Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2 ... 11 12
14 15 ... 39 40
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Blue Oval84

2,424 posts

46 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
djstevec said:
I totally agree you have the right to live your life according to your beliefs.
So do the b&b couple.
However, when they run a business that discriminates based solely upon those religious beliefs, they cross the line.
When a religious organisation says to anyone that is NOT a member of that religion, that they also must live by that churches rules, they also cross that line.
clap

tubbystu

3,845 posts

145 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
Right, lets clear something up about the gay couple and the B&B.

BBC website said:
Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

Steven Preddy: "Nothing in this judgement attacks the beliefs of Christians"
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Gay couple's B&B refusal deferred
Gay couple challenge B&B refusal

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.
'Sincere beliefs'

"When we booked to stay at the Chymorvah Hotel this was not, as some have suggested, a set up sponsored by a pressure group.

"We just wanted a relaxing weekend away - something thousands of other couples in Britain do every weekend," Mr Preddy said.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Dominic Casciani BBC News home affairs correspondent

Over the past five years, the law has swung decisively against Mr and Mrs Bull's expectations that their religious beliefs should influence how they run their hotel.

Everyone in British society enjoys equal protection of their right to live the way they choose.

But if your particular beliefs or actions unreasonably impinge on someone else's right to live the life that they do, then the law will find you in the wrong.

That is exactly the issue at the heart of the B&B discrimination case.

The Bulls said their double rooms were only for married couples - but Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, as civil partners, enjoy to all intents and purposes the same legal rights and protections as a married heterosexual couple.

The 2010 Equality Act has consolidated the law in this area and cleared up some grey areas.

So we may soon see more claims of sexual orientation discrimination before the courts - and probably more victories for those claiming they were treated badly.

"Because we wanted to bring our new dog we checked he would be welcome. It didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 in Britain we needed to ask if we would be."

He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.

"Judge Rutherford has found that our treatment was an act of direct discrimination and therefore a breach of the law," he added.

Speaking outside court Mrs Bull said she and her husband were considering an appeal.

"We are obviously disappointed with the result," she said.

"Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody."

In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said that, in the past 50 years, social attitudes in Britain had changed and it was inevitable that laws would "cut across" some people's beliefs.

"I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold," he added.

"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."

Judge Rutherford granted the Bulls leave to appeal against his ruling.
'Victory for equality'

Mr Hall and Mr Preddy's case was backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.
Chymorvah Hotel The couple had intended to visit the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance

"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay," he said.

Human right's campaigner Peter Tatchell described the verdict as a "victory for equality and a defeat for discrimination".

"Although people are entitled to their religious beliefs, no one should be above the law," he said.

"People of faith should not be permitted to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people."
'Cloak for prejudice'

Gay equality charity Stonewall said it was delighted at the outcome.

"You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because they're gay either," Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said.

"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice."

Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, which funded the Bulls' defence, said: "This ruling is further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield.

"Peter and Hazelmary were sued with the full backing of the government-funded Equality Commission.

"Christians are being sidelined. The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary"
They were refused a double room on the grounds that they were not married, not that they were gay. Presumably any couple trying to book a room without proof of marriage would have been equally refused. It is just more obvious if they are both the same sex.....

TallbutBuxomly

12,254 posts

101 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
djstevec said:
I totally agree you have the right to live your life according to your beliefs.
So do the b&b couple.
However, when they run a business that discriminates based solely upon those religious beliefs, they cross the line.
When a religious organisation says to anyone that is NOT a member of that religion, that they also must live by that churches rules, they also cross that line.
Steve the problem here is no one said the gay couple had to live by the Christian couple rules nor the churches.

The Christian couple did not try perform an exorcism on them or tie them to a stake and set fire to them nor as I understand it did they hurl personal insults or try convert them to Christianity.

All they did was politely apologise and decline to host them due to their religious beliefs and offer to find them alternate accommodation.

There's a big difference between trying to force your beliefs on others and simply being polite but sticking to your religious beliefs.

cardigankid

6,321 posts

97 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
Precisely. I could have been refused a room on a number of occasions on that basis, and I assure you that I am not gay.

The hotel owners are obviously a pair of crazed bigots, and you do get them. What non-gay people generally do when refused a double bed on the grounds that they are not married is either shove the two single beds together and wedge them with the wardrobe, or shake their heads in disbelief and go somewhere else.

What I don't really understand is why the gay couple felt they had to drag people who clearly have their own problems to deal with, through the courts, and I have to conclude that they are a pair of pompous aholes.

elster

17,253 posts

95 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
TallbutBuxomly said:
sex and racial discrimination laws are being used more and more by people out of spite for being fired for not being good enough at their jobs and so on or not hired for example for not being the best candidate and not for the original INTENT of the law.
Indeed, luckily a genuine case such as the homosexual couple has been cited.

If they were actually a bad guest who then played the sex card, then that would be an abuse.
Advertisement

dodgyviper

1,104 posts

123 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
cardigankid said:
Precisely. I could have been refused a room on a number of occasions on that basis, and I assure you that I am not gay.

The hotel owners are obviously a pair of crazed bigots, and you do get them. What non-gay people generally do when refused a double bed on the grounds that they are not married is either shove the two single beds together and wedge them with the wardrobe, or shake their heads in disbelief and go somewhere else.

What I don't really understand is why the gay couple felt they had to drag people who clearly have their own problems to deal with, through the courts, and I have to conclude that they are a pair of pompous aholes.
Same reason a black/irish/Cockney/etc... couple would take similar action in similar circumstances - because they felt massively offended and discriminated against.

