““It was applied equally and consistently to unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, as the judge accepted”
These people still don’t get it. The law says that Civil Partners must be treated the same as MARRIED couples. Therefore, Mr and Mrs Bull CLEARLY broke the law. The judge was absolutely correct in his judgement.
And Christians aren’t “being sidelined” – BIGOTS are.
Quote: ‘The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary.’
Shouldn’t that read ‘…on the religious bigotry…’?
Religion should indeed not be used to disguise homophobia and bigotry.
This behaviour needs to be stamped out. People should have a right to use goods and services regardless of any difference without fear of reprisal or repurcussions.
“In the ruling the judge said the right of the defendants to manifest their religion is not absolute and “can be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the claimants”.”
The law is clear. Beats me why they can’t understand that.
But as long as the CLC wants to throw their money and time away fighting battles they cannot possible win, then that’s fine by me… :-)
Hurrah. This now strengthens the case for the recognition of same-sex marriage, so that such loopholes in the difference between CPs and mixed sex marriage cannot be exploited by such bigotted opportunists. Let’s not forget, whilst this may be a victory for the UK, CPs are not recognised in many countries whilst marriage is. In many of these states it would be considered unlawful to discriminate on a same-sex basis as few countries actually define marriage explicitly as being between a man and a woman.
Equal access to goods and services must be guaranteed for all. The rules of this hotel should be altered even for all unmarried couples too, since it discriminates against those who do not wish to enter the institution of marriage.
Jock
Don’t even think about it. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This was a homophobic ACTION, not words – the denial of goods and services based on sexual orientation and being in a relationship not recognised by their religion. This is not the same as someone benignly saying ‘I don’t like gays’ on a street corner where it ultimately does not deny a service to an individual or impact on the ability to live ones life.
If the hotel owners had said they did not like gays to this couple in their hotel, that could also be seen as harrassment, but it depends on how it is put across – a lot of what is deemed ‘offensive’ is circumstantial, it’s not black and white (remember the thread where some thought it was fine to be called a faggot?). If it was just their private home and not a business, they would not owe a duty of care to the couple and could essentially say what they want and ask them to leave. The fact that it was their business has made all the difference.
The comments on the sky news website are disguting. One person said “to all gay people – why not go to a gay run b+B”.. can you imagine asking black people to go to a black rub B+B? It’s cases like this that show homophobia is far from dead and buried in the uk. Funny thing is if it was muslims denying the gays a room the country would be 100% on the gay side. Gotta love hipocracy.
Matt wrote: “What’s happened to the BBC’s editorial balance?”
Where religion is concerned it hardly has any. Just think of the massive obsequious coverage it gave to the papal visit last year with no mention at all of the 20,000 who took part in the Protest the Pope march and rally.
Times and attitudes change while some people try to cling to the past, here;’s motre from the Judges ruling
“In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said: “We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament. It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.
“In the last 50 years there have been many such instances – the abolition of capital punishment; the abolition of corporal punishment in schools; the decriminalisation of homosexuality and of suicide; and on a more mundane level the ban on hunting and on smoking in public places.
“All of these – and they are only examples – have offended sections of the population and in some cases cut across traditional religious beliefs. These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes.
“The standards and principles governing our behaviour which were unquestioningly accepted in one generation may not be so accepted in the next. I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants’ beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.
“It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.”
If the judgement was enough, why show the statement from Mrs Bull at all?
They have now shown a statement from Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.
The studio interview was only with the Christian Legal Centre. Jane Hill did a good job of interviewing him.
This is a clear case of religious fundamentalists trying to force their prejudices and superstitions on the rest of us. These people lost the case because they are wrong under the laws of the land. I don’t think the BBC should try to make this into a controversy. Religious bigots should not get different treatment to any other kind of bigot.
A victory against bigotry, intolerance and evidence why legislation is essential to protect LGBT people; and also why Mr Tatchells rants about the ideals of free speech should be rejected.
Also, a victory against the assumption that you can treat LGBT people as second classes citizens.
. . . . .
To David Skinner who campaigned against this decision
David – Nicole Kidman’s surrogacy has even darker forces conspiring against it: the NSW government here in Australia has banned the use of commercial surrogacy, not just locally but anywhere in the world! An Act of illiberal, mean-spirited stupidity that would make Mr Green wet himself with glee.
This is not a private home it is a business that the owners also live in. The rooms they rent out are in the public domain and subject to the law on provision of goods and services.
You cant run a coffee shop that bans gay people holding hands just as you cant ban Christians from wearing crucifixes. The same laws apply equally to all business.
“The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary”
They chose to run a people focused business that’s open to all people. They have no problems with people wearing mixed fibres or a wife sleeping with a husband while on her period. They are being selective about what of those religious beliefs they observe.
They will appeal as this is a Christian fight against civil partnerships and equal recognition.
In a strange way I would not mind the Christians winning this case, it would put the government in a untenable position when it comes to denying us gay marriage, its standard line of saying civil partnerships are equal to marriage would be in tatters by a ruling in favour of the Christians.
This whole case was just another example of the religious believing that it is their God-given right to cherry-pick the law and treat others differently to how they would doubtless like to be treated themselves. Do you think that if a couple were turned from a hotel just for being Christian that Mike Judge and co would say “fair enough”? Me neither.
A couple of points about the case FYI. Mrs Bull blamed a breakdown in communication for the phone booking, claiming that somebody else took the call when she was unwell and forgot to check the married/straight status. In the same article from weeks ago, she also admitted toning down this policy on the website so as not to ‘put people off’.
From NSS website:
Bristol County Court has awarded £1,800 each in damages to the gay couple who were refused a room in a Cornish hotel because of the owners’ religious beliefs.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society commented:
“This is yet another example of the growing militancy by evangelical Christians demanding privileges for their followers through courts and employment tribunals. Fortunately, all the cases they have brought to court have so far been spectacularly unsuccessful*. The court, as we predicted, has rightly resisted the pernicious claim that exercising “conscience”, be it Christian or any other kind, is a carte blanche to break the law. It is just as reprehensible to refuse accommodation on the grounds of sexual orientation as race. Lawful activities conducted behind closed doors are no legitimate concern of those running businesses. The argument that this was a private home is undercut by the fact it has a large sign outside proclaiming it to be a hotel.
“Mr & Mrs Bull’s argument that they denied double rooms to all unmarried people, not just homosexuals, has been shown to be false by one of the National Secular Society’s Council members, Dr Ray Newton. He stayed at this hotel in a double room with an unmarried partner – they registered under different names – but they were not challenged, and we understand that the hotel’s website made no reference to declining unmarried heterosexual couples.”
Has anyone thought to mention the cost? Presumably it would cost twice as much for two rooms as for only one room. Those gentlemen were being charged double for not being married. Another form of discrimination. By the by, what were they charged to bring their dog? lol
Interesting, Pavlos. The Bulls were clearly discriminating. Did they ban re-married divorcees? Did they ban people who’d married in a CIVIL wedding (ie who weren’t ‘really married’ according to strict Christians)? Did they ban non-Christians whose marriages also don’t count? No, of course not. They simply wished to ban gay people – and they did everything they could to try to do this. They evenaltered the wording on their website to try to make it possible.
Why don’t they try to meet some gay people instead of wasting time appealing against this decision? They’d realise we’re not monsters and we’re pretty much the same as any other person – no better, no worse. Then they might start to realise how silly and petty their policy is – nevermind that it’s against the law.
It doesn’t seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people like the Bulls & the Christian Institute away from these discriminatory beliefs.
You don’t work to move them off this position, you must move past them.
A village cannot reorganise village life to suit the village idiot, it’s as simple as that, and we have to understand we have a village idiot in this country and it’s called Fundamentalist Chnristianity
This evangelical subculture has as it’s fundamentalist faith that they distrust facts per se.
As this latest case has apparently shown, lying for Jesus…even in a court of law is now employed to resist equal rights legislation for gays in an attempt to secure the religious right to discriminate against gay & lesbian people.
The Bulls have allowed unmarried straight couples to stay at their hotel quite unchallenged.
You’re spot on about fundie evangelicalism though. I know we can laugh at it 9and your village idiot comment :D), but sometimes I find it frightening. WHY would anyone want to discriminate against another human being? I find that disturbing.
An excellent outcome, but from the judge’s quoted remarks he hasn’t highlighted what is surely the central legal issue – belief should be no basis for dispensation to disobey the law, whichever law, or belief, pertains. There are right-wing ideologues who are against paying taxes as a principled belief, and guess what? They have to cough up.
‘We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody,’ she said.
Yes, indeed, she and her husband were “only” acting according to their “sincere beliefs”. And last week Peter Tatchell advised the world that the sincere beliefs of Christians should be respected unless, he said, the Christians in question are advocating violence, slaughter, or death to us.
Clearly, Mr and Mrs Bull did NOT indicate to Steven Preddy and his civil partner Martin Hall that they wished them DEAD, so according to Peter Tatchell the judge has judged wrongly.
Mrs. Bull says they may take matter to appeal. When it goes to appeal, the lawyers acting for Mr. and Mrs. Bull should quote Tatchell’s loony advice of last week!
I dread to think what the legal costs in this case were. Moving towards £100,000 I guess, and more to come. A lawyer slugfest.
I am not sure exactly what the legal precedent set here is – is it that a hotel cannot bar customers sharing a bed who are not ‘married’ however defined? So what if there are twins beds (see the William Hague issue!). Or is that a pair of male customers cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and if so is the onus on the customers to:
(a) assert their sexuality, and
(b) prove that it was perceived by the hoteliers (or whoever), and
(c) that the latter discriminated on the basis of the sexuality rather than say the marriage status?
If so, there could be endless case by case arguments and no especial precedent set. Also note this case was not heard in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. So it may not be over yet. Nor binding.
Ben Summerskill says…“Religious freedom shouldn’t be used as a cloak for prejudice.”
Well then, Mr. Summerskill, why aren’t you using that statement to support civil marriage equality? Why the long silence since your supposed reversal in opposing it?
Now I wonder if this bigoted couple would have denied service to a straight married couple who were atheists? How would they know if a straight couple is married or not unless they demanded proof?
it seems a shame that a couple simply wanting to run one small BnB with a Christian ethos on sexuality, one shared by many many Christians in this country (remember the Queen is a Christian(views on sexuality unknown of course), the UK has an established Church, Christianity is not new to this country, indeed it is a foundation of it) should be treated so badly. It’s no good just to say, “ah well, this is the law” as these new laws are ridiculous. Thanks to Lord Waddington equality legislation isn’t as bad as it could be, but somehow people we’re going to have to accept that some people have genuine faith based, or non faith based moral objections to honmosexual practice and that’s not gonna change.. stop trying to cast them out, they’re entitled to a view as are you. Once it was gay rights who wanted the freedom to live as their sexuality lead them, remember how it was when you didn’t have that freedom and then remember to allow the freedom of others.
Dan.. you raise a good point. The juge was saying that as in law civil partners have the same rights as married couples it meant the discrimination was illegal.. that doesn’t make sense. Surely it would have been illegal had they not been civil partners. Civil partnerships are not marriage however, and it is this theological distinction the owners were interested in not the legal one (and CP’s are not marriages, even in law). So would the judge have ruled differently had the gay couple not been in a CP?… confusing .. appeal required?
Also, to anyone to whom this may apply.. if you’re thinking Peter Tatchell isn’t going far enough on gay rights don’t you think you might be a tad extreme???
@James, it sounds from what you wrote that the Bulls were running a B&B exclusively for people with a Christian sex fetish…
Certainly from some of the statements made by Hazel-Mary Bull about it not being an objection to sexual orientation but all about sex then it’s certainly looks like it’s being run as a hotelespecially for these like-minded Christianist sex fetishist’s, quite disturbing.
and one more thing.. and I’m sorry I can’t remember what to put all at once.. the legal costs i believe were about 30,000, but Christians will rally round and pay for them so the couple won’t lose out financially in the end. How do folk feel about a lot of places who dont allow same sex groups?.. (this is an old policy that’s about stag parties etc, not sexuality). If a Christian retreat centre or monastery type place wants to allow only married couples double rooms, shoudl Stonewall et al challenge that too?
@ James: money well wasted then that coujld have been used to provide medicines and treatments in poorer countries and to save lives. Shame these bigots can’t get their Christian priorities sorted.
What’s a ‘devout’ Christian? Is this someone who strictly follows the word of Christ, or just someone who picks and chooses which laws they want to obey and which they don’t? Didn’t Christ tell his followers to love their neighbour? To do unto others as they would want done to themselves? To be slow to anger and quick to forgive? Not to judge, lest they be judged? Not to throw stones at adulterers and fornicators? Not to try to remove a mote from their neighbour’s eye, before they have removed the beam from their own? I don’t think this couple are ‘devout’ Christians, they’re just hypocrites and they deserve to be fined and held responsible for their hypocrisy. ‘Devout’ Christians do not judge and oppress other people – no matter what their sexual orientation. Here endeth the lesson.
Pavlos… not sure if it escaped your attention but firstly, the case was brought by the gay couple, not the BnB owners, so not sure how you can blame them for the costs.. secondly, Christians in this country pay for a hugely disporportionate amount of welfare, foreign aid, social care etc, so I’m sure there’s plenty left to help others less fortunate than ourselves.. but still, fighting for freedoms is important too.
Mrs Bull said: husband, Peter, was unable to attend because he is to undergo triple heart bypass surgery later today. So surly appealing would say she cares more about her God than her husband and that doesn’t sound very Christian of her?
Rich.. The first commandment is to love God. the second is to love your neighbour. I’m sure her Husband would want her to fight on if the legal advice was that it was worth the effort. If you believe that this life is just hte beginning of things then it changes how you feel. Plus, you seem to think that her husband, also beng sued, doesn’t want to proceed with an appeal.. you don’t know this to be true. I think they’ll lsoe an appeal.. not cos they’re wrong, but because the new law and the PCness makes it unlikely for a fair judgement to be reached.
@James:
The gay couple were perfectly legally entitled to seek redress through the courts, the Bulls broke the law but you appear to be blaming the victims.
“the right of the defendants to manifest their religion is not absolute and “can be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the claimants”.
Please take note of the Judges ruling and try to learn something from it.
James, Christians pay for no more welfare, foreign aid or social care than anyone else. In fact due to the low numbers of practising Christians in the UK, something like 5% of the entire population (and that is an over estimate) it could be argued that they do indeed pay less of the over all percentage paid to the afore mentioned items.
James, if you think the decision of the judge was wrong, then you must also agree that it is fine for anyone to discriminate and refuse services on the grounds of race, gender or disability.
The UK operates via a secular law that is there to protect everyone and particularly the minorities from the bigoted majorities. However, in regards of homophobia…society has moved on and fortunately homophobia is perpetrated by the uneducated ignorant few.
Fundamentalist religionists MUST change the hateful and offensively bigoted way they think.
Hiding their nastiness behind an old book written by man for man is cowardice. At the very least they should just be honest and open and state that they are just not very civilised people who look to oppress others by any means necessary.
James
These religious nut’s think God is in direct contact with them and God is testing their resolve to fight off dark “unspeakable” forces that have been placed upon them. They believe they are doing God’s work and they are “never” going to quit and that is their weakness because they cant help themselves in God’s defence.
James, a fair judgement was reached and it did not go in the favour of the bigots.
Even if they appealed they cannot win, because the law is very clear regarding the refusal of services or goods based on discrimination and even if a judge were to sympathise with them he could only change the amount of compensation, but not the verdict.
There only defence was that it was also their home. However, because their home is also their business which offers a service to paying members of the public then they must abide by commercial law.
I am happy for them to appeal, because at least then it will cost the Christian institute a few more thousand pounds.
Where do I begin?? Pavlos, you made the point that the money for the court case could have been spent better elsewhere.. agrreed. The court case was brought by the gay couple.. I can’t blame the BnB owners for the legal costs as they didn’t want a court case. I agree that the gay couple felt they had a grievance and therefore sought legal redress.. I think it’s a shame they did that, and didn’t respect the right of an old Christian couple to rent out a few rooms in their own home according to their perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct.
Traust.. UK law is not secular, the Queen is the head of the law and it is indeed the same Crown the prosecutes that is the head of the Church of England.. you can debate the finer points of secularism as I agree our system is unclear.. but the words in the Royal Arms behind the head of the judge say, “My God and my right”.. not secular.
Measuring the level of support for Christianity is not easy, the last census showed over 70% of people defining themselves as Christian, and church attendance is much higher than 5% and steady. There are many genuine Christians who don’t go to Church and the smaller, and the evangelical churches, including those in the C ofE, are growing rapidly.. FYI.
OF course I do not support discrimination on grounds of race, gender discrimination we all welcome in terms of toilets, sports, al kinds of things, but not in employment, except in a very few circumstances only.. eg rap counselling, front line military work etc. Discrimination based on sexuality is also almost wholly banned, but discrimination on sexual conduct is not. The BnB owners have a policy on only married couples sharing a room, coming from a clear Biblical instruction about sexual relations, nothing new or rare or fundamentalist there. They wouldn’t stop a gay person from working there or staying there or supplying them etc, just not sharing a double room. This idea that sexuality and race are the same thing is poppycock.. offensive to many black and asian people I’ve spoken to, and suggests that sexual orientation is decided before or at birth.. something that has not been proven, even P Tatchell says so!!
Now clearly you don’t believe in the Bible, I think your opinion is wrong and ignorant, but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?
As for saying MUST change their ways.. this country has fought people who’ve tried to force us into accepting their views.. and won. Let’s not have any more nonsense like that please.
James: “they’re entitled to a view as are you. Once it was gay rights who wanted the freedom to live as their sexuality lead them, remember how it was when you didn’t have that freedom and then remember to allow the freedom of others.”
Yes, they’re entitled to their view, but they’re NOT entitled to an opt-out from the law. Next we’ll hear of ‘christians’ discriminating against an interracial couple, or pleading biblical permission for stoning adulterers to death.
We’re all entitled to believe what we want but we all have to obey the law. And, personally, I don’t think many homophobic Christians are acting out of any religious compulsion at all. They’re just bigots looking for a way to continue to discriminate. Nasty and inexcusable morally aswell as being against the law.
And they’re so stupid they don’t realise that the law’s there to protect THEM too.
@James:
When the disciples asked Christ what was the most important commandment, he didn’t say, ‘To love your god’, he said ‘To love your neighbour’ so the Bulls are wrong, wrong, wrong in every way.
Lillith.. what version of the Bible are you quoting from exactly?? Not one I’ve ever read.. pick a translation and I’ll quote it to you, but here’s the NIV for now, “36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22:36-40
I would advise that before being so judgemental you carefully check your sources.
If it is legal to prevent unmarried couples from sharing a room, then the judgement is wrong. The gay couple were also unmarried.
I think it is situations like this where the farcical situation of CP’s instead of marriage really demonstrate the difference, and why I suspect a lot of religious types don’t want to see full gay marriage. They wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Civil Partnerships are not marriage true, but under the provision of goods and services act and the discrimination (sexual orientation) acts civil partnerships and marriage are treated as equal therefore it is discriminatory to offer something to married people which you then refuse to civil partnered people except for a few specific opt out for religious stuff which this does not fall into.
@James,
Their age has nothing to do with making allowances for their bigotry and by making a comment like ” perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct” is you are showing your own prejudices. There is nothing which is not perfectly respectable about two men legally civil partnered sleeping in the same bed (or even having sex). Any other view is I am afraid bigoted and prejudiced. You are welcome to hold such a view but don’t expect not to be challenged and called out for it and don’t expect to be able to use it to discriminate.
“Now clearly you don’t believe in the Bible, I think your opinion is wrong and ignorant, but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?”
. . . . . . . . . .
James . . . Does free speech not also carry responsibilities?
Remember the sign that some shops put on the front of their doors?
“We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone”
Apparently that doesn’t apply here.
Apparently Muslim extremeists can burn flags on our streets while shouting obsenities about our soldiers going to hell and how they hate our country and get off scott free from it because they are allowed to practice their free speech, but a honest Christian couple who were sincere and up front about their beliefs and even offered them two separate bedrooms instead will be taken to court for being prejudiced.
One rule for them and another for us. They are scared of the R word (i.e. Racist). Apparently if we want our religious right then we need to start burning flags in streets and start making noise. Basically they are rewarding the bad people while punishing the nice. It’s absolutely outrageous and I’m starting to think that I’ve had enough of all this.
At the end of the day they operate a busisness. They shouldn’t be forced to serve absolutely anybody. Afterall they don’t need to operate the business if they don’t want to and if they didn’t have it then they wouldn’t have served them anyway because they wouldn’t be able to. This couple are sacrificing payments into their bank account to uphold their religious beliefs. They are putting themselves out of pocket. Remember they sell a service in order to recieve money in return, if they refuse to serve a certain customer then they simply won’t get the money for it. They shouldn’t be forced to accept the money because they don’t want to serve a particular type of customer.
I can’t take a toy company to court because they don’t provide services for adults. I can’t scream that a toy company are being ageist against me because they only cater to children up to five. You can’t make buisnesses serve people, they are providing a service that they don’t need to provide to begin with.
If anybody has a problem with the comments I made above then they can discuss them with me at http://www.theologyweb.com where I go by the same username (Darth Ovious)
I’m pleased by this result. I was out all day and wouldyou believe I was asked at one point to contribute to a fund to help the Bulls appeal. My response surprised one or two people who thought me mild mannered!
Hopefully they’re just going to accept they cannot discriminate, and won’t appeal the case, otherwise, with tolerance for homophobia coming from the government, chances are still 50%/50%…. Keep watching…
Its worth pointing out Chaps Hotel Blackpool advertise themselves as EXCLUSIVELY GAY MEN ONLY. http://www.chapshotel.co.uk/
Its only right for us to reject discriminatory practices in LGBT businesses too. Its ok to market the business at one grouping, but if you refuse entry based on gender or sexual orientation its just not on.
Please try to remember that religious faith is a mental illness. James clearly suffers from such an illness, and it is, therefore, impossible to argue him. Religious mania is something which is entirely irrational.
I think it’s brilliant news. I have little sympathy for them! If I owned, as a Pagan let alone as a gay woman, a hotel and refused THEM a room because they were Christians they’d sue the hell out of me!!!
Can you please show this tolerance of homophobia from the government and how this is impacting on the independent judiciary or are you just blowing out hot air as usual.
You have been banging on about this judgement being twisted by the “tory homophobes” for ages and it did not happen.
Instead of saying you got it wrong you just move your bigotry onto the appeal.
Your open bigotry and vitriol is much worse than anything to come out of Grayling, Helmer, Widdecombe et al.
Your Wolfie Smith tirades are as laughable as the sitcom.
I for one am not with the Gay camp. These people should be allowed to have a conscience. We have had so much taken away from us and are fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises. You only have to read the comments from the gay reader commentsthat they believe their rights come before any right minded christian believer.
This is good news, and sends a clear message to those that choose to enter the hotel trade. The placards read ‘it’s their home’ – the moment you turn your home into a guest house you are running a business providing a service.
Dave G. Perhaps you’d like that this decision had put an end to the case, but it ain’t so. The judge somehow decided to leave it open to further scrutiny, while the Tories are still trying to ideologically and strategically dismantle many of our hard fought protections. So keep watching… while I’ll keep denouncing them…
The result of the case, is in my opinion unfortunate because it seems to me that some gay people like to rub every ones noses in gay lib, gay rights, gay this and gay that, no one is ever going to convince me that being homosexual is a norm, because it just isn’t, nature does not make allowances for one sex relationships.
As far as the hotel case is concerned, I am convinced it was a set-up regardless of what Mr Preddy and Mr Hall say.
Christianity is a fairly strict religion, and it’s values preach tolerance of others, but it does not say you should except something that fundamentally wrong , If Hitler had been around today would we have allowed him to carry on with his intentions because of his human rights ?. I think it fairer to say there has been a clash of beliefs, and opinions, in this instance, where there should have been no winners or losers
It would not have made the slightest difference if the case had been based on what some call a ‘set up’. It would still have proved that the Bulls are bigots who have flouted the law. It is unfortunate that the judge did not award the £5,000 each which was asked for as compensation.
Today’s ruling clearly shows that there is tolerance for everyone EXCEPT the Bible-believing Christian.We applaud the courage of Mr.and Mrs.Bull.They are right to exclude unmarried couples and homosexuals from their B&B.The Bible states that, “Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled” Hebrews ch.13 v.4 and,by marriage, the Bible means 1 man + 1 woman.Clearly, society is being dictated to by the homosexual lobby,but then,that is after all,the society envisaged by Kirk and Madsen in “After the Ball.
I for one am not with the Gay camp. These people should be allowed to have a conscience. We have had so much taken away from us and are fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises. You only have to read the comments from the gay reader comments that they believe their rights come before any right minded christian believer – Tim
———————————————————————————————–
The only reason you feel uncomfortable with gay rights Tim is you hold bigoted views that see equal right for gay people as something to be avoided.
This is not a gay rights issue its a human rights issue. This ruling also protects Christians and everybody from discriminatory practices against them in public facilities.
Today’s ruling clearly shows that there is tolerance for everyone EXCEPT the Bible-believing Christian.We applaud the courage of Mr.and Mrs.Bull.They are right to exclude unmarried couples and homosexuals from their B&B.The Bible states that, “Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled” Hebrews ch.13 v.4 and,by marriage, the Bible means 1 man + 1 woman.Clearly, society is being dictated to by the homosexual lobby,but then,that is after all,the society envisaged by Kirk and Madsen in “After the Ball. – Sola Scriptura
————————————————————————————————-
The bible and its teachings are not UK law, if you want that go find a Christian theocracy to live in.
UK law says it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of age, race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability.
Deal with it religionists or go find another country to live in.
Helen: “The bible and its teachings are not UK law, if you want that go find a Christian theocracy to live in.”
I think you will find most modern day laws have their origin in scripture. (Not always the Bible though).
I think there is a lot of good moral code in the Bible, but unfortunately, it is horribly outdated, and if it were brought up to date could be a good book for everyone to follow.
Unfortunately though, you are unlikely to find anyone willing to mess with “The Word of God”.
Tim: “You only have to read the comments from the gay reader commentsthat they believe their rights come before any right minded christian believer.”
Rubbish. You have equal rights to me, a gay person. You only have to follow the same laws I do, and you also benefit from protection from discrimination – ie no-one can refuse to let YOu stay in a B and B simply because you’re a Christian.
What you REALLY mean is that you want opt-outs from UK law – that is, SPECIAL treatment, and the right to discriminate against others. It’s nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ignorance and intolerance.
Let me spell it out again – You can’t discriminate aginst me and I can’t discriminate against you. We have the SAME rights.
@Tim — “We have had so much taken away from us …”. Please give an example of what’s been taken from what group.
“… fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats …”. What does this actually mean ? Are you saying you’re fed up with sections of the population having the same rights as you ?
“ … and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises”. Is it only gay couples you feel the need to refuse ? Would you like the right to refuse entry to other couples as well ? Irish for example ? Or people who just don’t like the look of ?
Wow, wow, wow. What is coming over the world. Indeed the end of all things is near. Escape while you can, save yourselves. A destruction is coming upon the world.
Time to pause and take breath!!
LGBT community and Christian community, read your comments. What impression is being created in those who have nof firm convictions either way. Your ideas may be fixed, some appear to be very hateful to one or the other community. Is that how you wish to approach an understanding?
The only understanding we should be working on is that no one should discriminate against anyone in the provision of goods and services for any reason.
> The judge somehow decided to leave it open to further scrutiny, while the Tories are still trying to ideologically and strategically dismantle many of our hard fought protections.
The judge granted permission to appeal because he said it raised an important point of principle and because there was no higher authority on the point.
The Conservatives have done nothing to dismantle gay freedoms. They have gone out of their way to say that homophobia is unacceptable.
Your constant tirades and insulting of those on the Right is undisguised bigotry.
@James — “… didn’t respect the right of an old Christian couple to rent out a few rooms in their own home … ”. No. It’s a place of business, regardless of whether they live there or not. The law is clear on this point. Why do you think they should be exempt ? What has their age or religion got to do with the matter ? Should old people get exemption ? Should people of a particular faith get exemption ?
“ … according to their perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct”. Respectable ? What do you mean by respectable ? Some people think their views are antediluvian, and abhorrent. On what grounds do you think their views are respectable ?
When you say ‘“My God and my right”.. not secular’ I’m not sure what your point is. The law applies equally to everybody. Are you suggesting that Christians get additional rights because of words on the Royal Arms ?
“Discrimination based on sexuality is also almost wholly banned”. Do you think this ban a good thing ?
“ … but discrimination on sexual conduct is not.”. This is a bit of a fine distinction you’re trying to make. Are you saying that the Bulls would not have discriminated against the couple if they’d sworn not to have sex ? You’re suggesting that holding hands is fine, but making love is beyond the pale and unacceptable. Why do you think the Bulls are so obsessed with what other people do in bed ?
“The BnB owners have a policy on only married couples sharing a room”. Not what they originally had on their website though, eh ?
“ … coming from a clear Biblical instruction about sexual relations … ” Really ? The bible is clear on this is it ? No inconsistency or ambiguity at all ?
“They wouldn’t stop a gay person from working there or staying there or supplying them etc”. Have you anything to support this statement ?
“This idea that sexuality and race are the same thing is poppycock.. offensive to many black and asian people”. The point is that discrimination on the grounds of race or sexuality is the same thing — discrimination. Which would you allow ? Both ?
“… suggests that sexual orientation is decided before or at birth ”. So what ? Does it matter ? The causes of sexual orientation are immaterial. The discrimination is the significant thing.
“… but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?” And who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ? This isn’t about free speech, it’s about obeying the law and not discriminating against people. Who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ?
“As for saying MUST change their ways … ”. So you don’t think they have to obey the law ? Why ?
“… this country has fought people who’ve tried to force us into accepting their views.. and won.” Eh ? And ? Aren’t the Bulls trying to force everybody to accept their views ?
“Let’s not have any more nonsense like that please.” What nonsense ? When you say “Let us”, who is ‘us’ ?
Again.. where to begin. I’ll ignore the vitriolic anti-Christian comments.. seriously, they’re not worth the effort. The more serious comments, I’ll do what I can.
Re the law, these laws have changed a lot over the past few years and are still changing. Just because the laws have changed in one direction only doesn’t mean they will always change in that direction and should the law in future say that a Christian BnB can turn away gay couples from BnB’s (as it was not so long ago) then I’m assuming that the defence of “get over it, it’s the law” wouldn’t placate you. This debate is about whether or not the law is right.. we’ve been told what the law is, we’re discussing what it should be.
I commend Arthur Mann for his wise words.. LGBT community, be careful, you’re making yourself look very bad. If Peter Tatchell says you’re going too far then there’s a VERY strong chance you are.. militant fundamentalism is what it looks like to me, and any attempt to paint the BnB owners as extremists looks ridiculous in the light of some of the prejudice expressed on here.
What would Jesus do?.. A great question indeed. Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin.. maybe he’d have spoken to the couple and pointed out lovingly that they were in sin.. then He’d have been sued too. Jesus combines love and truth without compromising either, the liberal church often ignores truth and then fails to love those that don’t agree with it. Whilst evangelicals beleive things you don’t like, I hope and pray that they all love every gay person.. but that doesn’t mean they love or condone what that person might want to do.
The argument that any opposition to homosexuality is just based on bigotry etc might have worked once but now it just seems tired and bitchy. You can’t shut down the debate with labels, and we hear it so often now it just doesn’t have the effect it maybe once had.
“We have had so much taken away from us and are fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises.
. . . . . . . . . .
Tim – What has been taken away from Christians like yourself?
Tim – What are these gay rights which are being rammed down your throat?
Tim – Why do you think you have the right to discriminate against people?
Repent of your folly, all who think a penis in an anus is productive. Does not nature teach you that a penis in a vagina is productive? For lesbians, sticking a rubber thing down a vagina does not really satisfy. Nature should have shown you it is void of emotion.
There is still a time of repentance to turn away from your folly, and receive the grace given freely by the only True God of all creation, who is Holy, Just and True.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have Eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. John 3:16 -17
“What would Jesus do?.. A great question indeed. Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin.. maybe he’d have spoken to the couple and pointed out lovingly that they were in sin.. then He’d have been sued too.”
. . . . . . . . . .
James . . . no where does Jesus refer to homosexuality, in any version of the bible.
James . . . why would a man who preached tolerance, repect and love, go onto discriminate agianst gays.
James . . . why is your Christianity so focused on discriminating against gays, and referring to them as sinful; rather than Christ who preached love.
@James — what did Jesus actually say, in the bible, about homosexuality ?
What does “love the sinner, abhorred the sin” actually mean ? How would the actions of someone who followed this injunction differ from someone who hated the sinner ?
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Why is homosexuality bad ? You’ve spent a deal of time saying it is, and that discrimination against gay people is “respectable”, now tell us why ? You can convince people, if your arguments are sound. Over to you.
Harry.. Harry.. do you really want a discussion about why I and many other Christians and people of other faiths and none believe homosexual sex is a negative thing.. and try and convince the readers of Pink News? I suppose you’ll sue me if I say something I don’t like..
The Bible is very clear on homosexual practices for a start, and one more than one or two occasions. Jesus speaks of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and speaks of the sexual immorality of early 1st century Israel. In that time and place homosexuality was illegal and punishable by death.. as far as we know JEsus never spoke against that, not saying Jesus supports the death penalty but let’s remember John 8 and the women caught in adultery.. “neither then do I condemn you, go and sin no more”. Jesus forgives the woman but calls a sin a sin. Of course, Jesus also upholds the law. St Paul is explicit in his view that homosexual sex is against the will of GOd, and HE is writing to countries where homosexuality was far more prevalent.. Greece etc, and so it was necessary to stipulate this particular fact. Seriously Harry, most liberal Christian argument in favour of homosexuality has got naff all to do with the gospels or the rest of the Bible.. but on a modern political view point and trying to get Christianity to fit their own ideas.
Jesus would (and does) certainly love all people, gay, straight or transsexual.. and this love goes so far that He died for us all.. so that we might be FREE FROM SIN.. not that we can pretend something is not sin.
Sadly, homosexuality is a hot button issue these days.. I wish it wasn’t. However, it’s the gay lobby that’s pushing and pushing this issue over and over and making it into the issue it is. Christians can’t ever condone something we feel God has said is wrong, so I can’t see how this is going to go away until the gay lobby accepts that it’s made good ground over the years but could potentially ruin much of it by going too far.
how do these religious pests find pink newsin the first place? Can we go to their religious newspaper and speak as freely? Or would we be banned and deleted?
James wrote
Christians can’t ever condone something we feel God has said is wrong, so I can’t see how this is going to go away until the gay lobby accepts that it’s made good ground over the years but could potentially ruin much of it by going too far.
. . . . . . . . . .
James . . . why won’t Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians like yourself repent of your obsession with homosexuality?
James . . . What exactly does the gay lobby need to accept?
James . . . What is going to be ruined if LGBT people continue to fight homophobic Christians?
Oh dear
My earlier comments were directed at both LGBT community and Christian community and I agreed with daveG that it is a common human decency not only to act within the law but towards one another Stop the vitriolic statements.
The subject is too great for that.
Make reasoned argument without referring to each other as bigots or fundamentalists, respecting that the thoughts and actions of whichever camp you are in are sincerely held.
Maybe then there would be some understanding of what is happening here.
“Make reasoned argument without referring to each other as bigots or fundamentalists, respecting that the thoughts and actions of whichever camp you are in are sincerely held.”
. . . . . . . . . .
Arthur . . . why do you want to pretend that you are not a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian?
David; must all sexual acts be productive and it is only their productivity which makes them therefore “acceptable”? Do you imagine that every act of heterosexual intercourse is productive? Good grief. 99% of hetersexual intercourse is unproductive to say nothing of the other numerous unproductive sexual acts that most human beings engage in.
Expect a moral majority backlash to this judgement along the lines of “the pendulum has swung too far…”. Isee all the nasties have come out of the woodwork to do their “us poor christians put upon by the “gays”" on t’internet forums.
The Bull’s argument was a figleaf. See this from the Grauniad.
“They did not, by the way, object to letting such immoral couples use twin-bedded rooms; as Judge Rutherford observed: “Two persons of the same sex … who have come to Cornwall intent on a sexually fulfilling weekend may enjoy that weekend to the full in a twin-bedded room. Putting it bluntly, the hotel policy allows them to do so albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.”
Ha! So if your unmarried (gay or str8) you can can have a sexually fulfilling weekend at the B&B but only if you dont mind squeezing into a twin bedded room – they’ll turn a blind eye but please, not in a double bedded room! That’s just dirty. lol. I mean, how disingenuous is that? Are they just extremely stupid and/or hypocritical that they cant imagine the possibility of ppl having nookie in a room without a double bed?
Harry, now for your longer post. Forigve me cutting and pasting your cutting and pasting.. memory not what it was you know.
@James — “… didn’t respect the right of an old Christian couple to rent out a few rooms in their own home … ”. No. It’s a place of business, regardless of whether they live there or not. The law is clear on this point. Why do you think they should be exempt ? What has their age or religion got to do with the matter ? Should old people get exemption ? Should people of a particular faith get exemption ?
Simply that I would ask for a little compassion and mercy for an old couple trying to run a BnB. Poeple of faith do get exemptions, from the Sikh allowed to not wear a bicycle helmet to the CHurch and MOsque etc being exempt from employment equality law.. and yes I think this should remain. Fairness makes more sense than equality and it’s one of many things that make up a good society, not the only one. It’s not an overruling dogma, least it shouldn’t be.
“ … according to their perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct”. Respectable ? What do you mean by respectable ? Some people think their views are antediluvian, and abhorrent. On what grounds do you think their views are respectable ?
Many people out there think their views are worth of respect. THey are sound Christian views, a Muslim would agree with them, and indeed they were only asking for traditional values regarding relatiionships that many people hold to be upheld in their home and the rooms they rented out.. that’s something they make clear early on, if you want to do something else, fine, go to a different more liberal establishment.. a free country.. that would be nice!
When you say ‘“My God and my right”.. not secular’ I’m not sure what your point is. The law applies equally to everybody. Are you suggesting that Christians get additional rights because of words on the Royal Arms ?
I’m suggesting that there are lots of things that tell us that the nation and her laws are not secular. Christians should be free to practice their religion, don’t call that a special right.. but I certainly think the gay rights lobby is a militant extremist lobby that’s getting pretty ugly. Even PEter Tatchell is saying it’s going too far, and if that doesn’t ring alarm bells, nothing will.
“Discrimination based on sexuality is also almost wholly banned”. Do you think this ban a good thing ?
“ … but discrimination on sexual conduct is not.”. This is a bit of a fine distinction you’re trying to make. Are you saying that the Bulls would not have discriminated against the couple if they’d sworn not to have sex ? You’re suggesting that holding hands is fine, but making love is beyond the pale and unacceptable. Why do you think the Bulls are so obsessed with what other people do in bed ?
THe CHristian view on sexuality is a clear one. You have to draw the line somewhere and it’s been accepted for many years that sharing a room is often where that line is drawn. They weren’t asking the couple to repent and stop being sexually active, just asking them not to be so in their home. I don’t expect someone can help being gay anymore than i can help being straight, but it’s what i do with my sexuality that’s the issue, alwyas was, alwyas will be. IF they’d had separate rooms they would have been fine, so they were not banned for being gay.
“The BnB owners have a policy on only married couples sharing a room”. Not what they originally had on their website though, eh ?
“ … coming from a clear Biblical instruction about sexual relations … ” Really ? The bible is clear on this is it ? No inconsistency or ambiguity at all ?
Not really no. Bible is extremely clear. Liberal ‘Christian’ viewpoint is more about politics than scripture.
“They wouldn’t stop a gay person from working there or staying there or supplying them etc”. Have you anything to support this statement ?
Well if did they’d not be in line with Christian teaching, and there’s no evidence they’ve showed any discrimination in any of these ways. My point is that they’re not homophobic (unless homophobic means not being in Stonewall lol) they have perfectly long standing and repsectable views on homosexuality that aren’t yours.. get over it :)
“This idea that sexuality and race are the same thing is poppycock.. offensive to many black and asian people”. The point is that discrimination on the grounds of race or sexuality is the same thing — discrimination. Which would you allow ? Both ?
They are not the same at all. The gay couple were not discriminated against for being gay, simply for being unmarried and wanting a double room. . same as an unmarried straight couple. Cp’s are not marriage and in the view of many people it’s impossible to have gay marraiges. as marriage is a union of man and woman.. as Jesus said.
“… suggests that sexual orientation is decided before or at birth ”. So what ? Does it matter ? The causes of sexual orientation are immaterial. The discrimination is the significant thing.
Interesting.. many people on here seem to go crazy at suggestion homosexuality might be acquired in some way or conditioned.. hence upheaval if a counsellor reponds to a request to be helped out of having gay feelings. The point I was making is of yet another difference between sexuality and race. You either are black or you’re not.. you can’t DO black. No Christian I know is advocating discriminating against smeone cos they’re gay, but that’s totally different to approving of gay sex.
“… but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?” And who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ? This isn’t about free speech, it’s about obeying the law and not discriminating against people. Who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ?
Ah the law argument.. so it was ok to send gay men to prison in the 60′s was it.. and to hang themin IRan.. cos it’s the law. No.. and you know that’s a weak argument.
“As for saying MUST change their ways … ”. So you don’t think they have to obey the law ? Why ?
Same answer as above about the power of the law… you said change their views before.. now it’s obey the law.. not hte same thing.. which are you asking me?
“… this country has fought people who’ve tried to force us into accepting their views.. and won.” Eh ? And ? Aren’t the Bulls trying to force everybody to accept their views ?
“Let’s not have any more nonsense like that please.” What nonsense ? When you say “Let us”, who is ‘us’ ?
The BUlls were only trying to get a little repsect for their views in their own home.. I donlt think they’ve told any group in society they MUSt change their views.. maybe they should, but MUST is a word that needs some backing up. PLus, changing views is not the same as obeying the law.. you’re changing your argument mid flow. As for let’s.. well I’m sure you’ve been alive in Britain for more than a few hours so I’m sure you’ve heard that idiomatic usage of let/s before.. it usuall refers to all of us.. as in.. we should all refrain from that kind of thing.
Hope that’s all clear.. one more point though..
IF Parliament said that murder was not illegal.. then it would not be illegal.. Parliament has this power (ignore EU for a second). IF parliament said the Sun was not a hot sphere in space.. then.. well it would still be a hot sphere in space. Parliament has the power to change some things but not others. With hte possiblity of gay marriages in this country, you must understand that it wouldn’t have changed this case one bit. Parliament cannot make marriage between two men or two women any more possible that it is now.. registrars aren’t God.
When religionists come into our space to insult us I will not remain calm and respectful. I will call a spade a spade when religionist comment is fundamentalist or bigoted.
This is not a religionist site we do not need to show any tolerance towards those invading our safe space.
@Iris
“David strikes me as a total pervert”
No Iris, i am not a total pervert. I am not sinless either, however i have tapped into the Grace which is made available for all through Jesus Christ.
This Grace is avialable to you too. The Bible says that where sin increases Grace abounds all the more, so you can come clean before the God of all flesh to whom we will all give account.
I have spoken the way i have because i would like to be down to earth with manner of relationships we have rather using all the lofty descriptions we use to hide the nature of these relationships.
If God designed humans – then He also defines marriage.
If evolution ‘designed’ humans then homosexuality is plainly the end of the line.
Either way the homosexual appears doomed.
However God does say He is full of mercy – and evolution plainly has no such concept.
“This Grace is avialable to you too. The Bible says that where sin increases Grace abounds all the more, so you can come clean before the God of all flesh to whom we will all give account.
. . . . . . . . . . .
David . . . so you are hear to be patronsing and condescending in the name of religion.
David . . . I think you are really hear because you are furious that Gays have won a case against Homophobic Christian Bigotry
John K
The reason is to seek to understand fully the arguments put forward.
Helen
touche, you make the defendants’ contention more than adequately.
End
I think the gay oresurre lobbys need to take a reality check on this one. we need to realise that this is not a hotel biut a B&B and that these people be thety right or wrong, published their views on their website, we are all children of our time and I find it diffiult to believe that the two guys in question took the time to read the policy on pets but never took the time to look up the website ansd find out the policy on unmarried/gay couples, I frequently search the internet for suitable places fo myself and my partner to holiday and can generally take a view on wher or where not we will be made welcome. it strikes me that there is more than this story than meets the eye be it on the part of the couple who operate the b&b or the couple who booked the accomodation, how far do we take discrimination, will be prosecuting doormen at nightclubs for turning away badly dressed/ugly/unsuitable people and claiming damages, lets all live in the real world and tolerate each others views without being vindictive, i have no truck with openley homophobic or bigoted people but this couple (who run a B&B in their own home) must have a right to decide who and who not they want to accomodate. hese guys were not left starnded without a roof over their head and should have researchead the rules of the establishment before booking, i have been refused a meal in the restaurant of a hotel because i was not wearing a shirt and tie even though i had paid serious money to stay, maybe because i am gay but maybe because people in the hotel thought i should be wearing a tie. Wake up and smell the coffee
Mr and Mrs Bull are still preaching discrimination – they are STILL blatantly stating on their website that gays are banned. Should the judge not have required them to open their doors to everyone or – if they are unable to comply with the law – close?
“Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).
Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples”
“Christians can’t ever condone something we feel God has said is wrong….”
We FEEL God has said is wromg?
I don’t think that is good enough.
