Christian B&B owners lose appeal.... - Page 7

Russ · 27-11-2013, 14:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

it has everything to do with it

Ok.

27-11-2013, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

God loves a sinner that's sorry, apparently...

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

MetaWraith · 27-11-2013, 14:15

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

27-11-2013, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaWraith

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

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

27-11-2013, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaWraith

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

They still can ,just not for bigoted reasons

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

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

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"

27-11-2013, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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"

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

27-11-2013, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

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

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

**Maggy** · 27-11-2013, 14:49

Ahem!

tweetiepooh · 27-11-2013, 16:22

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.

27-11-2013, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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.

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

Stuart · 27-11-2013, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

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

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?

Russ · 27-11-2013, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

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?

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

27-11-2013, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

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?

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

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

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

**Maggy** · 27-11-2013, 20:58

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

**Chris** · 27-11-2013, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.