Gay couple win Berkshire B&B refusal case

[basicchannel]

BBC News - Gay couple win Berkshire B&B refusal case

 

Good for them - f*cking idiots hiding their bigotry behind their christian faith. If I was one of those guys I would have accepted the two single beds then started acting ridiculously OTT camp and making really loud sex noises from the bedroom whilst playing Frankie Goes to Hollywood' on full blast, but I guess they're much more mature than I am. The problem with these homophobes is they spend way too much time thinking about what other people like to do with their genitals. They should really get a life.

 

"We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law."

 

yeah, well A: their 'own roof' is a business so should have to abide by equality laws, and B: what if I felt I should be able to act on my sincere belief that under my own roof my wife must be locked in a cupboard 22 hours of the day? Would that be acceptable?

 

Give me strength!

[sonofsanta]

It's a tough one, I think, because the gay couple absolutely have the right to be treated equally to anyone else and live their life as they please, but then people have a right to their beliefs as well, and I'm uncomfortable with forcing a way of thinking upon people. As you say, though, it's not just their home, it's a business, so they have to abide by a certain set of standards.

 

I fear the correct solution is just wiping out bigotry but that ain't an easy one to do in a world with religion.

[witch]

TBH there is plenty of bigotry without religion @sonofsanta

 

Most religious bigotry isnt backed up by the bible. Just like most acts of supposed religious terrorism isnt backed up by the Koran.

(dont tell me it says they can kill infidels - maybe, but it also says they must NEVER kill women and children)

 

People cause these issues

I believe someone can have their own beliefs as long as it doesnt cause any issues with anyone else. BUT if you are running a business then you must abide by the law. In fact, the law is so clear that I dont see why it has to go to court - a big fine and a requirement to change or close would do IMHO

[localzuk]

TBH there is plenty of bigotry without religion @sonofsanta

 

Most religious bigotry isnt backed up by the bible. Just like most acts of supposed religious terrorism isnt backed up by the Koran.

(dont tell me it says they can kill infidels - maybe, but it also says they must NEVER kill women and children)

 

People cause these issues

I believe someone can have their own beliefs as long as it doesnt cause any issues with anyone else. BUT if you are running a business then you must abide by the law. In fact, the law is so clear that I dont see why it has to go to court - a big fine and a requirement to change or close would do IMHO

 

Very very true. Islam holds women in very high regard, and the rules are supposed to be there to protect them, but it has been warped to instead control them and push a very male oriented view of society.

 

Bigotry should be stomped out anywhere it rears its head.

 

The thing that I always try to put to people who think that such discrimination is acceptable is this - replace 'homosexuals' with 'black people' or 'women', would that sort of discrimination be ok?

 

So far, no-one has managed to give any argument against that other than falling back on 'its different!'.

[steveg]

Has them being Gay got anything to do with it though? At the end of the article it states that they apply the same rules to all non married couples. Is it discrimatory to not allow any non married couple the use of a double room? I think its a tough one to call. It could be argued that the government discrimates against non married couples with various tax benefits that have been around for married couples?

 

It starts to become a difficult line - discrimination against someone for being gay? Clearly wrong. Being black? Clearly wrong. Refusing use of a room because you aren't married? not sure. Forcing someone to ignore their religious views? Also not sure.

 

Steve

[localzuk]

Has them being Gay got anything to do with it though? At the end of the article it states that they apply the same rules to all non married couples. Is it discrimatory to not allow any non married couple the use of a double room? I think its a tough one to call. It could be argued that the government discrimates against non married couples with various tax benefits that have been around for married couples?

 

It starts to become a difficult line - discrimination against someone for being gay? Clearly wrong. Being black? Clearly wrong. Refusing use of a room because you aren't married? not sure. Forcing someone to ignore their religious views? Also not sure.

 

Steve

 

The couple should have been able to show that their policy applied to non-married heterosexual couples also - ie. they could have got some of their prior customers to give statements that they'd checked the marital status of and disallowed them sharing a bed.

[Theblacksheep]

It starts to become a difficult line - discrimination against someone for being gay? Clearly wrong. Being black? Clearly wrong. Refusing use of a room because you aren't married? not sure. Forcing someone to ignore their religious views? Also not sure.

 

Not letting a couple stay because they are not married is forcing religion back on them.