God hasn’t said anything. The writers of the Bible have. Every single one of them were Human beings, even if they had divine inspiration. It is possible they were wrong then and still wrong 2,000 years later.
So how about all these fundies stop quoting a book that is badly in need of a modern revision and mind their own business. The only damnation coming is on the hypocrites who hide behind the bible.
We still have a lot of people here who are intollerant of the Christian viewpoint. Lets go through this again shall we.
1) The Christian couple were not being intolerant. They in no way tried to change the sexual beliefs of the gay couple involved. They only expressed that they were not allowed to practice it while in their place of buisness.
The courts on the other hand are being intolerant because they have ruled AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN’S BELIEFS. They have down right told them that they are no longer allowed to have this opinion. This is basically 1984 people. The government are now convicting people because of their beliefs.
To tolerate something means that you don’t necessarily like it but you will put up with it within your society. To be intollerant means that you will not allow this opinion any freedom of speech whatsoever. For instance we do not tollerate murderers, rapists, thiefs. To put this Christian couple among this lot is a complete joke and it is nothing but sickening.
2) They have the right to refuse service if they wish. Shops just don’t hang signs with the phrase “We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone” for a laugh.
In fact serveral places of buisness actually do this. If you go to a nightclub you can be turned from the door with a stupid assinine excuse such as “not in those trainers” or “Regulars only” (How am I supposed to become a regular in the first place if you don’t let me in duh!). Pubs can also trun you away for wearing football colours. This is all basically code saying “we’re not letting you in because you look like a thug” but apparently they can get away with it. This is basically a character assassination and they are judging people by the way they look, NOT BECASUE OF THE WAY THEY ACTUALLY ARE. It’s a complete false attribution but yet nobody complains about it because they know they don’t operate the buisness and it’s the ownes wishes to srve who he wants.
3) The businesses above get away with this because IT IS THEIR PLACE OF BUISNESS. They own the building and the deeds. They have every right to say who they want allowed on their premises and IT DOES NOT COME UNDER as public domain like some people assert, because if that was the case then you wouldn’t be able to be refused entry from ANY PLACE OF BUISNESS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (unless you are an escapd convict from jail).
4) Well done to the person above who posted the B&B that was gay only and will only allow Gay people to stay at their BnB. This is exactly what I am talking about. They are even allowed to advertise their stance on being exclusively gay only and will get away with it. This is blatant double standards here because a Christian wouldn’t get away with there beliefs being advertised without being told to change it and remove the stipulation.
I read a story about a girl who was a Christian and hung up an advert in her local church on the notice board asking for a house mate and stipulated that the house mate had to be Christian. She was told to remove the stipulation by the authorities. This is absolutely ridiculous, apparently we are not even allowed to stipulate who we want to live with any more. What a joke.
5) The Christian viewpoint has been made clear. We do not hate gay people, we just believe that the action of same partner sex should not be performed. We don’t force anybody to listen to us, it’s just the way we think things should be. We also think tat lying, sex before marriage and adultery are sins but that that DOES NOT mean that we hate people who perform these actions. It’s a complete non-sequitur to think oherwise.
Also note that just because Gay people are born genetically to be gay then this doesn’t mean they need to be accepted by all people in society. Alcoholics are born with their infliction genetically also but I doubt anybody would defend their right to practice their alcoholism and then force people into accepting them the way they are
Incidentally, fundies, please note. I WAS a church going Christian. I’ve had rows with Harry, Spanner and several other people who have commented on this page, sticking up for the right to be a Christian and Gay. But I’ve come to the conclusion that Harry et al are right. It is impossible to be Christian and Gay so I prefer to be GAY. I reject the teachings of the bible as a big huge gay bashing charter with no place in this world. And I fear no damnation because I’ve done no wrong.
“If God designed humans – then He also defines marriage.” – Malcolm
I have seen the skulls of humans that are over 200,000 years old, that’s 154,000 before this so call ‘god’ invented them.
Marriage existed in may cultures outside of any knowledge of the Christian and Jewish god. People have been getting married before Christianity was even invented. Marriage is the natural result of peoples desire for social order not invisible sky fairies.
—————————————————————————–
If evolution ‘designed’ humans then homosexuality is plainly the end of the line. – Malcolm
As a scientist I know homosexuality is a very favourable outcome in a evolutionary sense.
If every human and animal reproduced the earth would of been consumed in no time. Homosexuality is not a evolutionary dead end, its natures pressure release valve.
———————————————————————————-
Either way the homosexual appears doomed. – Malcolm
Just as doomed as anyone else is, the sun will go super nova in around four billion years and atomises everything on the planet.
This is the only final judgement we all face.
The fantasy judgement of invisible sky fairies does not compare to the raw power of the universe that’s 13.7 billion years older than invisible sky fairy supposedly created it.
this argument, contrary to all the publicicty is not about religion or gay rights but about individuals be they gay or staright, muslim or christian beig able to determine their own set of values and principles and not force them on other groups, if you consider that you have views that make you uncomfortable with unmarried/gay couples sharing a bed in your house/ B&B then you should be allowed to allowed to run an establishment on this basis until it fails due to lack of business! however we should not be allowed to force any members of our society to comply with views that they do not accept no matter how abhorent they are to us.
I was laughing when you made you comment
“A ‘rubber thing’ (dildo) in the vagina is far more productive and pleasurable than a so called God made penis could ever be.
Why do you think Anne Summers sell the things by the wheelbarrow load every day.
I would say this so called God of yours made a mistake when he made the penis.
Lots of them are incompatible with pleasuring women and have some right nobs attached to them! ”
You have brought to me insight about how lesbians and ladies who self-sex feel.
I also see your point when you said “Lots of them are incompatible with pleasuring women and have some right nobs attached to them! ”
But this has come about because we have pushed very hard at the boundaries of sexual pleasure to our peril.
I have a definite conviction that you can derive far greater pleasure in God than any sexual pleasure for that matter
And like i said to Iris, there is a through Jesus Christ that is available to all. This Grace is avialable to you too. The Bible says that where sin increases Grace abounds all the more, so you can come clean before the God of all flesh to whom we will all give account.
You have argued nothing to date, only played righteous games with your “common decency phrase”
Arthur the reason you have been reticent about your “Fundamentalist Christianity” is that you know that these days it is a dirty word, and you are ashamed of it.
Arthur, you are only here on this site, because you are so shocked that the law does not support your bigoted views anymore.
Arthur, you appear to think that by being patronizing, you can somehow stop LGBT people from continuing to fight for equality and justice.
Arthur, I do sympathies, since of course; it is bad news for bigots like you and the other trolls currently posting on this thread.
That’s right, you do not have inalienable right to express homophobic prejudice!
@ JohnK
David . . . so you are hear to be patronsing and condescending in the name of religion.
The Gospel of salvation has always suffered abuse, but we must continue to “convince some, who doubt: save some by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 22 – 23
“David . . . I think you are really hear because you are furious that Gays have won a case against Homophobic Christian Bigotry”
John i am not furious that Gays won the case, i am here because I can see prophecies coming to pass and the world coming to a swift end. I feel exicited because the King of Glory is very near, and I urge you to save yourself from this perishing world. The Spirit and the Bride say COME!
I am made of the same stuff the universe is, I stepped out of a super nova and am as old as the universe itself.
We all are.
I had no creator I am a result of millions of years of evolution from the most basic single cell to a human with billions of neurons that make me able to comprehend the wonders of the universe.
@Rose — “I’ve had rows with Harry, Spanner and several other people …”. Really ? I don’t think that’s me !
“But I’ve come to the conclusion that Harry et al are right. It is impossible to be Christian and Gay.” This is not my position, as I do not know what people mean when they say ‘Christian’ — my point being that there are such a huge variety of opinions and behaviours exhibited by people who identify as Christians, that the term is near meaningless. I think everyone would agree that there is a chasm between an English Quaker and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
i am breaking the law how!, is it now illeagal to dislike certain celebrities,as i have already stated, i have no probs with all, i am just averse to john barrowman and his particular style in panto that i witnessed this christmas period, was tryin to pass a light hearted comment on anotherwise over serious thread
i don’t care if heaven is a better place, i choose a brighter place. I’m choosing to be with John, and his lovely other half, and Johnk, Harry, Iris and Helen and all other people that the Bible rejects. I’ve had enough of the intolerance preached by its proponents.
You bear the name of the beloved “John” and rightly you are beloved. God loves you irrespective of your views and His Grace is still available. He is always waiting to receive to back into His arms.
David, your God should accept all these decent people who happen to be gay and reject the hypocrites who call themselves Christians. And maybe he will.
Helen.. as a scientist I can tell you there’s little evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Evolution doesn’t operate at such a high level but in the survival of the fittest, not a phrase Darwin used but it expresses a point. How would homosexuality then exist based on evolutionary principles of the gene trying to survive in a hostile world? Even Dawkins’ selfish gene model makes little room for your theory.
John K said..James . . . why won’t Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians like yourself repent of your obsession with homosexuality?
A we’re not obsessed.. we’re not the ones trying to change the laws etc.. we’re just being forced to defend our freedoms all the time. It’s the point at which we’re under attack so of course we devote some time to defence in that area.. but i’d much rather be talking about the wonderful saving love of Jesus CHrist and His death for all onthe cross.. His resurrection means death and sin have been overcome and all can know life in Him and freedom from slavery to sin.
James . . . What exactly does the gay lobby need to accept?
The above.. also that you have a lifestyle choice not everyone approves of.. and to get over that fact. Gay rights should be about trying to live without fear of bad things in lieu of your way of living, not about mking everyone who doesn’t agree with you a social outcast. Peter Tatchel said something similar.. I never thought Id find myself quoting him.. just shows how far off the mark the gay rights lobby is.
James . . . What is going to be ruined if LGBT people continue to fight homophobic Christians?
If the gay rights movement continues in its militant and extremist selfish push to dominate society on all matters pertaining to homosexuality then it will be a total pain in the arse to everyone and be a wholly undemocratic and anti freedom movement.. your founders would be ashamed I think.
secondly, you might experience something of a backlash as people realise just how far you’ve gone and you may end up losing some of the more reasonable changes that have been made as well as some of the more outrageous ones. This is just how pendulum politics tends to work, that would be a shame.
Thirdly.. you just look stupid and lose the support of many gay folk and end up sailing off into the distant lands of irrelevance and no one listens to you anymore. Be realistic instead and accept that your lifestyle is one many find abhorrent.. you are free to live it and they’re free to say they find it abhorrent. free country :)
you guys have got me all wrong,i am in an equally beneficial relationship, i adore panto, just cant stand mr barrowman not because he he is gay but because i do not rate him, for the record Julian clarey,billy connoly and jenny eclair I find hilarious but do not realy think of them as gay or straight comedians, just shows you you should not judge a book by its cover, read my posts! no homophobia no bigotry just tolerance of all sides, have not yet stated my sexuality as I do not think it is relevant?
@ David:
Thie issue is about a court ruling on illegal discrimination… so it’s strange you are coming here and writing such reductive stuff as ” inserting a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?”
Your explanation…
“I have spoken the way i have because i would like to be down to earth with manner of relationships we have rather using all the lofty descriptions we use to hide the nature of these relationships.”
So is that spoken with your down to earth heterosexual penis balls-deep in your wife’s vagina Dave? or as I suspect more likely with your stumpy penis in hand ? and no lofty thoughts of the constant surveillance of the sky pixie?
I find heterosexuality so much more down to earth when spoken of plainly, when reduced down to body parts and functions as you like to describe gay and lesbian relationships, all without any reference to human warmth or emotions nor any false reference to or personal endorsement from the sky pixie .
Only penises and vaginas that have been joined in holy matrimony are welcome to be inserted one into the other at this B&B by order of down to earth David.
And all this talk about penises and vaginas just reminds me of the monologue from Team America which I am far too well brought up to quote verbatim, but I bet even the Christian fundies know what I mean!!!! Go on, admit it. You all just love to watch puppets have sex.
For me it’s easy. I do not believe in the Bible. It is a man-made book of beliefs, no more no less.
The laws of this country are clear and simple. I do not have to abide by the wishes of those who follow the Bible any more than I have to only eat recipes listed in Delia Smith’s cookery books.
Christians can believe whatever they like, but in the public sphere (as their hotel is) they cannot force me to comply with their beliefs.
I, like them, am a great believer in tradition. Had they won the case I would have pressed to restore the Roman tradition of throwing Christians to the lions. It has historical value and was very popular in its time. Fashions are cyclical.
Perhaps the Bulls should consider this when they preach about preserving values and beliefs.
I also have to wonder… Jesus got together a posse of 12 men and hung out with them. A lot. Anyone like that today would probably not get a room at the Bull’s guesthouse…
When are you going to stop hiding bigotry behind mastubatory rants
=============================================================
Your the bigot. Apparently I’m not allowed to have my opinion and you wish to extinguish it out.
You’re not as tollerant as you think you are and neither is the rest of our society.
First off you are intollerant to Christians and their beliefs which actualy just makes you some anti-religious nutcase because of this.
Secondly, most straight men in our country have never even had homosexually activity. None whatsoever, but then try to speak up for Gay rights and claim not to be homophobic. If you ask them if they have ever had gay sex they will reply no because they are straight and they don’t like it that way. How can they be sure if they have never tried it? That would be like me saying that I hated the A Brave New World by Huxley when I haven’t even read it. What stops them from trying it? Roman society used to practice gay sex all the time, even the straight citizens who had families, but men in our society don’t even try it and then try to pretend that they are somehow not homophobic, but still you have to laugh when it’s obvious that they are because they never have had gay sex in their life. What are they afraid of? Of that’s right, they are homophobic.
The fact is we are all intolerant of some things. It is absolutly impossible to be tollerant of everything but you have already proved that with your intollerant reply to me, hehe. At least I am honest about my position on homosexuality and id don’t hide it away in a concealed box like the rest of society.
I don’t know if you read my message earlier but I go by the username Darth Ovious on http://www.Theologyweb.com. If you want to have a larger chat about this issue there then I would be happy to discuss.
The website is fine and it has lots of non-religious members also who post on a regular basis. There is even a naturalism board just for the atheists where they can post about topics without interuption from us theists.
I will admit one thing. I am disgusted by the verdict passed by the judge, it’s just one more example in how you bully us Christians because you are too afraid to take a stance on Muslim extremism. Nothing but a lot of whimps you are picking on minorities such as ourselves and then playing coward when the fundamentalists who actually threaten you do something wrong.
Got to love those double standards that keep croping up.
Oh yeah, any reply as to why the Gay B&B are allowed to exclusively advertise but we are not? Or are you just going to accept that double standard without givng me an answer. HAHAHHAHA.
@ Pavlos
I trust you are an intelligent person.
Can you answer me this question: “is normal by nature to insert a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?”
@Darth Ovious — 1) “The courts on the other hand are being intolerant because they have ruled AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN’S BELIEFS. They have down right told them that they are no longer allowed to have this opinion.” The court is saying they must obey the law. It is making no statement at all about whether they can hold an opinion or not, just that they cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.
2) “They have the right to refuse service if they wish.”. They can’t do so on the basis of sexual orientation. This is what the law says. Presumably you think this is undesirable ? Have you written to your MP about your feelings ?
3) “The businesses above get away with this because IT IS THEIR PLACE OF BUISNESS.” They “get away” with not breaking the law, if they don’t discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Is this what you mean ?
4) “Well done to the person above who posted the B&B that was gay only and will only allow Gay people to stay at their BnB.” That B&B should be prepared to be taken to court if they discriminate illegally too. I presume you will be wanting to test the law yourself by making a booking there.
5) “… we just believe that the action of same partner sex should not be performed … We also think … sex before marriage … are sins”. Why are you so obsessed with how other people have sex ?
“… but that that DOES NOT mean that we hate people who perform these actions. It’s a complete non-sequitur to think oherwise.” But there’s a history of people who have issues with how other people have sex hating those other people isn’t there ? And often that hatred leads to violence and murder. Do you think that history makes your distaste at what some other people do in bed more of less acceptable ?
“Also note that just because Gay people are born genetically to be gay then this doesn’t mean they need to be accepted by all people in society.”
“Alcoholics are born with their infliction genetically also but I doubt anybody would defend their right to practice their alcoholism and then force people into accepting them the way they are”. Are you equating alcoholics with gay people ? People who have a disease that kills them, with people who are attracted to the same sex ? Is that really what you think ?
Nick,
Christians have as much right to their sometimes strange values as do the rest of us and no one has the right to force their values on others, it is okay for to state the “law” but not so long ago the ” law” was sending gay people to jail was that ok because it was the “law” we need to live and let live, we all have views on life and love that are never going to be compatible but sometimes we need to allow others to hold their views while disagreeing!
Rose. I’m afraid your cutting and brilliant pulling apart of my arguments has left me quite in shock.. oh hang on, you just said what i said was rubbish.. brilliant!! lol. I suppose anyone that comes to Christ has to make a decision.. like in the parable of the sower.. sometimes the seed falls on the stoney or weedy ground and it fails to take hold. I hope you find that seed again, and don’t reject it because it calls on you to take up your cross.. It’s not easy, i do know, believe me.. and I wouldn’t ever say that what Christianity asks of gay folk isn’t tough, but what we get from God in return for giving Him our lives is far far more than we could imagine.
Gay people don’t prevent Christians being Christians. When have gays ever plackarded a church and stopped Christians worshipping? The fact is, the law has got it right on this occasion, and the one last year with the hypocritical christian registrar. So just go to church, as is your right, and leave those who don’t, as is THEIR right, alone.
@David — ‘Can you answer me this question: “is normal by nature to insert a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?”’.
I’m sure Pavlos is an intelligent person, and I have no doubt, looking forward to answering your thought provoking question.
Myself, I have a few questions for you, your answers to which I would be interested to read:
1) Is ‘normal’ always good ? Do you strive to be ‘normal’ ? To be like everyone else ? To not be different in any way ? Do you get a bit uncomfortable with anything that’s not like you ?
2) Why are you so interested in other people’s sex lives ? What’s the big attraction about how other people do it ?
David, I’m not going to indulge your abnormal interest in human sexual body parts and prosthetics, I think you are way off topic and your contribution to this discussion about illegal discrimination against real people has now totally degenerated and disappeared up your own fundament.
Does it feel good?
James, the only cross I am taking up is the cross of gay rights. You and your sort have made the decision for me. It’s not an easy choice. We have to fight people like you. But it’s the RIGHT choice.
rose,
i am not a christian, but i understand that it is a way of life not just something that is done on a sunday by going to church. true christians have a strong conviction and also a strong tolerance of others views and convictions, some “christians” do not show the level of tolerance that they should, however this particular thread i believe is about the couple who would not allow a gay couple to share a bed in their b&b, as previously said the law is on the side of the two gay guys, however not that long ago the law would have locked these guys up WAS THAT RIGHT, i think not, sometimes the law is an ass we all need to be more tolerant of each other, gay people have been discriminated against for far too long, does persecuting people with other views help the cause of gay people who strive not to be discriminated against or does it just cause more conflict, maybe you should ask nelson mandela or try to contact ghandi!
@Darth Ovious — “I will admit one thing. I am disgusted by the verdict passed by the judge, it’s just one more example in how you bully us Christians”. I’m sorry ? How is a judge ruling in accordance with the law an example of who bullying Christians ?
“… because you are too afraid to take a stance on Muslim extremism.”
You think it’s that, rather than being appalled by the behaviour of the Bulls ? That, rather than not be prepared to accept discrimination ? Do you think it’s the role of gay people to take stances on religious beliefs that run counter to your own ? How have you taken a stance on Muslim extremism ?
“… you are picking on minorities such as ourselves … ” You’re saying Christians are in minority in the UK ? Earlier someone suggested that 70% of the UK population were Christian: you presumably dispute this figure ? What do you think the true one is ?
“… and then playing coward when the fundamentalists who actually threaten you do something wrong.”. These are different fundamentalists to you ?
“Oh yeah, any reply as to why the Gay B&B are allowed to exclusively advertise but we are not? Or are you just going to accept that double standard without givng me an answer. HAHAHHAHA.” I’ve replied already: test the law yourself by making a booking there.
by law black people were slaves once and women couldnt vote. the law changes. in the UK at least the law generally goes forward. But some people don’t like that. That’s what all the fuss is about.
As Judge Rutherford said:
“We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament. It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.”
Rose,
You genuinely think it is progressive to criminalise a couple who run a b&b from preventing an unmarried and or gay and or ugly and or ginger and or scottish and or muslim couple from staying intheir house? you are surely more intelligent than that, if the law is the will of the majority of people these people will be driven out of business, morality cannot be forced on others!
@James — “Helen.. as a scientist I can tell you there’s little evolutionary purpose for homosexuality.”
How does it persist then ? If there’s no purpose, it will be factored out. Why is it still present ? As the bible says, homosexuality has been present for most of human existence, so why hasn’t it disappeared if it serves no purpose ? Act of God ?
Still waiting for you to tell us what Jesus actually said about homosexuality.
Where does discrimination end, do we not discriminate every time we choose a partner/friend are we not descriminated against every time we enter or get refused entry to a club or get rejected for a job, rejection or acceptance is part of life, we cannot legislate for it, are certain sexual orientations, skin colours, nationalities, eye colours, hair colours, bone stuctures, accents or religions to be afforded more credence than others or can we all just take a chill pill and accept that the human race is far from perfect and that we all need to open our minds and accept other peoples views and values, it seems to me that the over bearing theme on this thread is to force either side of the argument on the other, why can we not live and live come on rose open your mind!
Rose.. you don’t have to ‘fight people like me’.. you could always engage in reasonable discussion etc. As for the Cross and gay rights connection.. ouch.. that’s a bit much I think. Jesus certainly didn’t want anyone to feel outcast but He offered inclusion into God’s family.. Jesus said some very harsh things about sin.
Who was it said I didn’t answer about what Jesus said about homosexuality? I’ve already replied to that in some detail, I know it’s a popular thread but please look for it.
Ok, homosexuality and evolution. I was responding to a point made by someone that homosexuality was a product of evolution in that it helped societies cope with population control. My point was that such a theory doesn’t really fit with the idea of evolution and the selfish gene.
It might be that homosexuality is societal, and comes about through the environment etc.. perhaps through exposure to something or other as yet undefined, or some kind of mental stimulus. It may be a congenital matter, something that triggers a change in sexuality in the womb.. there is some evidence for this. It may be a random genetic change which we’re prone to, it may yet still prove to be virus related. . none of these things are part of the evolutionary process.. evolution and common sense certainly would suggest homosexuality is not inherited. There are lots of differences in people’s sexuality.. some people fancy corpses, kids, old people or animals.. we don’t suggest these are evolutionary advantages do we? Now before we start, I’m not suggesting homosexuality is like paedophilia morally, but I am saying that no one can help who they are sexually attracted to, it doesn’t mean the orientation is advantageous.
blah blah blah James, you cannot force your ideals on others, likewise others views should not be enshrined in law people like you and rose should meet up, have a coffee and discuss life, the universe and everything, nae buddies died! get some perspective on life. You need to evangelise your views but you need to realise that forcing your views on others is not going to work, try another tact!
John K
Thank you. It was not me that raised the issue of common human decency but one of the supporters of the LBGF community.
I have read your comments posted subsequently and yes the term “Fundamental Christian” has become a phrase of derision. I am not frightened of being descibed as Christian, but as many of the posts on this site have shown I confess that the term “Fundamental Christian” is frightening precisely because that term implies that, as you have suggested and said, the term attracts the term of being described as being a “bigot”. A bigot implies that I am willing to denigrate those that hold opposing views to those of my own and that, by implication, I regard them lesser persons than me. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many homosexual people that I know and have worked with, have much to my shame, showed forth many qualties of that common human decency,previously referred to, that I have not displayed within my own life. They,contrary to many of the posts, that I have read about this matter have put my own understanding about how I should interact with other humans have illuminated me as to the need for tolerance when considering the lives of others.
However, despite the result of the court case this day, I cannot divorce myself from that that which I read of in the Bible, and all I have sought today as I have viewed the website, not to offer, as you seem to perceive, implausible platitudes, but rather to seek to understand further the injustice that the LBGF community, irrespective of their own religous beliefs-in this I presume, perhaps erronously as far as you as an individual are concerned, that even within those of the LBGF community that religously believe in Christ-and we both are aware that there are those of such persuasion-that the issue raised today will have caused debate.
In such circumstances the use of vitriolic language is neither helpful to either party in the discussion.
May I put it this way?
Due to circumstance 2 work colleagues who are gay and in a relationship find themselves stranded miles from home and the only hope they have of accomodation is that provided by myself who, with his “fundamentalist views” has only but one spare room to offer and that with a double bed. If I then said here is room but I would ask you to respect my views and not conduct sexual relations within that room would you concur if you were one of those 2, or would you accuse me, my wife and any other of the household who so agreed, of being homophobic?
Or would you in the name of human common decency accept such restriction?
That is the point as I see it of human common decency, as raised by the issue of the Christian Faith and indeed by supporters of the LBGF community.
I cannot judge your own position, I must respect it, but neither can you judge mine or others that so believe. It cannot and will not stop me from desiring it would be another way, and likewise, it will not stop you from you wishing it be another way but at that point we must agree that needs must allow the situation to arise if we are to have peaceful night to allow us to proceed.
Arthur Mann
I have decided you are right, i will go now and prepare fore the final conflict! lets face it the most important thing in our society at the moment is whether gay/unmarried couples can share a bed in a b&b in dorset or cornwall or whatever, do we not have bigger issues to deal with or are you just displying a persecution complex, I think it is appropriate for me to now say that i am (despite my aversion to Mr Barrowman) a gay male in a loving relationship. I just think we need to be more tolerant and lead by example that is all, John K your attitude will solve nothing, just inflame homophobia and bigotry
Arthur you’ve just proved yourself the worst sort of hypocrite. You know for a fact that your gay friends are good people but you fall back on the bible and condemn them as sinners.
Now I’m going to bed. I’m tired. It’s been a good day for UK LGBT. Terrible one in Iran. The world turns and the fight goes on.
as a scientist I can tell you there’s little evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Evolution doesn’t operate at such a high level but in the survival of the fittest, not a phrase Darwin used but it expresses a point. How would homosexuality then exist based on evolutionary principles of the gene trying to survive in a hostile world? Even Dawkins’ selfish gene model makes little room for your theory.
————————————————————————-
Evolution has nothing to with survival of the fittest just look at the dinosaurs. Its about adaptability to the environment.
Adaptability happens through genetic variance. sexual variance and gender variance are all signs of of what evolution is doing within us. Its worth remembering we did not start out as a two sexes and male and female is just a result of specialisation. Our first evolutionary ancestors that swam the oceans where strictly asexual.
Saying evolution is about survival of the fittest puts you in the Hitler master race kill anything that’s weak camp.
Reality says the weak are sometimes the answers to genetic problems. To narrow our genetic make-up by eliminating what we see as weak may also be eliminating the solutions to our future survival.
Genetic variance is the single most important factor in our continued evolution.
John K.. are you suggesting it’s humiliating to be beaten by a group of ‘poofters’ lol.. No, i wouldn’t say so.. we’re all trying to create a fair Britain aren’t we? It’s one small case, and not precedent setting either. THe law does need changing though, religious freedoms should get more protection but our ultimate eternal victory in Christ over sin and death is assured.. so a few little difficulties in this life.. so what? :) I dont mean that Christ is your enemy, not at all, but that sin was defeated at the cross and will be destroyed forever at the final judgement. I hope you’re in heaven with me.
Rose.. yet again you destroy the arguments of others by saying that you think they’ve nothing to say. Just saying.. “they’ve not added anything” brutally undermines everything that previous person said without having to reposnd to one of their arguments.. brilliant.. or perhaps not lol. THe person did add something of value.. there.. that’s cancelled yours out lol.
As before, Arthur MAnn brings the voice of compassion and reason to the discussion. Arthur, you’re absolutely right, you would be entirely reasonable to ask the couple to refrain from sex whilst at your house to respect your views.. I have a double room for rent, am i breaking the law if I ask a gay man to be celibate whilst he lives here? And if he says no, then i say sorry, then you’re not the right man for the room? My gf lives in a house with a Christian landlady who has a policy of not letting bf’s stay in the rooms wih her lady tenants. Not even on the floor. Do i sue her cos i cant stay over.. NO.. i respect her wishes, it’s her house, gf doesnt have to take the room and we’re happy with that.
Rose,
Hypocrite is the least of the insults that can be levied against those who have come to a belief of Jesus as their Lord. Those that so believe are more than aware of their own failures in this life of themselves and to others.
Dangerousdave wrote
“if the law is the will of the majority of people these people will be driven out of business, morality cannot be forced on others!”
It’s a strange circular argument you make as it is the B&B owner defendants with the assistance of a Christianist lobby group who have been seeking to retain privileged status to impose their personal version of religious morality on others in this instance.
tolerance is a virtue that should be shown on both sides, “christians” and “gay people” are all jock thamsons bairns we should not be focing our values on others, the only way to change society is by tolerance and forgiveness as per mssrs mandela and ghandi!
clicked on your link and thought it was, to paraphrase total and utter reactionist sh**e
“We could have ended up with some Jewish supermarket workers demanding the right to not handle pork, Muslim restaurant staff refusing to serve alcohol and Christian solicitors declining to represent gay or cohabiting heterosexual couples.
All the above happens on a daly basis because folk have their jobs to do and get on with it without complaint in the main, particularly muslims serving alchoholic beverages ai dont think we should go down the anti semitic route as I think most jewish people that i have met are very tolerant of non jewish ways or maybe you know different! solicitors in the main are mercenary bar***rds and will represent axe murderers or peadophiles if they can pay the fees so i dont think we are on the correct track here. We should be talking about bigotry and injustice.
Here you go Harry.. my reply from earlier.. sorry you couldn’t find it..
The Bible is very clear on homosexual practices for a start, and one more than one or two occasions. Jesus speaks of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and speaks of the sexual immorality of early 1st century Israel. In that time and place homosexuality was illegal and punishable by death.. as far as we know JEsus never spoke against that, not saying Jesus supports the death penalty but let’s remember John 8 and the women caught in adultery.. “neither then do I condemn you, go and sin no more”. Jesus forgives the woman but calls a sin a sin. Of course, Jesus also upholds the law. St Paul is explicit in his view that homosexual sex is against the will of GOd, and HE is writing to countries where homosexuality was far more prevalent.. Greece etc, and so it was necessary to stipulate this particular fact. Seriously Harry, most liberal Christian argument in favour of homosexuality has got naff all to do with the gospels or the rest of the Bible.. but on a modern political view point and trying to get Christianity to fit their own ideas.
Jesus would (and does) certainly love all people, gay, straight or transsexual.. and this love goes so far that He died for us all.. so that we might be FREE FROM SIN.. not that we can pretend something is not sin.
Now Jesus never discussed the issue of homosexuality explicitly as you know, but He does state marriage as being as of being between a man and a woman and that God created them for this purpose.. Adam and Eve etc. (Not Adam and Steve lol). Jesus’s society executed homosexuals, Jesus is not recorded as ever speaking against this specifically either.. so not sure of your point really. St Paul, writing to cultures where homosexuality was more common had to deal with it and was explicit in his condemnation of the practice.. but expressed Jesus’ love for all.
Hope that helps you understand the Christian position.
good comment james but you will never convert my fellow “gays” to chistianity just as they will not convert you. Being gay is not wrong but it is ok to disagree with it, just as it is ok for some guys to think hetrosexuality is an anomoly
@James — “Jesus never discussed the issue of homosexuality explicitly” and “Jesus’s society executed homosexuals, Jesus is not recorded as ever speaking against this specifically either”.
You’re saying that because there’s no specific injunction against killing gay people, it’s acceptable ?
The Tax Guzzling EHRC should not have paid for this. I have emailed them as a member of the press to question why they did. If the gay gays wanted to take ths to court they should have paid for it.
This country is getting too PC,The Equality Law, and Human rights Law need to be ‘modified’ to include, that anyone can say no to anyone, anyone can refused to have anyone in their office, shop, house, hotel, its their human right to have this say so.
Civil Partners should not treated the same as MARRIED couples, as they are not the same, they do not have the same FULL rights or benefits.
The sooner the above are done, the better. Take lead from Moscow.
A little homophobia is good and doesnt do any harm.
There always seems to be a certain faction of the gay community who wish to advertise there sexuality and ring it like a bell . You are who you are your sexuality is just part of it I wish people would stop acting if it was the most important part of there character.
” Judge Andrew Rutherford also broke new ground by insisting that in the eyes of the law there is no difference between a civil partnership and a marriage.
Christian hotelier Hazelmary Bull speaking outside court yesterday. ‘I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain,’ she said
Christian hotelier Hazelmary Bull speaking outside court yesterday. ‘I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain,’ she said
Although civil partnership conveys precisely the same rights and privileges on a gay couple as marriage does on heterosexuals, the Labour ministers who introduced civil partnerships always said they were merely contracts and did not amount to marriage.
But the judge said: ‘There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.”
SO, they are contracts and do not amount to marriage. Judge has clearly not read up on what labour imposed.
“Do not to others, that which you would not tolerate for thyself”
A vast improvement on -
” Do unto others as you would be done by”
“be excellent to each other”
I’M sure someone knows where the quotes above, come from.
Personally I prefer
” If it harm none, do as you will”
which I understand predates all of them.
There are too many people who do NOT understand what freedom of religion means, sadly many of them profess to to be “Christians”, If I wanted to live in a theocracy I’d have moved to Iran or the Vatican State long ago.
The Bulls are just attention seekers, making a big song and dance to create some sort of smokescreen, we should be well used to the routine by this time.
I notice you denied being a pervert, David – but you omitted to deny that your last name is SKINNER.
Yep, David Skinner. I have a message for you, David. Do you not think after all those prayers from you, Andrea and all (?) your followers that the victory for the law at the court in Bristol is God’s answer for you?
If there is a god, unlike you he/she’s not a narrow-minded bigot who oozes bitterness and feels compelled to victimise others and go on about ‘god’s grace’ while talking about sex constantly and typing with one hand…
“The Bible is very clear on homosexual practices for a start, and one more than one or two occasions.”
Stupid statement to make> The bible is also very clear on condoning slavery, incest, rape, murder, stoning of people who eat prawns and cut their hair, all tied up in puerile stories about people been eaten by whales and a god with anger issues. To use the bible as as an authority on anything is to use a book of contradictory nonsense and directions to “god inspired” behaviour that is akin to madness.
Christians are not being denied the right to their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to hold personal beliefs and to follow them internally according to their own internal preferences.
However, Christians have no entitlement to allow their personal preferences to convert into external preferences about what other people should be allowed to do. This restriction on their public manifestation of their religion does not prevent them from holding their original beliefs or from following them in relation to themselves.
A Christian may follow their religious rules but may not project these on to others and discriminate against those who contravene them. A gay couple may follow their own cultural norms but they may not project these on to others and discriminate against those who disagree with them.
The law allows everyone to follow their religion or culture internally. It does not allow everyone to manifest such religion or culture externally in their dealings with others.
“. St Paul, writing to cultures where homosexuality was more common had to deal with it and was explicit in his condemnation of the practice..”
No, he wasn’t! Read it in the bl*dy original and see that he wasn’t! Paul condemns temple sex and gay prostitutes – he does NOT condemn loving, consensual relationships between two adults of the same sex. Nor does anyone else in the Bible.
And don’t write that “against nature” bit and claim it means ‘unnatural’ because it doesn’t. The Greek word there means ‘against ONE’S OWN nature’ – a continuation of Paul’s condemnation of straight people who have gay sex for ritualistic reasons.
Paul’s misogyny, however, is true. But not uncommon at that time in that or many other cultures.
However, the Bulls don’t even need to pretend their belief is biblical. ALL beliefs, religious or not, are protected, so they can just say that they personally think blah blah about gay people. HOWEVER, their belief – or that of any other person religious or not – does NOT entitled them to break the law. That’s why they lost this case – NOT because of their belief, but because they broke the law.
I feel sorry for the woman that was sued she had every right to say who sleeps under her roof, can you imagine if she has young children, it does not send out a good message to the young people.It is a pity she did not have a sign saying right of admmision reserved
“Being gay is not wrong but it is ok to disagree with it, just as it is ok for some guys to think hetrosexuality is an anomoly”
Your comparison is incorrect.
Let me correct it for you: “Being gay is not wrong but it is ok to disagree with it, just as it is ok for some guys to think religion is an anomaly for the stupid, the weak, and the bigoted”
Now you have a valid comparison. Gay people do not “disagree” with heterosexuals, they disagree with religious inspired bigotry for the benefit of making the religious feel a little special for their bigoted belief stricture – “its not bigoted if I think Jesus said it”. Indeed. Very inspired, isn’t it? As if a majority makes it one bit less ridiculous.
“It is a pity she did not have a sign saying right of admmision reserved”
Oh, bless, you’re not very bright, are you. The sign is irrelevant, she cannot discriminate by law, and no sign will chnage that sweetie. Didn’t you go to school? And if the woman had children to “send out a good message” too, well, its just proof then any fool can get knocked up, and god help the children if these pair of degenerates are parenthetic, eh?
But what would having children under her roof have to do with anything? Should they not serve alcohol because there may be children under 18 nearby? Should all rooms turn off their TV at 9pm in case post-watershed viewing is somehow miraculously beamed into the minds of nearly children? Or are you saying that children shouldn’t be exposed to sex? But if that’s so, what about all the straight couples having sex under her roof? And why would these hypothetical children be exposed to anything? Are you talking about PSYCHIC children? Or do you think people have sex in the Bulls’ lounge?
The only reason i got to this pink news was because i saw the bbc news about the boarding house lady.I am not a christian but i think the Bible has some great words in which if people lived their lives according to the Bible the world would not be in such a state, so stop making excuses for your behaviour
“Are you talking about PSYCHIC children? Or do you think people have sex in the Bulls’ lounge?”
LOL @ Iris :) Very true. Like “Children of the Corn” meets “The Walton’s”
I am amassed of the gross stupidity and ignorance of some of the people here with regards to what the difference is between a “place of business” and a “home premises” is. Its really not that difficult, folks. And the laws that apply to both are different. Banging out examples of your lack of education on a gay site won’t change that definition and the equality laws.
This verdict is another victory (in a long line of recent victories) for secular and pluralistic common sense where all citizens are free to exist without undue hindrance of religious beliefs being imposed. It also shows up the demands by certain Christians to seek the right to discriminate, something distinctly undemocratic. And I would be delighted to see this hotel close and shut down – to send a message to all religious types, you can believe what you want, but if you want to exist in a democratic society, keep your bigoted prejudices to yourself and outside how you run a business within the confines of a law that is for the benefit of society as a whole.
Ironic that the Equality Legislation also protects them to practice what they want, and protect them from discrimination, but you don’t see them moaning to remove that stipulation…. another glaring example of the hypocrisy of religion, and Christians in general.
Will said ‘This verdict is another victory (in a long line of recent victories) for secular and pluralistic common sense where all citizens are free to exist without undue hindrance of religious beliefs being imposed’
“the Equality Legislation also protects them to practice what they want, and protect them from discrimination, but you don’t see them moaning to remove that stipulation”
Will, I honestly think that’s because they’re unable to understand that. I despair sometimes. I’ve pointed that out before but there’s never any response so I don’t think they get it. Or maybe they DO get it, but wish to have special rights to discriminate against gay people, like you said. Both possibilities are depressing.
“Why do they always run away when you ask them questions? The unkind reply would be because they don’t have any answers…”
Its becuase they can’t answer, Iris. How can anyone defend discrimination and then say of themselves they are “thinking of the children”? I think you hit the nail on the head with the “education” point…. a lack of leads to a lot of the comments we see here, not to mention a lack of acceptance in the rights and beliefs of others.
one story like this and people go wild. Im on the side of the gay people here. Except those with an element of so loathing that seem to think that they should excuse their sexuality and agree with this christian couple. Do not forget people all those gay people before us over history that were imprision and murdered for being gay. Its still happening today. And all those out their that think that christian have a right to be bigoted, then think again as your might have a gay child one day or a gay grand child and you might be going against your own flesh and blood. The law stands back and looks at the whole picture. It has to draw the line somewhere. IN this case it has used its commom sense and worked well. Other wise which reglion would take the front seat. Another story in pink news today is about two men being stoned to death for being gay. DO we in this counrty want people that act like this justify their actions due to reglion. Because if the law backs this couple and their beliefs, it has to back them all. It can not do a tick list of those relgions that are cosy. So we could have people raping their wives, killing their children, harming their neighbours , and standing in a dock and saying , it was my belief, and then walking free. Do we really want this. I dont.
I saw your posts on the Daily Mail web site. As this site isn’t controlled, I have a few words to offer you given that you insist of being so irrational and illogical.
If you wanted to buy a screwdriver, would you phone up the hardware shop to ask if they allowed Christians to enter the premises? No. Why? Because you being Christian and you making a purchase are mutually exclusive. belief is private, making a purchase is not. So why would a gay person have to? They wouldn’t, it’s the same, it’s about buying a screwdriver, not your personal principles or sex life. It’s a business and in the business world, vendors of goods and services must not discriminate against the private lives of the customer. It’s completely logical.
“Ah, but it is their home”, I hear you cry. Once it becomes a business, then no, it doesn’t allow them to discriminate. By all means Christians, ban gay people from your homes, that’s your right, but not your hotels as they are viewed differently in the eyes of a law. In fact the same article protects gay people from having Christians force themselves on them in their home as the Christians can be protected from gays. It’s called the right to a private and family life. Presumably, the Bulls weren’t intending to share a bed with this couple or watch them through a camera. And they were under no obligation to allow them into their private quarters. Imagine if the hardware shope owner said he didn’t want Christians here because it was his home, based on the fact he lived in a maisonette upstairs. The same rules would apply. The residence is ATTACHED to the business area, NOT part of it. Moreover, they had no way of knowing what activities the couple were getting up to behind closed doors because it is a PRIVATE room. If they’d been having sex in the lounge, then of course, that would be wrong by anyone’s standards. But the sexual practices were in no way impacting upon them – and to be fair, they were turned away before they could even get their clothes off. The same expectations of decent conduct should be made of ALL customers, divvying them up into gay and straight is illegal.
Neither being umarried nor being gay are actually illegal, so they shouldn’t have been allowed to discriminate on either grounds under the laws of business, goods and services. Ditto for denying two straight friends from sharing a double bed – how many people bunk up to save cash when they’re travelling? Or what about a gay man and a lesbian sharing a bed? Would that be ok as no sexual attraction is foreseen? What about a brother and sister? Could they not be thought to engage in incest? But then why assume that they would or wouldn’t? Again, it’s making assumptions about people’s PRIVATE activities, which don’t actually affect anyone else.
The ultimate line is that no-one should be discriminated against on the grounds of their biology, unless a negative, physical impact on others is proven to be a risk (such as the need for single sex toilets and showers in public facilities). That goes for gender, sexuality, skin colour and physical disability. Judging someone’s actual EXHIBITED behaviour is completely different. If a guest were smelly, dirty, rude, aggressive, violent etc, fine, dismiss them at will. But a couple exhibiting no difference in their behavioural standards to any other guest should not be refused. The judgement was based on the assumption that they would be having sex in the hotel, but as their room is PRIVATE, it is not for the owners to intervene. It violates several articles of the ECHR for a start, let alone the more developed British legal system.
And this crap about gay people insisting on rubbing their gayness in people’s faces – what, you mean stating that they are gay is rubbing it in? So how is stating you are straight different? They are both the same, stating you are gay does not translate as ‘we want to have bum sex in your living room and you must watch it and join in’. Mind you, there are enough straight people who engage in bum sex, so you could apply to both sets of circumstances.
It also questionable as to why they ever opened a hotel in the first place when they are clearly so intolerant of most of society.
Finally, religions still actually have the right to discriminate much more than secular folks. They can ban people from their places of worship for not being of that faith, ban women from monasteries and areas within Mosques, and ban those of a different religion from private faith schools. All of this privilege of choice and yet they still complain they are being marginalised, despite the fact the church receives huge sums of government funding for its activities. And that is why it was right for the gay couple to be funded by the EHCR, because funding support is rendered unequal by the advantages offered to religions.
So, that, Steffan, is why you can stick your inequality where it has not been illegal to enjoy it since 1967!
I can’t help wondering if those negative messages on the like fo Sky News and Daily Mail are the same ones used about them having there religious freedoms taken away, that we used when the laws changed to make women and black people more equal all those years ago?
Must be easy for them to judge when their memories are so distorted.
Thanks, though it was rather clumsily put. Still, I made my point clear enough, not that I am expecting anyone of that ilk to see the logic and biological fact behind it. The Daily Mail is absolutely up in arms….and worryingly some gay people appear to be condoning it. Though they could be lying as a way of trying to say the winning couple were out of touch with mainstream gay views. I’d put nothing past that lot. Religion breeds corruption, we’ve seen it since they began!
Have a spiffing day Iris, my contributions for today are done :)
Actually, no I can’t resist. All these references by gay Christians to parts of the Bible is actually quite interesting. It seems that neither pro-gay or anti-gay Christians are immune from cherrypicking the parts that support their arguments from that book. So how much of the Bible to either of these people actually believe in? I would have the utmost respect for any Christian who can prove he/she lives by every word in the BIble on a daily basis. Of course, that’s because none of them exist. It is absolutely baffling how anyone would want to follow a religion that even today actively continues to lobby against their human rights. Faith in a higher being, fine, but deliberately adhering to a specific moral rule book, nah, I just can’t unerstand it. Essentiall it is declaring that they believe the Bible should overrule our legal system – the Bible is a rule book after all. The Koran is the same and we all know what happens in societies where it is used as the law much more than the Bible. By advocating the retention of discriminating Christian doctrine, despite being a gay person, it is actually incredibly selfish to other gay people.
It’s like Turkeys voting for Christmas and bringing their own gravy boats!
JIm, comments often ‘fail’. I’ve had that problem before. It’s a fault with the posting system not censorship, I think. It often happens on long threads or at busy times. I’ve sat here frustrated before because others are able to post but I’m not. However, it’s nothing personal – just the whims of modern technology.
The otherwise nice people like ellen pauler here who have been instructed by religion to think terrible things about gay men and lesbian women just keep coming out of the woodwork, one after another often tediously presenting the same unkind and prejudiced opinions about gays and not bothering to read, to think about or to learn from anyone else’s comments.
How casually ellen paul suggests that gay people would be a threat to children without thinking how that throw away prejudiced and wrong-minded comment impacts on our whole community.
Then there are also the fewer not so nice people who find religion lends a possible legitimacy to their perhaps already existing anti-gay prejudices and homophobia and with this religious excuse it can send them on to the next stage of anti-gay harrassment, lobbying for their own special privileges to discriminate while at the same time lobbying against gay equality using unnecessarily offensive anti-gay speech and slander. Some unfortunately even get worked up enough to think violent action against gays is legitimate good and righteous.
None of the above have control of their own minds nor independent opinions and cannot think for themselves, as evidenced by either the lack of response when asked any simple question that they have no pre-drafted church approved answer for … it may require some joined-up thinking on their part.
They will either run away or launch into a personal attack upon the person who asks the question to change the subject and to avoid providing an answer.
Critical thinking desperately needs to be taught in schools. the Bible says so… end of story.
“However, it’s nothing personal – just the whims of modern technology.”
Iris is right, its not a censorship, its certain words falling fowl of their comment scrubbing software:- any “vulgarities” or swear words (even pretty lame ones), certain racist terms, any reference to the dictatorial party of Germany (1933 to 1945), and a few others that I find strange, but PN seem to think they are not worthy of posting (including certain names of repeat “offenders”)
Indeed, mmmmmmmm. I suppose its not really Godwin’s law if you refer to someone by that term when they actually did wear a swastika on their arm at one stage, point in case, the pope :)
“Their brains have overdosed on LJC, rendering them incapable of normally cognitive functioning.”
I tend to agree JohnK. Marx got it wrong when he said “religion is the opiate of the masses”, its actually the opiate of the ignorant and the uneducated.
The court is saying they must obey the law. It is making no statement at all about whether they can hold an opinion or not, just that they cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.
They can’t do so on the basis of sexual orientation. This is what the law says. Presumably you think this is undesirable ? Have you written to your MP about your feelings ?
They “get away” with not breaking the law, if they don’t discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Is this what you mean ?
That B&B should be prepared to be taken to court if they discriminate illegally too. I presume you will be wanting to test the law yourself by making a booking there.
Why are you so obsessed with how other people have sex ?
But there’s a history of people who have issues with how other people have sex hating those other people isn’t there ? And often that hatred leads to violence and murder. Do you think that history makes your distaste at what some other people do in bed more of less acceptable ?
Are you equating alcoholics with gay people ? People who have a disease that kills them, with people who are attracted to the same sex ? Is that really what you think ?
============================================================
Hi Harry. Nice to see thaqt someone can talk civil instead on this issue.
Laws change Harry. In fact we do not need to agree with laws that are passed. We can speak against certain laws and in fact they can be changed. This is the point. Just because it is a law then that doesn’t mean that we need to agree with it. The fact is that it is also law that you can’t discriminate against religion. The problem is they get the verdict wrong because it was the Christians who were told to change their points of view and also in concerns to a residence that they themselves own. I would not force my opinion on another persons property or residence.
The law also says not to discrimnate against religion, which is what they ended up doing. You can’t please everyone Harry, it’s just not possible but the fact is this Christian couple were not discriminative at all really. Discrimination is when show hate towards a particular group but we are not called upon as Christians to hate people.
If I have an opinion where I think it’s wrong that people shouldn’t go out and get drunk then that is not discrimination. It’s just my opinion on what I think people shouldn’t do. If I then open up a non-alcoholic bar but then get sued by someone because I don’t sell alcoholic beverages then that is a mark against my free speech.
The same applies to atheists who think that people shouldn’t be religious. I’m not going to slate them for having that opinion alone, I can only slate them if they display hate characteristics against my religion. That is the issue here. I don’t see where the Bulls displayed any hate characteristics at all towards the couple.
The thing about the Gay B&B is that I don’t care if they advertise exclusively for gay clientel and neither do most people. That’s the point. Nobody takes it as hate speech against heterosexual individuals. They have their own right to do whatever they want with their property as far as I am concerned. I am only pointing out the double standards that can be involved in our society. They are actually everywhere, not just with this issue at hand. I have seen it with religion too where an air hostess wasn’t allowed to wear her crucifix by BA but then teachers who were Muslims were allowed to wear their veils. These double standards pop up all the time.
I’m not obsessed with the way people have sex. I am obsessed with defending my own religion. Maybe you did not understand that. As part of my religion it is made clear that homosexual activities are not allowed. We are called to love all in platonic sense but there are certain acts that we are not to do.
The acts of violence that you speak of are unchristian. Jesus did not advocate violence of any sort and he actually ordered one of his disciples to put their weapon away when he was being dragged off by the Romans to be tried and then crucified. The point that I was getting at is that it is OK to have opinions as long as hate speech is not practiced and that violence is avoided. Jesus did not cause any violence, he had violence done to him.
The alcoholic issue was to raise that just because someone has a genetic tendency towards a behaviour then this does not mean that the tendency towards this behaviour is fine. I only raised it because I know that some people will use this as an excuse to argue that we are wrong and that we shouldn’t think that this issue is a sin.
I went to a school where it was the secular kids who bullied the gay kids. The Christian kids DID NOT do this. Despite our views we were actually more tollerant than those who claimed a non-religious affiliation because of the fact that we called to respect people as creations of God and NOT to hate them but recognise that some actions are wrong nonetheless. In a Christian worldview everyone is a sinner, even me, I am a sinner and I have done things that I shouldn’t have done, this in no way entails that I should either hate myself or hate others because of their sins.
The judge said: ‘There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.’
I beg to differ. If these men had actually been married in the true sense, instead of this wishy-washy cop-out of an alternative, they would have conformed with the Preddy’s house rules, and they probably wouldn’t have said anything, or if they had, THEN they could have been fully accused of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
I think there is a bit of a grey area here, and it could still go their way if they appeal.
Christians are crying fowl, but Judge Rutherford is a practising Christian and was until six months ago the chairman of the body that negotiates the rates paid to ecclesiastical lawyers.
As someone who has worked now for over a quarter of century in the NHS as a staff nurse, will Christians now refuse my help, (it’s actually against the law for me to refuse to give help to anyone who needs it – and I wouldn’t refuse anyway) even in an emergency? Could a Christian staff members refuse to treat homosexuals, even in an emergency on the grounds of religious conscience? Or indeed any Christian refuse to work with me, have me moved on their religious grounds, or even sacked? I only say this because it seems as if Christians seem to want the laws of the land, that cover everyone, to be exempted in their case.
I am also sic of hearing about homosexuals as if we shouldn’t exist, that we aren’t qualified in anything, pay no taxes and sponge off society.
ellen, wouldn’t those children have a wonderful inside into the beautiful diversity of the human race which includes men who love men and women who love women? How does that hurt them?
Here’s something interesting for the Equal Love Campaigners,
Judge Rutherford concluded concluded that the Bulls ‘discriminate on the basis of marital status’.
‘There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership. If that is right, then upon what basis do the defendants draw a distinction if it is not on sexual orientation? The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow [the claimants] to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination.’
Considering what Judge Rutherford is quoted saying above,
There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.
if that is right then what basis does the government make this distiction if it is not on sexual orientation?
The only logical conclusion which can be drawn from the judges comments on the Bulls case is that the refusal to allow same sex couples access to the title “married” is also because of their sexual orientation and that this too is direct discrimination.
I’m sorry ? How is a judge ruling in accordance with the law an example of who bullying Christians ?
You think it’s that, rather than being appalled by the behaviour of the Bulls ? That, rather than not be prepared to accept discrimination ? Do you think it’s the role of gay people to take stances on religious beliefs that run counter to your own ? How have you taken a stance on Muslim extremism ?
You’re saying Christians are in minority in the UK ? Earlier someone suggested that 70% of the UK population were Christian: you presumably dispute this figure ? What do you think the true one is ?
These are different fundamentalists to you ?
I’ve replied already: test the law yourself by making a booking there.
The judge ruling was bullying Christians because they forced them to take away their stance and their opinion. If they don’t want to sell their buisness to certain types and if they don’t want to let their residence out to certain people then they should be allowed that point of view. We should all have a view on who we live with with. We should be allowed to keep that view. The same goes for the gay B&B, I don’t care if they only cater to gay clientel but that’s the point isn’t it. Nobody considers that to be sexual discrimination if they are allowed to have a say on the sexuality on clientel that they want to have and they blatantly advertise themselves as such then why can’t the Christian couple? The Chritian couple even advertise on their website that they only cater towards married couples when booking double rooms, so it wasn’t even a wholly homosexual issue.
I think I’ve explained myself well enough in my other post about Muslim extremism. I have no problems with Muslims but when it becomes extremism and when hate speech is practiced, that is when I have a problem. I have a problem with individuals burning flags on the streets shouting that they hate our country and wish all our soldiers will burn in hell. Yes, I do take issue against that. And to your surprise I also take issue with that complete idiot at Westboro Baptist called Fred Phelps and his completely stupid hate group called “God hates fags”. If I actually bumped into Fred Phelps I would probably end up punching him in the face because he is giving Christians a bad name, with his hate views and the Christian crowd I talk to on TWeb all agree. He actually won a 2010 Screwball Nomination from us the Christian section and trust me, we know about a lot of screwballs in the world, including Christian ones.
In the UK Christians are indeed the minority. I don’t know where they got 70% from. In the USA Christians have a larger following, even above 70% if I remember correctly but the UK is largely secular and non-Christian. To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK was more Muslim now than Christian. No problem with that, I just don’t want to have to live under Sharia law is all.
I have already replied in regards to the Gay B&B. I don’t care what they do, I am only pointing out the double standard which is all.
A very constructive response, thankyou, …do I need to say I have worked with Gay’s, and have Gay aquaintencies, I am happy to live and let live, my point is that the bottom line amounts to ‘nature does not make allowances for same sex relationships’ it’s up to personal preference, if two gay men want to drag an elderly Christian couple through the courts and claim money for damages, obviously it is now their
choice. But I think too wrongs don’t make a right in this instance, It is not just gay people who encounter some sort of discrimination in life !
No mate. The judge ruled that Christians were fully entitled to practice their religion, retain their beliefs and not like homosexuality. But simultaneously, it said that they may not use those as a means to directly discriminate against homosexuals in the field of goods and services since their B&B is a BUSINESS open to the public. If I turn my garage (part of my home) into a repair shop, I shouldn’t be able to turn away gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims or Christians. The fact it is my home has no bearing once I have declared it to be the premises of a BUSINESS.
For all those who have copped a load of hate speak this morning, look at the Guardian comments page. Eloquent, rational, logical, scientific, evidence-based, well-substantiated arguments……and most of them are undoubtedly straight, white and male.
“…The judge ruling was bullying Christians because they forced them to take away their stance and their opinion”
No, he didn’t. He merely confirmed that the law applies to Christians along with everybody else.
You mention not wanting to live under Sharia law. You won’t have to because we don’t live in a theocracy. I, too, am glad about that. But the point of that is our law should remain secular – please note that ‘secular’ does NOT mean banning certain beliefs.
The Bulls are entitled to hold their beliefs even if we don’t agree with them. What they’re NOT entitled to do is demand that those beliefs should give them a special opt-out from UK Law.
No-one is saying they can’t dislike gay people; no-one is saying they can’t believe in their particular brand of Christianity – all the judgement does is say that they, like me, like you, must follow the law. That’s fair – to all of us.
Arthur you’ve just proved yourself the worst sort of hypocrite. You know for a fact that your gay friends are good people but you fall back on the bible and condemn them as sinners.
Now I’m going to bed. I’m tired. It’s been a good day for UK LGBT. Terrible one in Iran. The world turns and the fight goes on.
================================================================
Rose, everyone is a sinner, that is the Christian world view. I am a sinner also. It does not mean that I need to hate other people or myself for that matter. It just means that we sometimes mess up and that we are human.
When you say “good people”, in what sense. The word good is very subjective and it depends on who is saying it. I might consider some of my friends to be good people, no matter who they are, but if you compare it to a perfect standard, it doesn’t matter where this perfect standard comes from, then none of us are good. None of us are perfect and you can’t denty that fact. Therefore we all fall short of perfection.
Someone above wrote: “Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin”.
But think about that!
It is actually totally ludicrous!
It’s impossible!
It is not possible for a human being to truly LOVE and ADORE a human being and at the VERY SAME TIME to be rightfully filled with utter disgust and contempt towards a particular behaviour of the same human being.
It would cause such cognitive dissonance that one would end up in a loony bin.
So let’s reject this Christian nonsense of putting on a pious face and saying, “Be like Jesus. Love the sinner, but not the sin!”
And remember, Jesus, if he ever really existed, was without any doubt a delusional. (He believed he was the son of a supernatural being who dwelt in the sky, for goodness’ sake!)
I know of at lest three cases in America that have resulted in the deaths of trans people because emergency room staff have refused to treat a trans people on religious grounds.
One case in New York, a trans person was knocked down by a car and two set of ambulance crews refused to carry the woman to hospital.
I don’t think its religious freedom to cost someone their life because of what your pastor or the bible does of does not say!
Erm, I don’t remember seeing any reports at how, on arrival and discovering the religion of the owners, the gay couple refused to stay there because they didn’t like Christians. The bigotry was dished out by the owners, not the gay couple who were obviously happy to stay there even when the owners said that they were Christian. Presumably, they would have walked out there and then if they were unhappy about it.
Gay people are fighting to level the playing field following centuries of criminalisation, oppression, discrimination and abuse at the hands of Christians and other religious groups. The problem is not that gays now have too many rights and privileges over other groups, it’s that Christians smothered everyone else by having too many in the first place. Christians clearly don’t like equality because it removes their previous privileges in terms of their influences on public institutions, the private lives of others and a self-appointed monopoly on morality. All stemming from unfounded claims in an outdated book that bear little relevance to today’s society, thinking and, more importantly SCIENCE. Religion is no more a positive influence on society than the theory of the four humours, astrology or Roman and Greek mythology. Why? Because they are all founded on the same aspects: belief (not fact), anauthenticated documents, unprovable stories of miracles, speculation, rumour, mistranslation and the assertion that they are the ONLY truth whilst denying anyone’s right to question it.
This verdict moves us closer to equality between groups, which should be the goal of any civilised society.
If you wanted to buy a screwdriver, would you phone up the hardware shop to ask if they allowed Christians to enter the premises? No. Why? Because you being Christian and you making a purchase are mutually exclusive. belief is private, making a purchase is not. So why would a gay person have to? They wouldn’t, it’s the same, it’s about buying a screwdriver, not your personal principles or sex life. It’s a business and in the business world, vendors of goods and services must not discriminate against the private lives of the customer. It’s completely logical.
=============================================================
Just one problem with your analogy here. If I walked into a hardware store would they let me have sex with my wife on their premises? No they would not. Am I then allowed to cry sexual discrimination because I am not allowed to have sex on their premises? No I cannot.
COnsidering that your analogy fails in concerns to the very issue we are talking about, i.e. Sex. Then I think you will find it fails completely.
Also note that this couple also refused to serve double bedrooms to heterosexual couples because of their beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance….excellent point. It summarises the contradictions in the behaviour of religious people very nicely.
Re Jesus….David Icke was the last person who proclaimed himself the son of God in the public arena (that I’m aware of). He now believes that aliens are controlling governments or something. I rest my case.
Darth O – the hearing wasn’t about sex. Who knows whether the gay couple in question were planning to have sex? It was about discrimination. The Bulls wished to disobey the law that bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (they would only have heterosexual married couples to stay). The Equality Law states that CPS are equal to marriage when the law mentions ‘marriage’. It is NOT up to the Bulls to make theor own laws about what counts as ‘married’. They are obliged to follow the same law as everybody else.
As someone who has worked now for over a quarter of century in the NHS as a staff nurse, will Christians now refuse my help, (it’s actually against the law for me to refuse to give help to anyone who needs it – and I wouldn’t refuse anyway) even in an emergency? Could a Christian staff members refuse to treat homosexuals, even in an emergency on the grounds of religious conscience? Or indeed any Christian refuse to work with me, have me moved on their religious grounds, or even sacked? I only say this because it seems as if Christians seem to want the laws of the land, that cover everyone, to be exempted in their case.
I am also sic of hearing about homosexuals as if we shouldn’t exist, that we aren’t qualified in anything, pay no taxes and sponge off society.
===============================================================
No in an emergency we are required by our religion to help you. You dying has nothing to do with your sexuality for a start.
The point is the Christian couple did not want homosexual or married sexual activities performed within their own property. So it is in relation to sexual activities that this complaint is about.
I wish people would stop taking completely unrelated issues and then try to imply that we would be against homsexuals on those issues as well. If we disagree on one point then that doesn’t mean that we will disagree with homosexuals on another point completely unrelated with that first point.
“I tend to agree JohnK. Marx got it wrong when he said “religion is the opiate of the masses”, its actually the opiate of the ignorant and the uneducated”
Will . . . there does appear to be a lot of evidence for your hypothesis, especially based on the posts emerging from this thread to date!
And *I* wish people would read and respond. A CP’d couple COUNT AS MARRIED. The Bulls are absolutely entitled to whatever views they want about sex but they’re NOT entitled to disobey the law.
I find your idea that they should be disturbing. My girlfriend’s family’s not white and her grandmother was refused permission to stay in a hotel because of her skin colour, and, more importantly, this was ‘justified’ by the owners by quoting the Bible.
And before you hark back to sex again, one of the two reasons they gave her was related to sex. I’m loathe to write such rcaist cr*p here so all I’ll say is that it was related to interracial relationships.
No mate. The judge ruled that Christians were fully entitled to practice their religion, retain their beliefs and not like homosexuality. But simultaneously, it said that they may not use those as a means to directly discriminate against homosexuals in the field of goods and services since their B&B is a BUSINESS open to the public. If I turn my garage (part of my home) into a repair shop, I shouldn’t be able to turn away gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims or Christians. The fact it is my home has no bearing once I have declared it to be the premises of a BUSINESS.
For all those who have copped a load of hate speak this morning, look at the Guardian comments page. Eloquent, rational, logical, scientific, evidence-based, well-substantiated arguments……and most of them are undoubtedly straight, white and male.
Separation of church and state next guys!
===================================================================
“…The judge ruling was bullying Christians because they forced them to take away their stance and their opinion”
No, he didn’t. He merely confirmed that the law applies to Christians along with everybody else.
You mention not wanting to live under Sharia law. You won’t have to because we don’t live in a theocracy. I, too, am glad about that. But the point of that is our law should remain secular – please note that ‘secular’ does NOT mean banning certain beliefs.
The Bulls are entitled to hold their beliefs even if we don’t agree with them. What they’re NOT entitled to do is demand that those beliefs should give them a special opt-out from UK Law.
No-one is saying they can’t dislike gay people; no-one is saying they can’t believe in their particular brand of Christianity – all the judgement does is say that they, like me, like you, must follow the law. That’s fair – to all of us.
========================================================================
I will answer both above in the same response.
It may be a business, but it is also their home, they own the deeds and the title and everything along with it. They live there and they should not be forced to have to put up with couples having unmarried sex or same partner sex in their residence. I can not walk into ANY BUSINESS with my wife and have sex with her on the counter, can I. It is up to people themselves if they want to take part in such activities or want to be involved in them. If they refuse to let people do these things on their premises then that is their choice.
When I was growing up and when I wasn’t a strict conservative Christian, I was told by my mother that I wasn’t allowed to bring home girls for sex. It was her house and it it was her rules so I can’t complain. My mother isn’t even a conservative Christian but she held onto values that are not too distant from today that a lot of people still hold onto.
You can joke about Romans throwing Christians to the lions all you want but that was 2000 years ago and was part of a different culture. The traditional values we are talking about just now are not that old and many people still hold onto them, including the elderly. Perhaps the courts were being ageist as well as ruling against their religion.
“Just one problem with your analogy here. If I walked into a hardware store would they let me have sex with my wife on their premises? No they would not. Am I then allowed to cry sexual discrimination because I am not allowed to have sex on their premises? No I cannot.
COnsidering that your analogy fails in concerns to the very issue we are talking about, i.e. Sex. Then I think you will find it fails completely.
Also note that this couple also refused to serve double bedrooms to heterosexual couples because of their beliefs.”
Oh, you have got yourself into a pickle haven’t you. You are confusing lots of different points and have failed to understand the analogy completely.
Firstly, I’m not sure if you are au fait with the services of a harward store, but in general, they don’t tend to offer PRIVATE bedrooms for people to sleep in. If they did, then they would not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation either. In either case, they are offering a SERVICE to a paying public. They are therefore obliged by law (not personal belief) to provide that service without discrimination. So, no, you can’t cry sexual discrimination (which isn’t actually related to having sex, by the way, it’s related to gender) as it is not legal to have sex in an open shop. Unfounded claim number one dismissed!
Secondly, you mention having sex with your WIFE. Actually, that would have been allowed, according to the Bulls, so I am not sure what the relevance is. If the hardware store-turned-hotel was offering rooms as well as screwdrivers, it would have to oblige and let you share a double bed with your wife. Or a same sex couple in a civil partnership, as they are equal in the eyes of the law. There is absolutely no contradiction in that. But, the point is not about you and your wife actually engaging in sex, it’s about whether you make a distinction between civil partners and mixed sex married people. That was the discrimination, not the being married in the eyes of the Bible part.
The discrimination at the hotel isn’t about sex at all, it’s about SEXUALITY. Namely, who you fancy. If they had been concerned about gay people having sex in their house, they wouldn’t have ‘apparently’ permitted them to stay in a twin room. As far as I am aware, a double bed isn’t the only venue where consensual sex can take place, I managed plenty of times in a single bed as a student. So, that’s another of your arguments blown out of the water.
While it may be logical to assume people might have sex in a hotel room, it is not always the case. never been out on the lash and just not felt like getting it on when you got back to the hotel? More worryingly, how would you set a legal ruling for that? “Excuse me sir, will you be entering your wife/civil partner/girlfiren.boyfriend this evening?” It’s a gross intrusion into people’s private lives. As the Bulls were never going to be involved in ANY sexual activity between ANY of the couples that ever stayed there, their supposed justification of only allowing married couples to share a double is rendered a complete farce by the fact they were ‘apparently’ prepared to let unmarried couples share a twin room. If you don’t want pre-marital sex taking place under your roof, then don’t let people share the room full stop!
They should never have been allowed to discriminate against unmarried couples either. You may be unmarried for numerous reasons: you cannot afford it, you are too young (remember at 16 you have to get permission still!) and you cannot be sure the two people sharing a room are even a couple anyway (backpackers, brother and sister, colleagues). Their job was to let rooms out to paying guests, not interefere with any bodily functions going on in that room.
Someone above wrote: “Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin”.
But think about that!
It is actually totally ludicrous!
It’s impossible!
It is not possible for a human being to truly LOVE and ADORE a human being and at the VERY SAME TIME to be rightfully filled with utter disgust and contempt towards a particular behaviour of the same human being.
It would cause such cognitive dissonance that one would end up in a loony bin.
So let’s reject this Christian nonsense of putting on a pious face and saying, “Be like Jesus. Love the sinner, but not the sin!”
And remember, Jesus, if he ever really existed, was without any doubt a delusional. (He believed he was the son of a supernatural being who dwelt in the sky, for goodness’ sake!)
==================================================================
Sounds like you are the looney. So are you telling me you hate everybody that you disagree with when it comes to matters of right and wrong?
Do you hate all smokers if you think that smoking is wrong and should not be done?
Do you hate all alcolholics?
How about liars? Do you hate them all?
You mate are the complete looney if you think that you need to hate everybody who performs acts that you find disagreeable.
“The point is the Christian couple did not want homosexual or married sexual activities performed within their own property. So it is in relation to sexual activities that this complaint is about.”
See, this is well you let yourself down as you obviously haven’t even read the case details properly. They said it was fine for married couples to share a bed, but not for unmarries couples of any sort. By making that distinction, they are saying that they don’t want any pre-marital sex, but sex between married partners is fine. Why else would anyone make that distinction? The problems was they they didn’t recognise CPs as equal to marriage, which contravenes the law and is classed as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
With people like you on here, this is just too easy!
Darth O – the hearing wasn’t about sex. Who knows whether the gay couple in question were planning to have sex? It was about discrimination. The Bulls wished to disobey the law that bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (they would only have heterosexual married couples to stay). The Equality Law states that CPS are equal to marriage when the law mentions ‘marriage’. It is NOT up to the Bulls to make theor own laws about what counts as ‘married’. They are obliged to follow the same law as everybody else.
=================================================================
It was about sexual orientation, yes. But a hotel owner cannot gurantee that a certain couple will refrain from sex if he lets them a room. They applied the same policy to unmarried couples as well. It obviously boils down to sex because then the owners would have no complaints otherwise, especially in the second instance.
You’re not telling me that they refuse a double bedroom for a guy and a woman who are not married on the basis that they will not perform sex in that bed. Are you?
If you answer yes, then the issue is not about sexual orientation to begin with but marriage status and you can’t answer like that without then inadvertantly disagreeing with the verdict above.
“It may be a business, but it is also their home, they own the deeds and the title and everything along with it.”
And you don’t own the deeds to your lock-up garage where you operate your business from then? Those operating the lock-up wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate, so neither should the Bulls, even if they lived in the flat above it.
“I can not walk into ANY BUSINESS with my wife and have sex with her on the counter, can I.”
Erm, no. Who was advocating that you should? You are implying the gay couple were demanding such a right when they weren’t. Aside from a counter being a PUBLIC space in a shop and a bedroom being PRIVATE, there has been no advocacy of involving other people in their sex life against their will. Or can you find that and show me? Won’t hold my breath.
“It is up to people themselves if they want to take part in such activities or want to be involved in them.”
Yes, precisely. Well done. Gold star for logic and understanding the law.
“If they refuse to let people do these things on their premises then that is their choice.”
Ah, no, you’ve gone and spolit it now. They were saying it was fine for married couples to share a double bed, i.e. a not so subtle reference to sex. But NOT civil partners as they did not equate that to the religious view of marriage. If they had not wanted any sex at all taking place in the private rooms, they would have put a sign up saying no sex. Aside from being so naive to ignore that most people stay in private rooms because it allows them to have sex, how on Earth would they prove sex had taken place? And what do we define as sex? Penetration? A quick hand job? Do we look for semen stains on sheets or in the shower? Bedrooms are PRIVATE and it was not for the Bulls to speculate about what those two men were going to do in there. Or anyone else for that matter.
There are so many flaws in your reasoning it is quite amazing!
“The point is the Christian couple did not want homosexual or married sexual activities performed within their own property. So it is in relation to sexual activities that this complaint is about.”
See, this is well you let yourself down as you obviously haven’t even read the case details properly. They said it was fine for married couples to share a bed, but not for unmarries couples of any sort. By making that distinction, they are saying that they don’t want any pre-marital sex, but sex between married partners is fine. Why else would anyone make that distinction? The problems was they they didn’t recognise CPs as equal to marriage, which contravenes the law and is classed as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
With people like you on here, this is just too easy!
================================================================
You have actually just admitted that this case has nothing to do with sexual orientation then.
What reason would the hotel owners have for refusing to let out a room to an unmarried man and woman on the presumption that they wouldn’t have sex?
That basically means that they shouldn’t have been found guilty of discrimination against the gay couple to begin with then since it was based on marriage status rather than sexual activity or sexual orientation. Marriage staus and sexual orientation are two separate things but also remember marriage status to a Christian is different than to marriage status found by your government, so they are still the owners religious beliefs you are ruling against.
Oh by the way, with people like you on this site this is way too easy. You can’t say in one breath that they were being prejudiced against the couples marriage status and then say with the other breath that they are being prejudiced against their sexuality.
If it’s marriage status, then they are not being preducied against their sexuality.
” It was about sexual orientation, yes. But a hotel owner cannot gurantee that a certain couple will refrain from sex if he lets them a room.”
Of course they can’t because it’s a PRIVATE room.
“They applied the same policy to unmarried couples as well.”
No they didn’t. They said married couples could have a double bed, but unmarried ones had to have a twin room. Go and read the bloody case!
“It obviously boils down to sex because then the owners would have no complaints otherwise, especially in the second instance”
No, again, it was to do with discrimination based on sexual orientation because they did not recognise CPs as marriage. And thus barred them from the double beds.
“You’re not telling me that they refuse a double bedroom for a guy and a woman who are not married on the basis that they will not perform sex in that bed. Are you?”
I can’t begin to comprehend what point you are trying to make. Clarify it because we can’t then answer the question.
I agree 100% which is why civil marriage will ultimately be open to same sex couples, the current situation is legally untenable.
@ade
I fail to see your point, nature created gay people and their relationships (by causing us to be attracted to each other). I also fail to see why you think there are two wrongs here. It can never be wrong to confront discrimination so the only wrong I can see was by the Bulls.
In general reading through the posts since last night something struck me. There is a lot of discussion about what jesus says or the bible says and so on but to honest that is irrelevant. The judgement is that it is illegal to discriminate against same sex couples using religion as a shield. The specifics of that religion, or any other religion are immaterial. People of any religion from christian to pagan to none are at liberty to equally hold whatever strange beliefs they want but NONE of them has any right to use those beliefs to discriminate in the public sphere on the basis of sexuality, sex, religion age, race, colour or disability. Any discussion about biblical references is spurious to this case or the judgement.
Iris.. didn’t know you were a leading theologian. In the original there is some but very little debate over the words used by Paul to describe homosexuality. Homosexuality was rife in ancient Greece, not sure that’s particularly controversial, and Paul spoke against it. Romans, 1 Corinthians and TImothy.. wishful thinking isn’t gonna change that I’m afraid.. and when you finally meet Christ for yourself who will have been duped..? Not him.. you’re just kidding yourself about the Bible I’m afraid.
Harry, ah the old trick of deliberately failing to see a point. Of course I’m not saying it’s ok to execute people for being gay.. your point is that because Jesus never mentioned homosexuality specifically this somehow means he supported it. Yet law has always held the maxim that silence is consent, so if you inferr anything from His slience on the issue it would be consent to current practices, not opposition. That said, I think Jesus showed that mercy was His aim, but mercy requires something to be merciful about. Like the woman caught in adultery, he forgave her, didn’t say adultery was ok.. and I’d take St Paul’s theology over Pink News any day lol.
Iris, you make a further point about Romans and St Paul’s use of going against our own nature as though somehow it’s ok for gay people to have gay sex but not straight ones??.. Interesting. COuld it not be that Paul is saying that such actions are unnatural and debase us all? Certainly it would fit in with what he says in 1 COrinthians.. arsenokotai is fairly straight forward to interpret, clearly doesn’t mean temple prostitutes as he’s listed them already.
Will, that’s an old old argument is that. There are clear differences between ceremonial law and moral law in Leviticus. Much of what we see as ceremonial about being clean etc Jesus shows us the true meaning of these passages. However, Jesus never rebukes the things described as sin in Leviticus, simply that we should show mercy to sinners and lead them to the light that is Jesus Christ.
To those who keep saying. “it’s the law.. it’s the law!”.. remember how badly the law treated homosexuals up until 1967.. it was the law then that sodomy was a prisonable offence, whether you were gay or not. I presume then you think that was right because it was the law? Bet not.
Civil Partnerships are not marriage.. they are protrayed as such by gay rights groups etc who hope they are a stepping stone to full marriage, but they are not marriage. I would open up CP’s not non gay couples.. ie.. siblings.. good mates etc.. any partnerships that deserves recognition in law. Marriage is for a man and a woman.. and UK law says so. The judge may be right in terms of what CP’s are eligible for in the public sphere, ie tax breaks, train tickets etc, but in law they are different. saying anything else is frankly just incorrect.
Also, am i too assume that had mr preddy and mr (cant remember his name) not been in a civil partnership the bull’s would have been within the law to not give them a double room?
“You have actually just admitted that this case has nothing to do with sexual orientation then.”
Erm, no I haven’t. I have said it was nothing to do with them wanting NOBODY to have sex under their roof. It was also about them making a distinction between CPs and married straight couples, by affording ONLY the latter the privilege of sharing a double bed. read it properly next time!
“What reason would the hotel owners have for refusing to let out a room to an unmarried man and woman on the presumption that they wouldn’t have sex?”
Sorry, it’s so garbled, I can’t make out what you mean. If what I see is correct, you think people are implying that the Bulls should force unmarried couples to have sex in their B&B. Even coming from you, that is confusing. Again, clarify your point as it makes no sense.
“That basically means that they shouldn’t have been found guilty of discrimination against the gay couple to begin with then since it was based on marriage status rather than sexual activity or sexual orientation.”
They should have been found guilty because in the eyes of the law NOT religion, civil partnerships hold the same status as marriage. Their decision to refuse them was based purely on the sexual orientation of those two men. By the way, you are the one who keeps on about their supposed banning of sexual activity full stop. At no point in the case or media reports has the idea of anyone having sex come up.
“Marriage staus and sexual orientation are two separate things but also remember marriage status to a Christian is different than to marriage status found by your government, so they are still the owners religious beliefs you are ruling against.”
Precisely. Unless you have not read all of the comments, the media report and the case notes, religion is NOT considered above the rule of law. Hence, despite what PERSONAL beliefs the Bulls have on whether civil partnerships are equal to their own perception of marriage, they are obliged to respect what the law states. Like with any other law. Smoking cannabis is illegal, but people are allowed to say they think it’s wrong. But that doesn’t give them the right to break the law based on their own personal belief.
“Oh by the way, with people like you on this site this is way too easy. You can’t say in one breath that they were being prejudiced against the couples marriage status and then say with the other breath that they are being prejudiced against their sexuality.”
You are not bright are you. They were BOTH prejudiced against their marriage status AND their sexual orientation. As gay unions are legally defined as civil partnerships but equal to marriage, then they were discriminating on two counts. This is so obvious, I think I will scream!
“If it’s marriage status, then they are not being preducied against their sexuality.”
YES THEY ARE. Because straight people cannot have civil partnerships and gay people cannot hold the status of being married. the two are completely interlinked. More to the point, if they said that they did not recognise civil weddings for straight people, then that would be prejudiced too.
“If it’s both then my comments still apply anyway.”
None of your comments apply because they both state that the Bulls were right to break the law. Which they weren’t.
Dave G.. the Bible is not irrelevant to this debate. UK law is based on Judeo-Christian principles and the freedom of religion is sacrasanct in law. The law about equalities came in about a year or so ago or something and will surely be amended at some point or another. When the law put gay men in prison for having gay sex presumably you thought that was ok, cos it was the law? didn’t think so. So stop hiding behind the law, law’s change, and this judge’s decision is not yet binding and certainly not precedent setting..
You feel that your views of society are how laws should be made, others have different ideas. The teachings of the Bible and Jesus in particular are at the heart of our law, and indeed the laws of many nations.. long may htey remian so.
Ah, no, you’ve gone and spolit it now. They were saying it was fine for married couples to share a double bed, i.e. a not so subtle reference to sex. But NOT civil partners as they did not equate that to the religious view of marriage. If they had not wanted any sex at all taking place in the private rooms, they would have put a sign up saying no sex. Aside from being so naive to ignore that most people stay in private rooms because it allows them to have sex, how on Earth would they prove sex had taken place? And what do we define as sex? Penetration? A quick hand job? Do we look for semen stains on sheets or in the shower? Bedrooms are PRIVATE and it was not for the Bulls to speculate about what those two men were going to do in there. Or anyone else for that matter.
There are so many flaws in your reasoning it is quite amazing!
================================================================
No flaws in my reasoning whatsoever but thanks for the insults all the same. I just shrug them off like water off a ducks back.
Exactly, they said it was fine for MARRIED COUPLES, because that refers back to their religious beleifs. The point is they should make the rules for the property and premises that they live in. They didn’t include civil partners but they also didn’t include unmarried couples in their rules.
A business does not have to provide a service if they don’t want to. Like I said before, I can’t take a toy company to court because they only cater services to children up to five. I can’t scream that they are being ageist because of this.
Companies who refuse to service people will quite simply not get the money in exchange for their services. Sure companies don’t refuse to sell servcies to Black people or Jewish people but considering that neither of these traits actually define them as a person or what activities they get up to then that is fine. I am not saying that any company should refuse to sell Gay people their services, don’t be ridiculous, but when you hand out a room to a couple, who could end up performing sexual activities in that room then you need to be comfortable with whats going on. If they are uncomfortable then they are being made to feel uncomfortable in their place of residence, even if it is also their business. That is the point here. Yes, it’s a business, but it is also their home and they should not have things forced upon them in their own home.
Perhaps you will argue that they shouldn’t run a hotel then (well a B&B actually, not even a hotel) but should all hotels be made to accept any clientel, even those they find distastful. For instances should hotels be forced to accept group parties who only want to rent rooms for sex orgies, or will they be sued for sexual discrimination as well. Or if you want to argue that the case wasn’t about sex then should hotels be refused to let rooms to a group of four or five people who all want to share a double bed with each other?
“Yet law has always held the maxim that silence is consent”
So on that basis you would use that to justify rape, would you? ‘You see m’lud, she didn’t say no, so I assumed that she was fine with me holding her down and sexually assaulting her’.
AND
“You feel that your views of society are how laws should be made, others have different ideas.”
Erm, yes I do feel that my views are how laws should be made and so do you, hypocrite. That’s why we’re all on here debating those very views. If I didn’t feel my views should be law, then what would I have to say on the debate? Weird remark, seriously.
“The teachings of the Bible and Jesus in particular are at the heart of our law, and indeed the laws of many nations.. long may htey remian so.”
To quote you – “you feel that your views of society are how laws should be made, others have different ideas”.Yes, we do have different ideas and so did a lot of people before us. Hence why Jesus and his claptrap are no longer at the heart of the British legal system. We have seen how other countries that are much more closely based on religious books and we have clearly decided we don’t agree with that. I’m sure you’ll cite various laws that are supported by the views of the Bible, there will clearly be some commonalities because people in ‘Biblical Times’ were actually humans as well. The right not to be killed or have your property stolen are universal human rights, not just Christian ones. After all, they appear in almost every religion in th world. Sorry, I’m afraid your Christianity is just not that special.
Society has moved on in the direction of universal human rights, gradually freeing us from religious oppression and anti-human doctrine. This is the way it will continue. Hurrah.
If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene ? the question is if it is not caused genetically then gays are brought up to become gays. Also the word discriminate i am fed up hearing it.O i could not get a seat on the plane as i am to fat or my child did not get into school because i am black and you people go on and on blaming every thing and every one because you cannot fit into a normal society.
These people who are so anti , never think homosexuality will enter their familys. They go on about choice and nurture when it comes to us , but when their child turns out to be gay or their Grand child they suddenly have to rethink their whole bigotry. I have seen this happen first hand when a anti guy I worked with confided in me that he had just found out that his brother who he idolised had just come out. He apoligized to me for what he thought about me. This case was right in its out come. The law draws a line. It cannot possible accomadate every differnet relgion that is now practiced in the world today. Otherwise we would not be proscuting terroists that blew up London. After all that was their belief. What is needed in the law is common sense and this is what this ruling was. Common sense.
mmmmmmmmm, not sure how many m’s so don’t count them.
I pretty much agree with your response to James so you saved me writing a scree.
It does not matter where our laws have come from, they are gradually being rewritten and christianity is more and more being treated no different from any other religion (or none). This work takes time so that christianity can play no part in the lives of those who do not subscribe to it.
The law banning homosexuality was a bigoted and discriminatory Judeo-Christian law typical of the barmy and mean-spiritedness of that brand of religion.
It is part of this progression which has allowed homosexuality to be decriminalised, much to the consternation of many christians who tried to stop it but they were ignored because it was accepted that their dogma was irrelevant to the process of law. In Northern Ireland, where Ian Paisley used his evangelical “Save Ulster from Sodomy” campaign to delay the decriminalisation until 1982 it took Margaret Thatcher to get annoyed with his stubbornness to overrule him with a stroke of her pen and sign our rights into law here.
By the way, Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in law is not absolute as the judgement specifically pointed out yesterday, it cannot be used to restrict the rights of others – read the judgement.
“No flaws in my reasoning whatsoever but thanks for the insults all the same. I just shrug them off like water off a ducks back.”
With such poor understanding of reasoning, I should hope you have got used to the criticism by now!
“Exactly, they said it was fine for MARRIED COUPLES, because that refers back to their religious beleifs.”
And CPs are equated with marriage in law, so they were obliged to include that too. Their beliefs don’t even come into it where the law is clear.
“The point is they should make the rules for the property and premises that they live in. They didn’t include civil partners but they also didn’t include unmarried couples in their rules.”
Unmarried couples are either a) heterosexual and unmarried or b) homosexual and without a CP. These men had a CP, i.e. they should have been treated as equal to the married couples according to the law. Do you really need this to be reiterated that many times? The law is incredibly clear on this issue.
Plus, it is a BUSINESS, it is no longer under the same legal standing as their home. They therefore cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to stay there.
“A business does not have to provide a service if they don’t want to.”
Yes, obviously. But what service are you referring to? The gay couple were not asking for a different service to heterosexual guests. They were just expecting to be treated the same. There was no burden on the owners to provide a different service or even level of service to anyone else.
“Like I said before, I can’t take a toy company to court because they only cater services to children up to five. I can’t scream that they are being ageist because of this.”
But they are not stopping you as an adult from going into the shop and buying a toy. Anyone purchasing a toy has to be treated the same. Again, you have cited a bad example and confused the service on offer with the treatment of the customer. They are separate things. The service can change, but the respect towards the customer must be equal.
“Companies who refuse to service people will quite simply not get the money in exchange for their services.”
It depends on what grounds they are refusing. If it’s because of sexual orientation, they will be the ones paying in court! If they are doing it because you have punched someone in the shop and, hence, broken the law, they are entitled to refuse service. The gay couple weren’t breaking the law and thus shouldn’t have been refused.
“Sure companies don’t refuse to sell servcies to Black people or Jewish people but considering that neither of these traits actually define them as a person or what activities they get up to then that is fine.”
Being gay doesn’t define a person either, that’s the whole point. Colour, creed or sexual orientation only define someone when that part of them is being called into question by a bigot! It is perhaps you who is defining those people. One doesn’t need to get up to any activities to be gay, we all know we are attracted to the same sex before we even know what the gay actually means. Your point has no validity.
“I am not saying that any company should refuse to sell Gay people their services, don’t be ridiculous but when you hand out a room to a couple, who could end up performing sexual activities in that room then you need to be comfortable with whats going on.
You’ve just contradicted yourself there. So, you don’t believe gays should be refused services, except when there might be a risk they have sex behind closed doors in a private room just like straight people do? That is blatant discrimination!!
“If they are uncomfortable then they are being made to feel uncomfortable in their place of residence, even if it is also their business.”
Who was making this couple feel uncomfortable? The guys just wanted a room, how is that making someone uncomfortable? Please explain further.
“Yes, it’s a business, but it is also their home and they should not have things forced upon them in their own home.”
No-one was forcing them to do anything other than to treat this couple with the same respect as they show straight guests. That’s it, end of. You are implying that the couple had some hidden sexual agenda to drag the Bulls into. Did the gay couple say ‘you must be gay and engage in sex with us’? No. Did they demand to have sex in a public area? No. I could go on, but you really need to define what exactly the Bulls were having forced on them. If you say the gay couple’s belief, then you need a slap. You can’t force someone’s passive biology on someone!
“Perhaps you will argue that they shouldn’t run a hotel then (well a B&B actually, not even a hotel) but should all hotels be made to accept any clientel, even those they find distastful.”
Define distasteful. If you find someone distasteful purely because they are gay and despite them not exhibiting any different behaviour towards you than straight people, then absolutely! There is obvious discrimination there. If a client is breaking the law on the premises, causing harrassment, inciting hatred, inflicting violence and all manner of anti-social behaviour, then yes, kick them out. The difference? Just being gay isn’t antisocial or illegal and doesn’t impact on anyone else AT ALL.
“For instances should hotels be forced to accept group parties who only want to rent rooms for sex orgies, or will they be sued for sexual discrimination as well.”
Again, this is where you confuse sex and sexual orientation. This is a whole different issue and, as you know, protection from private sexual practices doesn’t exist in the law. It would ultimately lie in whether such orgies were proved to be causing a disturbance (noise, mess) and impacting on other guests. If a guest was inviting 10 non-guests to join the orgy, they would be allowed to oppose it on the grounds of not the access of non-guests being at the discretion of the owner. If it was a case of 10 paying guests staying in five rooms and then all going into one room for an orgy, that’s very different. But, ultimately, if they weren’t interfering with the other guests or the owner and it was all in PRIVATE, it would be very difficult to criminalise.
“Or if you want to argue that the case wasn’t about sex then should hotels be refused to let rooms to a group of four or five people who all want to share a double bed with each other?”
Erm, that’s a bit of a stupid statemen. How many beds there are in the room is part of the service offered by the owner. Presumably, if you didn’t want to encourage a gang bang, you’d only put one double bed in each room and state that no more than 2 people could sleep in each room. But sleeping isn’t the same as popping in for a quickie, is it? So how woud you regulate that? Surely you would have to be in the room with them at all times, which would violate their privacy. But, like with other points, this is not relevant to the Bulls refusing the gay couple. That’s about sexual orentation, NOT sexual practices.
You clearly have no knowledge of genetics, natural selection, genetic variability,alleles, natural adaptation or indeed logic.
You seem to have the answers the rest of the scientific community are grappling with.
There is no proof there is a genetic component however there is no proof there is not. There is significant evidence that there is a prenatal hormonal component which may or may not be triggered genetically.
There is little or no evidence that it is post natal.
Perhaps instead of spouting nonsense you should do a bit of research.
Perhaps you deserve to be discriminated against because as the bible says you are simply a chattle of your husband. Next time get him to post as you should not be allowed to discourse with us men or use the internet. Get the dinner made woman !!!!.
What would be really nice is if those Christians who claim all Gay people are perverted would stop judging Every single person they met by what private sexual activities they get up to.
A phrase with the words pot and kettle springs to mind.
See the people for who they are and get your heads out of the gutter…. Perverts!
Erm, no I haven’t. I have said it was nothing to do with them wanting NOBODY to have sex under their roof. It was also about them making a distinction between CPs and married straight couples, by affording ONLY the latter the privilege of sharing a double bed. read it properly next time!
Sorry, it’s so garbled, I can’t make out what you mean. If what I see is correct, you think people are implying that the Bulls should force unmarried couples to have sex in their B&B. Even coming from you, that is confusing. Again, clarify your point as it makes no sense.
They should have been found guilty because in the eyes of the law NOT religion, civil partnerships hold the same status as marriage. Their decision to refuse them was based purely on the sexual orientation of those two men. By the way, you are the one who keeps on about their supposed banning of sexual activity full stop. At no point in the case or media reports has the idea of anyone having sex come up.
Precisely. Unless you have not read all of the comments, the media report and the case notes, religion is NOT considered above the rule of law. Hence, despite what PERSONAL beliefs the Bulls have on whether civil partnerships are equal to their own perception of marriage, they are obliged to respect what the law states. Like with any other law. Smoking cannabis is illegal, but people are allowed to say they think it’s wrong. But that doesn’t give them the right to break the law based on their own personal belief.
You are not bright are you. They were BOTH prejudiced against their marriage status AND their sexual orientation. As gay unions are legally defined as civil partnerships but equal to marriage, then they were discriminating on two counts. This is so obvious, I think I will scream!
YES THEY ARE. Because straight people cannot have civil partnerships and gay people cannot hold the status of being married. the two are completely interlinked. More to the point, if they said that they did not recognise civil weddings for straight people, then that would be prejudiced too.
None of your comments apply because they both state that the Bulls were right to break the law. Which they weren’t.
================================================================
Read what I say properly as well moron and we wont have this problem of you drooling all your mouth. They refused rooms to UNMARRIED STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL. What part of that do you not understand?
You can’t make sense of it because you are totally high on crack or something. Let me explain it another way for you so you can understand. Why did they refuse to let out rooms to unmarried straight couples if they didn’t think that sex was an issue? It’s obvious from this that sex was actually an issue because Christians don’t have anything against unmarried couples who don’t want to have sex. DUH!!!!! Did I spell that out clearly for you?
What I said was clear, but for some reason somebody brought civil partnerships into it and then said that this doesn’t mean that they will have sex. The policy was obviously a sexual one but it was you who then brought up the objection that they wouldn’t necessarily have sex in this room just because they are civil partners. When I pointed out the fact that they refuse service to unmarried straight couples as well then this meant it was obviously a decision based on sex but it was you tried to argue that it necessarily wasn’t and that it was based on the issue of civil partnerships, not being seen in the same eyes are marriage.
I never said that the Bulls didn’t break the law. What I did say though is that it should not be disallowed for them to say what goes on in their own residence. Even if it’s a place of business, the Bulls still have to live there as well and they own the deeds and the property but for some reason because they have turned it into a business then this means that they have given up all their personal rights in concerns to their home. In what sense is this fair for them. Are you telling me that they are not allowed to have a say what goes on in their own home because they have turned into a business. If I start an internet business and sell things on a website does that mean I can no longer have a say what goes on in my own home?
The word prejudiced isn’t really that strong. For instance here is the defintion.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
Apparently it can be defined as an unfavorable opinion without knowledge, thought or reason. That is so broad that anything can be a prejudiced view. Are we really saying that the Christian couple who ran this B&B were so harsh to the gay couple that they deserve to be called prejudiced.
What about intolerant instead. What defintion can we use for that.
–adjective
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
Are we to put the Christian in this group as well, simply because they wanted to choose who they let their rooms out to?
Well I guess those people that run that Gay B&B must be prejudiced and intolerant as well. I didn’t think so, I was prepared to let them have their say on who they wanted to aim their business at but apparently it is wrong for them to do that.
I am being consistant here. I am not saying that this is what the law represents, no, bit I am allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the law. The law would also require within your opinion that this Gay B&B are also legally in the wrong for their actions. Does this mean we get to call them Bigots, prejudiced or intolerant for their actions also? I don’t think so but apparently you do.
I have already covered the issues. I know that gay people have civil partnerships instead of marriage but I have pointed out that unmarried straight couples were not allowed rooms either and I pointed out that a CHristian defintion of marriage is different in the eyes than the law. Yes, you have said that the law is what rules but I pointed out that the law is enforcing these people to go against their opinions within their own home. You can argue that they shouldn’t run a business if you want but I believe that people who run buisnesses from their home shouldn’t be forced to suddenly accept things that they don’t want in them. If I run an internet business from home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept people entering my home that I do not wish in my home. If I run a kitchen buisness from my home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept just anybody through my doorway.
What is right and what is the law are two separate issues by the way. A law is never necessarily right. If that was the case then you wouldn’t be able to change the laws because they would all be right to begin with. Such poor reasoning from you, but then again I expected as much. It is sometimes right to break a law.
“They refused rooms to UNMARRIED STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL”
No they didn’t in fact as the guy from the NSS reported Unmarried couples had booked and stayed there even when they used their real (and so different) names.
I have read a number of news stories on this topic, most biased one way or the other. I expected this to be heavily biased against the owners and am pleasantly suprised to find it is one of the most balanced stories reported.
Whilst I agree with the couples core belief, I accept that the law of our country clearly states civil partnership has the same rights as marraige so support the decision made here. The time for debate was when the law was made, not when christian’s like me wish to pick and choose how it is applied.
And I didn’t realise you were so patronising, James. Where did I claim to be a theologian? No, I’m not, but I AM a Greek scholar. I’m also a pedant – the bit from Paul does NOT imply that gay relationships are wrong and I get annoyed when people say it does. Maybe Paul meant to say that they were and he just phrased it badly? Who knows? Or maybe, like I said, his issues were with what he considered to be sexual immorality – ie temple sex and prostitution? The language he used suggests the latter is most likely.
But then, that has nothing to do with God or Jesus – neither of whom had a go at consensual same sex relationships.
Darth O, I can see your position more clearly now. You say that the Christain definition of marriage is different from the legal statement that CPs are equal to marriage. Thanks for clarifying.
I’ve no problem with you or anyone else believing that, but we all have to follow the law. The law says that CPs ARE equal to marriage. Now your Christian position may be less….trying to think of the right word…aggressive? than others but the law cannot allow individuals to have opt-outs according to what they believe. If it did, we’d have interracial couples banned from hotels, women struggling to find employment, people walking into your house and taking your TV and computer ( they believe property is theft – therefore they’re entitled to your stuff). Can you not see that the law is there to protect EVERYBODY?
mmmmm.. i see why you have that name now.. for yur musing sare dubious. mmmm.. I never said that didn’t want my views reflected in law also, but i never implied that it was anything more than that. Furthermore, i would rather that all views were taken into consideration, not just those of militant extremist fringe, so full of vitriol I’m surprised your blood pressure isn’t making your eyes bulge lol.
Iris.. well there are better studies of greek and theology than you or I, like Bishop Tom Wright for example, and these theologians, insrtead of taking one verse out of context like you are doing, see the whole of Paul’s writings and interpret the greek with more knowledge. They seem to suggest that Paul does condemn homosexual practice.. so either I believe them.. or you.. tough one.. tough one.
Someone rather erroneously said that the maxim, ‘qui tacit consentit’ woudl mean that rape was ok.. get real. Of course, if the woman in that case was able to object and did not then it would make the case a tricky one, and often this is the case. Being as most people don’t write a little letter before sex it’s difficult to prive exactly what consent was given but in my experience the question, “are you consenting to sex i hope we’re about to have?” is rarely asked. However, were someone next to me to start beating osmeone else nearby and i did nothing then i would be in trouble with the law as I am duty bound to try and stop it. I would have to show that it was out of reasonable fear or some inability to do something that i didn’t speak out or offer resistance.. the maxim remains.. like receiving stolen goods and not saying anything.. if you know they’re hot and you do noting, it’s a criminal offence. So less heat and bluster [please, I’m not out to do anything naughty, it’s a fair point I’m making here.
Darth Ovious makes some great points as usual, and i wish the gay rights folks on hre would understand that a civil partnership is a tax break and recognition of a partnership. Wear flowers in your suit and have a reception if you like, anyone can do that, but it doesn’t make it a marriage. If it did, why woudl Tatchell et al be so busy fighting for gay marriages? CP’s are a very British compromise, but two poeple of same sex cannot get married, it’s not possible, and never will be in my opinion.. the ruling of the judge is not a binding definition of civl partnerships.. the law is.. read the law, as you’re so keen on pointing out and you’ll see they are not marriage.. it’s a fact.
Chrsitians are seeking ways to obey the law in so far as they can in all good conscience. We should never discriminate on basis of sexuality, as essentially it’s imposible to legaly define, but there are acceptable sexual relainships and unacceptable ones. Of course no BnB owners can guarantee that not ginvg someone a double room will prevent sex, but it sets a principle for their own home and business and if people choose to break that rule then be it on their own heads.
Iris if a hotel owner refused to give a double room due to a belief about interracial relationships then I would say they were wrong to do so, as ai see no moral or ethical case there. But I’m inclined to say that if it were their house then they’d every right to do so.
Question.. I’ve a spare double room in my house i want to rent out (not really).. am i allowed to make sure i dont let it out to a gay couple? Not sure i want gay sex going on under my roof.. now it’s not a business, it’s a spare room in my house.. what’s my legal position?
“Read what I say properly as well moron and we wont have this problem of you drooling all your mouth. They refused rooms to UNMARRIED STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL. What part of that do you not understand?”
I understand fully that they refused double rooms to unmarried straight couples. I mean, you keep making it, but it’s relevant because the gay couple had a civil partnership and, in the eyes of th law, were not unmarried. They had the same legal status as married people. Now what part of that don’t YOU understand?
“You can’t make sense of it because you are totally high on crack or something.”
Insult and speculation. Care to provide evidence that I am high on anything other than orange juice at 3pm?
“Let me explain it another way for you so you can understand. Why did they refuse to let out rooms to unmarried straight couples if they didn’t think that sex was an issue?
Only pre-marital sex may have been an issue. As the gay couple had the same legal status as married couples, they should not have treated them any differently. That’s the point. You are making a wild assumption that the gay couple were more likely to have sex than the straight married couple. Which is wholly stupid!
“It’s obvious from this that sex was actually an issue because Christians don’t have anything against unmarried couples who don’t want to have sex. DUH!!!!! Did I spell that out clearly for you?”
I still fail to see what the relevance is with this point. Are you saying they do have an issue with married couples who do want to have sex? You’re really not good at this clarification lark are you.
“What I said was clear, but for some reason somebody brought civil partnerships into it and then said that this doesn’t mean that they will have sex.”
It wasn’t clear and, again, why is the likelihood of civil partnehaving it off any higher than a straight married couple? Again, explain what you are getting at.
“The policy was obviously a sexual one but it was you who then brought up the objection that they wouldn’t necessarily have sex in this room just because they are civil partners.”
No, ANYONE may or may not be intending to have sex in that room. You made the implication that civil partners having sex in a hotel room was somehow more wrong than a married straight couple.
“When I pointed out the fact that they refuse service to unmarried straight couples as well then this meant it was obviously a decision based on sex but it was you tried to argue that it necessarily wasn’t and that it was based on the issue of civil partnerships, not being seen in the same eyes are marriage.”
For crying out loud, civil partners are expected to be treated the same as straight married couples. On that basis, the gay couple are NOT unmarried, but were treated as if they were. As only gay people can be civil partners, it is then discrimination to refuse them on the grounds that they are not married heterosexuals. That is the bloody point!
“I never said that the Bulls didn’t break the law. What I did say though is that it should not be disallowed for them to say what goes on in their own residence.”
As long as their rules are applied equally to ALL, that’s fine. But they didn’t and had no intention of doing so, that’s why they were convicted.
“Even if it’s a place of business, the Bulls still have to live there as well and they own the deeds and the property but for some reason because they have turned it into a business then this means that they have given up all their personal rights in concerns to their home.”
They have given up the right to discriminate against anyone in receipt of the the service they provide on the basis of sexual orientation in the area that is deemed to be part of the business. A hotel room is not someone’s home, it is a private sleeping area for a paying customer. They were not forced to let the gay couple into their own bedroom were they? No, exactly, and no-one has said they should.
“In what sense is this fair for them.”
It’s not about them, it’s about the service they are supplying. They have to treat clients equally when providing that service. End of.
“Are you telling me that they are not allowed to have a say what goes on in their own home because they have turned into a business?”
It depends what they want ‘a say’ in. If it’s the right to refuse people because they are gay or they deem CPs as invalid, then no. That’s aga discrimination laws. If it’s about the decoration, the style of the tables and whether animals can be brought in, then fine. Try and be rational and logical about tis eh.
“If I start an internet business and sell things on a website does that mean I can no longer have a say what goes on in my own home?”
Erm, no, because your business is internet-based and your home has not been designated as a place in which to receive clients. If you are selling books, there is no need to have clients in your house. Isn’t this obvious to you?
“The word prejudiced isn’t really that strong. For instance here is the defintion.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.”
Surely definiton 3 gives it a strong meaning all by itself. Fool.
“Are we really saying that the Christian couple who ran this B&B were so harsh to the gay couple that they deserve to be called prejudiced?”
Erm, didn’t you just say that prejudiced WASN’T a strong word? Your confusion with your own definitons aside, yes they do. They discriminated, resulting in humiliation, offense and a great deal of inconvenience (they had to find a new hotel). All based on the fact that these two men were attracted to each other. That is why they are prejudiced.
“What about intolerant instead. What defintion can we use for that.
–adjective
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.”
Yes, they are indeed intolerant as well. You might add bigoted and hostile to that list.
“Are we to put the Christian in this group as well, simply because they wanted to choose who they let their rooms out to?”
Yes, because those rooms are part of a BUSINESS. No one has forced them to let gay people stay in their private quarters have they? No one is saying that now they will have to sell the hotel and return to a normal, private non-business dwelling that they will be forced to take in gay people against their will. Very simple (for most of us).
“Well I guess those people that run that Gay B&B must be prejudiced and intolerant as well. I didn’t think so, I was prepared to let them have their say on who they wanted to aim their business at but apparently it is wrong for them to do that.”
It is wrong for them to do that, as an sane person would argue. They shouldn’t be allowed to bar Christians or Muslims or anyone else. Though if those religious guests started spewing hate speech, then they would have the right to throw them out. As would any Christian being insulted by a gay person in their hotel. It’s the same rules for everyone. That’s equality. We have demanded nothing more and nothing less.
“I am being consistant here. I am not saying that this is what the law represents, no, bit I am allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the law.”
Yes you are, but you are not allowed to break it because your holy book says the law is wrong.
“The law would also require within your opinion that this Gay B&B are also legally in the wrong for their actions.”
Yep, as above.
“Does this mean we get to call them Bigots, prejudiced or intolerant for their actions also? I don’t think so but apparently you do.”
Yes, we do. Though gay people don’t have a long history of oppressing Christians their legal right to exist and naturally gay people are wary of such groups abusing them all over again. Christians are fairly mild in comparison to Muslims on this issue, but we know where our opponents are. Still, the bigger person will give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually cause offcense.
“I have already covered the issues. I know that gay people have civil partnerships instead of marriage but I have pointed out that unmarried straight couples were not allowed rooms either and I pointed out that a CHristian defintion of marriage is different in the eyes than the law.”
Yawn, the Christian view of marriage is irrelevant because the Bible was superseded by the rule of law a long time ago. That is why it doesn’t matter what the Bulls thought about CPs.
“Yes, you have said that the law is what rules but I pointed out that the law is enforcing these people to go against their opinions within their own home.”
No, it is forcing them to go against their beliefs in their BUSINESS where they are catering to paying customers. Their home is the part of the B&B where they live and sleep – i.e. the part THEY have designated to be out of bounds to guests.
“You can argue that they shouldn’t run a business if you want but I believe that people who run buisnesses from their home shouldn’t be forced to suddenly accept things that they don’t want in them. If I run an internet business from home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept people entering my home that I do not wish in my home.”
Double yawn. An internet business requires no premises open to clients, it is not comparable with a hotel which has humans staying there! See above re internet businesses.
“If I run a kitchen buisness from my home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept just anybody through my doorway.”
What do you mean a kitchen business? If you mean yo have converted part of your house into a public showroom displaying kitchens that are part of a BUSINESS, then yes, you do have to let everyone view them on the same terms.
“What is right and what is the law are two separate issues by the way. A law is never necessarily right. If that was the case then you wouldn’t be able to change the laws because they would all be right to begin with.”
But apparently the BIble is ‘law’, so can we change that then?
“Such poor reasoning from you, but then again I expected as much. It is sometimes right to break a law.”
My reasons are logical and adhere to the laws that stand. Yours are based on a poor understanding of the law a lack of respect for it – you’ve just advocated breaking it.
It is only ever acceptable (and not even right) to break the law in extreme circumstances, such as driving a car without a licence to escape an erupting volcano. The everyday situation of someone staying in a hotel is NOT an emergency and thus there is no justification for discrimination or law-breaking. If I had your view, then presumably I could break the law and murder you because I saw you as a potential threat to my belief that I should be treated equally.
You have no respect for the law and even less for your fellow human. You are a disgrace.
How is demanding equality militant? Freedom from repression in our PRIVATE lives and to be treated equally in our public lives is all we ask. The religious lobby have repeatedly sought to deny us these fundamental human rights by asserting that they should be given greater consideration.
They shouldn’t and the law has shown that by this ruling.
Re the room rental. Your legal position is that you are letting someone LIVE in your home where you also live on the basis of a long-term contract. You would be sharing facilities and bills with them, there is a greater level of responsibility involved. It is a wholly different scenario. You are not provding a general service that is accessible to potentially anyone in society. It is quite clear cut, I’m sure a reputable lawyer could easily dispell your attempts to equate the two. But thanks for trying to stir up trouble anway.
mmmmmmmmm.. seriously.. you’re going too far there. Darth Ovious is trying to discuss tings with you and your intolerance of him is pretty stark. Why should yo get the tolerance you desire when you’re so hostile to others whose views your don’t understand?
Also, Civil Partnerships are not marriages.. fact. the judge has not the authority to rule that, it’s stated in statute law. . his point was about access to goods and services, the debate is about whether a bnb is a private house or a public one.. it’s a borderline thing i’d say.. different to refusing to service a gay man’s car. However, id you had a business servicing cars and a local evanglical preacher asked you to service his so he could go to meetings about Christian rights and opposing homosexual lobby.. would you service his car?.. porperly?.. what if he used his car to take people to street preaching and had an advert on it supporting the Christian Institute?.. by law you’d have to. However I would support you if you said to your colleagues, “look i dont feel comfortable doing this car, can you do it instead?”.. it woudl seem reasonable. Similarly i would expect the same courtesy for a Christian bnb owner who didnt want to let his double rooms out to gay or unmarried couples. Religous rights are enshrined in law too, and w’re still finding that balance in our society.
Your point about the law is a funny one.. so men pre 1967 should abstain from gay sex because it’s against the law should they? Seems the law argument is convenient at the moment, but unprincipled.
“mmmmmmmmm.. seriously.. you’re going too far there. Darth Ovious is trying to discuss tings with you and your intolerance of him is pretty stark.”
Erm, he keeps repeating the same points, without any substantiation and with no understanding or appreciation of the law. I can’t be held responsibile for his ignorance. You are only defending him because he shares your views, not because you actually think I’m too harsh. But then I expect nothing less from Darth and, now you.
“Why should yo get the tolerance you desire when you’re so hostile to others whose views your don’t understand?”
Why would I tolerate someone who is saying that people shouldn’t have to tolerate my mere existence? I have no respect for anyone who advocates opt-outs in equa access to services and goods. Pretty simple really.
“Also, Civil Partnerships are not marriages.. fact.”
Un-fact. They have the same legal status, thus they are equal.
“the judge has not the authority to rule that, it’s stated in statute law. .”
Erm, are you a jude? Leave it to the experts, eh.
“his point was about access to goods and services, the debate is about whether a bnb is a private house or a public one..”
It’s a home operating as a business which welcomes in paying guests. There is no debate on that.
“it’s a borderline thing i’d say..”
As if I care what you think! I care about the law.
“different to refusing to service a gay man’s car.”
No,they are both businesses.
“However, id you had a business servicing cars and a local evanglical preacher asked you to service his so he could go to meetings about Christian rights and opposing homosexual lobby.. would you service his car?.. porperly?.. what if he used his car to take people to street preaching and had an advert on it supporting the Christian Institute?.. by law you’d have to.”
I’m fine with that, I’m running a business, I have no intention of interfering with his private life. But I’d tell him that I didn’t appreciate his views, that’s anyone’s right. And, if he was intimidating me based on my homosexuality, then I would have the right to report him to the police. As a gay man in a Christian hotel would be if he started calling them bigots when they have been perfectly pleasant and provided the service they were supposed to. Sorry, you can’t trip me up on equality!
“However I would support you if you said to your colleagues, “look i dont feel comfortable doing this car, can you do it instead?”.. it woudl seem reasonable.”
If he was making me feel uncomfortable through intimidation, then yes of course I could get a colleague to do his car. But I can’t do that if he just simply states that he is an Evangelist and doesn’t force his way of life on me or try to convert me etc. Again, I am equal in my outlook.
“Similarly i would expect the same courtesy for a Christian bnb owner who didnt want to let his double rooms out to gay or unmarried couples. Religous rights are enshrined in law too, and w’re still finding that balance in our society.”
Your right to practice your religion is enshrined in law, not a freedom to discriminate who you serve in your business based on your personal beliefs. The balance will only come once religion has been pushed out of public life, schools and instution and into people’s homes and churches where it cannot be forced upon people as it currently is. Legal forced worship in schools and forced prayers at Council meetings are just some of those relics.
“Your point about the law is a funny one.. so men pre 1967 should abstain from gay sex because it’s against the law should they?”
If you mean born before 1967, then no, the law has changed and they are free to do as they please. Men having gay sex before 1967 shouldn’t have had sex, or at least got found out, as they knew the law. But then they should have lobbied the goverment. They did and we got the law changed.
“Seems the law argument is convenient at the moment, but unprincipled.”
Only because your over-bearing religion has been kicked into line with everyone else in society. Laws are designed and passed by people, real people. Biblical law and its ‘principles’ are irrelevant.
This argument as to direct discrimination is misleading. Discrimination can exist in two ways – directly and indirectly.
The direct way is to say that a person will be treated less favourably because they are ‘x’. In other words, because you are gay, you cannot have this job. Here, the rule itself is directly discriminatory.
The second way is to say that a neutral sounding rule will apply to everyone equally but where the effect of that rule is to cause a person with character ‘x’ particular disadvantage. In other words, if you are not married, you cannot have a room. The rule applies equally to all but it has a disproportionately discriminatory effect on people who are gay.
Another indirect element of discrimination would be to say that no person can have the job of x unless they work on the second floor of a building with no lifts. This neutral rule would put those who were disabled at a particular disadvantage.
Here, the hotel required persons to be married before they could have a double room. The rule appeared to be neutral but its effect was to discriminate against those who were not heterosexual and to prevent homosexual couples from having the room.
Insofar this rule discriminated against friends or single people, that form of discrimination is not unlawful.
“Whilst I agree with the couples core belief, I accept that the law of our country clearly states civil partnership has the same rights as marraige so support the decision made here. The time for debate was when the law was made, not when christian’s like me wish to pick and choose how it is applied.”
Where do these B&B people stand when they have a rule such as married couples only which they do not implement (heterosexual unmarried people have come forward and stated that they have stayed there and booked in under their own (unmarried so different) names. The people who this rule is then used to deny a room are a gay couple?
The other issue is that the law recognises that in the supply of goods and services married and CP are equal and implied by the use of either term (each to the other) so no service can be offered to one and not the other, if it is shown to have been direct discrimination has occurred. A belief that they are unequal is not a defence.
If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene ?
ellen pauler
Using that twisted logic then Downs Syndrome will eventually disappear as sufferers of Downs syndrome are not creating enough Down Syndrome babies.
mmmmmmmm, I thought I was patient but you surpass me by miles :D I gave up and banged my head against a brick wall for a while as I found it more productive.
However, I think I’ve gleaned a pertinent point from Darth – he initially suggested that they weren’t breaking the law but has now expanded on that view to say that they DID break the law but that law was wrong so they were right to break it.
Darth, you’re entitled to your opinion that the law was wrong, but, as the judge implied, you’re in a shrinking minority. The world’s moving forwards not backwards and I can’t see equality laws being repealed.
Again, let me point out that they protect YOU too. Anyone who is just gagging to discriminate against you simply because you’re a Christian are prevented from doing so.
Do you agree now that the judgment, much as you dislike it, was correct according to the law? I hope so because that’s what you’ve just said! So now you would suggest that Christians BREAK the law? Would it be OK for other people to break laws too according to their own beliefs?
Mmm you need better arguments if you’re going to be so dismissive.. your quips write cheques your arguments can’t cash! lol.
Civil Partnerships are not marraiges.. teh judges decision is not a final word on the status of civil partnerships and it doesn’t set a precedent. YOu may heard of appeals.. they kind of suggest that judges can get it wrong. HOwever, why oh why are Stonewall etc campainging so hard for gay marriages if civil partnerships are marriages? CP’s wording is different and it is recognised in law as a civil partnership not a marriage.. and you know that.
Plus, what on earth is your argument about the law..? You seem to be saying that gay’s should obey they law of the land even if it prohibits gay sex.. so presumably yo’re ok with Iranian law?? It was right for Alan Turing to be prosecuted for his laisons with a young man.. Oscar Wilde sent to Reading Gaol.. serves him right I guess you think..?.. Either you think we should obey the law whatevr it is or you accept there are times when conscience makes it impossible to obey the law.
OF course there is debate over the status of a BnB.. that’s why we’re here! That’s why there’s confusion and why it’s a controversial case.. don’t yo read the newspapers or of course.. just the pink paper and the Guardian (do you need to read both?? prob not).
Your militant intolerant atheism is as bad as I would expect.. Christianity as at the heart of this nation.. even the Queen recently spoke of the need to share the good news of JEsus CHrist with the people. Dawkins might not like it but just cos you don’t like Chistianity doesn’t mean it’s going to get the elbow.. I would worry what morality exactly you were going to replace it with.. atheism doesn’t have any moral base whatsoever. even Dawkins admits this!
Was glad to see the increading number of street preachers who have bene targetted by gay right funamentalists in local councils etc being compensated and the police/councils reprimanded. Free speech is being protected here at laest, evenif the preachers did criticise homosexuality. CUmbria police made full apology over the actoins of a gay rights copper who arrested a man for saying that he thought homosexuality was a sin.. a victory for common sense.. hurrah!
I think Biblical laws and its impact will be around long after the gay lobby has withered away.. we’ve survived worse that this before. BUt why set up such a battleground? All we want is to have the freedom to live our lives in a Christ like fashion as best we can. We can’t condone homosexuality, it aint gonna happen, unless someone rewrites the Bible and takes out all the bits the liberals dont like (or they let Iris do the translating lol) and so we have to find a way of tolerating each other better than we are doing now.
You’re not gonna get Chsitians performing gay marriages whether you make it law or not.. do you want to be a country that sends vicars to prison for refusing to do something?? really?? then we’d be no better than Iran. We’ve a proud history of tolerance and freedom in this country.. let’s not throw it away.
If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene ? – ellen pauler
—————————————————————————————————-
Being gay is not caused by a faulty gene, its the result of the same random genetic variance that created different eye and hair colour.
That random genetic variance will be around for a long as humans are. Gay people do not need to procreate to create other gay people, the genetic variance happens randomly.
Do you discriminate because someone is left handed? no, so why would do it with a gay person.
With such poor understanding of reasoning, I should hope you have got used to the criticism by now!
And CPs are equated with marriage in law, so they were obliged to include that too. Their beliefs don’t even come into it where the law is clear.
Unmarried couples are either a) heterosexual and unmarried or b) homosexual and without a CP. These men had a CP, i.e. they should have been treated as equal to the married couples according to the law. Do you really need this to be reiterated that many times? The law is incredibly clear on this issue.
Plus, it is a BUSINESS, it is no longer under the same legal standing as their home. They therefore cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to stay there.
Yes, obviously. But what service are you referring to? The gay couple were not asking for a different service to heterosexual guests. They were just expecting to be treated the same. There was no burden on the owners to provide a different service or even level of service to anyone else.
But they are not stopping you as an adult from going into the shop and buying a toy. Anyone purchasing a toy has to be treated the same. Again, you have cited a bad example and confused the service on offer with the treatment of the customer. They are separate things. The service can change, but the respect towards the customer must be equal.
It depends on what grounds they are refusing. If it’s because of sexual orientation, they will be the ones paying in court! If they are doing it because you have punched someone in the shop and, hence, broken the law, they are entitled to refuse service. The gay couple weren’t breaking the law and thus shouldn’t have been refused.
Being gay doesn’t define a person either, that’s the whole point. Colour, creed or sexual orientation only define someone when that part of them is being called into question by a bigot! It is perhaps you who is defining those people. One doesn’t need to get up to any activities to be gay, we all know we are attracted to the same sex before we even know what the gay actually means. Your point has no validity.
You’ve just contradicted yourself there. So, you don’t believe gays should be refused services, except when there might be a risk they have sex behind closed doors in a private room just like straight people do? That is blatant discrimination!!
Who was making this couple feel uncomfortable? The guys just wanted a room, how is that making someone uncomfortable? Please explain further.
No-one was forcing them to do anything other than to treat this couple with the same respect as they show straight guests. That’s it, end of. You are implying that the couple had some hidden sexual agenda to drag the Bulls into. Did the gay couple say ‘you must be gay and engage in sex with us’? No. Did they demand to have sex in a public area? No. I could go on, but you really need to define what exactly the Bulls were having forced on them. If you say the gay couple’s belief, then you need a slap. You can’t force someone’s passive biology on someone!
Define distasteful. If you find someone distasteful purely because they are gay and despite them not exhibiting any different behaviour towards you than straight people, then absolutely! There is obvious discrimination there. If a client is breaking the law on the premises, causing harrassment, inciting hatred, inflicting violence and all manner of anti-social behaviour, then yes, kick them out. The difference? Just being gay isn’t antisocial or illegal and doesn’t impact on anyone else AT ALL.
Again, this is where you confuse sex and sexual orientation. This is a whole different issue and, as you know, protection from private sexual practices doesn’t exist in the law. It would ultimately lie in whether such orgies were proved to be causing a disturbance (noise, mess) and impacting on other guests. If a guest was inviting 10 non-guests to join the orgy, they would be allowed to oppose it on the grounds of not the access of non-guests being at the discretion of the owner. If it was a case of 10 paying guests staying in five rooms and then all going into one room for an orgy, that’s very different. But, ultimately, if they weren’t interfering with the other guests or the owner and it was all in PRIVATE, it would be very difficult to criminalise.
Erm, that’s a bit of a stupid statemen. How many beds there are in the room is part of the service offered by the owner. Presumably, if you didn’t want to encourage a gang bang, you’d only put one double bed in each room and state that no more than 2 people could sleep in each room. But sleeping isn’t the same as popping in for a quickie, is it? So how woud you regulate that? Surely you would have to be in the room with them at all times, which would violate their privacy. But, like with other points, this is not relevant to the Bulls refusing the gay couple. That’s about sexual orentation, NOT sexual practices.
===============================================================
You’ll be glad to know that this will be my last post here. If you want to continue with me further then you can reply to me Theologyweb. Just cut and paste your response their. I don’t discussion on these small comment bits. I prefer a message board with quote functions etc.
My understanding and reasoning is fine. You are just being delberately dense in misrepresenting what I am saying.
The law also says that the Christians have their right as well. That is what I am saying. They should have a right to their own home and their beliefs. They should not be forced to accept people they don’t want in their own home and the Gay B&B should not be forced either. If they want to market to gay people only then that is their perogative. Companies target groups all the time for marketing, this doesn’t mean they should be punished for it.
How many times before I tell you that I don’t give a flying monkey in regards to the law on this. The law also says that the Christians beleifs are protected but their belief to not allow a gay couple to share a double bed in their own residence was punished. The law is also clear on that if you must.
Yes it is a buisness, but I suppose a toy company is being discriminative against adults for only making toys catered to children then huh? This is the point you don’t get. We all discriminate against people, no matter what. If the atheists and agnostics against abortion organisation don’t want religious people in their set-up then I’m not going to complain and guess what? I don’t complain. They are being discriminative against me because I am not allowed to join their organisation but I’m not going to sue them for it.
The toy company one is simple, they obviously don’t provide toys for me to play with. They do not cater their toys towards my age group but I’m certainly not going to sue them for it.
A club and pub can also refuse me service as well, even for daft things like trainers, not being a regular or wearing football colours. I don’t take any of them to court to sue them but of course the law doesn’t protect me from those discriminations such as the “you look like a thug, so we are not letting you in” excuse, does it?
The point was that being gay does define the kind of activities that they would get up to on the premises. It doesn’t define their character but it does define the objections raised by the Christian couple. They are letting out a bedroom, where certain activities may be done in this bedroom that go against the owners beliefs, you know those that actually own the bedroom.
Another misrepresentation. I said that gays are entitled to services within shops just like any other person, but when they are staying in a room owned by another person who also lives and owns at that residence, then they should respect their wises. I rented a room once and was living with my landlord while he rented the room out to me but I wasn’t allowed to all of a sudden demand every right under the sun since it is still his property. I still had to let him know if my fiancee/girlfriend/whatever was going to stay over and if he said no then I wouldn’t have been able to say anything. It was his house and his rules. Also not to mention that if a rent a place out from a estate agency without having to live my landlord/landlady then I may have to do so under certain stipulations. I may not be allowed pets for one thing. Is that discriminatory against pet owners? I may not be allowed to smoke, they may want non-smokers. They may look for people who are not DSS, is that discriminatory against the poor/unemployed. The fact is we all discriminate against people in some form of manner.
People have a right to choose who they live with, even if it’s just for a few days. The Bulls may have been uncomfortable because they would not want to accidentally witness or hear any acts that could make them uncomfortable. Do you think that when people have sex in their rooms that they are quiet? No. I actually had to put up with my previous landlord having sex in his room with several of his girlfriends (popular bloke), but I didn’t complain about it, because it was his house and his rules but it did make me feel uncomfortable. However the same adage applies to me, if I don’t like the rules then I can find somewhere else to stay. Houses come with house rules, even when they are rented out, living with parents, booking a B&B. The owners are entitled to put up house rules if they wish.
The point about the orgies in my opinion stands. If a B&B or a hotel don’t want to put up with several customers all trying to share a room and a bed then they should be allowed to say no without being accused of sexual discrimination. It’s the B&B owners that have to put up with any misbehaviour if it does get out if hand.
The fact that the B&B also refused unmarried couples is actually a testament that all they wanted to do was follow the guidlines of their faith. They were very clear about it on their own website just as the Gay B&B are very clear on theirs. I would allow them to do what they want with their buisness so I don’t see what the problem with this is.
Anyway, I’ve pretty much said what I wanted to say, so I’m going to go now. You know where to contact me if you really wish to continue this conversation.
“If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene”
Stupid analogy which shows your lack of education. If two straight people can produce a gay person, then clearly is genetics creating a disposition. Has it occurred to you that if evolution select favourable traits, then homosexuality might be a favourable trait, in fact a hereditary trait? No, of course it hasn’t. Sophisticated evolutionary models, such as those used in evolutionary psychology, have shown, however, that natural selection can result in behaviours that don’t benefit individuals, if they benefit their relatives. That dawn on you either?
“We’ve a proud history of tolerance and freedom in this country.. let’s not throw it away.”
Classic Christian hypocrisy:- Allow me the right to discriminate because I live in a free country. The irony is lost of you, I’m sure, James. As is logic.
And is that Darth-whats-his-face really David Skinner again???? Sweet jesus, is that old fool not dead yet?
Mmmmm.. if that really is your name.. may i help clarify Darth’s point (though it seems clear enogh to me).. Are you saying then that if the gay couple were not in a CP then the actions of the BnB would have been legal?
The Chrsitian couple recognise, as the law does, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Their objections to teh gay couple sharing a double room are based on their religious conscience and not the legal definition of civil partnerships.
OF course, the judge is fair to say that if the discrimination is based on marriage in law then provision of goods and services must extend to Cp’s.. this is the law.. correct. But clearly the couple do not recognise gay Cp’s or gay marriages and therefore in terms of the definition of marraige and CP@s being included in that for purposes or provision of goods and services the gay couple should have been included.
Of course, really.. the point is that the BnB owners beleive as do i that sex is for married couples only.. this is not a legal position, but one of conscience. The judge should have recognised that this age old right shuld have trumped some half arsed Harman inspired ‘equality dogma legislation’ brought in at the behest of some pinko at Stonewall which should never have been made law, but alas, he can’t. The issue is, which law takes precedence.. not what is the law. There may yet be an appeal so your triumphalism may yet be premature.. but it doesnt matter in one sense.. what matters is that gay sex isn’t approved of by everuone, some poeple think it’s sinful and wrong and that view is fine and deserves respect in law as it is a genuinely and long held view of many poeple of various religions nad indeed some atheists too I dare say. You are free to be gay if you want.. im free to think it’s a bit sick.. or not.. it’s a free country//pr at least it used to be. Gay tyranny.. mm who’d have thought eh?
Yes, religion has been responsible for a lot of persecution in the past, and also the present,… All I can say is there are better ways to solve differences than dragging people throu
Ha – great news.
Suck on that you christian bigots.
You can run a business if you want, but only so long as your cult’s bigotry does not take priority over your duty of care to the public.
““It was applied equally and consistently to unmarried heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, as the judge accepted”
These people still don’t get it. The law says that Civil Partners must be treated the same as MARRIED couples. Therefore, Mr and Mrs Bull CLEARLY broke the law. The judge was absolutely correct in his judgement.
And Christians aren’t “being sidelined” – BIGOTS are.
Excellent news!!
Peter Tatchell please take note. This is about the law for everyone. Not a law that allows exclusions to certain religious homophobes.
We cannot expect society to treat us better and equality if we ignore and allow homophobic language to reign free.
A great day for the LGBT community in a democracy. Hatred and discrimination should never be tolerated.
Now I wonder if the BBC will ‘use’ anyone to ‘balance’ the debate?
When we finally achieve equal marriage in this country, will the Bulls permit married, non-opposite-sex couples to stay in a double bed?
Quote: ‘The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary.’
Shouldn’t that read ‘…on the religious bigotry…’?
Great news.
Religion should indeed not be used to disguise homophobia and bigotry.
This behaviour needs to be stamped out. People should have a right to use goods and services regardless of any difference without fear of reprisal or repurcussions.
the BBC coverage is actually quite unbalanced (in “our” favour), not even a quote from the hotel owners. just the gay couple
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368
What’s happened to the BBC’s editorial balance? They showed the statement from Mrs Bull without giving air time to the opposing view.
“In the ruling the judge said the right of the defendants to manifest their religion is not absolute and “can be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the claimants”.”
The law is clear. Beats me why they can’t understand that.
But as long as the CLC wants to throw their money and time away fighting battles they cannot possible win, then that’s fine by me… :-)
chrissie
“Mr and Mrs Bull have been given leave to appeal the ruling”
I wonder what those Tory homophobes are going to say to their appeal now???
They need to update their website as it now clearly breaks the law:
http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/bookingform.html
Hurrah. This now strengthens the case for the recognition of same-sex marriage, so that such loopholes in the difference between CPs and mixed sex marriage cannot be exploited by such bigotted opportunists. Let’s not forget, whilst this may be a victory for the UK, CPs are not recognised in many countries whilst marriage is. In many of these states it would be considered unlawful to discriminate on a same-sex basis as few countries actually define marriage explicitly as being between a man and a woman.
Equal access to goods and services must be guaranteed for all. The rules of this hotel should be altered even for all unmarried couples too, since it discriminates against those who do not wish to enter the institution of marriage.
Jock
Don’t even think about it. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This was a homophobic ACTION, not words – the denial of goods and services based on sexual orientation and being in a relationship not recognised by their religion. This is not the same as someone benignly saying ‘I don’t like gays’ on a street corner where it ultimately does not deny a service to an individual or impact on the ability to live ones life.
If the hotel owners had said they did not like gays to this couple in their hotel, that could also be seen as harrassment, but it depends on how it is put across – a lot of what is deemed ‘offensive’ is circumstantial, it’s not black and white (remember the thread where some thought it was fine to be called a faggot?). If it was just their private home and not a business, they would not owe a duty of care to the couple and could essentially say what they want and ask them to leave. The fact that it was their business has made all the difference.
This is a day to celebrate justice being served.
Matt
“What’s happened to the BBC’s editorial balance? They showed the statement from Mrs Bull without giving air time to the opposing view.”
Surely the opposing view was the verdict in the court case being reported. It is the view of the jury, is it not?
Nicole Kidman and her husband Keith Urban have just announced the birth of their biological daughter via a surrogate mother on December 28th.
has Stephen Green of Christian Voice been contacted by the BBC been contacted for his opinion?
If not then why not?
So can someone please tell me, is it actually legally permissable these days to bar unmarried straight couples from staying at a hotel or B&B?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Gay-Couple-Win-BB-Discrimination-Case-Against-Christian-Owners-Damages-Of-1800-Each/Article/201101315897770?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15897770_Gay_Couple_Win_BB_Discrimination_Case_Against_Christian_Owners%2C_Damages_Of_%3F1%2C800_Each
The comments on the sky news website are disguting. One person said “to all gay people – why not go to a gay run b+B”.. can you imagine asking black people to go to a black rub B+B? It’s cases like this that show homophobia is far from dead and buried in the uk. Funny thing is if it was muslims denying the gays a room the country would be 100% on the gay side. Gotta love hipocracy.
Matt wrote: “What’s happened to the BBC’s editorial balance?”
Where religion is concerned it hardly has any. Just think of the massive obsequious coverage it gave to the papal visit last year with no mention at all of the 20,000 who took part in the Protest the Pope march and rally.
what a shame the B+B owners didn’t have a stable
Times and attitudes change while some people try to cling to the past, here;’s motre from the Judges ruling
“In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said: “We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament. It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.
“In the last 50 years there have been many such instances – the abolition of capital punishment; the abolition of corporal punishment in schools; the decriminalisation of homosexuality and of suicide; and on a more mundane level the ban on hunting and on smoking in public places.
“All of these – and they are only examples – have offended sections of the population and in some cases cut across traditional religious beliefs. These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes.
“The standards and principles governing our behaviour which were unquestioningly accepted in one generation may not be so accepted in the next. I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants’ beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold.
“It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around.”
Forgive typo above, that should have read more not motre (lol)
@mmmmmmmm
If the judgement was enough, why show the statement from Mrs Bull at all?
They have now shown a statement from Martin Hall and Steven Preddy.
The studio interview was only with the Christian Legal Centre. Jane Hill did a good job of interviewing him.
This is a clear case of religious fundamentalists trying to force their prejudices and superstitions on the rest of us. These people lost the case because they are wrong under the laws of the land. I don’t think the BBC should try to make this into a controversy. Religious bigots should not get different treatment to any other kind of bigot.
I agree, a great day to celebrate.
A victory against bigotry, intolerance and evidence why legislation is essential to protect LGBT people; and also why Mr Tatchells rants about the ideals of free speech should be rejected.
Also, a victory against the assumption that you can treat LGBT people as second classes citizens.
. . . . .
To David Skinner who campaigned against this decision
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2011/0victory1/04/petition-to-support-bed-and-breakfast-owners-in-cornwall/
Get used to LGBT people, and repent of your homophobic hatred.
David – Nicole Kidman’s surrogacy has even darker forces conspiring against it: the NSW government here in Australia has banned the use of commercial surrogacy, not just locally but anywhere in the world! An Act of illiberal, mean-spirited stupidity that would make Mr Green wet himself with glee.
I don’t think she has anything to worry about anymore, as if any gay couple would ever want to go and stay there ever!
This is not a private home it is a business that the owners also live in. The rooms they rent out are in the public domain and subject to the law on provision of goods and services.
