Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
Just as a matter of interest, why is it that people are very vocal about gay rights issues, when I can't recall a comment, let alone a thread on PH about the rights of the disabled (apart from them being lazy scroungers, obviously)?
Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
Sticks. said:
Just as a matter of interest, why is it that people are very vocal about gay rights issues, when I can't recall a comment, let alone a thread on PH about the rights of the disabled (apart from them being lazy scroungers, obviously)?
Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
The DDA was a step forward, and I think its reliance on 'reasonable' measures is entirely, er, reasonable given the broad spectrum of conditions encapulated by the word 'disabled'.Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
It's done very little to change individual attitudes, I imagine, but I think that's because many people are genuinely un-nerved by disability and have little or no experience of dealing with it. Here's hoping this summer's events help with that.
Sticks. said:
Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
Absolutely.But there is a big difference between active discrimination and passive discrimination.
Now I have written it, that sounds terrible and maybe I am wrong but I doubt my severely paralysed buddy would mind that not every B&B owner has put in the lift he needs to get out of bed.
But he would mind if they had such a lift and they didn't let him in because he doesn't like peas.
There is an important practical difference about offering a service to the public where many of that public simply can't use it and offering a service to the public and then preventing some people using it, no?
nellyleelephant said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
nellyleelephant said:
Really?
So, if that same couple decided that black people shouldn't stay at their B&B you'd be fine?
Of course not as they have no basis for it I would say. I think.So, if that same couple decided that black people shouldn't stay at their B&B you'd be fine?
Sticks. said:
Just as a matter of interest, why is it that people are very vocal about gay rights issues, when I can't recall a comment, let alone a thread on PH about the rights of the disabled (apart from them being lazy scroungers, obviously)?
Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
Possibly because there hasn't been an idiot with a silly hat pontificating on the subject. Although people parking in disabled bays and whinging about disabled people getting motability allowances etc tend to get pretty short shrift.Even the slightly disabled person will laugh wryly about booking a B&B, it's almost always out of the question, as it is with many hotels.
TallbutBuxomly said:
One is based on centuries religious beliefs the other is not.
You don't have a personal problem with homosexuality.Yet you suggest a friendly "no gays - we're Christian" sign is OK because people have hated gays for ages.
Dude (assuming you are a dude) you really need to look up the "Appeal to tradition". It is a logical fallacy (pronounced Phallus-y).
Seriously though, is the Church really that immutable?
What about female vicars?
For aeons the female of the species couldn't administer the sacrament.
Now they can.
What's that all about?
TallbutBuxomly said:
nellyleelephant said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
nellyleelephant said:
Really?
So, if that same couple decided that black people shouldn't stay at their B&B you'd be fine?
Of course not as they have no basis for it I would say. I think.So, if that same couple decided that black people shouldn't stay at their B&B you'd be fine?
Edited by nellyleelephant on Friday 12th October 17:56
walm said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Just because its what you are wearing not your skin colour does not stop it being discrimination.
Actually it does stop it being discrimination.You can change your shoes.
You can't change your skin colour (unless you are Michael Jackson or live in Essex).
did you not read what I posted I said almost exactly the same you :-)
The problem with the "no gays please - I am a Christian" signs is that they are as bad as "no blacks please - I am a racist".
Aren't they?
I think the problem is that Christians still see homosexuality as some sort of choice.
Hence - it's a sin.
If it wasn't a choice - then it would be absurd to suggest that something that was nothing to do with you is somehow your fault.
So these charming Christians running the B&B would never in a million years exclude a black person because - being black isn't a choice - it's not their fault - they were just born that way.
TB - your analogy with dress code also slightly highlights that underlying view, if you see what I mean.
Unfortunately for the church - it isn't a choice.
TB - you say you don't like peas.
Wouldn't you be a little put out if a B&B owner kicked you out because you don't like peas?
Even if they had a sign up saying "no pea-haters - we really love peas"!?
Personally I believe there is a god however I don't live life by the bible nor do I go to church but I am in awe of everything and fail to see how it could just BE hence my belief. People are entitled to believe in god Allah or whatever other deity that they may please and live their lives according to the rules of their faith regardless of whether you me or anyone else may think it is bokum or nuts or stupid .
Hence if I go to a halal restaurant I don't get annoyed when I can't get a bacon sarnie. Its my choice to be there and I consider myself there guest and will not enforce my view on them that bacon is friggin awesome and they are being utterly ridiculous
Same with the b and b analogy there are other b and b's that will take gay couples I see no reason to make a big deal out of someone's faith.
As to the pea issue no I wouldn't be put out at all IF I was made aware in advance of their pea hater stance so that I could go somewhere pea haters were welcomed as contrary to popular belief not everyone hates pea haters...
Thanks for the replies, interesting. I was curious why one minority's issues really got people heated, whereas another's seem not to. There's been law - DDA - since 96, still widely ignored, less so than it was. If you don't believe me, try booking a non-chain hotel or shopping on wheels at Christmas.
Still, back on topic. The thing that strikes me is that if anyone dissents from the pro gay view they're immediately labelled homophobic. It struck me there was a parallel with race and immigration issues (UK) whereby govt's have avoided any problems for years for fear of being labelled racist, resulting in more racial tension.
Talking and listening must be the answer imho.
Still, back on topic. The thing that strikes me is that if anyone dissents from the pro gay view they're immediately labelled homophobic. It struck me there was a parallel with race and immigration issues (UK) whereby govt's have avoided any problems for years for fear of being labelled racist, resulting in more racial tension.
Talking and listening must be the answer imho.
TallbutBuxomly said:
walm said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Just because its what you are wearing not your skin colour does not stop it being discrimination.
Actually it does stop it being discrimination.You can change your shoes.
You can't change your skin colour (unless you are Michael Jackson or live in Essex).
did you not read what I posted I said almost exactly the same you :-)
The problem with the "no gays please - I am a Christian" signs is that they are as bad as "no blacks please - I am a racist".
Aren't they?
I think the problem is that Christians still see homosexuality as some sort of choice.
Hence - it's a sin.
If it wasn't a choice - then it would be absurd to suggest that something that was nothing to do with you is somehow your fault.
So these charming Christians running the B&B would never in a million years exclude a black person because - being black isn't a choice - it's not their fault - they were just born that way.
TB - your analogy with dress code also slightly highlights that underlying view, if you see what I mean.
Unfortunately for the church - it isn't a choice.
TB - you say you don't like peas.
Wouldn't you be a little put out if a B&B owner kicked you out because you don't like peas?
Even if they had a sign up saying "no pea-haters - we really love peas"!?
Personally I believe there is a god however I don't live life by the bible nor do I go to church but I am in awe of everything and fail to see how it could just BE hence my belief. People are entitled to believe in god Allah or whatever other deity that they may please and live their lives according to the rules of their faith regardless of whether you me or anyone else may think it is bokum or nuts or stupid .
Hence if I go to a halal restaurant I don't get annoyed when I can't get a bacon sarnie. Its my choice to be there and I consider myself there guest and will not enforce my view on them that bacon is friggin awesome and they are being utterly ridiculous
Same with the b and b analogy there are other b and b's that will take gay couples I see no reason to make a big deal out of someone's faith.
As to the pea issue no I wouldn't be put out at all IF I was made aware in advance of their pea hater stance so that I could go somewhere pea haters were welcomed as contrary to popular belief not everyone hates pea haters...
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.
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.
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.
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.....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"
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.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.
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.
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 a
holes.
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 a
holes.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.
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.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 a
holes.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff