Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst
Discussion
king moron, they sued because in this day and age sexuality shouldn't affect anything, like a booking. The B&B ruling was entirely correct, in my opinion, and would have been just as reasonable if the owners had turned someone away for being black or Jewish. I mean the ruling was correct, and bringing the case in the first place was correct.
Churches are given some leeway to behave in a discriminatory manner, businesses are not, even if they are run by religious people.
Churches are given some leeway to behave in a discriminatory manner, businesses are not, even if they are run by religious people.
TallbutBuxomly said:
odation.
The gay couple sued and won damages. They sued out of nothing less than Spite.
Yep, you're right. The gay couple sued and won damages. They sued out of nothing less than Spite.
And the Suffragettes chained themselves to railings out of spite, and that pesky Nelson Mandella was a very naughty boy who deserved all that time in prison for not saying "yes mass'a" like a good black man.
You really, really don't get it, do you.
TallbutBuxomly said:
If the law could be applied properly then then I would be fine with it. My point is it won't be and the problem here is due to that people and institutions are going to be negatively affected by this out of nothing less than spite and I think that's wrong.
To use a dumb analogy . If I don't like the taste of peas you can't and won't "make" me like it by forcing me to eat it.My parents tried for years to do so and I still dislike them.
Its utterly basic human psychology. Carrying on from that I may not like Peas but if someone else wants to eat them in front of me I really couldn't care less each to their own. Then bring in a law saying all veg are peas I could then be sued if I didn't eat peas. The law may be well intentioned but people who have no issue with peas get sued.
It won't change their opinion.
Sadly that's the best way I can describe my argument.
No one wants you to eat peas, no one expects you to like peas, but they would like it if they were legally allowed to refer to their peas as peas rather than pisum sativum as they currently have to. To use a dumb analogy . If I don't like the taste of peas you can't and won't "make" me like it by forcing me to eat it.My parents tried for years to do so and I still dislike them.
Its utterly basic human psychology. Carrying on from that I may not like Peas but if someone else wants to eat them in front of me I really couldn't care less each to their own. Then bring in a law saying all veg are peas I could then be sued if I didn't eat peas. The law may be well intentioned but people who have no issue with peas get sued.
It won't change their opinion.
Sadly that's the best way I can describe my argument.
If that's ok with you?
djstevec said:
Homosexuals want equality out of spite??
Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
Quite.Show me examples where in European countries that have same sex marriage, Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for example, where churches have been forced against their will, and against Article 9 of the ECHR to marry homosexual couples.
Where are the huge legal problems in these places arising from gay marriage, the 'spiteful' prosecutions of religious bodies, the consequential breakdown of straight marriages??
Surely we can use their examples as a means to improve our own drafting of the law? (and hence elminate Tbb's apparent sole objection to it?)
otolith said:
The B&B ruling was entirely correct, in my opinion, and would have been just as reasonable if the owners had turned someone away for being black or Jewish. I mean the ruling was correct, and bringing the case in the first place was correct.
Churches are given some leeway to behave in a discriminatory manner, businesses are not, even if they are run by religious people.
Well I am sorry I disagree. Maybe I am too chilled out and happy to respect other people's beliefs and opinions. Churches are given some leeway to behave in a discriminatory manner, businesses are not, even if they are run by religious people.
There are times in life where discrimination Is called for and acceptable. If I go to a club that states no trainers wearing trainers technically I am being discriminated against on a very loose level as I am being denied entry as I am not conforming to the owners wish.
Should I then sue them for having a different opinion or should I simply go to another club which allows trainers and give them my money instead?
Personally I take the view its their club their rules. I don't run out and sue them out of spite which is imo what it would be if I did.
If however I turn up and they are rude personally offensive towards me and or assault me then you can be damn sure I will sue them as nobody deserves to be treated in that manner.
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.
Thanks.I think this is just a problem with an abuse of a law by a spiteful person, rather than anything to do with equality.
They abuse the sex and racial discrimination laws because they are bad people not because they are a woman or black.
People who abuse those laws are just a part of the rising "compo culture" we seem to be falling into.
And the B&B example is quite a good one since I am not really sure what damages the two chaps suffered (although apparently they gave the money to charity - probably not Christian Aid though).
So, I agree there is a risk these laws get abused (as with any law).
But that risk is so overwhelmingly minor compared with having unnecessary inequality enshrined in law.
Would you rather have discrimination against women in the work place allowed because 1 in 100 cases are based on malice and spite rather than a genuine grievance?
Surely not?
TallbutBuxomly said:
There are times in life where discrimination Is called for and acceptable. If I go to a club that states no trainers wearing trainers technically I am being discriminated against on a very loose level as I am being denied entry as I am not conforming to the owners wish.
A dress code is nothing at all like banning people on the basis of their race or sexuality, that's a complete red herring.People can believe what they like, what is illegal is discriminatory practices in business. If someone's beliefs mean that they cannot run a business in a legal manner, they should not run a business.
walm said:
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.
Thanks.I think this is just a problem with an abuse of a law by a spiteful person, rather than anything to do with equality.
They abuse the sex and racial discrimination laws because they are bad people not because they are a woman or black.
People who abuse those laws are just a part of the rising "compo culture" we seem to be falling into.