 

Would they let a polygamist stay with several wives? or would they try to blur a clear line and hide behind this trump card called religion.

[synaesthesia]

You have to be objective about it, especially in business.

If you run a business, you can't force your beliefs on supposed customers or you'll be out on your ear for discrimination before you can say boo.

[superatticman]

To be honest, I'd have no problem with a couple of gays sharing a bed if I ran a BnB. Why would I turn down their money in any case?

 

However, the absolute hysteria that some are getting into regarding 'equal rights' and 'prejudice' has gone over the top. Its got to the point that a load of over sensitive left leaning white middle class do gooders are taking offence where it doesnt actually exist. The vast majority of us are tolerant, intelligent beings who judge people on their attitude rather then race or sexuality. Britain now has arguably the most tolerant indigenous people on Earth. Those who disagree might actually want to talk to or socialise with black/Asian/gay people and form and opinion before spreading their divisive gibberish. You may actually find the majority of 'minorities' are happy with the way they are treated in the UK. Not everything you are told in the Student bar is true!

 

Long live Britain's tolerant society and shame on those bigots from all sides.

Edited October 18, 2012 by superatticman

[bossman]

@all:

 

Tho wilt reap what thy sows!!!

 

Repenteth now afore yeh all burn in damnation!!!

 

Does the blind man avoid certain paths because he is blind or from fear of what my lie in front of him?

 

This is the question?

 

Who on this planet has the answer?

 

No-one!

 

We all have to live together but without our beliefs what have we got?

 

Nothing!

 

Each to their own I say so everyone is entitled to state their business no matter who it offends because like everyone else we all offend someone in the world no matter who we are.

 

Live and let live and lets get on with it instead of twisting, keep the media out of it and things would not get blown out of all proportion.

 

Goodnight all and to all a goodnight!

 

If I have offended anyone all I say is tough s**t get over it!!

[witch]

Oh there you go again, MLNM, ranting away

So...everyone is entitled to state their opinion? Hmmmm - racial hatred? incitement to murder? Saying incest is OK?

Don't think so!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to foist it on other people, especially if it is against the law.

 

That couple state that they wouldnt allow unmarried couples to share a bed, so did they check marriage certificates? If not, that statement is nonsense. A wedding ring means nothing, as the person could be married to someone else. I have a different surname to mrwITch but we are married....

 

*you been drinking that stuff again, @bossman?

[Guest Guest]

So...everyone is entitled to state their opinion? Hmmmm - racial hatred? incitement to murder? Saying incest is OK?

Don't think so!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to foist it on other people, especially if it is against the law.

 

That's where it gets interesting though. Not so long ago it was against the law for women to vote. I'm sure everyone would agree those brave women (and men) who stood up against the system with their opinion that women should be allowed to vote did good. In roman times homosexuality was very normal. Years later homosexuals were persecuted. Now we are swinging the other way. Point is societies views and laws change, so do we allow people to state their own opinions regardless of if it fits in with current views and laws or are opinions only allowed if they follow the law/society/mob/sheep?

 

Stating and standing up for your opinions can be a power for good or for bad but then good and bad are subjective.

 

Edited October 18, 2012 by Guest

[pcstru]

Oh there you go again, MLNM, ranting away

So...everyone is entitled to state their opinion? Hmmmm - racial hatred? incitement to murder? Saying incest is OK?

Don't think so!

Incest is OK but hey, it's a relative thing.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to foist it on other people, especially if it is against the law.

The law doesn't care about opinions. the law cares about actions and the intent behind them. No opinion is illegal. Stating an 'opinion' with the intent that that statement might incite someone to act in an illegal way is perhaps a bit more than 'foisting' (nice word though).

[witch]

Maybe - but hard to prove? I think actually you can't state something about black people for example in a public place? Seem to remember something about that - I'll look for it

 

*edit-found this:

"United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[50] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[51][52]incitement,[53]inci… to racial hatred."

Edited October 18, 2012 by witch

[pcstru]

Speech is an action that happens as a result of an opinion[*1]. In a given situation, stating an opinion could lead to behaviour likely to cause a breach of the (queens)[*2] peace, or ... not (whether it is likely will be dependent on the intent). No charge is possible against someone for just holding an opinion - however wrong or vile the opinion might be.

 

[*1] That might seem a fine distinction but it is important.

[*2] In England.