You cant run a coffee shop that bans gay people holding hands just as you cant ban Christians from wearing crucifixes. The same laws apply equally to all business.
“The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary”
They chose to run a people focused business that’s open to all people. They have no problems with people wearing mixed fibres or a wife sleeping with a husband while on her period. They are being selective about what of those religious beliefs they observe.
They will appeal as this is a Christian fight against civil partnerships and equal recognition.
In a strange way I would not mind the Christians winning this case, it would put the government in a untenable position when it comes to denying us gay marriage, its standard line of saying civil partnerships are equal to marriage would be in tatters by a ruling in favour of the Christians.
This whole case was just another example of the religious believing that it is their God-given right to cherry-pick the law and treat others differently to how they would doubtless like to be treated themselves. Do you think that if a couple were turned from a hotel just for being Christian that Mike Judge and co would say “fair enough”? Me neither.
A couple of points about the case FYI. Mrs Bull blamed a breakdown in communication for the phone booking, claiming that somebody else took the call when she was unwell and forgot to check the married/straight status. In the same article from weeks ago, she also admitted toning down this policy on the website so as not to ‘put people off’.
From NSS website:
Bristol County Court has awarded £1,800 each in damages to the gay couple who were refused a room in a Cornish hotel because of the owners’ religious beliefs.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society commented:
“This is yet another example of the growing militancy by evangelical Christians demanding privileges for their followers through courts and employment tribunals. Fortunately, all the cases they have brought to court have so far been spectacularly unsuccessful*. The court, as we predicted, has rightly resisted the pernicious claim that exercising “conscience”, be it Christian or any other kind, is a carte blanche to break the law. It is just as reprehensible to refuse accommodation on the grounds of sexual orientation as race. Lawful activities conducted behind closed doors are no legitimate concern of those running businesses. The argument that this was a private home is undercut by the fact it has a large sign outside proclaiming it to be a hotel.
“Mr & Mrs Bull’s argument that they denied double rooms to all unmarried people, not just homosexuals, has been shown to be false by one of the National Secular Society’s Council members, Dr Ray Newton. He stayed at this hotel in a double room with an unmarried partner – they registered under different names – but they were not challenged, and we understand that the hotel’s website made no reference to declining unmarried heterosexual couples.”
I don’t like Muslims. it is more than not liking actually – I morally abhor most Muslims.
Their support for the death penalty; their homophobic and mysoginstic views; their lack of respect for free speech and human rights.
I would not, however, have a right to ban Muslims from staying at my hotel.
So, gays should not be discriminated against, either.
Has anyone thought to mention the cost? Presumably it would cost twice as much for two rooms as for only one room. Those gentlemen were being charged double for not being married. Another form of discrimination. By the by, what were they charged to bring their dog? lol
Interesting, Pavlos. The Bulls were clearly discriminating. Did they ban re-married divorcees? Did they ban people who’d married in a CIVIL wedding (ie who weren’t ‘really married’ according to strict Christians)? Did they ban non-Christians whose marriages also don’t count? No, of course not. They simply wished to ban gay people – and they did everything they could to try to do this. They evenaltered the wording on their website to try to make it possible.
Why don’t they try to meet some gay people instead of wasting time appealing against this decision? They’d realise we’re not monsters and we’re pretty much the same as any other person – no better, no worse. Then they might start to realise how silly and petty their policy is – nevermind that it’s against the law.
It doesn’t seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people like the Bulls & the Christian Institute away from these discriminatory beliefs.
You don’t work to move them off this position, you must move past them.
A village cannot reorganise village life to suit the village idiot, it’s as simple as that, and we have to understand we have a village idiot in this country and it’s called Fundamentalist Chnristianity
This evangelical subculture has as it’s fundamentalist faith that they distrust facts per se.
As this latest case has apparently shown, lying for Jesus…even in a court of law is now employed to resist equal rights legislation for gays in an attempt to secure the religious right to discriminate against gay & lesbian people.
The Bulls have allowed unmarried straight couples to stay at their hotel quite unchallenged.
Read what Christian Institute supporters are saying about the victory, . . .
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120859687957594#!/pages/The-Christian-Institute/78436661801
. . . especially since the Christian Institute via the Christain Legal centre; funded the case.
Pavlos – that’s why it’s called blind faith…
You’re spot on about fundie evangelicalism though. I know we can laugh at it 9and your village idiot comment :D), but sometimes I find it frightening. WHY would anyone want to discriminate against another human being? I find that disturbing.
An excellent outcome, but from the judge’s quoted remarks he hasn’t highlighted what is surely the central legal issue – belief should be no basis for dispensation to disobey the law, whichever law, or belief, pertains. There are right-wing ideologues who are against paying taxes as a principled belief, and guess what? They have to cough up.
In the DailyMail, Mrs Bull is quoted as follows:
‘We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody,’ she said.
Yes, indeed, she and her husband were “only” acting according to their “sincere beliefs”. And last week Peter Tatchell advised the world that the sincere beliefs of Christians should be respected unless, he said, the Christians in question are advocating violence, slaughter, or death to us.
Clearly, Mr and Mrs Bull did NOT indicate to Steven Preddy and his civil partner Martin Hall that they wished them DEAD, so according to Peter Tatchell the judge has judged wrongly.
Mrs. Bull says they may take matter to appeal. When it goes to appeal, the lawyers acting for Mr. and Mrs. Bull should quote Tatchell’s loony advice of last week!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Gay-couple-win-1-800-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html
I dread to think what the legal costs in this case were. Moving towards £100,000 I guess, and more to come. A lawyer slugfest.
I am not sure exactly what the legal precedent set here is – is it that a hotel cannot bar customers sharing a bed who are not ‘married’ however defined? So what if there are twins beds (see the William Hague issue!). Or is that a pair of male customers cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and if so is the onus on the customers to:
(a) assert their sexuality, and
(b) prove that it was perceived by the hoteliers (or whoever), and
(c) that the latter discriminated on the basis of the sexuality rather than say the marriage status?
If so, there could be endless case by case arguments and no especial precedent set. Also note this case was not heard in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. So it may not be over yet. Nor binding.
Ben Summerskill says…“Religious freedom shouldn’t be used as a cloak for prejudice.”
Well then, Mr. Summerskill, why aren’t you using that statement to support civil marriage equality? Why the long silence since your supposed reversal in opposing it?
Now I wonder if this bigoted couple would have denied service to a straight married couple who were atheists? How would they know if a straight couple is married or not unless they demanded proof?
it seems a shame that a couple simply wanting to run one small BnB with a Christian ethos on sexuality, one shared by many many Christians in this country (remember the Queen is a Christian(views on sexuality unknown of course), the UK has an established Church, Christianity is not new to this country, indeed it is a foundation of it) should be treated so badly. It’s no good just to say, “ah well, this is the law” as these new laws are ridiculous. Thanks to Lord Waddington equality legislation isn’t as bad as it could be, but somehow people we’re going to have to accept that some people have genuine faith based, or non faith based moral objections to honmosexual practice and that’s not gonna change.. stop trying to cast them out, they’re entitled to a view as are you. Once it was gay rights who wanted the freedom to live as their sexuality lead them, remember how it was when you didn’t have that freedom and then remember to allow the freedom of others.
Dan, yes I saw a figure of £100,000 somewhere although I unfortunately can’t provide a source as I forgot where I read it, sorry.
Dan.. you raise a good point. The juge was saying that as in law civil partners have the same rights as married couples it meant the discrimination was illegal.. that doesn’t make sense. Surely it would have been illegal had they not been civil partners. Civil partnerships are not marriage however, and it is this theological distinction the owners were interested in not the legal one (and CP’s are not marriages, even in law). So would the judge have ruled differently had the gay couple not been in a CP?… confusing .. appeal required?
Also, to anyone to whom this may apply.. if you’re thinking Peter Tatchell isn’t going far enough on gay rights don’t you think you might be a tad extreme???
@James, it sounds from what you wrote that the Bulls were running a B&B exclusively for people with a Christian sex fetish…
Certainly from some of the statements made by Hazel-Mary Bull about it not being an objection to sexual orientation but all about sex then it’s certainly looks like it’s being run as a hotelespecially for these like-minded Christianist sex fetishist’s, quite disturbing.
and one more thing.. and I’m sorry I can’t remember what to put all at once.. the legal costs i believe were about 30,000, but Christians will rally round and pay for them so the couple won’t lose out financially in the end. How do folk feel about a lot of places who dont allow same sex groups?.. (this is an old policy that’s about stag parties etc, not sexuality). If a Christian retreat centre or monastery type place wants to allow only married couples double rooms, shoudl Stonewall et al challenge that too?
@ James: money well wasted then that coujld have been used to provide medicines and treatments in poorer countries and to save lives. Shame these bigots can’t get their Christian priorities sorted.
What’s a ‘devout’ Christian? Is this someone who strictly follows the word of Christ, or just someone who picks and chooses which laws they want to obey and which they don’t? Didn’t Christ tell his followers to love their neighbour? To do unto others as they would want done to themselves? To be slow to anger and quick to forgive? Not to judge, lest they be judged? Not to throw stones at adulterers and fornicators? Not to try to remove a mote from their neighbour’s eye, before they have removed the beam from their own? I don’t think this couple are ‘devout’ Christians, they’re just hypocrites and they deserve to be fined and held responsible for their hypocrisy. ‘Devout’ Christians do not judge and oppress other people – no matter what their sexual orientation. Here endeth the lesson.
Pavlos… not sure if it escaped your attention but firstly, the case was brought by the gay couple, not the BnB owners, so not sure how you can blame them for the costs.. secondly, Christians in this country pay for a hugely disporportionate amount of welfare, foreign aid, social care etc, so I’m sure there’s plenty left to help others less fortunate than ourselves.. but still, fighting for freedoms is important too.
Mrs Bull said: husband, Peter, was unable to attend because he is to undergo triple heart bypass surgery later today. So surly appealing would say she cares more about her God than her husband and that doesn’t sound very Christian of her?
Rich.. The first commandment is to love God. the second is to love your neighbour. I’m sure her Husband would want her to fight on if the legal advice was that it was worth the effort. If you believe that this life is just hte beginning of things then it changes how you feel. Plus, you seem to think that her husband, also beng sued, doesn’t want to proceed with an appeal.. you don’t know this to be true. I think they’ll lsoe an appeal.. not cos they’re wrong, but because the new law and the PCness makes it unlikely for a fair judgement to be reached.
@James:
The gay couple were perfectly legally entitled to seek redress through the courts, the Bulls broke the law but you appear to be blaming the victims.
“the right of the defendants to manifest their religion is not absolute and “can be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the claimants”.
Please take note of the Judges ruling and try to learn something from it.
James, Christians pay for no more welfare, foreign aid or social care than anyone else. In fact due to the low numbers of practising Christians in the UK, something like 5% of the entire population (and that is an over estimate) it could be argued that they do indeed pay less of the over all percentage paid to the afore mentioned items.
James, if you think the decision of the judge was wrong, then you must also agree that it is fine for anyone to discriminate and refuse services on the grounds of race, gender or disability.
The UK operates via a secular law that is there to protect everyone and particularly the minorities from the bigoted majorities. However, in regards of homophobia…society has moved on and fortunately homophobia is perpetrated by the uneducated ignorant few.
Fundamentalist religionists MUST change the hateful and offensively bigoted way they think.
Hiding their nastiness behind an old book written by man for man is cowardice. At the very least they should just be honest and open and state that they are just not very civilised people who look to oppress others by any means necessary.
James
These religious nut’s think God is in direct contact with them and God is testing their resolve to fight off dark “unspeakable” forces that have been placed upon them. They believe they are doing God’s work and they are “never” going to quit and that is their weakness because they cant help themselves in God’s defence.
James, a fair judgement was reached and it did not go in the favour of the bigots.
Even if they appealed they cannot win, because the law is very clear regarding the refusal of services or goods based on discrimination and even if a judge were to sympathise with them he could only change the amount of compensation, but not the verdict.
There only defence was that it was also their home. However, because their home is also their business which offers a service to paying members of the public then they must abide by commercial law.
I am happy for them to appeal, because at least then it will cost the Christian institute a few more thousand pounds.
Where do I begin?? Pavlos, you made the point that the money for the court case could have been spent better elsewhere.. agrreed. The court case was brought by the gay couple.. I can’t blame the BnB owners for the legal costs as they didn’t want a court case. I agree that the gay couple felt they had a grievance and therefore sought legal redress.. I think it’s a shame they did that, and didn’t respect the right of an old Christian couple to rent out a few rooms in their own home according to their perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct.
Traust.. UK law is not secular, the Queen is the head of the law and it is indeed the same Crown the prosecutes that is the head of the Church of England.. you can debate the finer points of secularism as I agree our system is unclear.. but the words in the Royal Arms behind the head of the judge say, “My God and my right”.. not secular.
Measuring the level of support for Christianity is not easy, the last census showed over 70% of people defining themselves as Christian, and church attendance is much higher than 5% and steady. There are many genuine Christians who don’t go to Church and the smaller, and the evangelical churches, including those in the C ofE, are growing rapidly.. FYI.
OF course I do not support discrimination on grounds of race, gender discrimination we all welcome in terms of toilets, sports, al kinds of things, but not in employment, except in a very few circumstances only.. eg rap counselling, front line military work etc. Discrimination based on sexuality is also almost wholly banned, but discrimination on sexual conduct is not. The BnB owners have a policy on only married couples sharing a room, coming from a clear Biblical instruction about sexual relations, nothing new or rare or fundamentalist there. They wouldn’t stop a gay person from working there or staying there or supplying them etc, just not sharing a double room. This idea that sexuality and race are the same thing is poppycock.. offensive to many black and asian people I’ve spoken to, and suggests that sexual orientation is decided before or at birth.. something that has not been proven, even P Tatchell says so!!
Now clearly you don’t believe in the Bible, I think your opinion is wrong and ignorant, but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?
As for saying MUST change their ways.. this country has fought people who’ve tried to force us into accepting their views.. and won. Let’s not have any more nonsense like that please.
James: “they’re entitled to a view as are you. Once it was gay rights who wanted the freedom to live as their sexuality lead them, remember how it was when you didn’t have that freedom and then remember to allow the freedom of others.”
Yes, they’re entitled to their view, but they’re NOT entitled to an opt-out from the law. Next we’ll hear of ‘christians’ discriminating against an interracial couple, or pleading biblical permission for stoning adulterers to death.
We’re all entitled to believe what we want but we all have to obey the law. And, personally, I don’t think many homophobic Christians are acting out of any religious compulsion at all. They’re just bigots looking for a way to continue to discriminate. Nasty and inexcusable morally aswell as being against the law.
And they’re so stupid they don’t realise that the law’s there to protect THEM too.
er pardon my typo lol.. rape counselling…not rap counselling.. though that sounds a lot more fun!
@James:
When the disciples asked Christ what was the most important commandment, he didn’t say, ‘To love your god’, he said ‘To love your neighbour’ so the Bulls are wrong, wrong, wrong in every way.
Lillith.. what version of the Bible are you quoting from exactly?? Not one I’ve ever read.. pick a translation and I’ll quote it to you, but here’s the NIV for now, “36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22:36-40
I would advise that before being so judgemental you carefully check your sources.
If it is legal to prevent unmarried couples from sharing a room, then the judgement is wrong. The gay couple were also unmarried.
I think it is situations like this where the farcical situation of CP’s instead of marriage really demonstrate the difference, and why I suspect a lot of religious types don’t want to see full gay marriage. They wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Spanner,
Civil Partnerships are not marriage true, but under the provision of goods and services act and the discrimination (sexual orientation) acts civil partnerships and marriage are treated as equal therefore it is discriminatory to offer something to married people which you then refuse to civil partnered people except for a few specific opt out for religious stuff which this does not fall into.
@James,
Their age has nothing to do with making allowances for their bigotry and by making a comment like ” perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct” is you are showing your own prejudices. There is nothing which is not perfectly respectable about two men legally civil partnered sleeping in the same bed (or even having sex). Any other view is I am afraid bigoted and prejudiced. You are welcome to hold such a view but don’t expect not to be challenged and called out for it and don’t expect to be able to use it to discriminate.
James wrote
“Now clearly you don’t believe in the Bible, I think your opinion is wrong and ignorant, but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?”
. . . . . . . . . .
James . . . Does free speech not also carry responsibilities?
Remember the sign that some shops put on the front of their doors?
“We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone”
Apparently that doesn’t apply here.
Apparently Muslim extremeists can burn flags on our streets while shouting obsenities about our soldiers going to hell and how they hate our country and get off scott free from it because they are allowed to practice their free speech, but a honest Christian couple who were sincere and up front about their beliefs and even offered them two separate bedrooms instead will be taken to court for being prejudiced.
One rule for them and another for us. They are scared of the R word (i.e. Racist). Apparently if we want our religious right then we need to start burning flags in streets and start making noise. Basically they are rewarding the bad people while punishing the nice. It’s absolutely outrageous and I’m starting to think that I’ve had enough of all this.
At the end of the day they operate a busisness. They shouldn’t be forced to serve absolutely anybody. Afterall they don’t need to operate the business if they don’t want to and if they didn’t have it then they wouldn’t have served them anyway because they wouldn’t be able to. This couple are sacrificing payments into their bank account to uphold their religious beliefs. They are putting themselves out of pocket. Remember they sell a service in order to recieve money in return, if they refuse to serve a certain customer then they simply won’t get the money for it. They shouldn’t be forced to accept the money because they don’t want to serve a particular type of customer.
I can’t take a toy company to court because they don’t provide services for adults. I can’t scream that a toy company are being ageist against me because they only cater to children up to five. You can’t make buisnesses serve people, they are providing a service that they don’t need to provide to begin with.
If anybody has a problem with the comments I made above then they can discuss them with me at http://www.theologyweb.com where I go by the same username (Darth Ovious)
Hurrah !! One down… but many more to go.
I’m pleased by this result. I was out all day and wouldyou believe I was asked at one point to contribute to a fund to help the Bulls appeal. My response surprised one or two people who thought me mild mannered!
Hopefully they’re just going to accept they cannot discriminate, and won’t appeal the case, otherwise, with tolerance for homophobia coming from the government, chances are still 50%/50%…. Keep watching…
Its worth pointing out Chaps Hotel Blackpool advertise themselves as EXCLUSIVELY GAY MEN ONLY. http://www.chapshotel.co.uk/
Its only right for us to reject discriminatory practices in LGBT businesses too. Its ok to market the business at one grouping, but if you refuse entry based on gender or sexual orientation its just not on.
Please try to remember that religious faith is a mental illness. James clearly suffers from such an illness, and it is, therefore, impossible to argue him. Religious mania is something which is entirely irrational.
I think it’s brilliant news. I have little sympathy for them! If I owned, as a Pagan let alone as a gay woman, a hotel and refused THEM a room because they were Christians they’d sue the hell out of me!!!
Beberts,
Can you please show this tolerance of homophobia from the government and how this is impacting on the independent judiciary or are you just blowing out hot air as usual.
You have been banging on about this judgement being twisted by the “tory homophobes” for ages and it did not happen.
Instead of saying you got it wrong you just move your bigotry onto the appeal.
Your open bigotry and vitriol is much worse than anything to come out of Grayling, Helmer, Widdecombe et al.
Your Wolfie Smith tirades are as laughable as the sitcom.
What happens now? How will they treat the next CP’d couple who wishes to stay at their B&B?
I for one am not with the Gay camp. These people should be allowed to have a conscience. We have had so much taken away from us and are fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises. You only have to read the comments from the gay reader commentsthat they believe their rights come before any right minded christian believer.
This is good news, and sends a clear message to those that choose to enter the hotel trade. The placards read ‘it’s their home’ – the moment you turn your home into a guest house you are running a business providing a service.
Dave G. Perhaps you’d like that this decision had put an end to the case, but it ain’t so. The judge somehow decided to leave it open to further scrutiny, while the Tories are still trying to ideologically and strategically dismantle many of our hard fought protections. So keep watching… while I’ll keep denouncing them…
The result of the case, is in my opinion unfortunate because it seems to me that some gay people like to rub every ones noses in gay lib, gay rights, gay this and gay that, no one is ever going to convince me that being homosexual is a norm, because it just isn’t, nature does not make allowances for one sex relationships.
As far as the hotel case is concerned, I am convinced it was a set-up regardless of what Mr Preddy and Mr Hall say.
Christianity is a fairly strict religion, and it’s values preach tolerance of others, but it does not say you should except something that fundamentally wrong , If Hitler had been around today would we have allowed him to carry on with his intentions because of his human rights ?. I think it fairer to say there has been a clash of beliefs, and opinions, in this instance, where there should have been no winners or losers
James
What would Jesus have done?
It would not have made the slightest difference if the case had been based on what some call a ‘set up’. It would still have proved that the Bulls are bigots who have flouted the law. It is unfortunate that the judge did not award the £5,000 each which was asked for as compensation.
Today’s ruling clearly shows that there is tolerance for everyone EXCEPT the Bible-believing Christian.We applaud the courage of Mr.and Mrs.Bull.They are right to exclude unmarried couples and homosexuals from their B&B.The Bible states that, “Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled” Hebrews ch.13 v.4 and,by marriage, the Bible means 1 man + 1 woman.Clearly, society is being dictated to by the homosexual lobby,but then,that is after all,the society envisaged by Kirk and Madsen in “After the Ball.
I for one am not with the Gay camp. These people should be allowed to have a conscience. We have had so much taken away from us and are fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises. You only have to read the comments from the gay reader comments that they believe their rights come before any right minded christian believer – Tim
———————————————————————————————–
The only reason you feel uncomfortable with gay rights Tim is you hold bigoted views that see equal right for gay people as something to be avoided.
This is not a gay rights issue its a human rights issue. This ruling also protects Christians and everybody from discriminatory practices against them in public facilities.
Today’s ruling clearly shows that there is tolerance for everyone EXCEPT the Bible-believing Christian.We applaud the courage of Mr.and Mrs.Bull.They are right to exclude unmarried couples and homosexuals from their B&B.The Bible states that, “Marriage is honourable in all and the bed undefiled” Hebrews ch.13 v.4 and,by marriage, the Bible means 1 man + 1 woman.Clearly, society is being dictated to by the homosexual lobby,but then,that is after all,the society envisaged by Kirk and Madsen in “After the Ball. – Sola Scriptura
————————————————————————————————-
The bible and its teachings are not UK law, if you want that go find a Christian theocracy to live in.
UK law says it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of age, race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability.
Deal with it religionists or go find another country to live in.
These people are nothing like Jesus he would be ashamed to have followers like you lot
Helen: “The bible and its teachings are not UK law, if you want that go find a Christian theocracy to live in.”
I think you will find most modern day laws have their origin in scripture. (Not always the Bible though).
I think there is a lot of good moral code in the Bible, but unfortunately, it is horribly outdated, and if it were brought up to date could be a good book for everyone to follow.
Unfortunately though, you are unlikely to find anyone willing to mess with “The Word of God”.
Tim: “You only have to read the comments from the gay reader commentsthat they believe their rights come before any right minded christian believer.”
Rubbish. You have equal rights to me, a gay person. You only have to follow the same laws I do, and you also benefit from protection from discrimination – ie no-one can refuse to let YOu stay in a B and B simply because you’re a Christian.
What you REALLY mean is that you want opt-outs from UK law – that is, SPECIAL treatment, and the right to discriminate against others. It’s nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with ignorance and intolerance.
Let me spell it out again – You can’t discriminate aginst me and I can’t discriminate against you. We have the SAME rights.
@Tim — “We have had so much taken away from us …”. Please give an example of what’s been taken from what group.
“… fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats …”. What does this actually mean ? Are you saying you’re fed up with sections of the population having the same rights as you ?
“ … and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises”. Is it only gay couples you feel the need to refuse ? Would you like the right to refuse entry to other couples as well ? Irish for example ? Or people who just don’t like the look of ?
Wow, wow, wow. What is coming over the world. Indeed the end of all things is near. Escape while you can, save yourselves. A destruction is coming upon the world.
Time to pause and take breath!!
LGBT community and Christian community, read your comments. What impression is being created in those who have nof firm convictions either way. Your ideas may be fixed, some appear to be very hateful to one or the other community. Is that how you wish to approach an understanding?
@Ade,
You have just articulated, along with some others of your Xian brethren, exactly why we need human rights legislation and anti discrimination laws.
To protect us minorities from you and you bigoted theology.
@Arthur Mann,
The only understanding we should be working on is that no one should discriminate against anyone in the provision of goods and services for any reason.
That is common human decency and respect.
> The judge somehow decided to leave it open to further scrutiny, while the Tories are still trying to ideologically and strategically dismantle many of our hard fought protections.
The judge granted permission to appeal because he said it raised an important point of principle and because there was no higher authority on the point.
The Conservatives have done nothing to dismantle gay freedoms. They have gone out of their way to say that homophobia is unacceptable.
Your constant tirades and insulting of those on the Right is undisguised bigotry.
daveg
I would agree it is common humancy and decency and surely then it should not involve vitriolic comments of the kind posted thus far.
@James — “… didn’t respect the right of an old Christian couple to rent out a few rooms in their own home … ”. No. It’s a place of business, regardless of whether they live there or not. The law is clear on this point. Why do you think they should be exempt ? What has their age or religion got to do with the matter ? Should old people get exemption ? Should people of a particular faith get exemption ?
“ … according to their perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct”. Respectable ? What do you mean by respectable ? Some people think their views are antediluvian, and abhorrent. On what grounds do you think their views are respectable ?
When you say ‘“My God and my right”.. not secular’ I’m not sure what your point is. The law applies equally to everybody. Are you suggesting that Christians get additional rights because of words on the Royal Arms ?
“Discrimination based on sexuality is also almost wholly banned”. Do you think this ban a good thing ?
“ … but discrimination on sexual conduct is not.”. This is a bit of a fine distinction you’re trying to make. Are you saying that the Bulls would not have discriminated against the couple if they’d sworn not to have sex ? You’re suggesting that holding hands is fine, but making love is beyond the pale and unacceptable. Why do you think the Bulls are so obsessed with what other people do in bed ?
“The BnB owners have a policy on only married couples sharing a room”. Not what they originally had on their website though, eh ?
“ … coming from a clear Biblical instruction about sexual relations … ” Really ? The bible is clear on this is it ? No inconsistency or ambiguity at all ?
“They wouldn’t stop a gay person from working there or staying there or supplying them etc”. Have you anything to support this statement ?
“This idea that sexuality and race are the same thing is poppycock.. offensive to many black and asian people”. The point is that discrimination on the grounds of race or sexuality is the same thing — discrimination. Which would you allow ? Both ?
“… suggests that sexual orientation is decided before or at birth ”. So what ? Does it matter ? The causes of sexual orientation are immaterial. The discrimination is the significant thing.
“… but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?” And who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ? This isn’t about free speech, it’s about obeying the law and not discriminating against people. Who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ?
“As for saying MUST change their ways … ”. So you don’t think they have to obey the law ? Why ?
“… this country has fought people who’ve tried to force us into accepting their views.. and won.” Eh ? And ? Aren’t the Bulls trying to force everybody to accept their views ?
“Let’s not have any more nonsense like that please.” What nonsense ? When you say “Let us”, who is ‘us’ ?
daveg
sorry mistyped should have been “common human decency”
Again.. where to begin. I’ll ignore the vitriolic anti-Christian comments.. seriously, they’re not worth the effort. The more serious comments, I’ll do what I can.
Re the law, these laws have changed a lot over the past few years and are still changing. Just because the laws have changed in one direction only doesn’t mean they will always change in that direction and should the law in future say that a Christian BnB can turn away gay couples from BnB’s (as it was not so long ago) then I’m assuming that the defence of “get over it, it’s the law” wouldn’t placate you. This debate is about whether or not the law is right.. we’ve been told what the law is, we’re discussing what it should be.
I commend Arthur Mann for his wise words.. LGBT community, be careful, you’re making yourself look very bad. If Peter Tatchell says you’re going too far then there’s a VERY strong chance you are.. militant fundamentalism is what it looks like to me, and any attempt to paint the BnB owners as extremists looks ridiculous in the light of some of the prejudice expressed on here.
What would Jesus do?.. A great question indeed. Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin.. maybe he’d have spoken to the couple and pointed out lovingly that they were in sin.. then He’d have been sued too. Jesus combines love and truth without compromising either, the liberal church often ignores truth and then fails to love those that don’t agree with it. Whilst evangelicals beleive things you don’t like, I hope and pray that they all love every gay person.. but that doesn’t mean they love or condone what that person might want to do.
The argument that any opposition to homosexuality is just based on bigotry etc might have worked once but now it just seems tired and bitchy. You can’t shut down the debate with labels, and we hear it so often now it just doesn’t have the effect it maybe once had.
Tim wrote
“We have had so much taken away from us and are fed up with having gay rights rammed down our throats and we are not allowed to have the right to refuse gay couples to enter our premises.
. . . . . . . . . .
Tim – What has been taken away from Christians like yourself?
Tim – What are these gay rights which are being rammed down your throat?
Tim – Why do you think you have the right to discriminate against people?
Repent of your folly, all who think a penis in an anus is productive. Does not nature teach you that a penis in a vagina is productive? For lesbians, sticking a rubber thing down a vagina does not really satisfy. Nature should have shown you it is void of emotion.
There is still a time of repentance to turn away from your folly, and receive the grace given freely by the only True God of all creation, who is Holy, Just and True.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have Eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. John 3:16 -17
David..
Seek psychological help.
James wrote
“What would Jesus do?.. A great question indeed. Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin.. maybe he’d have spoken to the couple and pointed out lovingly that they were in sin.. then He’d have been sued too.”
. . . . . . . . . .
James . . . no where does Jesus refer to homosexuality, in any version of the bible.
James . . . why would a man who preached tolerance, repect and love, go onto discriminate agianst gays.
James . . . why is your Christianity so focused on discriminating against gays, and referring to them as sinful; rather than Christ who preached love.
David . . . when are you going to repent of your homophobic hatred, your obession with sex, and your heart of stone.
..and your complete ignorance about what lesbians do in bed, David!
You might spend a long time thinking about it but your fantasies don’t count as fact.
@Dr Robin Guthrie & @ JohnK
Do you mean it is normal by nature to insert a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?
sticking a rubber thing down a vagina does not really satisfy. Nature should have shown you it is void of emotion. – David
A ‘rubber thing’ (dildo) in the vagina is far more productive and pleasurable than a so called God made penis could ever be.
Why do you think Anne Summers sell the things by the wheelbarrow load every day.
I would say this so called God of yours made a mistake when he made the penis.
Lots of them are incompatible with pleasuring women and have some right nobs attached to them!
@James — what did Jesus actually say, in the bible, about homosexuality ?
What does “love the sinner, abhorred the sin” actually mean ? How would the actions of someone who followed this injunction differ from someone who hated the sinner ?
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Why is homosexuality bad ? You’ve spent a deal of time saying it is, and that discrimination against gay people is “respectable”, now tell us why ? You can convince people, if your arguments are sound. Over to you.
David strikes me as a total pervert – best ignore him – or maybe ask him if his lasty name’s ‘Skinner’….
David wrote
“@Dr Robin Guthrie & @ JohnK
Do you mean it is normal by nature to insert a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?
. . . . . . . . . .
David why do you make the assumption that all gay people engage in anal sex?
David why do you make the assumption that heterosexuals do not engage in anal sex?
David why are you so obsessed with anal sex?
Do the Christian Institute know you’re hear fantasising about gay sex, David?
“In the ruling the judge said the right of the defendants to manifest their religion is not absolute”
Don’t let him distract you, folks. THIS is the real message. ‘Religion’ does NOT give you free rein to ignore the law.
Harry.. Harry.. do you really want a discussion about why I and many other Christians and people of other faiths and none believe homosexual sex is a negative thing.. and try and convince the readers of Pink News? I suppose you’ll sue me if I say something I don’t like..
The Bible is very clear on homosexual practices for a start, and one more than one or two occasions. Jesus speaks of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and speaks of the sexual immorality of early 1st century Israel. In that time and place homosexuality was illegal and punishable by death.. as far as we know JEsus never spoke against that, not saying Jesus supports the death penalty but let’s remember John 8 and the women caught in adultery.. “neither then do I condemn you, go and sin no more”. Jesus forgives the woman but calls a sin a sin. Of course, Jesus also upholds the law. St Paul is explicit in his view that homosexual sex is against the will of GOd, and HE is writing to countries where homosexuality was far more prevalent.. Greece etc, and so it was necessary to stipulate this particular fact. Seriously Harry, most liberal Christian argument in favour of homosexuality has got naff all to do with the gospels or the rest of the Bible.. but on a modern political view point and trying to get Christianity to fit their own ideas.
Jesus would (and does) certainly love all people, gay, straight or transsexual.. and this love goes so far that He died for us all.. so that we might be FREE FROM SIN.. not that we can pretend something is not sin.
Sadly, homosexuality is a hot button issue these days.. I wish it wasn’t. However, it’s the gay lobby that’s pushing and pushing this issue over and over and making it into the issue it is. Christians can’t ever condone something we feel God has said is wrong, so I can’t see how this is going to go away until the gay lobby accepts that it’s made good ground over the years but could potentially ruin much of it by going too far.
how do these religious pests find pink newsin the first place? Can we go to their religious newspaper and speak as freely? Or would we be banned and deleted?
James wrote
Christians can’t ever condone something we feel God has said is wrong, so I can’t see how this is going to go away until the gay lobby accepts that it’s made good ground over the years but could potentially ruin much of it by going too far.
. . . . . . . . . .
James . . . why won’t Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians like yourself repent of your obsession with homosexuality?
James . . . What exactly does the gay lobby need to accept?
James . . . What is going to be ruined if LGBT people continue to fight homophobic Christians?
Oh dear
My earlier comments were directed at both LGBT community and Christian community and I agreed with daveG that it is a common human decency not only to act within the law but towards one another Stop the vitriolic statements.
The subject is too great for that.
Make reasoned argument without referring to each other as bigots or fundamentalists, respecting that the thoughts and actions of whichever camp you are in are sincerely held.
Maybe then there would be some understanding of what is happening here.
Arthur Mann wrote
“Make reasoned argument without referring to each other as bigots or fundamentalists, respecting that the thoughts and actions of whichever camp you are in are sincerely held.”
. . . . . . . . . .
Arthur . . . why do you want to pretend that you are not a Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian?
JohnK,
I do not. But it strikes me that the language used by both camps does nothing to further the common human decency needed to discuss this matter
John K
I do not. I just fail to see how such vitriol furthers the case for either side in accordance with “common human decency”
David; must all sexual acts be productive and it is only their productivity which makes them therefore “acceptable”? Do you imagine that every act of heterosexual intercourse is productive? Good grief. 99% of hetersexual intercourse is unproductive to say nothing of the other numerous unproductive sexual acts that most human beings engage in.
Expect a moral majority backlash to this judgement along the lines of “the pendulum has swung too far…”. Isee all the nasties have come out of the woodwork to do their “us poor christians put upon by the “gays”" on t’internet forums.
The Bull’s argument was a figleaf. See this from the Grauniad.
“They did not, by the way, object to letting such immoral couples use twin-bedded rooms; as Judge Rutherford observed: “Two persons of the same sex … who have come to Cornwall intent on a sexually fulfilling weekend may enjoy that weekend to the full in a twin-bedded room. Putting it bluntly, the hotel policy allows them to do so albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.”
Ha! So if your unmarried (gay or str8) you can can have a sexually fulfilling weekend at the B&B but only if you dont mind squeezing into a twin bedded room – they’ll turn a blind eye but please, not in a double bedded room! That’s just dirty. lol. I mean, how disingenuous is that? Are they just extremely stupid and/or hypocritical that they cant imagine the possibility of ppl having nookie in a room without a double bed?
Harry, now for your longer post. Forigve me cutting and pasting your cutting and pasting.. memory not what it was you know.
@James — “… didn’t respect the right of an old Christian couple to rent out a few rooms in their own home … ”. No. It’s a place of business, regardless of whether they live there or not. The law is clear on this point. Why do you think they should be exempt ? What has their age or religion got to do with the matter ? Should old people get exemption ? Should people of a particular faith get exemption ?
Simply that I would ask for a little compassion and mercy for an old couple trying to run a BnB. Poeple of faith do get exemptions, from the Sikh allowed to not wear a bicycle helmet to the CHurch and MOsque etc being exempt from employment equality law.. and yes I think this should remain. Fairness makes more sense than equality and it’s one of many things that make up a good society, not the only one. It’s not an overruling dogma, least it shouldn’t be.
“ … according to their perfectly repsectable views on sexual conduct”. Respectable ? What do you mean by respectable ? Some people think their views are antediluvian, and abhorrent. On what grounds do you think their views are respectable ?
Many people out there think their views are worth of respect. THey are sound Christian views, a Muslim would agree with them, and indeed they were only asking for traditional values regarding relatiionships that many people hold to be upheld in their home and the rooms they rented out.. that’s something they make clear early on, if you want to do something else, fine, go to a different more liberal establishment.. a free country.. that would be nice!
When you say ‘“My God and my right”.. not secular’ I’m not sure what your point is. The law applies equally to everybody. Are you suggesting that Christians get additional rights because of words on the Royal Arms ?
I’m suggesting that there are lots of things that tell us that the nation and her laws are not secular. Christians should be free to practice their religion, don’t call that a special right.. but I certainly think the gay rights lobby is a militant extremist lobby that’s getting pretty ugly. Even PEter Tatchell is saying it’s going too far, and if that doesn’t ring alarm bells, nothing will.
“Discrimination based on sexuality is also almost wholly banned”. Do you think this ban a good thing ?
“ … but discrimination on sexual conduct is not.”. This is a bit of a fine distinction you’re trying to make. Are you saying that the Bulls would not have discriminated against the couple if they’d sworn not to have sex ? You’re suggesting that holding hands is fine, but making love is beyond the pale and unacceptable. Why do you think the Bulls are so obsessed with what other people do in bed ?
THe CHristian view on sexuality is a clear one. You have to draw the line somewhere and it’s been accepted for many years that sharing a room is often where that line is drawn. They weren’t asking the couple to repent and stop being sexually active, just asking them not to be so in their home. I don’t expect someone can help being gay anymore than i can help being straight, but it’s what i do with my sexuality that’s the issue, alwyas was, alwyas will be. IF they’d had separate rooms they would have been fine, so they were not banned for being gay.
“The BnB owners have a policy on only married couples sharing a room”. Not what they originally had on their website though, eh ?
“ … coming from a clear Biblical instruction about sexual relations … ” Really ? The bible is clear on this is it ? No inconsistency or ambiguity at all ?
Not really no. Bible is extremely clear. Liberal ‘Christian’ viewpoint is more about politics than scripture.
“They wouldn’t stop a gay person from working there or staying there or supplying them etc”. Have you anything to support this statement ?
Well if did they’d not be in line with Christian teaching, and there’s no evidence they’ve showed any discrimination in any of these ways. My point is that they’re not homophobic (unless homophobic means not being in Stonewall lol) they have perfectly long standing and repsectable views on homosexuality that aren’t yours.. get over it :)
“This idea that sexuality and race are the same thing is poppycock.. offensive to many black and asian people”. The point is that discrimination on the grounds of race or sexuality is the same thing — discrimination. Which would you allow ? Both ?
They are not the same at all. The gay couple were not discriminated against for being gay, simply for being unmarried and wanting a double room. . same as an unmarried straight couple. Cp’s are not marriage and in the view of many people it’s impossible to have gay marraiges. as marriage is a union of man and woman.. as Jesus said.
“… suggests that sexual orientation is decided before or at birth ”. So what ? Does it matter ? The causes of sexual orientation are immaterial. The discrimination is the significant thing.
Interesting.. many people on here seem to go crazy at suggestion homosexuality might be acquired in some way or conditioned.. hence upheaval if a counsellor reponds to a request to be helped out of having gay feelings. The point I was making is of yet another difference between sexuality and race. You either are black or you’re not.. you can’t DO black. No Christian I know is advocating discriminating against smeone cos they’re gay, but that’s totally different to approving of gay sex.
“… but I believe in a free country where you or anyone else can say that if you want.. and where anyone can quote the bits of the Bible that say homosexual sex is a sin.. free and fair isn’t it?” And who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ? This isn’t about free speech, it’s about obeying the law and not discriminating against people. Who’s stopping the Bulls from saying what they want ?
Ah the law argument.. so it was ok to send gay men to prison in the 60′s was it.. and to hang themin IRan.. cos it’s the law. No.. and you know that’s a weak argument.
“As for saying MUST change their ways … ”. So you don’t think they have to obey the law ? Why ?
Same answer as above about the power of the law… you said change their views before.. now it’s obey the law.. not hte same thing.. which are you asking me?
“… this country has fought people who’ve tried to force us into accepting their views.. and won.” Eh ? And ? Aren’t the Bulls trying to force everybody to accept their views ?
“Let’s not have any more nonsense like that please.” What nonsense ? When you say “Let us”, who is ‘us’ ?
The BUlls were only trying to get a little repsect for their views in their own home.. I donlt think they’ve told any group in society they MUSt change their views.. maybe they should, but MUST is a word that needs some backing up. PLus, changing views is not the same as obeying the law.. you’re changing your argument mid flow. As for let’s.. well I’m sure you’ve been alive in Britain for more than a few hours so I’m sure you’ve heard that idiomatic usage of let/s before.. it usuall refers to all of us.. as in.. we should all refrain from that kind of thing.
Hope that’s all clear.. one more point though..
IF Parliament said that murder was not illegal.. then it would not be illegal.. Parliament has this power (ignore EU for a second). IF parliament said the Sun was not a hot sphere in space.. then.. well it would still be a hot sphere in space. Parliament has the power to change some things but not others. With hte possiblity of gay marriages in this country, you must understand that it wouldn’t have changed this case one bit. Parliament cannot make marriage between two men or two women any more possible that it is now.. registrars aren’t God.
@ Arthur Mann
When religionists come into our space to insult us I will not remain calm and respectful. I will call a spade a spade when religionist comment is fundamentalist or bigoted.
This is not a religionist site we do not need to show any tolerance towards those invading our safe space.
@Iris
“David strikes me as a total pervert”
No Iris, i am not a total pervert. I am not sinless either, however i have tapped into the Grace which is made available for all through Jesus Christ.
This Grace is avialable to you too. The Bible says that where sin increases Grace abounds all the more, so you can come clean before the God of all flesh to whom we will all give account.
I have spoken the way i have because i would like to be down to earth with manner of relationships we have rather using all the lofty descriptions we use to hide the nature of these relationships.
If God designed humans – then He also defines marriage.
If evolution ‘designed’ humans then homosexuality is plainly the end of the line.
Either way the homosexual appears doomed.
However God does say He is full of mercy – and evolution plainly has no such concept.
@ David
We all know Grace, she loves rubber thing in her vagina and anal too.
Grace is loving it!
@Arthur Mann
Why do you keep reiterating the phrase “common decency”, we have shown common decency by responding to threads aimed at us.
. . . . . . . . . .
Unfortunately you do show much in the way of common decency when you fail to say
exactly why you are here?
exactly what it is you want from the LGBT people?
@ Malcolm
We know Mercy too, she love a good fisting and her rubber friends.
David wrote
“This Grace is avialable to you too. The Bible says that where sin increases Grace abounds all the more, so you can come clean before the God of all flesh to whom we will all give account.
. . . . . . . . . . .
David . . . so you are hear to be patronsing and condescending in the name of religion.
David . . . I think you are really hear because you are furious that Gays have won a case against Homophobic Christian Bigotry
John K
The reason is to seek to understand fully the arguments put forward.
Helen
touche, you make the defendants’ contention more than adequately.
End
I think the gay oresurre lobbys need to take a reality check on this one. we need to realise that this is not a hotel biut a B&B and that these people be thety right or wrong, published their views on their website, we are all children of our time and I find it diffiult to believe that the two guys in question took the time to read the policy on pets but never took the time to look up the website ansd find out the policy on unmarried/gay couples, I frequently search the internet for suitable places fo myself and my partner to holiday and can generally take a view on wher or where not we will be made welcome. it strikes me that there is more than this story than meets the eye be it on the part of the couple who operate the b&b or the couple who booked the accomodation, how far do we take discrimination, will be prosecuting doormen at nightclubs for turning away badly dressed/ugly/unsuitable people and claiming damages, lets all live in the real world and tolerate each others views without being vindictive, i have no truck with openley homophobic or bigoted people but this couple (who run a B&B in their own home) must have a right to decide who and who not they want to accomodate. hese guys were not left starnded without a roof over their head and should have researchead the rules of the establishment before booking, i have been refused a meal in the restaurant of a hotel because i was not wearing a shirt and tie even though i had paid serious money to stay, maybe because i am gay but maybe because people in the hotel thought i should be wearing a tie. Wake up and smell the coffee
It really comes to something when certain people demand that others tolerate their intolerance cos “its against their religion”.
Sorry, I’m not having that. Believe what you like but remember, your faith is between you and your god, please do not try and embroil me in it.
Mr and Mrs Bull are still preaching discrimination – they are STILL blatantly stating on their website that gays are banned. Should the judge not have required them to open their doors to everyone or – if they are unable to comply with the law – close?
“Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).
Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples”
“Christians can’t ever condone something we feel God has said is wrong….”
We FEEL God has said is wromg?
I don’t think that is good enough.
God hasn’t said anything. The writers of the Bible have. Every single one of them were Human beings, even if they had divine inspiration. It is possible they were wrong then and still wrong 2,000 years later.