JonRB

43,147 posts

157 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
Personally I am against two men wanting to enter into a long-term, loving, serious, meaningful commitment to each other in order to maintain the sanctity of the 55-hour "just for fun" marriage that Britney Spears had.

evil

dodgyviper

1,104 posts

123 months

[news] 
Friday 12th October 2012 quote quote all
TallbutBuxomly said:
Steve the problem here is no one said the gay couple had to live by the Christian couple rules nor the churches.

The Christian couple did not try perform an exorcism on them or tie them to a stake and set fire to them nor as I understand it did they hurl personal insults or try convert them to Christianity.

All they did was politely apologise and decline to host them due to their religious beliefs and offer to find them alternate accommodation.

There's a big difference between trying to force your beliefs on others and simply being polite but sticking to your religious beliefs.
The owners entered into a legal contract to provide a service to the couple. If they're going to turn people away then they're in the wrong business.

You cannot hide bigotry behind a religous belief - to allow such is to validate every minority supremecy group on the planet - for they all BELIEVE they are supreme.

Calling a belief religous, does not give you automatic righteousness.


They operated a business that would eventually put them into a compromised position - this was inevitable and entirely of there own making.

No sympathy and well done to the gay couple for standing up for themselves

Caulkhead

4,938 posts

42 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
dodgyviper said:
The owners entered into a legal contract to provide a service to the couple. If they're going to turn people away then they're in the wrong business.

You cannot hide bigotry behind a religous belief - to allow such is to validate every minority supremecy group on the planet - for they all BELIEVE they are supreme.
I presume you'll be at the forefront of the campaign to force muslim run curry houses and Jewish delis to serve pork curry and bacon sandwiches then?

tubbystu

3,845 posts

145 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Caulkhead said:
I presume you'll be at the forefront of the campaign to force muslim run curry houses and Jewish delis to serve pork curry and bacon sandwiches then?
Err, no.

Muslim curry & Jewish deli's do not sell pork products.

Hoteliers provide rooms, to however turns up.

It is in the relevant legislation. Period.

Caulkhead

4,938 posts

42 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
tubbystu said:
Caulkhead said:
I presume you'll be at the forefront of the campaign to force muslim run curry houses and Jewish delis to serve pork curry and bacon sandwiches then?
Err, no.

Muslim curry & Jewish deli's do not sell pork products.

Hoteliers provide rooms, to however turns up.

It is in the relevant legislation. Period.
Err, yes - muslim take aways and jewish delis serve food and choose to limit their customer base by only serving food that they believe their religion approves of. The B&B owners provide accomodation but choose to limit their customer base by only accomodating people that they believe their religion approves of.

One rule for all please and if you can't argue like a grown up without abusive emoticons, why bother? Full stop. smile

tubbystu

3,845 posts

145 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Caulkhead said:
One rule for all please and if you can't argue like a grown up without abusive emoticons, why bother? Full stop. smile
The law/licensing regarding provision of hotel accommodation is specific regarding who you can and cannot let rooms too. The b&b couple were simply in breach of that law.

Pappa Lurve

3,825 posts

167 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Caulkhead said:
dodgyviper said:
The owners entered into a legal contract to provide a service to the couple. If they're going to turn people away then they're in the wrong business.

You cannot hide bigotry behind a religous belief - to allow such is to validate every minority supremecy group on the planet - for they all BELIEVE they are supreme.
I presume you'll be at the forefront of the campaign to force muslim run curry houses and Jewish delis to serve pork curry and bacon sandwiches then?
Which is much like saying that a pizza place should legally be forced to sell burgers, or indeed any restaurant should legally be required to sell all possible dishes and food stuffs. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, Tescos would have to sell pretty much every product legal in the UK. Critically, if a gay couple turn up at a establishment which is open to the public, even if a Kosher or Halal restaurant or run by people who are religiously observant, then the couple have every right to eat there and order what the establishment offers. Same if a Muslim goes to a Kosher restaurant for example.

Right, back to the GP qualy :-)

Bill

31,713 posts

140 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Caulkhead said:
Err, yes - muslim take aways and jewish delis serve food and choose to limit their customer base by only serving food that they believe their religion approves of. The B&B owners provide accomodation but choose to limit their customer base by only accomodating people that they believe their religion approves of.

One rule for all please and if you can't argue like a grown up without abusive emoticons, why bother? Full stop. smile
Do they refuse to serve anyone based on their religion, colour, sexuality or taste for bacon? No.

They also don't serve fish and chips.

Chippist.

Breadvan72

Original Poster:

18,983 posts

48 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Some of the analogies above are confusing the product sold and a refusal to sell the product to some people on grounds of their attributes.

A Kiosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.


Ozzie Osmond

16,113 posts

131 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
A Kosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.
Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat.

I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.

tubbystu

3,845 posts

145 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.
If Bangkok ever gets a GP your wish might just come true - but would you be able to tell biggrin

Bill

31,713 posts

140 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat.

I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.
See those straws? The ones you're holding...

Justayellowbadge

33,556 posts

127 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat.

I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.
That wouldn't normally appeal, but I read an article about Oscar Wilde the other day, which mentioned (whisper it..) the gay .

Now we all know how contagious it is, so although I don't feel any different, I've almost certainly caught it from that one, tainted, insidious, paragraph.

Bring on the pretty boys, I say. Coo, and indeed, eee.

Breadvan72

Original Poster:

18,983 posts

48 months

[news] 
Saturday 13th October 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
A Kosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.
Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat.

I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.
Ozzie Osmond now resorts to what he thinks are insults, so revealing the crude homophobia that underlies his position. He thinks it's an insult to suggest that someone is gay. I don't, so the jibe falls flat.
1 2 ... 11 12
14 15 ... 39 40
Reply to Topic