[superatticman]

Lets say you are walking along with your mother or partner, and someone for no apparent reason calls here a total bitch, slag, whore, hooch etc.

 

Now...thats their right isnt it? Freedom of speech and all that.

 

However, you, on the other hand will have probably stopped putting your right boot through whats left of their cranium long before the plod saunter along. Thats your right to do that isnt it? Probably not, but you will certainly feel like doing so.

 

However, thats the reason there are laws in place to stop the situation from hopefully occurring in the first place. ie defamation, libel and slander.

[bossman]

@superatticman:

 

"sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"

 

Great saying and maybe a lot of truth in it, "Slander" is something only the rich can prove as it takes too much money to take through the courts, very rare that poor people can sue for "defamation of character" which is very much like "Slander" and usually costs the same as "libel", only the lawyers or should I say solicitors get something out of it.

 

Why do people get so upset over words?

 

Its life but not as we know it Jim but lets get on with it and stop gripeing!!!

 

@witch:

 

I never mentioned "Foisting one's opinions on others"

 

I did say that "people are entitled to their beliefs" did I not MSSB

[sonofsanta]

TBH there is plenty of bigotry without religion @sonofsanta

 

You're right, of course, I spoke hastily and without clarity because I was eager for hometime.

 

To qualify that sweeping statement, then, my problem is not with religion - believe what you want, it's the most personal opinion you can hold - but with organised religion, which is too often just people hiding behind God as an excuse to be a barsteward to others. A lot of religious bigotry doesn't necessarily derive from the original texts, but from people shouting their own interpretation of it, and others, in all good faith, accepting that; how many people are religious scholars, after all, to argue these points?

 

I'm as guilty when it comes to science, as most of what is discussed these days simply goes over my head, much as I wish I was intelligent enough for it to be otherwise; but it's much less frequent for someone to abuse scientific authority to disseminate unpalatable personal opinions than it is for someone in a position of religious authority.

 

I think that's made my point clearer. I think.

[Guest Guest]

but with organised religion, which is too often just people hiding behind God as an excuse to be a barsteward to others.

 

That pretty much sums up my view of religion. I believe people should be as spiritual as they see fit but organised religion is too often (in my view) used as a stick to beat people with. Now I'm not saying the organising of people with the same view is all bad, look at the charity work done, but if you look throughout history and organised religion has a lot of things to answer for; crusades, persecutions, inquisitions, banning of contraception especially in Africa...

[JJonas]

 

Does the blind man avoid certain paths because he is blind or from fear of what my lie in front of him?

 

 

Does that path go past Chorley nick?

[nicholab]

The funny thing is that most SME apply certain standards/ethos in order to get customers.

[basicchannel]

Now old glass eye Griffin has hopped on the bandwagon spewing his very own brand of verbal excrement on Twitter. Apparently discrimination is a fundamental human right. Awesome, I'm just gonna go lynch that Asian family who moved in next door.

[pcstru]

Now old glass eye Griffin has hopped on the bandwagon spewing his very own brand of verbal excrement on Twitter. Apparently discrimination is a fundamental human right. Awesome, I'm just gonna go lynch that Asian family who moved in next door.

 

Why do you think the word "discrimination" equates to "lynching"? I'm discriminating about the coffee I drink, the food I eat and the friends I keep. Certainly seems to me that I have a right to freely discriminate; that discrimination is actually fundamental to making choices. The problems arise when discrimination results in injustice. Where you are denied equal rights because someone discriminates against a particular attribute, race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc.

[basicchannel]

Why do you think the word "discrimination" equates to "lynching"? I'm discriminating about the coffee I drink, the food I eat and the friends I keep. Certainly seems to me that I have a right to freely discriminate; that discrimination is actually fundamental to making choices. The problems arise when discrimination results in injustice. Where you are denied equal rights because someone discriminates against a particular attribute, race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc.

 

Err yeah, I'm sure what Nick Griffin really means when he says 'discrimination' is: 'it is our fundamental right to discriminate between the coffee we drink'. No, he means discriminate on grounds of race, gender, sexuality and religion. The lynching statement was purely hypothetical you understand?

[Andrew_C]

The lynching statement was purely hypothetical you understand?

Not sure it is. Some muck-rakers would LOVE to have a few lynchings to get their point of view across. And of course there are politicians that thoroughly deserve lynching.