It's her again

Last week, Allison Pearson got on my tits a bit with her claims of how great marriage is for society

On that entry I received a comment (anon) that pointed out she herself is divorced, and has children with a man she isn't married to

Wikipedia confirms this, as much as it can confirm anything (it also states she is my near-neighbour - so many annoying media types seem to take up refuge in my dear city)

So while I cannot claim certainty on the matter, I do have to question this article

My husband would kill to defend our family... so why has Munir Hussain been jailed for protecting his? [italics mine, of course]

Far be it for me to suggest she is lying, I have no proof of that, but I do have to question the headline, and would ask her to confirm her status, perhaps on her wikipedia entry - considering how she slammed unmarried mothers last week I would hate to think she is a hypocrite, or indeed, misleading the public on this issue




Right to Bigotry

Unfortunately when I head to the Mail I tend to get distracted, I have since developed a technique that gets it all out of me in about half an hour, but it can be annoying - this was actually the story I was after:


Christian Registrar sacked for refusing to marry gay couples (updated story about judge) - and I actually have few complaints about the article itself

It was actually Cranmer's frankly very poor defence of it that got me started

Christian groups have attempted to play this out as a Christian v Gay rights, but it really isn't - it boils down to gay people being allowed to be married ('civil union'ed for pedants) and her having an obligation to perform her duty as registrar

Her 'religious rights' do not extend to being able to conduct a government job along her own personal beliefs, no matter how 'deeply held'

They are a belief - if I was an anarchist could I sue the government? Or if I were a communist could I work at any profit-making business and complain? Likewise could I refuse to serve gays simply because I didn't like them - there is absolutely no difference between that position and hers

It's something people like this fail to grasp - they feel their opinions are more valid because they are 'religious', being a secularist I see no distinction between a religious belief and any other one - it's all just opinion, why is my homophobia any less valid than theirs? (please note: purely hypothetical - my driver is of course, gay)

Yes there are human rights surrounding religion, thought and conscience - they allow you to practice, worship, congregate and think and say what you like - and they also extend to secular types like me being allowed to think whatever we like too - what they do not allow us to do is enforce those views in the workplace - if I was racist I couldn't refuse to serve a person of colour

Religion is no different - for some reason some people think it is, I could easily set up a religion entirely based on racism, homophobia or antisemitism (as long as it didn't 'incite hatred'...), it would be just as valid - some would disagree, but they would also be the people who felt Scientology wasn't a real religion - well I'm afraid to us who look from the outside they are all the same, some are just older - and that is how a government must look upon it, it can't pass judgement that Christianity is 'real' and Jedi (to use a Cranmer favourite) isn't

If you were allowed to assert any beliefs you felt like in the course of your job providing services we would be setting ourselves up for complete chaos - particularly as I would immediately start a church that demanded the eating of meat and I therefore refused to serve vegans at work, protected by my 'right' (to bigotry, presumably)

and besides - who has the right to ask a customer's beliefs? I can just see the checkout ladies now - "are you a Christian or a Muslim, love?"

Serve one, serve all



Ginger Ninjas

While I'm at the Mail - found that Ginger story I noted yesterday - funny how the Mail backed the mother in this case - normally they're all for 'PC gone mad' (as one look at the comments will show) but when Tesco becomes involved, much like the BBC, they are automatically the bad guys

and yes love, cards do take the mick out of fat kids (I'll concede the black jokes) - next time I'm in I'll have a look for ones that mock fatties, uglies, disfunctional penises, baldness, mothers-in-law and old age and send it to Davinia Phillips of 'no sense of humour'