So how about all these fundies stop quoting a book that is badly in need of a modern revision and mind their own business. The only damnation coming is on the hypocrites who hide behind the bible.
Oh dear,
We still have a lot of people here who are intollerant of the Christian viewpoint. Lets go through this again shall we.
1) The Christian couple were not being intolerant. They in no way tried to change the sexual beliefs of the gay couple involved. They only expressed that they were not allowed to practice it while in their place of buisness.
The courts on the other hand are being intolerant because they have ruled AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN’S BELIEFS. They have down right told them that they are no longer allowed to have this opinion. This is basically 1984 people. The government are now convicting people because of their beliefs.
To tolerate something means that you don’t necessarily like it but you will put up with it within your society. To be intollerant means that you will not allow this opinion any freedom of speech whatsoever. For instance we do not tollerate murderers, rapists, thiefs. To put this Christian couple among this lot is a complete joke and it is nothing but sickening.
2) They have the right to refuse service if they wish. Shops just don’t hang signs with the phrase “We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone” for a laugh.
In fact serveral places of buisness actually do this. If you go to a nightclub you can be turned from the door with a stupid assinine excuse such as “not in those trainers” or “Regulars only” (How am I supposed to become a regular in the first place if you don’t let me in duh!). Pubs can also trun you away for wearing football colours. This is all basically code saying “we’re not letting you in because you look like a thug” but apparently they can get away with it. This is basically a character assassination and they are judging people by the way they look, NOT BECASUE OF THE WAY THEY ACTUALLY ARE. It’s a complete false attribution but yet nobody complains about it because they know they don’t operate the buisness and it’s the ownes wishes to srve who he wants.
3) The businesses above get away with this because IT IS THEIR PLACE OF BUISNESS. They own the building and the deeds. They have every right to say who they want allowed on their premises and IT DOES NOT COME UNDER as public domain like some people assert, because if that was the case then you wouldn’t be able to be refused entry from ANY PLACE OF BUISNESS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (unless you are an escapd convict from jail).
4) Well done to the person above who posted the B&B that was gay only and will only allow Gay people to stay at their BnB. This is exactly what I am talking about. They are even allowed to advertise their stance on being exclusively gay only and will get away with it. This is blatant double standards here because a Christian wouldn’t get away with there beliefs being advertised without being told to change it and remove the stipulation.
I read a story about a girl who was a Christian and hung up an advert in her local church on the notice board asking for a house mate and stipulated that the house mate had to be Christian. She was told to remove the stipulation by the authorities. This is absolutely ridiculous, apparently we are not even allowed to stipulate who we want to live with any more. What a joke.
5) The Christian viewpoint has been made clear. We do not hate gay people, we just believe that the action of same partner sex should not be performed. We don’t force anybody to listen to us, it’s just the way we think things should be. We also think tat lying, sex before marriage and adultery are sins but that that DOES NOT mean that we hate people who perform these actions. It’s a complete non-sequitur to think oherwise.
Also note that just because Gay people are born genetically to be gay then this doesn’t mean they need to be accepted by all people in society. Alcoholics are born with their infliction genetically also but I doubt anybody would defend their right to practice their alcoholism and then force people into accepting them the way they are
@James — but what did Jesus actually say himself about homosexuality ?
Incidentally, fundies, please note. I WAS a church going Christian. I’ve had rows with Harry, Spanner and several other people who have commented on this page, sticking up for the right to be a Christian and Gay. But I’ve come to the conclusion that Harry et al are right. It is impossible to be Christian and Gay so I prefer to be GAY. I reject the teachings of the bible as a big huge gay bashing charter with no place in this world. And I fear no damnation because I’ve done no wrong.
“If God designed humans – then He also defines marriage.” – Malcolm
I have seen the skulls of humans that are over 200,000 years old, that’s 154,000 before this so call ‘god’ invented them.
Marriage existed in may cultures outside of any knowledge of the Christian and Jewish god. People have been getting married before Christianity was even invented. Marriage is the natural result of peoples desire for social order not invisible sky fairies.
—————————————————————————–
If evolution ‘designed’ humans then homosexuality is plainly the end of the line. – Malcolm
As a scientist I know homosexuality is a very favourable outcome in a evolutionary sense.
If every human and animal reproduced the earth would of been consumed in no time. Homosexuality is not a evolutionary dead end, its natures pressure release valve.
———————————————————————————-
Either way the homosexual appears doomed. – Malcolm
Just as doomed as anyone else is, the sun will go super nova in around four billion years and atomises everything on the planet.
This is the only final judgement we all face.
The fantasy judgement of invisible sky fairies does not compare to the raw power of the universe that’s 13.7 billion years older than invisible sky fairy supposedly created it.
this argument, contrary to all the publicicty is not about religion or gay rights but about individuals be they gay or staright, muslim or christian beig able to determine their own set of values and principles and not force them on other groups, if you consider that you have views that make you uncomfortable with unmarried/gay couples sharing a bed in your house/ B&B then you should be allowed to allowed to run an establishment on this basis until it fails due to lack of business! however we should not be allowed to force any members of our society to comply with views that they do not accept no matter how abhorent they are to us.
@ Helen
I was laughing when you made you comment
“A ‘rubber thing’ (dildo) in the vagina is far more productive and pleasurable than a so called God made penis could ever be.
Why do you think Anne Summers sell the things by the wheelbarrow load every day.
I would say this so called God of yours made a mistake when he made the penis.
Lots of them are incompatible with pleasuring women and have some right nobs attached to them! ”
You have brought to me insight about how lesbians and ladies who self-sex feel.
I also see your point when you said “Lots of them are incompatible with pleasuring women and have some right nobs attached to them! ”
But this has come about because we have pushed very hard at the boundaries of sexual pleasure to our peril.
I have a definite conviction that you can derive far greater pleasure in God than any sexual pleasure for that matter
And like i said to Iris, there is a through Jesus Christ that is available to all. This Grace is avialable to you too. The Bible says that where sin increases Grace abounds all the more, so you can come clean before the God of all flesh to whom we will all give account.
@Arthur Mann . . .
You have argued nothing to date, only played righteous games with your “common decency phrase”
Arthur the reason you have been reticent about your “Fundamentalist Christianity” is that you know that these days it is a dirty word, and you are ashamed of it.
Arthur, you are only here on this site, because you are so shocked that the law does not support your bigoted views anymore.
Arthur, you appear to think that by being patronizing, you can somehow stop LGBT people from continuing to fight for equality and justice.
Arthur, I do sympathies, since of course; it is bad news for bigots like you and the other trolls currently posting on this thread.
That’s right, you do not have inalienable right to express homophobic prejudice!
Times have change . . . get used to it
DAVID, get the message. I reject God’s Grace. I don’t want to go to heaven if John Barrowman can’t. It would be miserable without him.
@Darth Ovious
When are you going to stop hiding bigotry behind mastubatory rants
heaven would be a much better place without john barrowman as woulbe the world of pantomine!
Dangerous Dave . . .
if you insist on breaking the law – then go to prision – as if we care.
@ JohnK
David . . . so you are hear to be patronsing and condescending in the name of religion.
The Gospel of salvation has always suffered abuse, but we must continue to “convince some, who doubt: save some by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 22 – 23
“David . . . I think you are really hear because you are furious that Gays have won a case against Homophobic Christian Bigotry”
John i am not furious that Gays won the case, i am here because I can see prophecies coming to pass and the world coming to a swift end. I feel exicited because the King of Glory is very near, and I urge you to save yourself from this perishing world. The Spirit and the Bride say COME!
I am made of the same stuff the universe is, I stepped out of a super nova and am as old as the universe itself.
We all are.
I had no creator I am a result of millions of years of evolution from the most basic single cell to a human with billions of neurons that make me able to comprehend the wonders of the universe.
@Rose — “I’ve had rows with Harry, Spanner and several other people …”. Really ? I don’t think that’s me !
“But I’ve come to the conclusion that Harry et al are right. It is impossible to be Christian and Gay.” This is not my position, as I do not know what people mean when they say ‘Christian’ — my point being that there are such a huge variety of opinions and behaviours exhibited by people who identify as Christians, that the term is near meaningless. I think everyone would agree that there is a chasm between an English Quaker and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
i am breaking the law how!, is it now illeagal to dislike certain celebrities,as i have already stated, i have no probs with all, i am just averse to john barrowman and his particular style in panto that i witnessed this christmas period, was tryin to pass a light hearted comment on anotherwise over serious thread
@David . . .
You strike me as a total pervert. . .
also we do not want to buy your perverted and warped religion,
try another website where you can combine your rubber fetish with Jesus!!!
i don’t care if heaven is a better place, i choose a brighter place. I’m choosing to be with John, and his lovely other half, and Johnk, Harry, Iris and Helen and all other people that the Bible rejects. I’ve had enough of the intolerance preached by its proponents.
Harry, maybe it was a different Harry. it gets confusing around here.
Dangerous Dave, I don’t think anyone around here thinks you’re funny. Perhaps that’s why you couldn’t appreciate a pantomime. I frankly don’t care.
you’re breaking the law by continuing to support people like the Bulls who practice discrimination.
UK law says it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of age, race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability.
Deal with it religionists or go find another country to live in.
@ JohnK
You bear the name of the beloved “John” and rightly you are beloved. God loves you irrespective of your views and His Grace is still available. He is always waiting to receive to back into His arms.
David, your God should accept all these decent people who happen to be gay and reject the hypocrites who call themselves Christians. And maybe he will.
Helen.. as a scientist I can tell you there’s little evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Evolution doesn’t operate at such a high level but in the survival of the fittest, not a phrase Darwin used but it expresses a point. How would homosexuality then exist based on evolutionary principles of the gene trying to survive in a hostile world? Even Dawkins’ selfish gene model makes little room for your theory.
John K said..James . . . why won’t Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians like yourself repent of your obsession with homosexuality?
A we’re not obsessed.. we’re not the ones trying to change the laws etc.. we’re just being forced to defend our freedoms all the time. It’s the point at which we’re under attack so of course we devote some time to defence in that area.. but i’d much rather be talking about the wonderful saving love of Jesus CHrist and His death for all onthe cross.. His resurrection means death and sin have been overcome and all can know life in Him and freedom from slavery to sin.
James . . . What exactly does the gay lobby need to accept?
The above.. also that you have a lifestyle choice not everyone approves of.. and to get over that fact. Gay rights should be about trying to live without fear of bad things in lieu of your way of living, not about mking everyone who doesn’t agree with you a social outcast. Peter Tatchel said something similar.. I never thought Id find myself quoting him.. just shows how far off the mark the gay rights lobby is.
James . . . What is going to be ruined if LGBT people continue to fight homophobic Christians?
If the gay rights movement continues in its militant and extremist selfish push to dominate society on all matters pertaining to homosexuality then it will be a total pain in the arse to everyone and be a wholly undemocratic and anti freedom movement.. your founders would be ashamed I think.
secondly, you might experience something of a backlash as people realise just how far you’ve gone and you may end up losing some of the more reasonable changes that have been made as well as some of the more outrageous ones. This is just how pendulum politics tends to work, that would be a shame.
Thirdly.. you just look stupid and lose the support of many gay folk and end up sailing off into the distant lands of irrelevance and no one listens to you anymore. Be realistic instead and accept that your lifestyle is one many find abhorrent.. you are free to live it and they’re free to say they find it abhorrent. free country :)
you guys have got me all wrong,i am in an equally beneficial relationship, i adore panto, just cant stand mr barrowman not because he he is gay but because i do not rate him, for the record Julian clarey,billy connoly and jenny eclair I find hilarious but do not realy think of them as gay or straight comedians, just shows you you should not judge a book by its cover, read my posts! no homophobia no bigotry just tolerance of all sides, have not yet stated my sexuality as I do not think it is relevant?
The fact that ‘many’ find homosexuality abhorrent is why we need to educate them. It is nothing of the sort.
The rest of James’ argument is just tosh.
@ David:
Thie issue is about a court ruling on illegal discrimination… so it’s strange you are coming here and writing such reductive stuff as ” inserting a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?”
Your explanation…
“I have spoken the way i have because i would like to be down to earth with manner of relationships we have rather using all the lofty descriptions we use to hide the nature of these relationships.”
So is that spoken with your down to earth heterosexual penis balls-deep in your wife’s vagina Dave? or as I suspect more likely with your stumpy penis in hand ? and no lofty thoughts of the constant surveillance of the sky pixie?
I find heterosexuality so much more down to earth when spoken of plainly, when reduced down to body parts and functions as you like to describe gay and lesbian relationships, all without any reference to human warmth or emotions nor any false reference to or personal endorsement from the sky pixie .
Only penises and vaginas that have been joined in holy matrimony are welcome to be inserted one into the other at this B&B by order of down to earth David.
And all this talk about penises and vaginas just reminds me of the monologue from Team America which I am far too well brought up to quote verbatim, but I bet even the Christian fundies know what I mean!!!! Go on, admit it. You all just love to watch puppets have sex.
For me it’s easy. I do not believe in the Bible. It is a man-made book of beliefs, no more no less.
The laws of this country are clear and simple. I do not have to abide by the wishes of those who follow the Bible any more than I have to only eat recipes listed in Delia Smith’s cookery books.
Christians can believe whatever they like, but in the public sphere (as their hotel is) they cannot force me to comply with their beliefs.
I, like them, am a great believer in tradition. Had they won the case I would have pressed to restore the Roman tradition of throwing Christians to the lions. It has historical value and was very popular in its time. Fashions are cyclical.
Perhaps the Bulls should consider this when they preach about preserving values and beliefs.
I also have to wonder… Jesus got together a posse of 12 men and hung out with them. A lot. Anyone like that today would probably not get a room at the Bull’s guesthouse…
@Darth Ovious
When are you going to stop hiding bigotry behind mastubatory rants
=============================================================
Your the bigot. Apparently I’m not allowed to have my opinion and you wish to extinguish it out.
You’re not as tollerant as you think you are and neither is the rest of our society.
First off you are intollerant to Christians and their beliefs which actualy just makes you some anti-religious nutcase because of this.
Secondly, most straight men in our country have never even had homosexually activity. None whatsoever, but then try to speak up for Gay rights and claim not to be homophobic. If you ask them if they have ever had gay sex they will reply no because they are straight and they don’t like it that way. How can they be sure if they have never tried it? That would be like me saying that I hated the A Brave New World by Huxley when I haven’t even read it. What stops them from trying it? Roman society used to practice gay sex all the time, even the straight citizens who had families, but men in our society don’t even try it and then try to pretend that they are somehow not homophobic, but still you have to laugh when it’s obvious that they are because they never have had gay sex in their life. What are they afraid of? Of that’s right, they are homophobic.
The fact is we are all intolerant of some things. It is absolutly impossible to be tollerant of everything but you have already proved that with your intollerant reply to me, hehe. At least I am honest about my position on homosexuality and id don’t hide it away in a concealed box like the rest of society.
I don’t know if you read my message earlier but I go by the username Darth Ovious on http://www.Theologyweb.com. If you want to have a larger chat about this issue there then I would be happy to discuss.
The website is fine and it has lots of non-religious members also who post on a regular basis. There is even a naturalism board just for the atheists where they can post about topics without interuption from us theists.
I will admit one thing. I am disgusted by the verdict passed by the judge, it’s just one more example in how you bully us Christians because you are too afraid to take a stance on Muslim extremism. Nothing but a lot of whimps you are picking on minorities such as ourselves and then playing coward when the fundamentalists who actually threaten you do something wrong.
Got to love those double standards that keep croping up.
Oh yeah, any reply as to why the Gay B&B are allowed to exclusively advertise but we are not? Or are you just going to accept that double standard without givng me an answer. HAHAHHAHA.
@ Pavlos
I trust you are an intelligent person.
Can you answer me this question: “is normal by nature to insert a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?”
@Darth Ovious — 1) “The courts on the other hand are being intolerant because they have ruled AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN’S BELIEFS. They have down right told them that they are no longer allowed to have this opinion.” The court is saying they must obey the law. It is making no statement at all about whether they can hold an opinion or not, just that they cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.
2) “They have the right to refuse service if they wish.”. They can’t do so on the basis of sexual orientation. This is what the law says. Presumably you think this is undesirable ? Have you written to your MP about your feelings ?
3) “The businesses above get away with this because IT IS THEIR PLACE OF BUISNESS.” They “get away” with not breaking the law, if they don’t discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Is this what you mean ?
4) “Well done to the person above who posted the B&B that was gay only and will only allow Gay people to stay at their BnB.” That B&B should be prepared to be taken to court if they discriminate illegally too. I presume you will be wanting to test the law yourself by making a booking there.
5) “… we just believe that the action of same partner sex should not be performed … We also think … sex before marriage … are sins”. Why are you so obsessed with how other people have sex ?
“… but that that DOES NOT mean that we hate people who perform these actions. It’s a complete non-sequitur to think oherwise.” But there’s a history of people who have issues with how other people have sex hating those other people isn’t there ? And often that hatred leads to violence and murder. Do you think that history makes your distaste at what some other people do in bed more of less acceptable ?
“Also note that just because Gay people are born genetically to be gay then this doesn’t mean they need to be accepted by all people in society.”
“Alcoholics are born with their infliction genetically also but I doubt anybody would defend their right to practice their alcoholism and then force people into accepting them the way they are”. Are you equating alcoholics with gay people ? People who have a disease that kills them, with people who are attracted to the same sex ? Is that really what you think ?
Nick,
Christians have as much right to their sometimes strange values as do the rest of us and no one has the right to force their values on others, it is okay for to state the “law” but not so long ago the ” law” was sending gay people to jail was that ok because it was the “law” we need to live and let live, we all have views on life and love that are never going to be compatible but sometimes we need to allow others to hold their views while disagreeing!
Rose. I’m afraid your cutting and brilliant pulling apart of my arguments has left me quite in shock.. oh hang on, you just said what i said was rubbish.. brilliant!! lol. I suppose anyone that comes to Christ has to make a decision.. like in the parable of the sower.. sometimes the seed falls on the stoney or weedy ground and it fails to take hold. I hope you find that seed again, and don’t reject it because it calls on you to take up your cross.. It’s not easy, i do know, believe me.. and I wouldn’t ever say that what Christianity asks of gay folk isn’t tough, but what we get from God in return for giving Him our lives is far far more than we could imagine.
FUll marks to Darth Ovious.. good posts mate.
Gay people don’t prevent Christians being Christians. When have gays ever plackarded a church and stopped Christians worshipping? The fact is, the law has got it right on this occasion, and the one last year with the hypocritical christian registrar. So just go to church, as is your right, and leave those who don’t, as is THEIR right, alone.
@David — ‘Can you answer me this question: “is normal by nature to insert a penis in an anus or to insert a rubber stump in a vagina?”’.
I’m sure Pavlos is an intelligent person, and I have no doubt, looking forward to answering your thought provoking question.
Myself, I have a few questions for you, your answers to which I would be interested to read:
1) Is ‘normal’ always good ? Do you strive to be ‘normal’ ? To be like everyone else ? To not be different in any way ? Do you get a bit uncomfortable with anything that’s not like you ?
2) Why are you so interested in other people’s sex lives ? What’s the big attraction about how other people do it ?
David, I’m not going to indulge your abnormal interest in human sexual body parts and prosthetics, I think you are way off topic and your contribution to this discussion about illegal discrimination against real people has now totally degenerated and disappeared up your own fundament.
Does it feel good?
James, the only cross I am taking up is the cross of gay rights. You and your sort have made the decision for me. It’s not an easy choice. We have to fight people like you. But it’s the RIGHT choice.
@David
O dear . . . David is 1800 signitures all you could manage ?
rose,
i am not a christian, but i understand that it is a way of life not just something that is done on a sunday by going to church. true christians have a strong conviction and also a strong tolerance of others views and convictions, some “christians” do not show the level of tolerance that they should, however this particular thread i believe is about the couple who would not allow a gay couple to share a bed in their b&b, as previously said the law is on the side of the two gay guys, however not that long ago the law would have locked these guys up WAS THAT RIGHT, i think not, sometimes the law is an ass we all need to be more tolerant of each other, gay people have been discriminated against for far too long, does persecuting people with other views help the cause of gay people who strive not to be discriminated against or does it just cause more conflict, maybe you should ask nelson mandela or try to contact ghandi!
@Darth Ovious — “I will admit one thing. I am disgusted by the verdict passed by the judge, it’s just one more example in how you bully us Christians”. I’m sorry ? How is a judge ruling in accordance with the law an example of who bullying Christians ?
“… because you are too afraid to take a stance on Muslim extremism.”
You think it’s that, rather than being appalled by the behaviour of the Bulls ? That, rather than not be prepared to accept discrimination ? Do you think it’s the role of gay people to take stances on religious beliefs that run counter to your own ? How have you taken a stance on Muslim extremism ?
“… you are picking on minorities such as ourselves … ” You’re saying Christians are in minority in the UK ? Earlier someone suggested that 70% of the UK population were Christian: you presumably dispute this figure ? What do you think the true one is ?
“… and then playing coward when the fundamentalists who actually threaten you do something wrong.”. These are different fundamentalists to you ?
“Oh yeah, any reply as to why the Gay B&B are allowed to exclusively advertise but we are not? Or are you just going to accept that double standard without givng me an answer. HAHAHHAHA.” I’ve replied already: test the law yourself by making a booking there.
by law black people were slaves once and women couldnt vote. the law changes. in the UK at least the law generally goes forward. But some people don’t like that. That’s what all the fuss is about.
@dangerous dave:
As Judge Rutherford said:
“We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament. It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made.”
Rose,
You genuinely think it is progressive to criminalise a couple who run a b&b from preventing an unmarried and or gay and or ugly and or ginger and or scottish and or muslim couple from staying intheir house? you are surely more intelligent than that, if the law is the will of the majority of people these people will be driven out of business, morality cannot be forced on others!
@James — “Helen.. as a scientist I can tell you there’s little evolutionary purpose for homosexuality.”
How does it persist then ? If there’s no purpose, it will be factored out. Why is it still present ? As the bible says, homosexuality has been present for most of human existence, so why hasn’t it disappeared if it serves no purpose ? Act of God ?
Still waiting for you to tell us what Jesus actually said about homosexuality.
Yes, I do. Ugly ginger muslims have rights, too.
come on, somebody say something else. the ugly ginger muslim comment can hardly be the last word here.
Rose,
Where does discrimination end, do we not discriminate every time we choose a partner/friend are we not descriminated against every time we enter or get refused entry to a club or get rejected for a job, rejection or acceptance is part of life, we cannot legislate for it, are certain sexual orientations, skin colours, nationalities, eye colours, hair colours, bone stuctures, accents or religions to be afforded more credence than others or can we all just take a chill pill and accept that the human race is far from perfect and that we all need to open our minds and accept other peoples views and values, it seems to me that the over bearing theme on this thread is to force either side of the argument on the other, why can we not live and live come on rose open your mind!
on second thoughts, maybe that was a better last word!!!
too bad, i have only just started to understand your sense of humour rose!
Rose.. you don’t have to ‘fight people like me’.. you could always engage in reasonable discussion etc. As for the Cross and gay rights connection.. ouch.. that’s a bit much I think. Jesus certainly didn’t want anyone to feel outcast but He offered inclusion into God’s family.. Jesus said some very harsh things about sin.
Who was it said I didn’t answer about what Jesus said about homosexuality? I’ve already replied to that in some detail, I know it’s a popular thread but please look for it.
Ok, homosexuality and evolution. I was responding to a point made by someone that homosexuality was a product of evolution in that it helped societies cope with population control. My point was that such a theory doesn’t really fit with the idea of evolution and the selfish gene.
It might be that homosexuality is societal, and comes about through the environment etc.. perhaps through exposure to something or other as yet undefined, or some kind of mental stimulus. It may be a congenital matter, something that triggers a change in sexuality in the womb.. there is some evidence for this. It may be a random genetic change which we’re prone to, it may yet still prove to be virus related. . none of these things are part of the evolutionary process.. evolution and common sense certainly would suggest homosexuality is not inherited. There are lots of differences in people’s sexuality.. some people fancy corpses, kids, old people or animals.. we don’t suggest these are evolutionary advantages do we? Now before we start, I’m not suggesting homosexuality is like paedophilia morally, but I am saying that no one can help who they are sexually attracted to, it doesn’t mean the orientation is advantageous.
dangerous dave . . .
As your name suggest, why don’t you admit you are furious.
Why don’t you admit that Gay rights have trump religous bigotry for the first time in this country, sanctioned by the judicary and the state.
How humilating is that . . . can you feel the humilation!!!!
you understand nothing about me and you never will.
Let’s go back to the facts of this matter.
FACT: In the UK nobody has the right to discriminate on sexual orientation grounds when providing goods or services.
FACT: The Bulls broke the law and have been punished for it.
Everything else is window dressing.
blah blah blah James, you cannot force your ideals on others, likewise others views should not be enshrined in law people like you and rose should meet up, have a coffee and discuss life, the universe and everything, nae buddies died! get some perspective on life. You need to evangelise your views but you need to realise that forcing your views on others is not going to work, try another tact!
blah blah dave. you have nothing useful to say, either.
John K
Thank you. It was not me that raised the issue of common human decency but one of the supporters of the LBGF community.
I have read your comments posted subsequently and yes the term “Fundamental Christian” has become a phrase of derision. I am not frightened of being descibed as Christian, but as many of the posts on this site have shown I confess that the term “Fundamental Christian” is frightening precisely because that term implies that, as you have suggested and said, the term attracts the term of being described as being a “bigot”. A bigot implies that I am willing to denigrate those that hold opposing views to those of my own and that, by implication, I regard them lesser persons than me. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many homosexual people that I know and have worked with, have much to my shame, showed forth many qualties of that common human decency,previously referred to, that I have not displayed within my own life. They,contrary to many of the posts, that I have read about this matter have put my own understanding about how I should interact with other humans have illuminated me as to the need for tolerance when considering the lives of others.
However, despite the result of the court case this day, I cannot divorce myself from that that which I read of in the Bible, and all I have sought today as I have viewed the website, not to offer, as you seem to perceive, implausible platitudes, but rather to seek to understand further the injustice that the LBGF community, irrespective of their own religous beliefs-in this I presume, perhaps erronously as far as you as an individual are concerned, that even within those of the LBGF community that religously believe in Christ-and we both are aware that there are those of such persuasion-that the issue raised today will have caused debate.
In such circumstances the use of vitriolic language is neither helpful to either party in the discussion.
May I put it this way?
Due to circumstance 2 work colleagues who are gay and in a relationship find themselves stranded miles from home and the only hope they have of accomodation is that provided by myself who, with his “fundamentalist views” has only but one spare room to offer and that with a double bed. If I then said here is room but I would ask you to respect my views and not conduct sexual relations within that room would you concur if you were one of those 2, or would you accuse me, my wife and any other of the household who so agreed, of being homophobic?
Or would you in the name of human common decency accept such restriction?
That is the point as I see it of human common decency, as raised by the issue of the Christian Faith and indeed by supporters of the LBGF community.
I cannot judge your own position, I must respect it, but neither can you judge mine or others that so believe. It cannot and will not stop me from desiring it would be another way, and likewise, it will not stop you from you wishing it be another way but at that point we must agree that needs must allow the situation to arise if we are to have peaceful night to allow us to proceed.
Arthur Mann
John K,
I have decided you are right, i will go now and prepare fore the final conflict! lets face it the most important thing in our society at the moment is whether gay/unmarried couples can share a bed in a b&b in dorset or cornwall or whatever, do we not have bigger issues to deal with or are you just displying a persecution complex, I think it is appropriate for me to now say that i am (despite my aversion to Mr Barrowman) a gay male in a loving relationship. I just think we need to be more tolerant and lead by example that is all, John K your attitude will solve nothing, just inflame homophobia and bigotry
Arthur you’ve just proved yourself the worst sort of hypocrite. You know for a fact that your gay friends are good people but you fall back on the bible and condemn them as sinners.
Now I’m going to bed. I’m tired. It’s been a good day for UK LGBT. Terrible one in Iran. The world turns and the fight goes on.
as a scientist I can tell you there’s little evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Evolution doesn’t operate at such a high level but in the survival of the fittest, not a phrase Darwin used but it expresses a point. How would homosexuality then exist based on evolutionary principles of the gene trying to survive in a hostile world? Even Dawkins’ selfish gene model makes little room for your theory.
————————————————————————-
Evolution has nothing to with survival of the fittest just look at the dinosaurs. Its about adaptability to the environment.
Adaptability happens through genetic variance. sexual variance and gender variance are all signs of of what evolution is doing within us. Its worth remembering we did not start out as a two sexes and male and female is just a result of specialisation. Our first evolutionary ancestors that swam the oceans where strictly asexual.
Saying evolution is about survival of the fittest puts you in the Hitler master race kill anything that’s weak camp.
Reality says the weak are sometimes the answers to genetic problems. To narrow our genetic make-up by eliminating what we see as weak may also be eliminating the solutions to our future survival.
Genetic variance is the single most important factor in our continued evolution.
is that it rose or john k, nothing further to say?
John K.. are you suggesting it’s humiliating to be beaten by a group of ‘poofters’ lol.. No, i wouldn’t say so.. we’re all trying to create a fair Britain aren’t we? It’s one small case, and not precedent setting either. THe law does need changing though, religious freedoms should get more protection but our ultimate eternal victory in Christ over sin and death is assured.. so a few little difficulties in this life.. so what? :) I dont mean that Christ is your enemy, not at all, but that sin was defeated at the cross and will be destroyed forever at the final judgement. I hope you’re in heaven with me.
Rose.. yet again you destroy the arguments of others by saying that you think they’ve nothing to say. Just saying.. “they’ve not added anything” brutally undermines everything that previous person said without having to reposnd to one of their arguments.. brilliant.. or perhaps not lol. THe person did add something of value.. there.. that’s cancelled yours out lol.
As before, Arthur MAnn brings the voice of compassion and reason to the discussion. Arthur, you’re absolutely right, you would be entirely reasonable to ask the couple to refrain from sex whilst at your house to respect your views.. I have a double room for rent, am i breaking the law if I ask a gay man to be celibate whilst he lives here? And if he says no, then i say sorry, then you’re not the right man for the room? My gf lives in a house with a Christian landlady who has a policy of not letting bf’s stay in the rooms wih her lady tenants. Not even on the floor. Do i sue her cos i cant stay over.. NO.. i respect her wishes, it’s her house, gf doesnt have to take the room and we’re happy with that.
Rose,
Hypocrite is the least of the insults that can be levied against those who have come to a belief of Jesus as their Lord. Those that so believe are more than aware of their own failures in this life of themselves and to others.
Dangerousdave wrote
“if the law is the will of the majority of people these people will be driven out of business, morality cannot be forced on others!”
It’s a strange circular argument you make as it is the B&B owner defendants with the assistance of a Christianist lobby group who have been seeking to retain privileged status to impose their personal version of religious morality on others in this instance.
For the logical outcome that would have resulted had the B&B owners won this case, see here:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/peter-tatchell-discrimination-would-be-rampant-if-christian-hotel-couple-won-case/
.
tolerance is a virtue that should be shown on both sides, “christians” and “gay people” are all jock thamsons bairns we should not be focing our values on others, the only way to change society is by tolerance and forgiveness as per mssrs mandela and ghandi!
clicked on your link and thought it was, to paraphrase total and utter reactionist sh**e
“We could have ended up with some Jewish supermarket workers demanding the right to not handle pork, Muslim restaurant staff refusing to serve alcohol and Christian solicitors declining to represent gay or cohabiting heterosexual couples.
All the above happens on a daly basis because folk have their jobs to do and get on with it without complaint in the main, particularly muslims serving alchoholic beverages ai dont think we should go down the anti semitic route as I think most jewish people that i have met are very tolerant of non jewish ways or maybe you know different! solicitors in the main are mercenary bar***rds and will represent axe murderers or peadophiles if they can pay the fees so i dont think we are on the correct track here. We should be talking about bigotry and injustice.
i think mr thatchell’s comments in other articles speak for themselves, read it all or read nothing, just like the bible dummy!
@James — sorry, where have you written what Jesus actually said about homosexuality ?
i am getting bored now has the pseudo religious pseudo gay rights argument come to a “sticky” end
Here you go Harry.. my reply from earlier.. sorry you couldn’t find it..
The Bible is very clear on homosexual practices for a start, and one more than one or two occasions. Jesus speaks of marriage as being between one man and one woman, and speaks of the sexual immorality of early 1st century Israel. In that time and place homosexuality was illegal and punishable by death.. as far as we know JEsus never spoke against that, not saying Jesus supports the death penalty but let’s remember John 8 and the women caught in adultery.. “neither then do I condemn you, go and sin no more”. Jesus forgives the woman but calls a sin a sin. Of course, Jesus also upholds the law. St Paul is explicit in his view that homosexual sex is against the will of GOd, and HE is writing to countries where homosexuality was far more prevalent.. Greece etc, and so it was necessary to stipulate this particular fact. Seriously Harry, most liberal Christian argument in favour of homosexuality has got naff all to do with the gospels or the rest of the Bible.. but on a modern political view point and trying to get Christianity to fit their own ideas.
Jesus would (and does) certainly love all people, gay, straight or transsexual.. and this love goes so far that He died for us all.. so that we might be FREE FROM SIN.. not that we can pretend something is not sin.
Now Jesus never discussed the issue of homosexuality explicitly as you know, but He does state marriage as being as of being between a man and a woman and that God created them for this purpose.. Adam and Eve etc. (Not Adam and Steve lol). Jesus’s society executed homosexuals, Jesus is not recorded as ever speaking against this specifically either.. so not sure of your point really. St Paul, writing to cultures where homosexuality was more common had to deal with it and was explicit in his condemnation of the practice.. but expressed Jesus’ love for all.
Hope that helps you understand the Christian position.
good comment james but you will never convert my fellow “gays” to chistianity just as they will not convert you. Being gay is not wrong but it is ok to disagree with it, just as it is ok for some guys to think hetrosexuality is an anomoly
@James — “Jesus never discussed the issue of homosexuality explicitly” and “Jesus’s society executed homosexuals, Jesus is not recorded as ever speaking against this specifically either”.
You’re saying that because there’s no specific injunction against killing gay people, it’s acceptable ?
@James — “Hope that helps you understand the Christian position”. You’re saying that all Christians hold the same position ?
But there is only one Christian position isn’t there James…it’s called the missionary position…isn’t that right?
The Tax Guzzling EHRC should not have paid for this. I have emailed them as a member of the press to question why they did. If the gay gays wanted to take ths to court they should have paid for it.
This country is getting too PC,The Equality Law, and Human rights Law need to be ‘modified’ to include, that anyone can say no to anyone, anyone can refused to have anyone in their office, shop, house, hotel, its their human right to have this say so.
Civil Partners should not treated the same as MARRIED couples, as they are not the same, they do not have the same FULL rights or benefits.
The sooner the above are done, the better. Take lead from Moscow.
A little homophobia is good and doesnt do any harm.
There always seems to be a certain faction of the gay community who wish to advertise there sexuality and ring it like a bell . You are who you are your sexuality is just part of it I wish people would stop acting if it was the most important part of there character.
” Judge Andrew Rutherford also broke new ground by insisting that in the eyes of the law there is no difference between a civil partnership and a marriage.
Christian hotelier Hazelmary Bull speaking outside court yesterday. ‘I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain,’ she said
Christian hotelier Hazelmary Bull speaking outside court yesterday. ‘I do feel that Christianity is being marginalised in Britain,’ she said
Although civil partnership conveys precisely the same rights and privileges on a gay couple as marriage does on heterosexuals, the Labour ministers who introduced civil partnerships always said they were merely contracts and did not amount to marriage.
But the judge said: ‘There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.”
SO, they are contracts and do not amount to marriage. Judge has clearly not read up on what labour imposed.
“Do not to others, that which you would not tolerate for thyself”
A vast improvement on -
” Do unto others as you would be done by”
“be excellent to each other”
I’M sure someone knows where the quotes above, come from.
Personally I prefer
” If it harm none, do as you will”
which I understand predates all of them.
There are too many people who do NOT understand what freedom of religion means, sadly many of them profess to to be “Christians”, If I wanted to live in a theocracy I’d have moved to Iran or the Vatican State long ago.
The Bulls are just attention seekers, making a big song and dance to create some sort of smokescreen, we should be well used to the routine by this time.
I notice you denied being a pervert, David – but you omitted to deny that your last name is SKINNER.
Yep, David Skinner. I have a message for you, David. Do you not think after all those prayers from you, Andrea and all (?) your followers that the victory for the law at the court in Bristol is God’s answer for you?
If there is a god, unlike you he/she’s not a narrow-minded bigot who oozes bitterness and feels compelled to victimise others and go on about ‘god’s grace’ while talking about sex constantly and typing with one hand…
“The Bible is very clear on homosexual practices for a start, and one more than one or two occasions.”
Stupid statement to make> The bible is also very clear on condoning slavery, incest, rape, murder, stoning of people who eat prawns and cut their hair, all tied up in puerile stories about people been eaten by whales and a god with anger issues. To use the bible as as an authority on anything is to use a book of contradictory nonsense and directions to “god inspired” behaviour that is akin to madness.
Christians are not being denied the right to their beliefs. Everyone is entitled to hold personal beliefs and to follow them internally according to their own internal preferences.
However, Christians have no entitlement to allow their personal preferences to convert into external preferences about what other people should be allowed to do. This restriction on their public manifestation of their religion does not prevent them from holding their original beliefs or from following them in relation to themselves.
A Christian may follow their religious rules but may not project these on to others and discriminate against those who contravene them. A gay couple may follow their own cultural norms but they may not project these on to others and discriminate against those who disagree with them.
The law allows everyone to follow their religion or culture internally. It does not allow everyone to manifest such religion or culture externally in their dealings with others.
“. St Paul, writing to cultures where homosexuality was more common had to deal with it and was explicit in his condemnation of the practice..”
No, he wasn’t! Read it in the bl*dy original and see that he wasn’t! Paul condemns temple sex and gay prostitutes – he does NOT condemn loving, consensual relationships between two adults of the same sex. Nor does anyone else in the Bible.
And don’t write that “against nature” bit and claim it means ‘unnatural’ because it doesn’t. The Greek word there means ‘against ONE’S OWN nature’ – a continuation of Paul’s condemnation of straight people who have gay sex for ritualistic reasons.
Paul’s misogyny, however, is true. But not uncommon at that time in that or many other cultures.
However, the Bulls don’t even need to pretend their belief is biblical. ALL beliefs, religious or not, are protected, so they can just say that they personally think blah blah about gay people. HOWEVER, their belief – or that of any other person religious or not – does NOT entitled them to break the law. That’s why they lost this case – NOT because of their belief, but because they broke the law.
I feel sorry for the woman that was sued she had every right to say who sleeps under her roof, can you imagine if she has young children, it does not send out a good message to the young people.It is a pity she did not have a sign saying right of admmision reserved
“Being gay is not wrong but it is ok to disagree with it, just as it is ok for some guys to think hetrosexuality is an anomoly”
Your comparison is incorrect.
Let me correct it for you: “Being gay is not wrong but it is ok to disagree with it, just as it is ok for some guys to think religion is an anomaly for the stupid, the weak, and the bigoted”
Now you have a valid comparison. Gay people do not “disagree” with heterosexuals, they disagree with religious inspired bigotry for the benefit of making the religious feel a little special for their bigoted belief stricture – “its not bigoted if I think Jesus said it”. Indeed. Very inspired, isn’t it? As if a majority makes it one bit less ridiculous.
“It is a pity she did not have a sign saying right of admmision reserved”
Oh, bless, you’re not very bright, are you. The sign is irrelevant, she cannot discriminate by law, and no sign will chnage that sweetie. Didn’t you go to school? And if the woman had children to “send out a good message” too, well, its just proof then any fool can get knocked up, and god help the children if these pair of degenerates are parenthetic, eh?
Ellen, are you joking? Apologies if you are.
But what would having children under her roof have to do with anything? Should they not serve alcohol because there may be children under 18 nearby? Should all rooms turn off their TV at 9pm in case post-watershed viewing is somehow miraculously beamed into the minds of nearly children? Or are you saying that children shouldn’t be exposed to sex? But if that’s so, what about all the straight couples having sex under her roof? And why would these hypothetical children be exposed to anything? Are you talking about PSYCHIC children? Or do you think people have sex in the Bulls’ lounge?
The only reason i got to this pink news was because i saw the bbc news about the boarding house lady.I am not a christian but i think the Bible has some great words in which if people lived their lives according to the Bible the world would not be in such a state, so stop making excuses for your behaviour
“Are you talking about PSYCHIC children? Or do you think people have sex in the Bulls’ lounge?”
LOL @ Iris :) Very true. Like “Children of the Corn” meets “The Walton’s”
I am amassed of the gross stupidity and ignorance of some of the people here with regards to what the difference is between a “place of business” and a “home premises” is. Its really not that difficult, folks. And the laws that apply to both are different. Banging out examples of your lack of education on a gay site won’t change that definition and the equality laws.
This verdict is another victory (in a long line of recent victories) for secular and pluralistic common sense where all citizens are free to exist without undue hindrance of religious beliefs being imposed. It also shows up the demands by certain Christians to seek the right to discriminate, something distinctly undemocratic. And I would be delighted to see this hotel close and shut down – to send a message to all religious types, you can believe what you want, but if you want to exist in a democratic society, keep your bigoted prejudices to yourself and outside how you run a business within the confines of a law that is for the benefit of society as a whole.
Ironic that the Equality Legislation also protects them to practice what they want, and protect them from discrimination, but you don’t see them moaning to remove that stipulation…. another glaring example of the hypocrisy of religion, and Christians in general.
“according to the Bible the world would not be in such a state, so stop making excuses for your behaviour”
And stop making excuses for your ignorance. Are you saying the bible is telling people to discriminate?
Do you even READ the bible? Seriously? Have you ever actually read the book?
Maybe next time address the valid and intelligent reply that iris made instead of the “excuses” line.
Will said ‘This verdict is another victory (in a long line of recent victories) for secular and pluralistic common sense where all citizens are free to exist without undue hindrance of religious beliefs being imposed’
Very eloquently put.
I am sorry for my comments, enjoy your life. over and out .
Why do they always run away when you ask them questions? The unkind reply would be because they don’t have any answers…
Ellen, you could have learnt something but you stuck your fingers in your ears and ran away. Sad. Education and understanding is GOOD, not a threat.
“the Equality Legislation also protects them to practice what they want, and protect them from discrimination, but you don’t see them moaning to remove that stipulation”
Will, I honestly think that’s because they’re unable to understand that. I despair sometimes. I’ve pointed that out before but there’s never any response so I don’t think they get it. Or maybe they DO get it, but wish to have special rights to discriminate against gay people, like you said. Both possibilities are depressing.
“Why do they always run away when you ask them questions? The unkind reply would be because they don’t have any answers…”
Its becuase they can’t answer, Iris. How can anyone defend discrimination and then say of themselves they are “thinking of the children”? I think you hit the nail on the head with the “education” point…. a lack of leads to a lot of the comments we see here, not to mention a lack of acceptance in the rights and beliefs of others.
one story like this and people go wild. Im on the side of the gay people here. Except those with an element of so loathing that seem to think that they should excuse their sexuality and agree with this christian couple. Do not forget people all those gay people before us over history that were imprision and murdered for being gay. Its still happening today. And all those out their that think that christian have a right to be bigoted, then think again as your might have a gay child one day or a gay grand child and you might be going against your own flesh and blood. The law stands back and looks at the whole picture. It has to draw the line somewhere. IN this case it has used its commom sense and worked well. Other wise which reglion would take the front seat. Another story in pink news today is about two men being stoned to death for being gay. DO we in this counrty want people that act like this justify their actions due to reglion. Because if the law backs this couple and their beliefs, it has to back them all. It can not do a tick list of those relgions that are cosy. So we could have people raping their wives, killing their children, harming their neighbours , and standing in a dock and saying , it was my belief, and then walking free. Do we really want this. I dont.
Steffan
I saw your posts on the Daily Mail web site. As this site isn’t controlled, I have a few words to offer you given that you insist of being so irrational and illogical.
If you wanted to buy a screwdriver, would you phone up the hardware shop to ask if they allowed Christians to enter the premises? No. Why? Because you being Christian and you making a purchase are mutually exclusive. belief is private, making a purchase is not. So why would a gay person have to? They wouldn’t, it’s the same, it’s about buying a screwdriver, not your personal principles or sex life. It’s a business and in the business world, vendors of goods and services must not discriminate against the private lives of the customer. It’s completely logical.
“Ah, but it is their home”, I hear you cry. Once it becomes a business, then no, it doesn’t allow them to discriminate. By all means Christians, ban gay people from your homes, that’s your right, but not your hotels as they are viewed differently in the eyes of a law. In fact the same article protects gay people from having Christians force themselves on them in their home as the Christians can be protected from gays. It’s called the right to a private and family life. Presumably, the Bulls weren’t intending to share a bed with this couple or watch them through a camera. And they were under no obligation to allow them into their private quarters. Imagine if the hardware shope owner said he didn’t want Christians here because it was his home, based on the fact he lived in a maisonette upstairs. The same rules would apply. The residence is ATTACHED to the business area, NOT part of it. Moreover, they had no way of knowing what activities the couple were getting up to behind closed doors because it is a PRIVATE room. If they’d been having sex in the lounge, then of course, that would be wrong by anyone’s standards. But the sexual practices were in no way impacting upon them – and to be fair, they were turned away before they could even get their clothes off. The same expectations of decent conduct should be made of ALL customers, divvying them up into gay and straight is illegal.
