly the point, I think.
--
Tim C.

Is this rec.travel.europe or rec.bash.britain? Can we have some on topic
posts?