Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

Ok.

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

only if they are really sorry and do not continue to sin after realising their mistake

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

Whatever happened to "Management reserve the right to refuse service"

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

if it upsets someone in the new PC era it does not count

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

They still can ,just not for bigoted reasons

---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

so refusing to serve someone because they are gay is "PC" ? Your such a hypocrite.In one thread you insist that we should impose western ideals on other countries because they are best and yet some of our ideals that guarantee freedom and fairness you disagree with and say they are "PC"

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

refusing is not PC that is the point I am making

Freedom used to be a Western ideal freedom to be gay if that is what you are and freedom not to agree with homosexuality but one freedom is promoted now the other not

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

refusing to allow a gay couple to stay in a commercial premises because they are gay is discrimination and therefore illegal it's as simple as that ,nothing to do with being PC

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

But if you refuse service to unmarried couples (not simply sharing a room) regardless of sexuality then it should be OK since you are not discriminating. This is the stance of the owners I believe. Trouble is that it's been deemed discriminatory for some reason. If this is the first couple refused service there is no precedent. If part of the reason is also this couple claim that they can't be married so have no opportunity to comply then that's not the fault or failing of the owners either.

It really does seem to be a PC battle with this couple being used to make a point.

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

The gay couple where married or at least in a civil partnership ,which to all intents and purposes is as close to marriage as you can get for gay couples so the discrimination was because they where gay not unmarried

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

Freedom has always be restricted. Arguably necessarily in some places..

While I agree that people should be free to decide who uses their business, there are limits. It's easy to argue that the should be free to ban unmarried couples, but should they be free to ban gay people? Should they also be free to say "No Blacks"? "No Irish"? "No Women?". Where do you draw the line?

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

IIRC they didn't ban gays, they just wouldn't offer them a double bedded room. A small but distinct difference.

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

plenty of men only clubs the other 2 would be labels racist which is worse than just a discrimination

---------- Post added at 20:36 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

I agree this point makes a huge difference

I would like to point out I have no problem with homosexuality I just do not subscribe to popular thoughts on it

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

Perhaps these two should have started up an entirely different enterprise..One which would not made them have to compromise their religious beliefs. :erm:

Re: Christian B&B owners lose appeal....
 

No, you have to allow the couple in question to speak for themselves. By all means say you disagree with them (I do, as it happens), but at least do them the respect of acknowledging that they have explicitly stated what their intentions were, and they were to honour the Christian concept of marriage. In law, a gay couple cannot (yet) be married. A civil partnership is not entirely the same.

They wanted to restrict their double beds to married couples. By their own testimony outside court this morning, they didn't even set out thinking about gay couples. A great many people of their generation don't - people of my parents' generation are sometimes surprised we have had single-sex couples in our rooms and not because they thought we would try to prevent it, but because many of them are still taken aback that that sort of thing actually goes on in public. In this case, discrimination against a gay couple was a side effect they hadn't even considered, not the stated intention of their policy.