Neither being umarried nor being gay are actually illegal, so they shouldn’t have been allowed to discriminate on either grounds under the laws of business, goods and services. Ditto for denying two straight friends from sharing a double bed – how many people bunk up to save cash when they’re travelling? Or what about a gay man and a lesbian sharing a bed? Would that be ok as no sexual attraction is foreseen? What about a brother and sister? Could they not be thought to engage in incest? But then why assume that they would or wouldn’t? Again, it’s making assumptions about people’s PRIVATE activities, which don’t actually affect anyone else.
The ultimate line is that no-one should be discriminated against on the grounds of their biology, unless a negative, physical impact on others is proven to be a risk (such as the need for single sex toilets and showers in public facilities). That goes for gender, sexuality, skin colour and physical disability. Judging someone’s actual EXHIBITED behaviour is completely different. If a guest were smelly, dirty, rude, aggressive, violent etc, fine, dismiss them at will. But a couple exhibiting no difference in their behavioural standards to any other guest should not be refused. The judgement was based on the assumption that they would be having sex in the hotel, but as their room is PRIVATE, it is not for the owners to intervene. It violates several articles of the ECHR for a start, let alone the more developed British legal system.
And this crap about gay people insisting on rubbing their gayness in people’s faces – what, you mean stating that they are gay is rubbing it in? So how is stating you are straight different? They are both the same, stating you are gay does not translate as ‘we want to have bum sex in your living room and you must watch it and join in’. Mind you, there are enough straight people who engage in bum sex, so you could apply to both sets of circumstances.
It also questionable as to why they ever opened a hotel in the first place when they are clearly so intolerant of most of society.
Finally, religions still actually have the right to discriminate much more than secular folks. They can ban people from their places of worship for not being of that faith, ban women from monasteries and areas within Mosques, and ban those of a different religion from private faith schools. All of this privilege of choice and yet they still complain they are being marginalised, despite the fact the church receives huge sums of government funding for its activities. And that is why it was right for the gay couple to be funded by the EHCR, because funding support is rendered unequal by the advantages offered to religions.
So, that, Steffan, is why you can stick your inequality where it has not been illegal to enjoy it since 1967!
I can’t help wondering if those negative messages on the like fo Sky News and Daily Mail are the same ones used about them having there religious freedoms taken away, that we used when the laws changed to make women and black people more equal all those years ago?
Must be easy for them to judge when their memories are so distorted.
Well said, mmmmmmmm!
Iris
Thanks, though it was rather clumsily put. Still, I made my point clear enough, not that I am expecting anyone of that ilk to see the logic and biological fact behind it. The Daily Mail is absolutely up in arms….and worryingly some gay people appear to be condoning it. Though they could be lying as a way of trying to say the winning couple were out of touch with mainstream gay views. I’d put nothing past that lot. Religion breeds corruption, we’ve seen it since they began!
Have a spiffing day Iris, my contributions for today are done :)
comments are bieing censored on here
Actually, no I can’t resist. All these references by gay Christians to parts of the Bible is actually quite interesting. It seems that neither pro-gay or anti-gay Christians are immune from cherrypicking the parts that support their arguments from that book. So how much of the Bible to either of these people actually believe in? I would have the utmost respect for any Christian who can prove he/she lives by every word in the BIble on a daily basis. Of course, that’s because none of them exist. It is absolutely baffling how anyone would want to follow a religion that even today actively continues to lobby against their human rights. Faith in a higher being, fine, but deliberately adhering to a specific moral rule book, nah, I just can’t unerstand it. Essentiall it is declaring that they believe the Bible should overrule our legal system – the Bible is a rule book after all. The Koran is the same and we all know what happens in societies where it is used as the law much more than the Bible. By advocating the retention of discriminating Christian doctrine, despite being a gay person, it is actually incredibly selfish to other gay people.
It’s like Turkeys voting for Christmas and bringing their own gravy boats!
Jim
Erm, how do you know that? Proof please. Oh wait, both mine and your messages got through, hmmm…..
Tory supporters seem to be venting their frustrations with gays on the comments section of the Daily Mail:
.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
.
Gay tories —> DUhhhh
JIm, comments often ‘fail’. I’ve had that problem before. It’s a fault with the posting system not censorship, I think. It often happens on long threads or at busy times. I’ve sat here frustrated before because others are able to post but I’m not. However, it’s nothing personal – just the whims of modern technology.
The otherwise nice people like ellen pauler here who have been instructed by religion to think terrible things about gay men and lesbian women just keep coming out of the woodwork, one after another often tediously presenting the same unkind and prejudiced opinions about gays and not bothering to read, to think about or to learn from anyone else’s comments.
How casually ellen paul suggests that gay people would be a threat to children without thinking how that throw away prejudiced and wrong-minded comment impacts on our whole community.
Then there are also the fewer not so nice people who find religion lends a possible legitimacy to their perhaps already existing anti-gay prejudices and homophobia and with this religious excuse it can send them on to the next stage of anti-gay harrassment, lobbying for their own special privileges to discriminate while at the same time lobbying against gay equality using unnecessarily offensive anti-gay speech and slander. Some unfortunately even get worked up enough to think violent action against gays is legitimate good and righteous.
None of the above have control of their own minds nor independent opinions and cannot think for themselves, as evidenced by either the lack of response when asked any simple question that they have no pre-drafted church approved answer for … it may require some joined-up thinking on their part.
They will either run away or launch into a personal attack upon the person who asks the question to change the subject and to avoid providing an answer.
Critical thinking desperately needs to be taught in schools. the Bible says so… end of story.
“However, it’s nothing personal – just the whims of modern technology.”
Iris is right, its not a censorship, its certain words falling fowl of their comment scrubbing software:- any “vulgarities” or swear words (even pretty lame ones), certain racist terms, any reference to the dictatorial party of Germany (1933 to 1945), and a few others that I find strange, but PN seem to think they are not worthy of posting (including certain names of repeat “offenders”)
“You are who you are your sexuality is just part of it I wish people would stop acting if it was the most important part of there character.” steffen
It most certainly is the most important part when it is that element that is used to discriminate against you.
Will
Interesting you mention a certain German party of yesteryear. Check out Godwin’s Law, whilst humourous, it actually makes a lot of sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
“However, it’s nothing personal – just the whims of modern technology.”
I had a similar experience, especially last night at the height of the invasion from the Fundamentalist Crack Pots
Indeed, mmmmmmmm. I suppose its not really Godwin’s law if you refer to someone by that term when they actually did wear a swastika on their arm at one stage, point in case, the pope :)
Will wrote
“Why do they always run away when you ask them questions? The unkind reply would be because they don’t have any answers…”
. . . . . . . . . .
Their brains have overdosed on LJC, rendering them incapable of normally cognitive functioning.
LJC = Lord Jesus Christ (A popular recreational drug amongst Fundamentalist Evangelical christians)
“Their brains have overdosed on LJC, rendering them incapable of normally cognitive functioning.”
I tend to agree JohnK. Marx got it wrong when he said “religion is the opiate of the masses”, its actually the opiate of the ignorant and the uneducated.
@Harry
The court is saying they must obey the law. It is making no statement at all about whether they can hold an opinion or not, just that they cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.
They can’t do so on the basis of sexual orientation. This is what the law says. Presumably you think this is undesirable ? Have you written to your MP about your feelings ?
They “get away” with not breaking the law, if they don’t discriminate on grounds of sexuality. Is this what you mean ?
That B&B should be prepared to be taken to court if they discriminate illegally too. I presume you will be wanting to test the law yourself by making a booking there.
Why are you so obsessed with how other people have sex ?
But there’s a history of people who have issues with how other people have sex hating those other people isn’t there ? And often that hatred leads to violence and murder. Do you think that history makes your distaste at what some other people do in bed more of less acceptable ?
Are you equating alcoholics with gay people ? People who have a disease that kills them, with people who are attracted to the same sex ? Is that really what you think ?
============================================================
Hi Harry. Nice to see thaqt someone can talk civil instead on this issue.
Laws change Harry. In fact we do not need to agree with laws that are passed. We can speak against certain laws and in fact they can be changed. This is the point. Just because it is a law then that doesn’t mean that we need to agree with it. The fact is that it is also law that you can’t discriminate against religion. The problem is they get the verdict wrong because it was the Christians who were told to change their points of view and also in concerns to a residence that they themselves own. I would not force my opinion on another persons property or residence.
The law also says not to discrimnate against religion, which is what they ended up doing. You can’t please everyone Harry, it’s just not possible but the fact is this Christian couple were not discriminative at all really. Discrimination is when show hate towards a particular group but we are not called upon as Christians to hate people.
If I have an opinion where I think it’s wrong that people shouldn’t go out and get drunk then that is not discrimination. It’s just my opinion on what I think people shouldn’t do. If I then open up a non-alcoholic bar but then get sued by someone because I don’t sell alcoholic beverages then that is a mark against my free speech.
The same applies to atheists who think that people shouldn’t be religious. I’m not going to slate them for having that opinion alone, I can only slate them if they display hate characteristics against my religion. That is the issue here. I don’t see where the Bulls displayed any hate characteristics at all towards the couple.
The thing about the Gay B&B is that I don’t care if they advertise exclusively for gay clientel and neither do most people. That’s the point. Nobody takes it as hate speech against heterosexual individuals. They have their own right to do whatever they want with their property as far as I am concerned. I am only pointing out the double standards that can be involved in our society. They are actually everywhere, not just with this issue at hand. I have seen it with religion too where an air hostess wasn’t allowed to wear her crucifix by BA but then teachers who were Muslims were allowed to wear their veils. These double standards pop up all the time.
I’m not obsessed with the way people have sex. I am obsessed with defending my own religion. Maybe you did not understand that. As part of my religion it is made clear that homosexual activities are not allowed. We are called to love all in platonic sense but there are certain acts that we are not to do.
The acts of violence that you speak of are unchristian. Jesus did not advocate violence of any sort and he actually ordered one of his disciples to put their weapon away when he was being dragged off by the Romans to be tried and then crucified. The point that I was getting at is that it is OK to have opinions as long as hate speech is not practiced and that violence is avoided. Jesus did not cause any violence, he had violence done to him.
The alcoholic issue was to raise that just because someone has a genetic tendency towards a behaviour then this does not mean that the tendency towards this behaviour is fine. I only raised it because I know that some people will use this as an excuse to argue that we are wrong and that we shouldn’t think that this issue is a sin.
I went to a school where it was the secular kids who bullied the gay kids. The Christian kids DID NOT do this. Despite our views we were actually more tollerant than those who claimed a non-religious affiliation because of the fact that we called to respect people as creations of God and NOT to hate them but recognise that some actions are wrong nonetheless. In a Christian worldview everyone is a sinner, even me, I am a sinner and I have done things that I shouldn’t have done, this in no way entails that I should either hate myself or hate others because of their sins.
Our lives are ruined because we can’t discriminate against homosexuals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Christian-hotel-owners-Peter-Hazelmary-Bull-penalised-turning-away-gays.html
Government should dispense with human rights for homosexuals
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8267763/The-law-is-eroding-our-right-to-a-set-of-beliefs.html
Why the Cornish B&B ruling should worry conservative Christians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jan/18/cornish-hotel-ruling-conservative-christians
The judge said: ‘There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.’
I beg to differ. If these men had actually been married in the true sense, instead of this wishy-washy cop-out of an alternative, they would have conformed with the Preddy’s house rules, and they probably wouldn’t have said anything, or if they had, THEN they could have been fully accused of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
I think there is a bit of a grey area here, and it could still go their way if they appeal.
Christians are crying fowl, but Judge Rutherford is a practising Christian and was until six months ago the chairman of the body that negotiates the rates paid to ecclesiastical lawyers.
If anything he was soft on the hotel owners.
As someone who has worked now for over a quarter of century in the NHS as a staff nurse, will Christians now refuse my help, (it’s actually against the law for me to refuse to give help to anyone who needs it – and I wouldn’t refuse anyway) even in an emergency? Could a Christian staff members refuse to treat homosexuals, even in an emergency on the grounds of religious conscience? Or indeed any Christian refuse to work with me, have me moved on their religious grounds, or even sacked? I only say this because it seems as if Christians seem to want the laws of the land, that cover everyone, to be exempted in their case.
I am also sic of hearing about homosexuals as if we shouldn’t exist, that we aren’t qualified in anything, pay no taxes and sponge off society.
ellen, wouldn’t those children have a wonderful inside into the beautiful diversity of the human race which includes men who love men and women who love women? How does that hurt them?
Here’s something interesting for the Equal Love Campaigners,
Judge Rutherford concluded concluded that the Bulls ‘discriminate on the basis of marital status’.
‘There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership. If that is right, then upon what basis do the defendants draw a distinction if it is not on sexual orientation? The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow [the claimants] to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination.’
Considering what Judge Rutherford is quoted saying above,
There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership.
if that is right then what basis does the government make this distiction if it is not on sexual orientation?
The only logical conclusion which can be drawn from the judges comments on the Bulls case is that the refusal to allow same sex couples access to the title “married” is also because of their sexual orientation and that this too is direct discrimination.
I’m sorry ? How is a judge ruling in accordance with the law an example of who bullying Christians ?
You think it’s that, rather than being appalled by the behaviour of the Bulls ? That, rather than not be prepared to accept discrimination ? Do you think it’s the role of gay people to take stances on religious beliefs that run counter to your own ? How have you taken a stance on Muslim extremism ?
You’re saying Christians are in minority in the UK ? Earlier someone suggested that 70% of the UK population were Christian: you presumably dispute this figure ? What do you think the true one is ?
These are different fundamentalists to you ?
I’ve replied already: test the law yourself by making a booking there.
==============================================================
Hi Harry,
The judge ruling was bullying Christians because they forced them to take away their stance and their opinion. If they don’t want to sell their buisness to certain types and if they don’t want to let their residence out to certain people then they should be allowed that point of view. We should all have a view on who we live with with. We should be allowed to keep that view. The same goes for the gay B&B, I don’t care if they only cater to gay clientel but that’s the point isn’t it. Nobody considers that to be sexual discrimination if they are allowed to have a say on the sexuality on clientel that they want to have and they blatantly advertise themselves as such then why can’t the Christian couple? The Chritian couple even advertise on their website that they only cater towards married couples when booking double rooms, so it wasn’t even a wholly homosexual issue.
I think I’ve explained myself well enough in my other post about Muslim extremism. I have no problems with Muslims but when it becomes extremism and when hate speech is practiced, that is when I have a problem. I have a problem with individuals burning flags on the streets shouting that they hate our country and wish all our soldiers will burn in hell. Yes, I do take issue against that. And to your surprise I also take issue with that complete idiot at Westboro Baptist called Fred Phelps and his completely stupid hate group called “God hates fags”. If I actually bumped into Fred Phelps I would probably end up punching him in the face because he is giving Christians a bad name, with his hate views and the Christian crowd I talk to on TWeb all agree. He actually won a 2010 Screwball Nomination from us the Christian section and trust me, we know about a lot of screwballs in the world, including Christian ones.
In the UK Christians are indeed the minority. I don’t know where they got 70% from. In the USA Christians have a larger following, even above 70% if I remember correctly but the UK is largely secular and non-Christian. To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK was more Muslim now than Christian. No problem with that, I just don’t want to have to live under Sharia law is all.
I have already replied in regards to the Gay B&B. I don’t care what they do, I am only pointing out the double standard which is all.
@Dave G
A very constructive response, thankyou, …do I need to say I have worked with Gay’s, and have Gay aquaintencies, I am happy to live and let live, my point is that the bottom line amounts to ‘nature does not make allowances for same sex relationships’ it’s up to personal preference, if two gay men want to drag an elderly Christian couple through the courts and claim money for damages, obviously it is now their
choice. But I think too wrongs don’t make a right in this instance, It is not just gay people who encounter some sort of discrimination in life !
Darth
No mate. The judge ruled that Christians were fully entitled to practice their religion, retain their beliefs and not like homosexuality. But simultaneously, it said that they may not use those as a means to directly discriminate against homosexuals in the field of goods and services since their B&B is a BUSINESS open to the public. If I turn my garage (part of my home) into a repair shop, I shouldn’t be able to turn away gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims or Christians. The fact it is my home has no bearing once I have declared it to be the premises of a BUSINESS.
For all those who have copped a load of hate speak this morning, look at the Guardian comments page. Eloquent, rational, logical, scientific, evidence-based, well-substantiated arguments……and most of them are undoubtedly straight, white and male.
Separation of church and state next guys!
“…The judge ruling was bullying Christians because they forced them to take away their stance and their opinion”
No, he didn’t. He merely confirmed that the law applies to Christians along with everybody else.
You mention not wanting to live under Sharia law. You won’t have to because we don’t live in a theocracy. I, too, am glad about that. But the point of that is our law should remain secular – please note that ‘secular’ does NOT mean banning certain beliefs.
The Bulls are entitled to hold their beliefs even if we don’t agree with them. What they’re NOT entitled to do is demand that those beliefs should give them a special opt-out from UK Law.
No-one is saying they can’t dislike gay people; no-one is saying they can’t believe in their particular brand of Christianity – all the judgement does is say that they, like me, like you, must follow the law. That’s fair – to all of us.
Arthur you’ve just proved yourself the worst sort of hypocrite. You know for a fact that your gay friends are good people but you fall back on the bible and condemn them as sinners.
Now I’m going to bed. I’m tired. It’s been a good day for UK LGBT. Terrible one in Iran. The world turns and the fight goes on.
================================================================
Rose, everyone is a sinner, that is the Christian world view. I am a sinner also. It does not mean that I need to hate other people or myself for that matter. It just means that we sometimes mess up and that we are human.
When you say “good people”, in what sense. The word good is very subjective and it depends on who is saying it. I might consider some of my friends to be good people, no matter who they are, but if you compare it to a perfect standard, it doesn’t matter where this perfect standard comes from, then none of us are good. None of us are perfect and you can’t denty that fact. Therefore we all fall short of perfection.
Someone above wrote: “Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin”.
But think about that!
It is actually totally ludicrous!
It’s impossible!
It is not possible for a human being to truly LOVE and ADORE a human being and at the VERY SAME TIME to be rightfully filled with utter disgust and contempt towards a particular behaviour of the same human being.
It would cause such cognitive dissonance that one would end up in a loony bin.
So let’s reject this Christian nonsense of putting on a pious face and saying, “Be like Jesus. Love the sinner, but not the sin!”
And remember, Jesus, if he ever really existed, was without any doubt a delusional. (He believed he was the son of a supernatural being who dwelt in the sky, for goodness’ sake!)
@ Joe
I know of at lest three cases in America that have resulted in the deaths of trans people because emergency room staff have refused to treat a trans people on religious grounds.
One case in New York, a trans person was knocked down by a car and two set of ambulance crews refused to carry the woman to hospital.
I don’t think its religious freedom to cost someone their life because of what your pastor or the bible does of does not say!
Ade
Erm, I don’t remember seeing any reports at how, on arrival and discovering the religion of the owners, the gay couple refused to stay there because they didn’t like Christians. The bigotry was dished out by the owners, not the gay couple who were obviously happy to stay there even when the owners said that they were Christian. Presumably, they would have walked out there and then if they were unhappy about it.
Gay people are fighting to level the playing field following centuries of criminalisation, oppression, discrimination and abuse at the hands of Christians and other religious groups. The problem is not that gays now have too many rights and privileges over other groups, it’s that Christians smothered everyone else by having too many in the first place. Christians clearly don’t like equality because it removes their previous privileges in terms of their influences on public institutions, the private lives of others and a self-appointed monopoly on morality. All stemming from unfounded claims in an outdated book that bear little relevance to today’s society, thinking and, more importantly SCIENCE. Religion is no more a positive influence on society than the theory of the four humours, astrology or Roman and Greek mythology. Why? Because they are all founded on the same aspects: belief (not fact), anauthenticated documents, unprovable stories of miracles, speculation, rumour, mistranslation and the assertion that they are the ONLY truth whilst denying anyone’s right to question it.
This verdict moves us closer to equality between groups, which should be the goal of any civilised society.
If you wanted to buy a screwdriver, would you phone up the hardware shop to ask if they allowed Christians to enter the premises? No. Why? Because you being Christian and you making a purchase are mutually exclusive. belief is private, making a purchase is not. So why would a gay person have to? They wouldn’t, it’s the same, it’s about buying a screwdriver, not your personal principles or sex life. It’s a business and in the business world, vendors of goods and services must not discriminate against the private lives of the customer. It’s completely logical.
=============================================================
Just one problem with your analogy here. If I walked into a hardware store would they let me have sex with my wife on their premises? No they would not. Am I then allowed to cry sexual discrimination because I am not allowed to have sex on their premises? No I cannot.
COnsidering that your analogy fails in concerns to the very issue we are talking about, i.e. Sex. Then I think you will find it fails completely.
Also note that this couple also refused to serve double bedrooms to heterosexual couples because of their beliefs.
Rhys
Cognitive dissonance….excellent point. It summarises the contradictions in the behaviour of religious people very nicely.
Re Jesus….David Icke was the last person who proclaimed himself the son of God in the public arena (that I’m aware of). He now believes that aliens are controlling governments or something. I rest my case.
Darth O – the hearing wasn’t about sex. Who knows whether the gay couple in question were planning to have sex? It was about discrimination. The Bulls wished to disobey the law that bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (they would only have heterosexual married couples to stay). The Equality Law states that CPS are equal to marriage when the law mentions ‘marriage’. It is NOT up to the Bulls to make theor own laws about what counts as ‘married’. They are obliged to follow the same law as everybody else.
As someone who has worked now for over a quarter of century in the NHS as a staff nurse, will Christians now refuse my help, (it’s actually against the law for me to refuse to give help to anyone who needs it – and I wouldn’t refuse anyway) even in an emergency? Could a Christian staff members refuse to treat homosexuals, even in an emergency on the grounds of religious conscience? Or indeed any Christian refuse to work with me, have me moved on their religious grounds, or even sacked? I only say this because it seems as if Christians seem to want the laws of the land, that cover everyone, to be exempted in their case.
I am also sic of hearing about homosexuals as if we shouldn’t exist, that we aren’t qualified in anything, pay no taxes and sponge off society.
===============================================================
No in an emergency we are required by our religion to help you. You dying has nothing to do with your sexuality for a start.
The point is the Christian couple did not want homosexual or married sexual activities performed within their own property. So it is in relation to sexual activities that this complaint is about.
I wish people would stop taking completely unrelated issues and then try to imply that we would be against homsexuals on those issues as well. If we disagree on one point then that doesn’t mean that we will disagree with homosexuals on another point completely unrelated with that first point.
Will wrote
“I tend to agree JohnK. Marx got it wrong when he said “religion is the opiate of the masses”, its actually the opiate of the ignorant and the uneducated”
Will . . . there does appear to be a lot of evidence for your hypothesis, especially based on the posts emerging from this thread to date!
And *I* wish people would read and respond. A CP’d couple COUNT AS MARRIED. The Bulls are absolutely entitled to whatever views they want about sex but they’re NOT entitled to disobey the law.
I find your idea that they should be disturbing. My girlfriend’s family’s not white and her grandmother was refused permission to stay in a hotel because of her skin colour, and, more importantly, this was ‘justified’ by the owners by quoting the Bible.
And before you hark back to sex again, one of the two reasons they gave her was related to sex. I’m loathe to write such rcaist cr*p here so all I’ll say is that it was related to interracial relationships.
No mate. The judge ruled that Christians were fully entitled to practice their religion, retain their beliefs and not like homosexuality. But simultaneously, it said that they may not use those as a means to directly discriminate against homosexuals in the field of goods and services since their B&B is a BUSINESS open to the public. If I turn my garage (part of my home) into a repair shop, I shouldn’t be able to turn away gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims or Christians. The fact it is my home has no bearing once I have declared it to be the premises of a BUSINESS.
For all those who have copped a load of hate speak this morning, look at the Guardian comments page. Eloquent, rational, logical, scientific, evidence-based, well-substantiated arguments……and most of them are undoubtedly straight, white and male.
Separation of church and state next guys!
===================================================================
“…The judge ruling was bullying Christians because they forced them to take away their stance and their opinion”
No, he didn’t. He merely confirmed that the law applies to Christians along with everybody else.
You mention not wanting to live under Sharia law. You won’t have to because we don’t live in a theocracy. I, too, am glad about that. But the point of that is our law should remain secular – please note that ‘secular’ does NOT mean banning certain beliefs.
The Bulls are entitled to hold their beliefs even if we don’t agree with them. What they’re NOT entitled to do is demand that those beliefs should give them a special opt-out from UK Law.
No-one is saying they can’t dislike gay people; no-one is saying they can’t believe in their particular brand of Christianity – all the judgement does is say that they, like me, like you, must follow the law. That’s fair – to all of us.
========================================================================
I will answer both above in the same response.
It may be a business, but it is also their home, they own the deeds and the title and everything along with it. They live there and they should not be forced to have to put up with couples having unmarried sex or same partner sex in their residence. I can not walk into ANY BUSINESS with my wife and have sex with her on the counter, can I. It is up to people themselves if they want to take part in such activities or want to be involved in them. If they refuse to let people do these things on their premises then that is their choice.
When I was growing up and when I wasn’t a strict conservative Christian, I was told by my mother that I wasn’t allowed to bring home girls for sex. It was her house and it it was her rules so I can’t complain. My mother isn’t even a conservative Christian but she held onto values that are not too distant from today that a lot of people still hold onto.
You can joke about Romans throwing Christians to the lions all you want but that was 2000 years ago and was part of a different culture. The traditional values we are talking about just now are not that old and many people still hold onto them, including the elderly. Perhaps the courts were being ageist as well as ruling against their religion.
Darth
“Just one problem with your analogy here. If I walked into a hardware store would they let me have sex with my wife on their premises? No they would not. Am I then allowed to cry sexual discrimination because I am not allowed to have sex on their premises? No I cannot.
COnsidering that your analogy fails in concerns to the very issue we are talking about, i.e. Sex. Then I think you will find it fails completely.
Also note that this couple also refused to serve double bedrooms to heterosexual couples because of their beliefs.”
Oh, you have got yourself into a pickle haven’t you. You are confusing lots of different points and have failed to understand the analogy completely.
Firstly, I’m not sure if you are au fait with the services of a harward store, but in general, they don’t tend to offer PRIVATE bedrooms for people to sleep in. If they did, then they would not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation either. In either case, they are offering a SERVICE to a paying public. They are therefore obliged by law (not personal belief) to provide that service without discrimination. So, no, you can’t cry sexual discrimination (which isn’t actually related to having sex, by the way, it’s related to gender) as it is not legal to have sex in an open shop. Unfounded claim number one dismissed!
Secondly, you mention having sex with your WIFE. Actually, that would have been allowed, according to the Bulls, so I am not sure what the relevance is. If the hardware store-turned-hotel was offering rooms as well as screwdrivers, it would have to oblige and let you share a double bed with your wife. Or a same sex couple in a civil partnership, as they are equal in the eyes of the law. There is absolutely no contradiction in that. But, the point is not about you and your wife actually engaging in sex, it’s about whether you make a distinction between civil partners and mixed sex married people. That was the discrimination, not the being married in the eyes of the Bible part.
The discrimination at the hotel isn’t about sex at all, it’s about SEXUALITY. Namely, who you fancy. If they had been concerned about gay people having sex in their house, they wouldn’t have ‘apparently’ permitted them to stay in a twin room. As far as I am aware, a double bed isn’t the only venue where consensual sex can take place, I managed plenty of times in a single bed as a student. So, that’s another of your arguments blown out of the water.
While it may be logical to assume people might have sex in a hotel room, it is not always the case. never been out on the lash and just not felt like getting it on when you got back to the hotel? More worryingly, how would you set a legal ruling for that? “Excuse me sir, will you be entering your wife/civil partner/girlfiren.boyfriend this evening?” It’s a gross intrusion into people’s private lives. As the Bulls were never going to be involved in ANY sexual activity between ANY of the couples that ever stayed there, their supposed justification of only allowing married couples to share a double is rendered a complete farce by the fact they were ‘apparently’ prepared to let unmarried couples share a twin room. If you don’t want pre-marital sex taking place under your roof, then don’t let people share the room full stop!
They should never have been allowed to discriminate against unmarried couples either. You may be unmarried for numerous reasons: you cannot afford it, you are too young (remember at 16 you have to get permission still!) and you cannot be sure the two people sharing a room are even a couple anyway (backpackers, brother and sister, colleagues). Their job was to let rooms out to paying guests, not interefere with any bodily functions going on in that room.
Your musings hold no water Darth.
Someone above wrote: “Jesus loved the sinner but abhorred the sin”.
But think about that!
It is actually totally ludicrous!
It’s impossible!
It is not possible for a human being to truly LOVE and ADORE a human being and at the VERY SAME TIME to be rightfully filled with utter disgust and contempt towards a particular behaviour of the same human being.
It would cause such cognitive dissonance that one would end up in a loony bin.
So let’s reject this Christian nonsense of putting on a pious face and saying, “Be like Jesus. Love the sinner, but not the sin!”
And remember, Jesus, if he ever really existed, was without any doubt a delusional. (He believed he was the son of a supernatural being who dwelt in the sky, for goodness’ sake!)
==================================================================
Sounds like you are the looney. So are you telling me you hate everybody that you disagree with when it comes to matters of right and wrong?
Do you hate all smokers if you think that smoking is wrong and should not be done?
Do you hate all alcolholics?
How about liars? Do you hate them all?
You mate are the complete looney if you think that you need to hate everybody who performs acts that you find disagreeable.
Darth
“The point is the Christian couple did not want homosexual or married sexual activities performed within their own property. So it is in relation to sexual activities that this complaint is about.”
See, this is well you let yourself down as you obviously haven’t even read the case details properly. They said it was fine for married couples to share a bed, but not for unmarries couples of any sort. By making that distinction, they are saying that they don’t want any pre-marital sex, but sex between married partners is fine. Why else would anyone make that distinction? The problems was they they didn’t recognise CPs as equal to marriage, which contravenes the law and is classed as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
With people like you on here, this is just too easy!
Darth O – the hearing wasn’t about sex. Who knows whether the gay couple in question were planning to have sex? It was about discrimination. The Bulls wished to disobey the law that bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (they would only have heterosexual married couples to stay). The Equality Law states that CPS are equal to marriage when the law mentions ‘marriage’. It is NOT up to the Bulls to make theor own laws about what counts as ‘married’. They are obliged to follow the same law as everybody else.
=================================================================
It was about sexual orientation, yes. But a hotel owner cannot gurantee that a certain couple will refrain from sex if he lets them a room. They applied the same policy to unmarried couples as well. It obviously boils down to sex because then the owners would have no complaints otherwise, especially in the second instance.
You’re not telling me that they refuse a double bedroom for a guy and a woman who are not married on the basis that they will not perform sex in that bed. Are you?
If you answer yes, then the issue is not about sexual orientation to begin with but marriage status and you can’t answer like that without then inadvertantly disagreeing with the verdict above.
Darth
“It may be a business, but it is also their home, they own the deeds and the title and everything along with it.”
And you don’t own the deeds to your lock-up garage where you operate your business from then? Those operating the lock-up wouldn’t be allowed to discriminate, so neither should the Bulls, even if they lived in the flat above it.
“I can not walk into ANY BUSINESS with my wife and have sex with her on the counter, can I.”
Erm, no. Who was advocating that you should? You are implying the gay couple were demanding such a right when they weren’t. Aside from a counter being a PUBLIC space in a shop and a bedroom being PRIVATE, there has been no advocacy of involving other people in their sex life against their will. Or can you find that and show me? Won’t hold my breath.
“It is up to people themselves if they want to take part in such activities or want to be involved in them.”
Yes, precisely. Well done. Gold star for logic and understanding the law.
“If they refuse to let people do these things on their premises then that is their choice.”
Ah, no, you’ve gone and spolit it now. They were saying it was fine for married couples to share a double bed, i.e. a not so subtle reference to sex. But NOT civil partners as they did not equate that to the religious view of marriage. If they had not wanted any sex at all taking place in the private rooms, they would have put a sign up saying no sex. Aside from being so naive to ignore that most people stay in private rooms because it allows them to have sex, how on Earth would they prove sex had taken place? And what do we define as sex? Penetration? A quick hand job? Do we look for semen stains on sheets or in the shower? Bedrooms are PRIVATE and it was not for the Bulls to speculate about what those two men were going to do in there. Or anyone else for that matter.
There are so many flaws in your reasoning it is quite amazing!
Darth
“The point is the Christian couple did not want homosexual or married sexual activities performed within their own property. So it is in relation to sexual activities that this complaint is about.”
See, this is well you let yourself down as you obviously haven’t even read the case details properly. They said it was fine for married couples to share a bed, but not for unmarries couples of any sort. By making that distinction, they are saying that they don’t want any pre-marital sex, but sex between married partners is fine. Why else would anyone make that distinction? The problems was they they didn’t recognise CPs as equal to marriage, which contravenes the law and is classed as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
With people like you on here, this is just too easy!
================================================================
You have actually just admitted that this case has nothing to do with sexual orientation then.
What reason would the hotel owners have for refusing to let out a room to an unmarried man and woman on the presumption that they wouldn’t have sex?
That basically means that they shouldn’t have been found guilty of discrimination against the gay couple to begin with then since it was based on marriage status rather than sexual activity or sexual orientation. Marriage staus and sexual orientation are two separate things but also remember marriage status to a Christian is different than to marriage status found by your government, so they are still the owners religious beliefs you are ruling against.
Oh by the way, with people like you on this site this is way too easy. You can’t say in one breath that they were being prejudiced against the couples marriage status and then say with the other breath that they are being prejudiced against their sexuality.
If it’s marriage status, then they are not being preducied against their sexuality.
If it’s both then my comments still apply anyway.
Darth
Man, you are just giving me so much ammunition!
” It was about sexual orientation, yes. But a hotel owner cannot gurantee that a certain couple will refrain from sex if he lets them a room.”
Of course they can’t because it’s a PRIVATE room.
“They applied the same policy to unmarried couples as well.”
No they didn’t. They said married couples could have a double bed, but unmarried ones had to have a twin room. Go and read the bloody case!
“It obviously boils down to sex because then the owners would have no complaints otherwise, especially in the second instance”
No, again, it was to do with discrimination based on sexual orientation because they did not recognise CPs as marriage. And thus barred them from the double beds.
“You’re not telling me that they refuse a double bedroom for a guy and a woman who are not married on the basis that they will not perform sex in that bed. Are you?”
I can’t begin to comprehend what point you are trying to make. Clarify it because we can’t then answer the question.
@Pavlos,
I agree 100% which is why civil marriage will ultimately be open to same sex couples, the current situation is legally untenable.
@ade
I fail to see your point, nature created gay people and their relationships (by causing us to be attracted to each other). I also fail to see why you think there are two wrongs here. It can never be wrong to confront discrimination so the only wrong I can see was by the Bulls.
In general reading through the posts since last night something struck me. There is a lot of discussion about what jesus says or the bible says and so on but to honest that is irrelevant. The judgement is that it is illegal to discriminate against same sex couples using religion as a shield. The specifics of that religion, or any other religion are immaterial. People of any religion from christian to pagan to none are at liberty to equally hold whatever strange beliefs they want but NONE of them has any right to use those beliefs to discriminate in the public sphere on the basis of sexuality, sex, religion age, race, colour or disability. Any discussion about biblical references is spurious to this case or the judgement.
I geddit, love the christian and hate the christanity
Iris.. didn’t know you were a leading theologian. In the original there is some but very little debate over the words used by Paul to describe homosexuality. Homosexuality was rife in ancient Greece, not sure that’s particularly controversial, and Paul spoke against it. Romans, 1 Corinthians and TImothy.. wishful thinking isn’t gonna change that I’m afraid.. and when you finally meet Christ for yourself who will have been duped..? Not him.. you’re just kidding yourself about the Bible I’m afraid.
Harry, ah the old trick of deliberately failing to see a point. Of course I’m not saying it’s ok to execute people for being gay.. your point is that because Jesus never mentioned homosexuality specifically this somehow means he supported it. Yet law has always held the maxim that silence is consent, so if you inferr anything from His slience on the issue it would be consent to current practices, not opposition. That said, I think Jesus showed that mercy was His aim, but mercy requires something to be merciful about. Like the woman caught in adultery, he forgave her, didn’t say adultery was ok.. and I’d take St Paul’s theology over Pink News any day lol.
Iris, you make a further point about Romans and St Paul’s use of going against our own nature as though somehow it’s ok for gay people to have gay sex but not straight ones??.. Interesting. COuld it not be that Paul is saying that such actions are unnatural and debase us all? Certainly it would fit in with what he says in 1 COrinthians.. arsenokotai is fairly straight forward to interpret, clearly doesn’t mean temple prostitutes as he’s listed them already.
Will, that’s an old old argument is that. There are clear differences between ceremonial law and moral law in Leviticus. Much of what we see as ceremonial about being clean etc Jesus shows us the true meaning of these passages. However, Jesus never rebukes the things described as sin in Leviticus, simply that we should show mercy to sinners and lead them to the light that is Jesus Christ.
To those who keep saying. “it’s the law.. it’s the law!”.. remember how badly the law treated homosexuals up until 1967.. it was the law then that sodomy was a prisonable offence, whether you were gay or not. I presume then you think that was right because it was the law? Bet not.
Civil Partnerships are not marriage.. they are protrayed as such by gay rights groups etc who hope they are a stepping stone to full marriage, but they are not marriage. I would open up CP’s not non gay couples.. ie.. siblings.. good mates etc.. any partnerships that deserves recognition in law. Marriage is for a man and a woman.. and UK law says so. The judge may be right in terms of what CP’s are eligible for in the public sphere, ie tax breaks, train tickets etc, but in law they are different. saying anything else is frankly just incorrect.
Also, am i too assume that had mr preddy and mr (cant remember his name) not been in a civil partnership the bull’s would have been within the law to not give them a double room?
Darth
“You have actually just admitted that this case has nothing to do with sexual orientation then.”
Erm, no I haven’t. I have said it was nothing to do with them wanting NOBODY to have sex under their roof. It was also about them making a distinction between CPs and married straight couples, by affording ONLY the latter the privilege of sharing a double bed. read it properly next time!
“What reason would the hotel owners have for refusing to let out a room to an unmarried man and woman on the presumption that they wouldn’t have sex?”
Sorry, it’s so garbled, I can’t make out what you mean. If what I see is correct, you think people are implying that the Bulls should force unmarried couples to have sex in their B&B. Even coming from you, that is confusing. Again, clarify your point as it makes no sense.
“That basically means that they shouldn’t have been found guilty of discrimination against the gay couple to begin with then since it was based on marriage status rather than sexual activity or sexual orientation.”
They should have been found guilty because in the eyes of the law NOT religion, civil partnerships hold the same status as marriage. Their decision to refuse them was based purely on the sexual orientation of those two men. By the way, you are the one who keeps on about their supposed banning of sexual activity full stop. At no point in the case or media reports has the idea of anyone having sex come up.
“Marriage staus and sexual orientation are two separate things but also remember marriage status to a Christian is different than to marriage status found by your government, so they are still the owners religious beliefs you are ruling against.”
Precisely. Unless you have not read all of the comments, the media report and the case notes, religion is NOT considered above the rule of law. Hence, despite what PERSONAL beliefs the Bulls have on whether civil partnerships are equal to their own perception of marriage, they are obliged to respect what the law states. Like with any other law. Smoking cannabis is illegal, but people are allowed to say they think it’s wrong. But that doesn’t give them the right to break the law based on their own personal belief.
“Oh by the way, with people like you on this site this is way too easy. You can’t say in one breath that they were being prejudiced against the couples marriage status and then say with the other breath that they are being prejudiced against their sexuality.”
You are not bright are you. They were BOTH prejudiced against their marriage status AND their sexual orientation. As gay unions are legally defined as civil partnerships but equal to marriage, then they were discriminating on two counts. This is so obvious, I think I will scream!
“If it’s marriage status, then they are not being preducied against their sexuality.”
YES THEY ARE. Because straight people cannot have civil partnerships and gay people cannot hold the status of being married. the two are completely interlinked. More to the point, if they said that they did not recognise civil weddings for straight people, then that would be prejudiced too.
“If it’s both then my comments still apply anyway.”
None of your comments apply because they both state that the Bulls were right to break the law. Which they weren’t.
Dave G.. the Bible is not irrelevant to this debate. UK law is based on Judeo-Christian principles and the freedom of religion is sacrasanct in law. The law about equalities came in about a year or so ago or something and will surely be amended at some point or another. When the law put gay men in prison for having gay sex presumably you thought that was ok, cos it was the law? didn’t think so. So stop hiding behind the law, law’s change, and this judge’s decision is not yet binding and certainly not precedent setting..
You feel that your views of society are how laws should be made, others have different ideas. The teachings of the Bible and Jesus in particular are at the heart of our law, and indeed the laws of many nations.. long may htey remian so.
Ah, no, you’ve gone and spolit it now. They were saying it was fine for married couples to share a double bed, i.e. a not so subtle reference to sex. But NOT civil partners as they did not equate that to the religious view of marriage. If they had not wanted any sex at all taking place in the private rooms, they would have put a sign up saying no sex. Aside from being so naive to ignore that most people stay in private rooms because it allows them to have sex, how on Earth would they prove sex had taken place? And what do we define as sex? Penetration? A quick hand job? Do we look for semen stains on sheets or in the shower? Bedrooms are PRIVATE and it was not for the Bulls to speculate about what those two men were going to do in there. Or anyone else for that matter.
There are so many flaws in your reasoning it is quite amazing!
================================================================
No flaws in my reasoning whatsoever but thanks for the insults all the same. I just shrug them off like water off a ducks back.
Exactly, they said it was fine for MARRIED COUPLES, because that refers back to their religious beleifs. The point is they should make the rules for the property and premises that they live in. They didn’t include civil partners but they also didn’t include unmarried couples in their rules.
A business does not have to provide a service if they don’t want to. Like I said before, I can’t take a toy company to court because they only cater services to children up to five. I can’t scream that they are being ageist because of this.
Companies who refuse to service people will quite simply not get the money in exchange for their services. Sure companies don’t refuse to sell servcies to Black people or Jewish people but considering that neither of these traits actually define them as a person or what activities they get up to then that is fine. I am not saying that any company should refuse to sell Gay people their services, don’t be ridiculous, but when you hand out a room to a couple, who could end up performing sexual activities in that room then you need to be comfortable with whats going on. If they are uncomfortable then they are being made to feel uncomfortable in their place of residence, even if it is also their business. That is the point here. Yes, it’s a business, but it is also their home and they should not have things forced upon them in their own home.
Perhaps you will argue that they shouldn’t run a hotel then (well a B&B actually, not even a hotel) but should all hotels be made to accept any clientel, even those they find distastful. For instances should hotels be forced to accept group parties who only want to rent rooms for sex orgies, or will they be sued for sexual discrimination as well. Or if you want to argue that the case wasn’t about sex then should hotels be refused to let rooms to a group of four or five people who all want to share a double bed with each other?
James
“Yet law has always held the maxim that silence is consent”
So on that basis you would use that to justify rape, would you? ‘You see m’lud, she didn’t say no, so I assumed that she was fine with me holding her down and sexually assaulting her’.
AND
“You feel that your views of society are how laws should be made, others have different ideas.”
Erm, yes I do feel that my views are how laws should be made and so do you, hypocrite. That’s why we’re all on here debating those very views. If I didn’t feel my views should be law, then what would I have to say on the debate? Weird remark, seriously.
“The teachings of the Bible and Jesus in particular are at the heart of our law, and indeed the laws of many nations.. long may htey remian so.”
To quote you – “you feel that your views of society are how laws should be made, others have different ideas”.Yes, we do have different ideas and so did a lot of people before us. Hence why Jesus and his claptrap are no longer at the heart of the British legal system. We have seen how other countries that are much more closely based on religious books and we have clearly decided we don’t agree with that. I’m sure you’ll cite various laws that are supported by the views of the Bible, there will clearly be some commonalities because people in ‘Biblical Times’ were actually humans as well. The right not to be killed or have your property stolen are universal human rights, not just Christian ones. After all, they appear in almost every religion in th world. Sorry, I’m afraid your Christianity is just not that special.
Society has moved on in the direction of universal human rights, gradually freeing us from religious oppression and anti-human doctrine. This is the way it will continue. Hurrah.
If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene ? the question is if it is not caused genetically then gays are brought up to become gays. Also the word discriminate i am fed up hearing it.O i could not get a seat on the plane as i am to fat or my child did not get into school because i am black and you people go on and on blaming every thing and every one because you cannot fit into a normal society.
These people who are so anti , never think homosexuality will enter their familys. They go on about choice and nurture when it comes to us , but when their child turns out to be gay or their Grand child they suddenly have to rethink their whole bigotry. I have seen this happen first hand when a anti guy I worked with confided in me that he had just found out that his brother who he idolised had just come out. He apoligized to me for what he thought about me. This case was right in its out come. The law draws a line. It cannot possible accomadate every differnet relgion that is now practiced in the world today. Otherwise we would not be proscuting terroists that blew up London. After all that was their belief. What is needed in the law is common sense and this is what this ruling was. Common sense.
Jim they protest too much I bet theyre all queer
mmmmmmmmm, not sure how many m’s so don’t count them.
I pretty much agree with your response to James so you saved me writing a scree.
