Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> So it's OK to refuse to deal with them, so long as you don't use a
>> mildly offensive term for them in the process.

> You tell me, you make the politically correct rules! :-)

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you can't pick and choose 
whichever laws you think suit your invisible friends.

>> So you agree that the press reports of the cases in question are
>> accurate?
>>
>> Several adoption agencies preferred to close than stop discriminating
>> against gay people.

> From what I saw yes.

Good. And you think that's fine. Great. I'm very happy for you.

>> > I don't think it is right to kill Gay people or be nasty to them.

>> But you don't count refusing to deal with them professionally as "being
>> nasty"?

> Not in this context.

Good. And you think that's fine. Great. I'm very happy for you.

>> Way I see it, there's an easy way to determine if some kind of
>> discrimination is unfair. Reverse the groupings in the headline.
>>
>> Christian-run business refuses to serve gays.
>> Gay-run business refuses to serve Christians.

> But why would they do that???

<shrug>
Does it matter>

>> Would you have said both of those headlines were equally (un)
>> acceptable? Or is one worse than the other?

> This was a theological based issue. I do not see it any other way.

So "theology" is the most important factor you can think of? More 
important than basic fairness and equality? "Theology" justifies 
discrimination?

But, of course, only your own theology.

>> But it's gay people's "fault" that they're gay?

> No. It is Gay people’s CHOICE to be in a 
<snip>
> relationship

How very DARE they have the temerity...?

> and adopt kids.

But why are they so very different from any other couple who can't have 
kids of their own naturally?

>> >> Still, it's good to see that the concept of Pick & Mix

>> > You are the one picking and mixing. You choose one isolated passage
>> > out of context of the entire bible!!!

>> Which, of course, you would _never_ do?

> We’re taught to read scripture in context so that is what I try to do as
> far as possible.

Right. So there's a big difference in the context of God kicking seven 
shades of shit out of Sodom because it was full of queers, and the bit 
that tells you it's OK to kick seven shades of shit out of any queers you 
might meet.

Did God sit there, saying "Do as I say, not as I do"?

>> Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me to a link where I can read the
>> constitution of this country?

> <sigh> Here’s a starting point for you…,
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

Oh, look. Just as I thought - we don't have a constitution as such, just 
a body of current law.

>> What I described as "irrelevant history" was the road we took to get to
>> that body of current law.

> A statement that is just so unbelievably ignorant as to leave me
> speechless!

Really?

Does it MATTER that (say) the laws banning handguns were knocked up 
hastily in the aftermath of Dunblane and Hungerford? That the Dangerous 
Dogs Act was a knee-jerk to some high-profile front pages?

Not when it comes to actually implementing those laws, no.

>> >> > We’re not going anywhere!

>> >> You're going to HAVE to go away, live with it, or break the law.

>> > Everybody has choices to make. Why be so threatening???

>> Who's being threatening? They are the three choices in place. Pick one.
>>
>> Stop playing.
>> Play equally.
>> Break the law.

> I do play equally and my employer recognises that.

Good-oh.

> I would not apply to do work that would put me in conflict between my 
> professional duties and my Christian conscience.

And if the law - or circumstances - changed in such a way that you had to 
choose? Would you resign in preference?

>> Because the preferences of the religious are more important than the
>> rights of gay people?

> Because religious freedoms were sacrificed for political correctness

Bollocks.

> when the law already gives Gay people the right to adopt children

What use is that right, if adoption agencies can feel free to decide they 
don't want to deal with gay people?
 
>> Do you think that legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of
>> sexuality is less important than that to prevent discrimination on the
>> basis of race, religion or gender? Simple yes or no.

> No.

Fair enough.

So you'd be happy with a church that chose to discriminate on those 
grounds, too, because "God told them to"?