11 1 min 8 yrs

So, you are a practicing member of the Jedi faith, and as everyone knows, the very thought of being near high-strength adhesives, impact glue and other sticky materials is anathema to your very existence. This is because the ‘Force’ rules everything, and if something refuses to stay put on a wall, or a bookshelf fails, the ruling is that because the ‘Force’ did not allow the shelf to exist, or the mirror to be hung from a bracket stuck to the wall in the first place, they should not continue, or something like that.

Your work, strangely enough, is at Home Depot, Corner Hardware, B&Q, or even Homebase; so in pursuit of your religious rights and freedoms, you state that you will not sell any adhesives whatsoever to any customer.

So should the management be suprised when reading headlines like this?

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

11 thoughts on “and it is with you still!

  1. I sent an email to Marks& Spencer head office this morning on this very issue and I also told them that a copy was going to my MP (which it has).
    If it helps I can post a copy here.
    I would urge all ATWers to do the same. I took up the keyboard cudgels over major institutions supporting the Gay bullying campaign against individuals who did not support their aims. Most if not all backed down in the face of reasonable argument.
    If you do not voice your concerns now, when will you?
    I liked this from an American blog I follow…

    “First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist
    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist
    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me”

    Pastor Martin Niemoller

  2. that’s an old one A8 commonly used here in the US. I don’t think it really applies here though. I saw this headline yesterday and didn’t read it. Glad I have today.

    I don’t believe in holding anyone’s beliefs against them gay, muslim, black, jew, communist etc etc everyone has the right to believe and say whatever they want.

    This however does not work in this situation. If you take a job you do the job. No one is a slave in our societies told what to do without a choice.

    If your muslim and you take a job where you might have to sell liquor you sell it. It’s called a damn job, if you can’t do it you don’t work there go somewhere else. Why take a job that you know you can’t perform except to cause problems.

    It’s not a case of anyone coming for them, it is a case of sabatoge by the person who contracted to perform a task they knew they had no intention of doing.

    It’s those that refuse to perform the task that are actually discriminating.

  3. “I took up the keyboard cudgels over major institutions supporting the Gay bullying campaign against individuals who did not support their aims”

    Agit8ed – What do you mean by this ?

  4. Agit8ed – What do you mean by this ?

    You remember that “something of the year” award initiated by the Gay lobby in which they got various institutions to finance or endorse these do’s?

    Well I wrote to two or three of the organisations concerned to state my opposition and why I saw it as a form of social bullying, inappropriate for any organisation or business which was supposedly impartial.
    I can’t remember all the details, but I think I have the emails involved still if you want more reminders.

  5. Agit8ed

    Why is it inappropriate for any organisation to choose to support a gay rights group, or indeed to even support an anti-gay rights group. Why should private commercial companies be impartial ? They should be free to support , oppose or be neutral about any social group or viewpoint they wish to.

  6. Why should private commercial companies be impartial ?

    Because they are providing or performing a commercial service to society, and the same rule applies to them as applies to the Christian couple who refused to take a gay couple as guests.

  7. The same rules do apply when it comes to non-discrimination. I don’t know what you are talking about.

  8. Companies can’t be impartial about acceptance of gays, foreigners or different races etc. They will have all of these and more on their staff, and they obviously can’t tolerate friction or discrimination among employees.

  9. I think agit8ed is saying that a company that sponsors a gay rights group or gay event is guilty of discrimination against people who oppose homosexuality, and is similar to the B&B owners who refused to host a gay couple. It is an erroneous comparison.

  10. I think agit8ed is saying that a company that sponsors a gay rights group or gay event is guilty of discrimination against people who oppose homosexuality, and is similar to the B&B owners who refused to host a gay couple.

    Sort of.
    I mean that in the same way the Christian guesthouse owners as a business had (rightly) no grounds to refuse a room to a gay couple, because their beliefs are of no consequence in the world of commerce,
    (with me so far?)
    Neither should any larger and more influential business or corporation be seen to be backing a social issue in which one organisation (Stonewall) is attacking a member of the public for their views on homosexuality.
    The world of commerce should not be engaging in social bullying or even commentary.
    They exist to give a service or product at a price, end of. What they may say in their individual capacity as private citizens is another matter.
    Ditto with the Christian bed and breakfasters.
    Makes sense to me….

  11. Two of Stonewall’s most prominent award sponsors, the banks Barclay and Coutts, have threatened to withdraw their support if the bigot category is not dropped at next year’s event.

    But Stonewall said its 10,000 members had voted “decisively” to give the title to O’Brien after he described gay marriage as a “grotesque subversion” of the traditions of marriage and likened it to slavery. The cardinal called it an “aberration” and claimed it might clear the way for polygamous marriages and would cause “further degeneration of society into immorality”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/02/stonewall-unrepentant-cardinal-bigot-award

    I’m NOT talking about the target, I’m talking about the methods employed.

Comments are closed.