It does not matter where our laws have come from, they are gradually being rewritten and christianity is more and more being treated no different from any other religion (or none). This work takes time so that christianity can play no part in the lives of those who do not subscribe to it.
The law banning homosexuality was a bigoted and discriminatory Judeo-Christian law typical of the barmy and mean-spiritedness of that brand of religion.
It is part of this progression which has allowed homosexuality to be decriminalised, much to the consternation of many christians who tried to stop it but they were ignored because it was accepted that their dogma was irrelevant to the process of law. In Northern Ireland, where Ian Paisley used his evangelical “Save Ulster from Sodomy” campaign to delay the decriminalisation until 1982 it took Margaret Thatcher to get annoyed with his stubbornness to overrule him with a stroke of her pen and sign our rights into law here.
By the way, Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in law is not absolute as the judgement specifically pointed out yesterday, it cannot be used to restrict the rights of others – read the judgement.
Darth
“No flaws in my reasoning whatsoever but thanks for the insults all the same. I just shrug them off like water off a ducks back.”
With such poor understanding of reasoning, I should hope you have got used to the criticism by now!
“Exactly, they said it was fine for MARRIED COUPLES, because that refers back to their religious beleifs.”
And CPs are equated with marriage in law, so they were obliged to include that too. Their beliefs don’t even come into it where the law is clear.
“The point is they should make the rules for the property and premises that they live in. They didn’t include civil partners but they also didn’t include unmarried couples in their rules.”
Unmarried couples are either a) heterosexual and unmarried or b) homosexual and without a CP. These men had a CP, i.e. they should have been treated as equal to the married couples according to the law. Do you really need this to be reiterated that many times? The law is incredibly clear on this issue.
Plus, it is a BUSINESS, it is no longer under the same legal standing as their home. They therefore cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to stay there.
“A business does not have to provide a service if they don’t want to.”
Yes, obviously. But what service are you referring to? The gay couple were not asking for a different service to heterosexual guests. They were just expecting to be treated the same. There was no burden on the owners to provide a different service or even level of service to anyone else.
“Like I said before, I can’t take a toy company to court because they only cater services to children up to five. I can’t scream that they are being ageist because of this.”
But they are not stopping you as an adult from going into the shop and buying a toy. Anyone purchasing a toy has to be treated the same. Again, you have cited a bad example and confused the service on offer with the treatment of the customer. They are separate things. The service can change, but the respect towards the customer must be equal.
“Companies who refuse to service people will quite simply not get the money in exchange for their services.”
It depends on what grounds they are refusing. If it’s because of sexual orientation, they will be the ones paying in court! If they are doing it because you have punched someone in the shop and, hence, broken the law, they are entitled to refuse service. The gay couple weren’t breaking the law and thus shouldn’t have been refused.
“Sure companies don’t refuse to sell servcies to Black people or Jewish people but considering that neither of these traits actually define them as a person or what activities they get up to then that is fine.”
Being gay doesn’t define a person either, that’s the whole point. Colour, creed or sexual orientation only define someone when that part of them is being called into question by a bigot! It is perhaps you who is defining those people. One doesn’t need to get up to any activities to be gay, we all know we are attracted to the same sex before we even know what the gay actually means. Your point has no validity.
“I am not saying that any company should refuse to sell Gay people their services, don’t be ridiculous but when you hand out a room to a couple, who could end up performing sexual activities in that room then you need to be comfortable with whats going on.
You’ve just contradicted yourself there. So, you don’t believe gays should be refused services, except when there might be a risk they have sex behind closed doors in a private room just like straight people do? That is blatant discrimination!!
“If they are uncomfortable then they are being made to feel uncomfortable in their place of residence, even if it is also their business.”
Who was making this couple feel uncomfortable? The guys just wanted a room, how is that making someone uncomfortable? Please explain further.
“Yes, it’s a business, but it is also their home and they should not have things forced upon them in their own home.”
No-one was forcing them to do anything other than to treat this couple with the same respect as they show straight guests. That’s it, end of. You are implying that the couple had some hidden sexual agenda to drag the Bulls into. Did the gay couple say ‘you must be gay and engage in sex with us’? No. Did they demand to have sex in a public area? No. I could go on, but you really need to define what exactly the Bulls were having forced on them. If you say the gay couple’s belief, then you need a slap. You can’t force someone’s passive biology on someone!
“Perhaps you will argue that they shouldn’t run a hotel then (well a B&B actually, not even a hotel) but should all hotels be made to accept any clientel, even those they find distastful.”
Define distasteful. If you find someone distasteful purely because they are gay and despite them not exhibiting any different behaviour towards you than straight people, then absolutely! There is obvious discrimination there. If a client is breaking the law on the premises, causing harrassment, inciting hatred, inflicting violence and all manner of anti-social behaviour, then yes, kick them out. The difference? Just being gay isn’t antisocial or illegal and doesn’t impact on anyone else AT ALL.
“For instances should hotels be forced to accept group parties who only want to rent rooms for sex orgies, or will they be sued for sexual discrimination as well.”
Again, this is where you confuse sex and sexual orientation. This is a whole different issue and, as you know, protection from private sexual practices doesn’t exist in the law. It would ultimately lie in whether such orgies were proved to be causing a disturbance (noise, mess) and impacting on other guests. If a guest was inviting 10 non-guests to join the orgy, they would be allowed to oppose it on the grounds of not the access of non-guests being at the discretion of the owner. If it was a case of 10 paying guests staying in five rooms and then all going into one room for an orgy, that’s very different. But, ultimately, if they weren’t interfering with the other guests or the owner and it was all in PRIVATE, it would be very difficult to criminalise.
“Or if you want to argue that the case wasn’t about sex then should hotels be refused to let rooms to a group of four or five people who all want to share a double bed with each other?”
Erm, that’s a bit of a stupid statemen. How many beds there are in the room is part of the service offered by the owner. Presumably, if you didn’t want to encourage a gang bang, you’d only put one double bed in each room and state that no more than 2 people could sleep in each room. But sleeping isn’t the same as popping in for a quickie, is it? So how woud you regulate that? Surely you would have to be in the room with them at all times, which would violate their privacy. But, like with other points, this is not relevant to the Bulls refusing the gay couple. That’s about sexual orentation, NOT sexual practices.
ellen pauler,
You clearly have no knowledge of genetics, natural selection, genetic variability,alleles, natural adaptation or indeed logic.
You seem to have the answers the rest of the scientific community are grappling with.
There is no proof there is a genetic component however there is no proof there is not. There is significant evidence that there is a prenatal hormonal component which may or may not be triggered genetically.
There is little or no evidence that it is post natal.
Perhaps instead of spouting nonsense you should do a bit of research.
Perhaps you deserve to be discriminated against because as the bible says you are simply a chattle of your husband. Next time get him to post as you should not be allowed to discourse with us men or use the internet. Get the dinner made woman !!!!.
What would be really nice is if those Christians who claim all Gay people are perverted would stop judging Every single person they met by what private sexual activities they get up to.
A phrase with the words pot and kettle springs to mind.
See the people for who they are and get your heads out of the gutter…. Perverts!
Erm, no I haven’t. I have said it was nothing to do with them wanting NOBODY to have sex under their roof. It was also about them making a distinction between CPs and married straight couples, by affording ONLY the latter the privilege of sharing a double bed. read it properly next time!
Sorry, it’s so garbled, I can’t make out what you mean. If what I see is correct, you think people are implying that the Bulls should force unmarried couples to have sex in their B&B. Even coming from you, that is confusing. Again, clarify your point as it makes no sense.
They should have been found guilty because in the eyes of the law NOT religion, civil partnerships hold the same status as marriage. Their decision to refuse them was based purely on the sexual orientation of those two men. By the way, you are the one who keeps on about their supposed banning of sexual activity full stop. At no point in the case or media reports has the idea of anyone having sex come up.
Precisely. Unless you have not read all of the comments, the media report and the case notes, religion is NOT considered above the rule of law. Hence, despite what PERSONAL beliefs the Bulls have on whether civil partnerships are equal to their own perception of marriage, they are obliged to respect what the law states. Like with any other law. Smoking cannabis is illegal, but people are allowed to say they think it’s wrong. But that doesn’t give them the right to break the law based on their own personal belief.
You are not bright are you. They were BOTH prejudiced against their marriage status AND their sexual orientation. As gay unions are legally defined as civil partnerships but equal to marriage, then they were discriminating on two counts. This is so obvious, I think I will scream!
YES THEY ARE. Because straight people cannot have civil partnerships and gay people cannot hold the status of being married. the two are completely interlinked. More to the point, if they said that they did not recognise civil weddings for straight people, then that would be prejudiced too.
None of your comments apply because they both state that the Bulls were right to break the law. Which they weren’t.
================================================================
Read what I say properly as well moron and we wont have this problem of you drooling all your mouth. They refused rooms to UNMARRIED STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL. What part of that do you not understand?
You can’t make sense of it because you are totally high on crack or something. Let me explain it another way for you so you can understand. Why did they refuse to let out rooms to unmarried straight couples if they didn’t think that sex was an issue? It’s obvious from this that sex was actually an issue because Christians don’t have anything against unmarried couples who don’t want to have sex. DUH!!!!! Did I spell that out clearly for you?
What I said was clear, but for some reason somebody brought civil partnerships into it and then said that this doesn’t mean that they will have sex. The policy was obviously a sexual one but it was you who then brought up the objection that they wouldn’t necessarily have sex in this room just because they are civil partners. When I pointed out the fact that they refuse service to unmarried straight couples as well then this meant it was obviously a decision based on sex but it was you tried to argue that it necessarily wasn’t and that it was based on the issue of civil partnerships, not being seen in the same eyes are marriage.
I never said that the Bulls didn’t break the law. What I did say though is that it should not be disallowed for them to say what goes on in their own residence. Even if it’s a place of business, the Bulls still have to live there as well and they own the deeds and the property but for some reason because they have turned it into a business then this means that they have given up all their personal rights in concerns to their home. In what sense is this fair for them. Are you telling me that they are not allowed to have a say what goes on in their own home because they have turned into a business. If I start an internet business and sell things on a website does that mean I can no longer have a say what goes on in my own home?
The word prejudiced isn’t really that strong. For instance here is the defintion.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
Apparently it can be defined as an unfavorable opinion without knowledge, thought or reason. That is so broad that anything can be a prejudiced view. Are we really saying that the Christian couple who ran this B&B were so harsh to the gay couple that they deserve to be called prejudiced.
What about intolerant instead. What defintion can we use for that.
–adjective
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
Are we to put the Christian in this group as well, simply because they wanted to choose who they let their rooms out to?
Well I guess those people that run that Gay B&B must be prejudiced and intolerant as well. I didn’t think so, I was prepared to let them have their say on who they wanted to aim their business at but apparently it is wrong for them to do that.
I am being consistant here. I am not saying that this is what the law represents, no, bit I am allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the law. The law would also require within your opinion that this Gay B&B are also legally in the wrong for their actions. Does this mean we get to call them Bigots, prejudiced or intolerant for their actions also? I don’t think so but apparently you do.
I have already covered the issues. I know that gay people have civil partnerships instead of marriage but I have pointed out that unmarried straight couples were not allowed rooms either and I pointed out that a CHristian defintion of marriage is different in the eyes than the law. Yes, you have said that the law is what rules but I pointed out that the law is enforcing these people to go against their opinions within their own home. You can argue that they shouldn’t run a business if you want but I believe that people who run buisnesses from their home shouldn’t be forced to suddenly accept things that they don’t want in them. If I run an internet business from home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept people entering my home that I do not wish in my home. If I run a kitchen buisness from my home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept just anybody through my doorway.
What is right and what is the law are two separate issues by the way. A law is never necessarily right. If that was the case then you wouldn’t be able to change the laws because they would all be right to begin with. Such poor reasoning from you, but then again I expected as much. It is sometimes right to break a law.
“They refused rooms to UNMARRIED STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL”
No they didn’t in fact as the guy from the NSS reported Unmarried couples had booked and stayed there even when they used their real (and so different) names.
I have read a number of news stories on this topic, most biased one way or the other. I expected this to be heavily biased against the owners and am pleasantly suprised to find it is one of the most balanced stories reported.
Whilst I agree with the couples core belief, I accept that the law of our country clearly states civil partnership has the same rights as marraige so support the decision made here. The time for debate was when the law was made, not when christian’s like me wish to pick and choose how it is applied.
So me being Gay is because of a faulty gene?
How ignorant are you!! Clearly not the brightest spark are ya.
Oh and we do fit in to ‘normal society’ is just the likes of you who continue to wish to deny it.
Delusional seems to also appear with you… must be a ‘faulty gene’ that brought you your ignorance… Oh nope sorry That Was taught!
And I didn’t realise you were so patronising, James. Where did I claim to be a theologian? No, I’m not, but I AM a Greek scholar. I’m also a pedant – the bit from Paul does NOT imply that gay relationships are wrong and I get annoyed when people say it does. Maybe Paul meant to say that they were and he just phrased it badly? Who knows? Or maybe, like I said, his issues were with what he considered to be sexual immorality – ie temple sex and prostitution? The language he used suggests the latter is most likely.
But then, that has nothing to do with God or Jesus – neither of whom had a go at consensual same sex relationships.
Darth O, I can see your position more clearly now. You say that the Christain definition of marriage is different from the legal statement that CPs are equal to marriage. Thanks for clarifying.
I’ve no problem with you or anyone else believing that, but we all have to follow the law. The law says that CPs ARE equal to marriage. Now your Christian position may be less….trying to think of the right word…aggressive? than others but the law cannot allow individuals to have opt-outs according to what they believe. If it did, we’d have interracial couples banned from hotels, women struggling to find employment, people walking into your house and taking your TV and computer ( they believe property is theft – therefore they’re entitled to your stuff). Can you not see that the law is there to protect EVERYBODY?
mmmmm.. i see why you have that name now.. for yur musing sare dubious. mmmm.. I never said that didn’t want my views reflected in law also, but i never implied that it was anything more than that. Furthermore, i would rather that all views were taken into consideration, not just those of militant extremist fringe, so full of vitriol I’m surprised your blood pressure isn’t making your eyes bulge lol.
Iris.. well there are better studies of greek and theology than you or I, like Bishop Tom Wright for example, and these theologians, insrtead of taking one verse out of context like you are doing, see the whole of Paul’s writings and interpret the greek with more knowledge. They seem to suggest that Paul does condemn homosexual practice.. so either I believe them.. or you.. tough one.. tough one.
Someone rather erroneously said that the maxim, ‘qui tacit consentit’ woudl mean that rape was ok.. get real. Of course, if the woman in that case was able to object and did not then it would make the case a tricky one, and often this is the case. Being as most people don’t write a little letter before sex it’s difficult to prive exactly what consent was given but in my experience the question, “are you consenting to sex i hope we’re about to have?” is rarely asked. However, were someone next to me to start beating osmeone else nearby and i did nothing then i would be in trouble with the law as I am duty bound to try and stop it. I would have to show that it was out of reasonable fear or some inability to do something that i didn’t speak out or offer resistance.. the maxim remains.. like receiving stolen goods and not saying anything.. if you know they’re hot and you do noting, it’s a criminal offence. So less heat and bluster [please, I’m not out to do anything naughty, it’s a fair point I’m making here.
Darth Ovious makes some great points as usual, and i wish the gay rights folks on hre would understand that a civil partnership is a tax break and recognition of a partnership. Wear flowers in your suit and have a reception if you like, anyone can do that, but it doesn’t make it a marriage. If it did, why woudl Tatchell et al be so busy fighting for gay marriages? CP’s are a very British compromise, but two poeple of same sex cannot get married, it’s not possible, and never will be in my opinion.. the ruling of the judge is not a binding definition of civl partnerships.. the law is.. read the law, as you’re so keen on pointing out and you’ll see they are not marriage.. it’s a fact.
Chrsitians are seeking ways to obey the law in so far as they can in all good conscience. We should never discriminate on basis of sexuality, as essentially it’s imposible to legaly define, but there are acceptable sexual relainships and unacceptable ones. Of course no BnB owners can guarantee that not ginvg someone a double room will prevent sex, but it sets a principle for their own home and business and if people choose to break that rule then be it on their own heads.
Iris if a hotel owner refused to give a double room due to a belief about interracial relationships then I would say they were wrong to do so, as ai see no moral or ethical case there. But I’m inclined to say that if it were their house then they’d every right to do so.
Question.. I’ve a spare double room in my house i want to rent out (not really).. am i allowed to make sure i dont let it out to a gay couple? Not sure i want gay sex going on under my roof.. now it’s not a business, it’s a spare room in my house.. what’s my legal position?
Darth
Ah, this is like ambrosia!
“Read what I say properly as well moron and we wont have this problem of you drooling all your mouth. They refused rooms to UNMARRIED STRAIGHT COUPLES AS WELL. What part of that do you not understand?”
I understand fully that they refused double rooms to unmarried straight couples. I mean, you keep making it, but it’s relevant because the gay couple had a civil partnership and, in the eyes of th law, were not unmarried. They had the same legal status as married people. Now what part of that don’t YOU understand?
“You can’t make sense of it because you are totally high on crack or something.”
Insult and speculation. Care to provide evidence that I am high on anything other than orange juice at 3pm?
“Let me explain it another way for you so you can understand. Why did they refuse to let out rooms to unmarried straight couples if they didn’t think that sex was an issue?
Only pre-marital sex may have been an issue. As the gay couple had the same legal status as married couples, they should not have treated them any differently. That’s the point. You are making a wild assumption that the gay couple were more likely to have sex than the straight married couple. Which is wholly stupid!
“It’s obvious from this that sex was actually an issue because Christians don’t have anything against unmarried couples who don’t want to have sex. DUH!!!!! Did I spell that out clearly for you?”
I still fail to see what the relevance is with this point. Are you saying they do have an issue with married couples who do want to have sex? You’re really not good at this clarification lark are you.
“What I said was clear, but for some reason somebody brought civil partnerships into it and then said that this doesn’t mean that they will have sex.”
It wasn’t clear and, again, why is the likelihood of civil partnehaving it off any higher than a straight married couple? Again, explain what you are getting at.
“The policy was obviously a sexual one but it was you who then brought up the objection that they wouldn’t necessarily have sex in this room just because they are civil partners.”
No, ANYONE may or may not be intending to have sex in that room. You made the implication that civil partners having sex in a hotel room was somehow more wrong than a married straight couple.
“When I pointed out the fact that they refuse service to unmarried straight couples as well then this meant it was obviously a decision based on sex but it was you tried to argue that it necessarily wasn’t and that it was based on the issue of civil partnerships, not being seen in the same eyes are marriage.”
For crying out loud, civil partners are expected to be treated the same as straight married couples. On that basis, the gay couple are NOT unmarried, but were treated as if they were. As only gay people can be civil partners, it is then discrimination to refuse them on the grounds that they are not married heterosexuals. That is the bloody point!
“I never said that the Bulls didn’t break the law. What I did say though is that it should not be disallowed for them to say what goes on in their own residence.”
As long as their rules are applied equally to ALL, that’s fine. But they didn’t and had no intention of doing so, that’s why they were convicted.
“Even if it’s a place of business, the Bulls still have to live there as well and they own the deeds and the property but for some reason because they have turned it into a business then this means that they have given up all their personal rights in concerns to their home.”
They have given up the right to discriminate against anyone in receipt of the the service they provide on the basis of sexual orientation in the area that is deemed to be part of the business. A hotel room is not someone’s home, it is a private sleeping area for a paying customer. They were not forced to let the gay couple into their own bedroom were they? No, exactly, and no-one has said they should.
“In what sense is this fair for them.”
It’s not about them, it’s about the service they are supplying. They have to treat clients equally when providing that service. End of.
“Are you telling me that they are not allowed to have a say what goes on in their own home because they have turned into a business?”
It depends what they want ‘a say’ in. If it’s the right to refuse people because they are gay or they deem CPs as invalid, then no. That’s aga discrimination laws. If it’s about the decoration, the style of the tables and whether animals can be brought in, then fine. Try and be rational and logical about tis eh.
“If I start an internet business and sell things on a website does that mean I can no longer have a say what goes on in my own home?”
Erm, no, because your business is internet-based and your home has not been designated as a place in which to receive clients. If you are selling books, there is no need to have clients in your house. Isn’t this obvious to you?
“The word prejudiced isn’t really that strong. For instance here is the defintion.
–noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.”
Surely definiton 3 gives it a strong meaning all by itself. Fool.
“Are we really saying that the Christian couple who ran this B&B were so harsh to the gay couple that they deserve to be called prejudiced?”
Erm, didn’t you just say that prejudiced WASN’T a strong word? Your confusion with your own definitons aside, yes they do. They discriminated, resulting in humiliation, offense and a great deal of inconvenience (they had to find a new hotel). All based on the fact that these two men were attracted to each other. That is why they are prejudiced.
“What about intolerant instead. What defintion can we use for that.
–adjective
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.”
Yes, they are indeed intolerant as well. You might add bigoted and hostile to that list.
“Are we to put the Christian in this group as well, simply because they wanted to choose who they let their rooms out to?”
Yes, because those rooms are part of a BUSINESS. No one has forced them to let gay people stay in their private quarters have they? No one is saying that now they will have to sell the hotel and return to a normal, private non-business dwelling that they will be forced to take in gay people against their will. Very simple (for most of us).
“Well I guess those people that run that Gay B&B must be prejudiced and intolerant as well. I didn’t think so, I was prepared to let them have their say on who they wanted to aim their business at but apparently it is wrong for them to do that.”
It is wrong for them to do that, as an sane person would argue. They shouldn’t be allowed to bar Christians or Muslims or anyone else. Though if those religious guests started spewing hate speech, then they would have the right to throw them out. As would any Christian being insulted by a gay person in their hotel. It’s the same rules for everyone. That’s equality. We have demanded nothing more and nothing less.
“I am being consistant here. I am not saying that this is what the law represents, no, bit I am allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the law.”
Yes you are, but you are not allowed to break it because your holy book says the law is wrong.
“The law would also require within your opinion that this Gay B&B are also legally in the wrong for their actions.”
Yep, as above.
“Does this mean we get to call them Bigots, prejudiced or intolerant for their actions also? I don’t think so but apparently you do.”
Yes, we do. Though gay people don’t have a long history of oppressing Christians their legal right to exist and naturally gay people are wary of such groups abusing them all over again. Christians are fairly mild in comparison to Muslims on this issue, but we know where our opponents are. Still, the bigger person will give anyone the benefit of the doubt until they actually cause offcense.
“I have already covered the issues. I know that gay people have civil partnerships instead of marriage but I have pointed out that unmarried straight couples were not allowed rooms either and I pointed out that a CHristian defintion of marriage is different in the eyes than the law.”
Yawn, the Christian view of marriage is irrelevant because the Bible was superseded by the rule of law a long time ago. That is why it doesn’t matter what the Bulls thought about CPs.
“Yes, you have said that the law is what rules but I pointed out that the law is enforcing these people to go against their opinions within their own home.”
No, it is forcing them to go against their beliefs in their BUSINESS where they are catering to paying customers. Their home is the part of the B&B where they live and sleep – i.e. the part THEY have designated to be out of bounds to guests.
“You can argue that they shouldn’t run a business if you want but I believe that people who run buisnesses from their home shouldn’t be forced to suddenly accept things that they don’t want in them. If I run an internet business from home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept people entering my home that I do not wish in my home.”
Double yawn. An internet business requires no premises open to clients, it is not comparable with a hotel which has humans staying there! See above re internet businesses.
“If I run a kitchen buisness from my home then I shouldn’t be forced to accept just anybody through my doorway.”
What do you mean a kitchen business? If you mean yo have converted part of your house into a public showroom displaying kitchens that are part of a BUSINESS, then yes, you do have to let everyone view them on the same terms.
“What is right and what is the law are two separate issues by the way. A law is never necessarily right. If that was the case then you wouldn’t be able to change the laws because they would all be right to begin with.”
But apparently the BIble is ‘law’, so can we change that then?
“Such poor reasoning from you, but then again I expected as much. It is sometimes right to break a law.”
My reasons are logical and adhere to the laws that stand. Yours are based on a poor understanding of the law a lack of respect for it – you’ve just advocated breaking it.
It is only ever acceptable (and not even right) to break the law in extreme circumstances, such as driving a car without a licence to escape an erupting volcano. The everyday situation of someone staying in a hotel is NOT an emergency and thus there is no justification for discrimination or law-breaking. If I had your view, then presumably I could break the law and murder you because I saw you as a potential threat to my belief that I should be treated equally.
You have no respect for the law and even less for your fellow human. You are a disgrace.
James
How is demanding equality militant? Freedom from repression in our PRIVATE lives and to be treated equally in our public lives is all we ask. The religious lobby have repeatedly sought to deny us these fundamental human rights by asserting that they should be given greater consideration.
They shouldn’t and the law has shown that by this ruling.
Re the room rental. Your legal position is that you are letting someone LIVE in your home where you also live on the basis of a long-term contract. You would be sharing facilities and bills with them, there is a greater level of responsibility involved. It is a wholly different scenario. You are not provding a general service that is accessible to potentially anyone in society. It is quite clear cut, I’m sure a reputable lawyer could easily dispell your attempts to equate the two. But thanks for trying to stir up trouble anway.
mmmmmmmmm.. seriously.. you’re going too far there. Darth Ovious is trying to discuss tings with you and your intolerance of him is pretty stark. Why should yo get the tolerance you desire when you’re so hostile to others whose views your don’t understand?
Also, Civil Partnerships are not marriages.. fact. the judge has not the authority to rule that, it’s stated in statute law. . his point was about access to goods and services, the debate is about whether a bnb is a private house or a public one.. it’s a borderline thing i’d say.. different to refusing to service a gay man’s car. However, id you had a business servicing cars and a local evanglical preacher asked you to service his so he could go to meetings about Christian rights and opposing homosexual lobby.. would you service his car?.. porperly?.. what if he used his car to take people to street preaching and had an advert on it supporting the Christian Institute?.. by law you’d have to. However I would support you if you said to your colleagues, “look i dont feel comfortable doing this car, can you do it instead?”.. it woudl seem reasonable. Similarly i would expect the same courtesy for a Christian bnb owner who didnt want to let his double rooms out to gay or unmarried couples. Religous rights are enshrined in law too, and w’re still finding that balance in our society.
Your point about the law is a funny one.. so men pre 1967 should abstain from gay sex because it’s against the law should they? Seems the law argument is convenient at the moment, but unprincipled.
james
“mmmmmmmmm.. seriously.. you’re going too far there. Darth Ovious is trying to discuss tings with you and your intolerance of him is pretty stark.”
Erm, he keeps repeating the same points, without any substantiation and with no understanding or appreciation of the law. I can’t be held responsibile for his ignorance. You are only defending him because he shares your views, not because you actually think I’m too harsh. But then I expect nothing less from Darth and, now you.
“Why should yo get the tolerance you desire when you’re so hostile to others whose views your don’t understand?”
Why would I tolerate someone who is saying that people shouldn’t have to tolerate my mere existence? I have no respect for anyone who advocates opt-outs in equa access to services and goods. Pretty simple really.
“Also, Civil Partnerships are not marriages.. fact.”
Un-fact. They have the same legal status, thus they are equal.
“the judge has not the authority to rule that, it’s stated in statute law. .”
Erm, are you a jude? Leave it to the experts, eh.
“his point was about access to goods and services, the debate is about whether a bnb is a private house or a public one..”
It’s a home operating as a business which welcomes in paying guests. There is no debate on that.
“it’s a borderline thing i’d say..”
As if I care what you think! I care about the law.
“different to refusing to service a gay man’s car.”
No,they are both businesses.
“However, id you had a business servicing cars and a local evanglical preacher asked you to service his so he could go to meetings about Christian rights and opposing homosexual lobby.. would you service his car?.. porperly?.. what if he used his car to take people to street preaching and had an advert on it supporting the Christian Institute?.. by law you’d have to.”
I’m fine with that, I’m running a business, I have no intention of interfering with his private life. But I’d tell him that I didn’t appreciate his views, that’s anyone’s right. And, if he was intimidating me based on my homosexuality, then I would have the right to report him to the police. As a gay man in a Christian hotel would be if he started calling them bigots when they have been perfectly pleasant and provided the service they were supposed to. Sorry, you can’t trip me up on equality!
“However I would support you if you said to your colleagues, “look i dont feel comfortable doing this car, can you do it instead?”.. it woudl seem reasonable.”
If he was making me feel uncomfortable through intimidation, then yes of course I could get a colleague to do his car. But I can’t do that if he just simply states that he is an Evangelist and doesn’t force his way of life on me or try to convert me etc. Again, I am equal in my outlook.
“Similarly i would expect the same courtesy for a Christian bnb owner who didnt want to let his double rooms out to gay or unmarried couples. Religous rights are enshrined in law too, and w’re still finding that balance in our society.”
Your right to practice your religion is enshrined in law, not a freedom to discriminate who you serve in your business based on your personal beliefs. The balance will only come once religion has been pushed out of public life, schools and instution and into people’s homes and churches where it cannot be forced upon people as it currently is. Legal forced worship in schools and forced prayers at Council meetings are just some of those relics.
“Your point about the law is a funny one.. so men pre 1967 should abstain from gay sex because it’s against the law should they?”
If you mean born before 1967, then no, the law has changed and they are free to do as they please. Men having gay sex before 1967 shouldn’t have had sex, or at least got found out, as they knew the law. But then they should have lobbied the goverment. They did and we got the law changed.
“Seems the law argument is convenient at the moment, but unprincipled.”
Only because your over-bearing religion has been kicked into line with everyone else in society. Laws are designed and passed by people, real people. Biblical law and its ‘principles’ are irrelevant.
Next……
This argument as to direct discrimination is misleading. Discrimination can exist in two ways – directly and indirectly.
The direct way is to say that a person will be treated less favourably because they are ‘x’. In other words, because you are gay, you cannot have this job. Here, the rule itself is directly discriminatory.
The second way is to say that a neutral sounding rule will apply to everyone equally but where the effect of that rule is to cause a person with character ‘x’ particular disadvantage. In other words, if you are not married, you cannot have a room. The rule applies equally to all but it has a disproportionately discriminatory effect on people who are gay.
Another indirect element of discrimination would be to say that no person can have the job of x unless they work on the second floor of a building with no lifts. This neutral rule would put those who were disabled at a particular disadvantage.
Here, the hotel required persons to be married before they could have a double room. The rule appeared to be neutral but its effect was to discriminate against those who were not heterosexual and to prevent homosexual couples from having the room.
Insofar this rule discriminated against friends or single people, that form of discrimination is not unlawful.
“Whilst I agree with the couples core belief, I accept that the law of our country clearly states civil partnership has the same rights as marraige so support the decision made here. The time for debate was when the law was made, not when christian’s like me wish to pick and choose how it is applied.”
GS
What a well thought out and considered response.
If only more Christians were like you.
de Villiers,
Where do these B&B people stand when they have a rule such as married couples only which they do not implement (heterosexual unmarried people have come forward and stated that they have stayed there and booked in under their own (unmarried so different) names. The people who this rule is then used to deny a room are a gay couple?
Sorry I posted too soon.
The other issue is that the law recognises that in the supply of goods and services married and CP are equal and implied by the use of either term (each to the other) so no service can be offered to one and not the other, if it is shown to have been direct discrimination has occurred. A belief that they are unequal is not a defence.
If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene ?
ellen pauler
Using that twisted logic then Downs Syndrome will eventually disappear as sufferers of Downs syndrome are not creating enough Down Syndrome babies.
It does not work that way.
Idiot.
Dr Robin Guthrie
It does not work that way.
Idiot.
I think that response rather harsh. Not everyone understand the principles of recessive genes.
That said, you would, being a doctor and all that? What exactly of? Do you have a PhD in being a complete sh|t?
mmmmmmmm, I thought I was patient but you surpass me by miles :D I gave up and banged my head against a brick wall for a while as I found it more productive.
However, I think I’ve gleaned a pertinent point from Darth – he initially suggested that they weren’t breaking the law but has now expanded on that view to say that they DID break the law but that law was wrong so they were right to break it.
Darth, you’re entitled to your opinion that the law was wrong, but, as the judge implied, you’re in a shrinking minority. The world’s moving forwards not backwards and I can’t see equality laws being repealed.
Again, let me point out that they protect YOU too. Anyone who is just gagging to discriminate against you simply because you’re a Christian are prevented from doing so.
Do you agree now that the judgment, much as you dislike it, was correct according to the law? I hope so because that’s what you’ve just said! So now you would suggest that Christians BREAK the law? Would it be OK for other people to break laws too according to their own beliefs?
Here’s an interesting slant.
Why DO we have to have discrimination laws?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072600/why-on-earth-shouldnt-hotel-owners-be-free-to-turn-away-gay-couples/
Mmm you need better arguments if you’re going to be so dismissive.. your quips write cheques your arguments can’t cash! lol.
Civil Partnerships are not marraiges.. teh judges decision is not a final word on the status of civil partnerships and it doesn’t set a precedent. YOu may heard of appeals.. they kind of suggest that judges can get it wrong. HOwever, why oh why are Stonewall etc campainging so hard for gay marriages if civil partnerships are marriages? CP’s wording is different and it is recognised in law as a civil partnership not a marriage.. and you know that.
Plus, what on earth is your argument about the law..? You seem to be saying that gay’s should obey they law of the land even if it prohibits gay sex.. so presumably yo’re ok with Iranian law?? It was right for Alan Turing to be prosecuted for his laisons with a young man.. Oscar Wilde sent to Reading Gaol.. serves him right I guess you think..?.. Either you think we should obey the law whatevr it is or you accept there are times when conscience makes it impossible to obey the law.
OF course there is debate over the status of a BnB.. that’s why we’re here! That’s why there’s confusion and why it’s a controversial case.. don’t yo read the newspapers or of course.. just the pink paper and the Guardian (do you need to read both?? prob not).
Your militant intolerant atheism is as bad as I would expect.. Christianity as at the heart of this nation.. even the Queen recently spoke of the need to share the good news of JEsus CHrist with the people. Dawkins might not like it but just cos you don’t like Chistianity doesn’t mean it’s going to get the elbow.. I would worry what morality exactly you were going to replace it with.. atheism doesn’t have any moral base whatsoever. even Dawkins admits this!
Was glad to see the increading number of street preachers who have bene targetted by gay right funamentalists in local councils etc being compensated and the police/councils reprimanded. Free speech is being protected here at laest, evenif the preachers did criticise homosexuality. CUmbria police made full apology over the actoins of a gay rights copper who arrested a man for saying that he thought homosexuality was a sin.. a victory for common sense.. hurrah!
I think Biblical laws and its impact will be around long after the gay lobby has withered away.. we’ve survived worse that this before. BUt why set up such a battleground? All we want is to have the freedom to live our lives in a Christ like fashion as best we can. We can’t condone homosexuality, it aint gonna happen, unless someone rewrites the Bible and takes out all the bits the liberals dont like (or they let Iris do the translating lol) and so we have to find a way of tolerating each other better than we are doing now.
You’re not gonna get Chsitians performing gay marriages whether you make it law or not.. do you want to be a country that sends vicars to prison for refusing to do something?? really?? then we’d be no better than Iran. We’ve a proud history of tolerance and freedom in this country.. let’s not throw it away.
If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene ? – ellen pauler
—————————————————————————————————-
Being gay is not caused by a faulty gene, its the result of the same random genetic variance that created different eye and hair colour.
That random genetic variance will be around for a long as humans are. Gay people do not need to procreate to create other gay people, the genetic variance happens randomly.
Do you discriminate because someone is left handed? no, so why would do it with a gay person.
With such poor understanding of reasoning, I should hope you have got used to the criticism by now!
And CPs are equated with marriage in law, so they were obliged to include that too. Their beliefs don’t even come into it where the law is clear.
Unmarried couples are either a) heterosexual and unmarried or b) homosexual and without a CP. These men had a CP, i.e. they should have been treated as equal to the married couples according to the law. Do you really need this to be reiterated that many times? The law is incredibly clear on this issue.
Plus, it is a BUSINESS, it is no longer under the same legal standing as their home. They therefore cannot discriminate against gay people who wish to stay there.
Yes, obviously. But what service are you referring to? The gay couple were not asking for a different service to heterosexual guests. They were just expecting to be treated the same. There was no burden on the owners to provide a different service or even level of service to anyone else.
But they are not stopping you as an adult from going into the shop and buying a toy. Anyone purchasing a toy has to be treated the same. Again, you have cited a bad example and confused the service on offer with the treatment of the customer. They are separate things. The service can change, but the respect towards the customer must be equal.
It depends on what grounds they are refusing. If it’s because of sexual orientation, they will be the ones paying in court! If they are doing it because you have punched someone in the shop and, hence, broken the law, they are entitled to refuse service. The gay couple weren’t breaking the law and thus shouldn’t have been refused.
Being gay doesn’t define a person either, that’s the whole point. Colour, creed or sexual orientation only define someone when that part of them is being called into question by a bigot! It is perhaps you who is defining those people. One doesn’t need to get up to any activities to be gay, we all know we are attracted to the same sex before we even know what the gay actually means. Your point has no validity.
You’ve just contradicted yourself there. So, you don’t believe gays should be refused services, except when there might be a risk they have sex behind closed doors in a private room just like straight people do? That is blatant discrimination!!
Who was making this couple feel uncomfortable? The guys just wanted a room, how is that making someone uncomfortable? Please explain further.
No-one was forcing them to do anything other than to treat this couple with the same respect as they show straight guests. That’s it, end of. You are implying that the couple had some hidden sexual agenda to drag the Bulls into. Did the gay couple say ‘you must be gay and engage in sex with us’? No. Did they demand to have sex in a public area? No. I could go on, but you really need to define what exactly the Bulls were having forced on them. If you say the gay couple’s belief, then you need a slap. You can’t force someone’s passive biology on someone!
Define distasteful. If you find someone distasteful purely because they are gay and despite them not exhibiting any different behaviour towards you than straight people, then absolutely! There is obvious discrimination there. If a client is breaking the law on the premises, causing harrassment, inciting hatred, inflicting violence and all manner of anti-social behaviour, then yes, kick them out. The difference? Just being gay isn’t antisocial or illegal and doesn’t impact on anyone else AT ALL.
Again, this is where you confuse sex and sexual orientation. This is a whole different issue and, as you know, protection from private sexual practices doesn’t exist in the law. It would ultimately lie in whether such orgies were proved to be causing a disturbance (noise, mess) and impacting on other guests. If a guest was inviting 10 non-guests to join the orgy, they would be allowed to oppose it on the grounds of not the access of non-guests being at the discretion of the owner. If it was a case of 10 paying guests staying in five rooms and then all going into one room for an orgy, that’s very different. But, ultimately, if they weren’t interfering with the other guests or the owner and it was all in PRIVATE, it would be very difficult to criminalise.
Erm, that’s a bit of a stupid statemen. How many beds there are in the room is part of the service offered by the owner. Presumably, if you didn’t want to encourage a gang bang, you’d only put one double bed in each room and state that no more than 2 people could sleep in each room. But sleeping isn’t the same as popping in for a quickie, is it? So how woud you regulate that? Surely you would have to be in the room with them at all times, which would violate their privacy. But, like with other points, this is not relevant to the Bulls refusing the gay couple. That’s about sexual orentation, NOT sexual practices.
===============================================================
You’ll be glad to know that this will be my last post here. If you want to continue with me further then you can reply to me Theologyweb. Just cut and paste your response their. I don’t discussion on these small comment bits. I prefer a message board with quote functions etc.
My understanding and reasoning is fine. You are just being delberately dense in misrepresenting what I am saying.
The law also says that the Christians have their right as well. That is what I am saying. They should have a right to their own home and their beliefs. They should not be forced to accept people they don’t want in their own home and the Gay B&B should not be forced either. If they want to market to gay people only then that is their perogative. Companies target groups all the time for marketing, this doesn’t mean they should be punished for it.
How many times before I tell you that I don’t give a flying monkey in regards to the law on this. The law also says that the Christians beleifs are protected but their belief to not allow a gay couple to share a double bed in their own residence was punished. The law is also clear on that if you must.
Yes it is a buisness, but I suppose a toy company is being discriminative against adults for only making toys catered to children then huh? This is the point you don’t get. We all discriminate against people, no matter what. If the atheists and agnostics against abortion organisation don’t want religious people in their set-up then I’m not going to complain and guess what? I don’t complain. They are being discriminative against me because I am not allowed to join their organisation but I’m not going to sue them for it.
The toy company one is simple, they obviously don’t provide toys for me to play with. They do not cater their toys towards my age group but I’m certainly not going to sue them for it.
A club and pub can also refuse me service as well, even for daft things like trainers, not being a regular or wearing football colours. I don’t take any of them to court to sue them but of course the law doesn’t protect me from those discriminations such as the “you look like a thug, so we are not letting you in” excuse, does it?
The point was that being gay does define the kind of activities that they would get up to on the premises. It doesn’t define their character but it does define the objections raised by the Christian couple. They are letting out a bedroom, where certain activities may be done in this bedroom that go against the owners beliefs, you know those that actually own the bedroom.
Another misrepresentation. I said that gays are entitled to services within shops just like any other person, but when they are staying in a room owned by another person who also lives and owns at that residence, then they should respect their wises. I rented a room once and was living with my landlord while he rented the room out to me but I wasn’t allowed to all of a sudden demand every right under the sun since it is still his property. I still had to let him know if my fiancee/girlfriend/whatever was going to stay over and if he said no then I wouldn’t have been able to say anything. It was his house and his rules. Also not to mention that if a rent a place out from a estate agency without having to live my landlord/landlady then I may have to do so under certain stipulations. I may not be allowed pets for one thing. Is that discriminatory against pet owners? I may not be allowed to smoke, they may want non-smokers. They may look for people who are not DSS, is that discriminatory against the poor/unemployed. The fact is we all discriminate against people in some form of manner.
People have a right to choose who they live with, even if it’s just for a few days. The Bulls may have been uncomfortable because they would not want to accidentally witness or hear any acts that could make them uncomfortable. Do you think that when people have sex in their rooms that they are quiet? No. I actually had to put up with my previous landlord having sex in his room with several of his girlfriends (popular bloke), but I didn’t complain about it, because it was his house and his rules but it did make me feel uncomfortable. However the same adage applies to me, if I don’t like the rules then I can find somewhere else to stay. Houses come with house rules, even when they are rented out, living with parents, booking a B&B. The owners are entitled to put up house rules if they wish.
The point about the orgies in my opinion stands. If a B&B or a hotel don’t want to put up with several customers all trying to share a room and a bed then they should be allowed to say no without being accused of sexual discrimination. It’s the B&B owners that have to put up with any misbehaviour if it does get out if hand.
The fact that the B&B also refused unmarried couples is actually a testament that all they wanted to do was follow the guidlines of their faith. They were very clear about it on their own website just as the Gay B&B are very clear on theirs. I would allow them to do what they want with their buisness so I don’t see what the problem with this is.
Anyway, I’ve pretty much said what I wanted to say, so I’m going to go now. You know where to contact me if you really wish to continue this conversation.
“If being gay is caused genetically only,there should be less and less gays around since they are not multiplying naturally so how do they pass on the faulty gene”
Stupid analogy which shows your lack of education. If two straight people can produce a gay person, then clearly is genetics creating a disposition. Has it occurred to you that if evolution select favourable traits, then homosexuality might be a favourable trait, in fact a hereditary trait? No, of course it hasn’t. Sophisticated evolutionary models, such as those used in evolutionary psychology, have shown, however, that natural selection can result in behaviours that don’t benefit individuals, if they benefit their relatives. That dawn on you either?
“We’ve a proud history of tolerance and freedom in this country.. let’s not throw it away.”
Classic Christian hypocrisy:- Allow me the right to discriminate because I live in a free country. The irony is lost of you, I’m sure, James. As is logic.
And is that Darth-whats-his-face really David Skinner again???? Sweet jesus, is that old fool not dead yet?
Mmmmm.. if that really is your name.. may i help clarify Darth’s point (though it seems clear enogh to me).. Are you saying then that if the gay couple were not in a CP then the actions of the BnB would have been legal?
The Chrsitian couple recognise, as the law does, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Their objections to teh gay couple sharing a double room are based on their religious conscience and not the legal definition of civil partnerships.
OF course, the judge is fair to say that if the discrimination is based on marriage in law then provision of goods and services must extend to Cp’s.. this is the law.. correct. But clearly the couple do not recognise gay Cp’s or gay marriages and therefore in terms of the definition of marraige and CP@s being included in that for purposes or provision of goods and services the gay couple should have been included.
Of course, really.. the point is that the BnB owners beleive as do i that sex is for married couples only.. this is not a legal position, but one of conscience. The judge should have recognised that this age old right shuld have trumped some half arsed Harman inspired ‘equality dogma legislation’ brought in at the behest of some pinko at Stonewall which should never have been made law, but alas, he can’t. The issue is, which law takes precedence.. not what is the law. There may yet be an appeal so your triumphalism may yet be premature.. but it doesnt matter in one sense.. what matters is that gay sex isn’t approved of by everuone, some poeple think it’s sinful and wrong and that view is fine and deserves respect in law as it is a genuinely and long held view of many poeple of various religions nad indeed some atheists too I dare say. You are free to be gay if you want.. im free to think it’s a bit sick.. or not.. it’s a free country//pr at least it used to be. Gay tyranny.. mm who’d have thought eh?
@ mmmmmmmm,
Yes, religion has been responsible for a lot of persecution in the past, and also the present,… All I can say is there are better ways to solve differences than dragging people throu