And the B&B example is quite a good one since I am not really sure what damages the two chaps suffered (although apparently they gave the money to charity - probably not Christian Aid though).
So, I agree there is a risk these laws get abused (as with any law).
But that risk is so overwhelmingly minor compared with having unnecessary inequality enshrined in law.
Would you rather have discrimination against women in the work place allowed because 1 in 100 cases are based on malice and spite rather than a genuine grievance?
Surely not?
In the b&b cases I cannot se why the law could not apply as" it must state clearly on advertising of their website that homosexual couples are requested not to book at the b&b due to its owners having Christian beliefs".
It protects both parties and us imho a win win. The Christians can continue to live within their beliefs and the gay couple can stay elsewhere. However there I think would also need to be a caveat to protect homosexuals from wider discrimination such as large hotels or hotel chain's may not discriminate based on sexual orientation as they are a large corporate which should have no religious constraints.
otolith said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
There are times in life where discrimination Is called for and acceptable. If I go to a club that states no trainers wearing trainers technically I am being discriminated against on a very loose level as I am being denied entry as I am not conforming to the owners wish.
A dress code is nothing at all like banning people on the basis of their race or sexuality, that's a complete red herring.People can believe what they like, what is illegal is discriminatory practices in business. If someone's beliefs mean that they cannot run a business in a legal manner, they should not run a business.
I would agree however that is more personal as you can change clothes you can't change skin. But I think the law needs to be better applied so that people dont use it to sue for/compo or spite because then people in effect go out to be offended. It creates a spiteful society where people think only of themselves and what they can get out of any situation.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Of course not but equally I am tired of seeing people get hurt out of spite or compo wishes using ever more poorly thought out legislation.
In the b&b cases I cannot se why the law could not apply as" it must state clearly on advertising of their website that homosexual couples are requested not to book at the b&b due to its owners having Christian beliefs".
It protects both parties and us imho a win win. The Christians can continue to live within their beliefs and the gay couple can stay elsewhere. However there I think would also need to be a caveat to protect homosexuals from wider discrimination such as large hotels or hotel chain's may not discriminate based on sexual orientation as they are a large corporate which should have no religious constraints.
Really?In the b&b cases I cannot se why the law could not apply as" it must state clearly on advertising of their website that homosexual couples are requested not to book at the b&b due to its owners having Christian beliefs".
It protects both parties and us imho a win win. The Christians can continue to live within their beliefs and the gay couple can stay elsewhere. However there I think would also need to be a caveat to protect homosexuals from wider discrimination such as large hotels or hotel chain's may not discriminate based on sexual orientation as they are a large corporate which should have no religious constraints.
So, if that same couple decided that black people shouldn't stay at their B&B you'd be fine?
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).
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"!?
TallbutBuxomly said:
Well I am sorry I disagree. Maybe I am too chilled out and happy to respect other people's beliefs and opinions.
There are times in life where discrimination Is called for and acceptable. If I go to a club that states no trainers wearing trainers technically I am being discriminated against on a very loose level as I am being denied entry as I am not conforming to the owners wish.
Should I then sue them for having a different opinion or should I simply go to another club which allows trainers and give them my money instead?
Personally I take the view its their club their rules. I don't run out and sue them out of spite which is imo what it would be if I did.
If however I turn up and they are rude personally offensive towards me and or assault me then you can be damn sure I will sue them as nobody deserves to be treated in that manner.
Or, of course, they ban you because you are black, a woman, or some other minority other than, of course, your sexuality.There are times in life where discrimination Is called for and acceptable. If I go to a club that states no trainers wearing trainers technically I am being discriminated against on a very loose level as I am being denied entry as I am not conforming to the owners wish.
Should I then sue them for having a different opinion or should I simply go to another club which allows trainers and give them my money instead?
Personally I take the view its their club their rules. I don't run out and sue them out of spite which is imo what it would be if I did.
If however I turn up and they are rude personally offensive towards me and or assault me then you can be damn sure I will sue them as nobody deserves to be treated in that manner.
It is wrong to deny the benefits of society to a section of society solely because of their sexuality. It offends me in the same way as it would offend me if I were banned from, perhaps, renting a room solely because of my natinality, or rather the nationality of my ancestors.
Despite a considerable number of posts on this, and untold other, threads on this subject you have never produced a sensible argument as to why it is OK to be partial towards the gay. I could list them, but that is a threat I'll leave until later.
I am happy for the religious to follow their beliefs. I am not happy that they receive tax benefits. I am bemused as to why they should have automatic seats in parliament. I resent the fact that the church is allowed to state that gays commit sins. I am stunned that the government should force me to subsidise various church schools so that they can indoctrinate maleable children. But I have to put up with that, at least at the moment. However with regards to gays being allowed to marry, now there we have a chance of changing attitudes.
I have four kids, all of whom have gay friends. It would appear that this is hardly abnormal. I had a gay friend but we never talked of it as it was unmentionable. I'm glad times have changed and I want them to change more. Tell my kids' friends they would see no reason to treat gays as any different to those whome we call hetrosexuals (as if they were all identical in their sexual desire, habits and proclivities).
It is no good justifying one's beliefs by using the teachings of some church or another. People should be treated the same regardless of sex or sexuality.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff