@Will Monaghan,

God? Not sure who he is, but Jesus, whom I believe was a good human being in his time loved and loves everyone.

I’m sure, God loves almost everyone! *

Fixed. There’s a few people he’d rather stone to death.

Good question.

Well the state broadcasters giving us ‘unrivalled’ coverage of this event. I for one cannot wait. (this is sarcasm!)

Paul: No, it receives no State money because it didn’t ask for any

So you reply to this Almar, but not to your bigoted drivel above? Says it all really.

Just asking, but do people red-thumb the comment or the person?

From what I see Paul asks a legitimate question and AlMar provides a legitimate answer. Why the red-thumbs and what happened to playing the ball, not the person?

Mark, I was thinking the same thing. Even though I strongly disagreed with Almar’s comments above, I gave him a thumbs up for this comment, as it seemed appropriate- I’m unsure what people are saying with red thumbs in this case?

I wonder if the people who are going to it receive money from the state via local groups to get them there. No doupt it will all come out at teh wake.

Looks like my question is answered there.

^^^Didn’t see above post before I posted. Apologies again if I have it wrong.

Perhaps its because the catholic church is by far the largest religious group in Ireland, and is the only one that has openly and successfully sought to influence government policy since the foundation of the state?

Jerry, that sounds like an offer to protest against similar Jewish- and Islamic-inspired discrimination.

When are you available?

The Roman Catholic Church is a disordered organisation. Only one archbishop of Dublin, since the 1940s, has not acted criminally and that’s the present incumbent. The head honcho of this disordered organisation in Ireland swore rape victims to secrecy allowing the rapist to continue his reign for almost two more decades.

This disordered organisation intimidated communities the length and breadth of Ireland. It physically & sexually tortured women and children in the Industrial Schools and Magdalene institutions. It used women and children as slave labourers and while participating in these gross human rights violations it paraded itself as being pious and holy.

The Eucharistic Congratz is just a cynical exercise by this disordered organisation at attention seeking, an attempt, if you will, to pretend it has any moral and religious relevance. It has neither.

Andrew you are going to get a lot of red thumbs for that comment even though what you said is simply the ungarnished truth. Supporters of that disordered organisation are not interested in the truth or reality they prefer to live in a fantasy land of magicians and wizards, angles and demons, good versus evil magicing dead people back to life and looking down their noses at the rest of us.

actually, quite a few Jewish organisations are supporters of gay rights.

300 Mormons show their love!

http://bigginsblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/300-mormons-show-their-love/

???

What is mad is that the Church claims to have the extraordinary power to turn bread & wine into flesh and blood but don’t have the power to turn abusers into the Gardai! That’s mad!

I’m quite curious (but unsurprised) about the 9 thumbs down so far. Do these individuals not like questions being asked? Or are we to take it that part of the agenda is in fact to force private individuals and businesses to endorse an agenda with which they disagree?

1. A private business is not part of the church
2. A private business cannot legally discriminate against any group.

What if it were a black couple she refused?
What if it were a disabled couple she believed shouldn’t marry?
What if the photographer decided she didn’t believe Irish people should marry, would you think she had the right to refuse then?

If your business is open to the public then you’ve to serve all of the public, if you don’t like that then get out if that business

AlMar, you’re a bigot.

I doubt any couple, gay or straight, would want a photographer or venue or anything else for that matter, who does not AGREE with them to be in any way involved in their wedding. plenty of non bigoted photographers out there who would be happy with the business.

Almar, would you defend a wedding photographer refusing to participate in an interacial wedding, or a wedding where one party has previously divorced? Also, the marriage equality movement very clearly states it has no interest in compelling any religious organisation to provide gay weddings- the campaign seeks civil marriage only, and that is why the protest against church lobbying is taking place, as the argument has nothing to do with religion.

…equal rights for people with different sexual identities is an agenda now is it?

You can’t honestly be against people that are perhaps different to you being treated like human beings with the same human rights and dignity as everyone else, can you? That doesn’t sound like a healthy, functioning society to me.

Yes AlMar people should be forced out of stupidity and ignorance.

In relation to the above question, yes, I believe that a private business should be free to pick and choose who it wants to serve, even if I disagree with that decision and think that the discrimination is abhorrent. If it doesn’t want to serve me, if it wants to discriminate against me, that’s fine. I may disagree and be very hurt, but I don’t think the law should compel that private business to serve anyone it doesn’t wants to serve. By missing out on that money, it is the loser. There are plenty of businesses that will be happy to provide the service and make money.

I find it ironic that people accuse the Church for imposing morality on others, when that is exactly what so many here want to do to private business owners.

Almar
The Equal Status Act, 2000 prohibits discrimination in the supply of goods and services including social welfare, housing and other forms of social provision on nine separate grounds:

gender
marital status
family status
sexual orientation
religion
age
disability
race/colour/nationality/ethnic or national origin
membership of the Traveller community.

I would contend that the Roman Church discriminates, in one form or other, in the first five of these specific areas covered by the above Act. Your comment, as it stands, seems to imply that you would support discrimination in all nine!

Very easy to say when you’re a straight white male of the dominant religion. I await the day when catholics are denied service and you can practice what you preach.
In answer to your other point, my rights trump your beliefs, I have the RIGHT to hire any service I have the money for. I have the right to use any pub, hotel, shop or photographer I choose, you have no right to deny me because of what some sheep herder wrote in his book of fairy tales 3000 years ago.

AlMar
I have debated with you here on many occasions and have noticed a particular trend to your remarks and replies where the subject relates to clerical paedophilia, religious institutional abuse, religiously inspired female mutilation (symphysiotomy) etc. Your replies and remarks generally go along the lines of ”this is awful but…”
I accepted your ‘bona fides’ in this regard because I admired your courage in coming along to present another view and defend a belief which is indeed important to a lot of very decent ordinary people.

However, on this occasion I am flabbergasted that you would openly suggest that the laws of the land can be set aside when the Roman Church sees fit to lobby to allow the continued unlawful discrimination against other ordinary decent people who do not subscribe to the dogma of the Roman Church but in all other respects are citizens of this country, pay their taxes, obey it’s laws and respect the rights of others.

It’s called discrimination, you may have heard of it before

civil partnerships dont give the same rights as civil marriage (biggest difference is to do with non biological or non adopting parents (you can only adopt as a single person or married couple, not civil partners) rights and responsibilities to their children) and plenty of people marry in non religious circumstances (such as my own parents) church groups lobby governments on civil marriages which they should have no control over

(btw vincent valentine ftw!)

Their problem is that Civil Unions don’t give them the same rights as married people.

“first and foremost a religious ceremony”
Marriage pre dates Christianity by a long shot.

Declan, they don’t want to get married in this institution. From the article: “The group is calling on Church leaders not to be involved in the issue of same-sex marriage”. This is because they are campaigning for Civil marriage, which, as I mentioned in my post above, is not a religious issue. Therefore they object to religious institutions lobbying in relation to the issue.

Exactly, civil marriage is not the same as a religious marriage at all.

Declan – go educate yourself.