Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35650059)

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.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35650066)

I agree. I think the couple in question were wrong-headed but if "equality" actually means anything, we have to leave room for people to be wrong-headed. Otherwise we haven't legislated for equality, we have legislated to create a hierarchy of rights.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35650069)

Isn't that what we have done though ? if practicing a religion and the beliefs that go with it causes discrimination then that religion takes a back seat to civil rights ,that is how i see this result ,intended or not practicing their religious beliefs has caused the couple to fall foul of the law so their beliefs take second place

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35650101)

Which would have been a lie, and therefore counter to the way of life they are trying to live ... ;)