that you shouldn't open a hotel if you only want straight married couples to stay in it?

[JoanofArgos]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/christian-couple-barred-gay-couple-shut-hotel

Horrid old bigots, say I.

Xpost due to crappy connection, was replying to pascoe.

I actually feel very sorry for the b&b owners. Before the lawsuit was brought, the gay couple could have stayed in almost any hotel with the exception of just a few. But now the b and b owners can't open a b and b or hotel anywhere. Very sad miscarriage of justice.

Miscarriage of justice? In what way? They broke the law.

BuzzLightBeer - surely your last your post makes my point all the more relevant?

If you disagree with me, then address the issues under discussion - why use terms such as "bigots", "anachronisms" etc?

The purported anger you are experiencing right now, as you read posts expressing views that run counter to your own...that emotion is intolerance.

You run the risk of exhibiting the very same qualities you claim to find so appalling in others.

You (and others on the Left) might want to reflect on that.

Um, no, its very very very clear that they did in fact break a law. They are not the Guildford 4.

Yeah, tragic. Bring back Jim Crow

And I am very happy to admit that I am intolerant of homophobes. I really don't have a problem with that at all.

I do not run the risk of that at all., but thanks so much for the concern.

"But for the Law of the Land to force them to accomodate in a way that runs contrary to their (not outlandish or extreme) beliefs is heavy-handed and excessive, in my view."

You don't think their views are extreme?

If they discriminated against black people would they be more extreme in your view?

WilfShelf - I don't like the negative comments relating to the B&B owners or those that agreed with them.

Fair enough, argue with the issues at hand, but why resort to abuse?

easy question for Pascoe...

you say that they have clearly stated beliefs which should be respected and we should tolerate their ideas and there should be no law against it.

Ok, if we replace gay with black, should that also be respected, tolerated, and allowable by law. If they said no blacks can stay here?

If its not the same, why not?

Tool that digs= a spade

Person enforcing bigoted views= a bigot

I liked this bit, Lenin:

Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

Why is it bigoted to call someone who clearly is a bigot, er, a bigot?

Defn:

a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics and who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees

Winnybella,

Exactly the problem in a nutshell, good on you. Should a couple whose views are thoroughly BNP be allowed not to accommodate/serve people in their B&B/hotel/shop? Do we really want to go back to the bad old days when people could put up signs saying no Blacks/Irish/(and add gays)?

These people chose to open up their home to paying guests. The couple who booked were only interested in finding somewhere that would allow them to bring their dog.

IMO if you run your home as a business, you are subject to the law, end of. The same applies to Lilian Ladele and to the man who challenged his employers because the terms of his employment meant he had to counsel gay couples - if you don't like what the terms of your job ask you to do find something else.

winnybella - no, I don't think their dislike of unmarried couples sharing a bed is extreme.

Does it accord with my own views? No.

I have a 7 month-old baby daughter with my fiancee - i.e. we're not married - and disagree with this couple on this issue...but I respect their views nonetheless.

Discriminating against black people is not a good example to use to try to probe my views - since there are no mainstream religions that justify such views and besides, black people can't exactly pretend to be otherwise - unmarried people of whatever sexual orientation can easily bite the bullet in order to get to stay somewhere.

Sorry is this a special homoerotic breakfast or should I expect to find the same on the menu up and down the country? I have never seen two men 'openly' kissing at the breakfast table and am struggling to picture it tbh. Can anyone help?

I think Gay rights still have a long long way to go here in the UK.
Despite cases like this one.
(And who cares if it was set up or not, - if it was it has certainly had the desired effect by highlighting discrimination.)

Gay or straight shouldn't matter. We are all people FFS.
And who was whinging upthread about Gay Pride/parades etc?
This is a country where in the 21st century men are still beaten to death for the "crime" of being Gay. So much for progress.
If LGBT groups want to celebrate being alive and being allowed to live their lives openly and having some Pride in themselves I say YAY.
God made them that way you know. And apparently He doesn't make mistakes.

I get so angry about this. I have a couple of very good friends (A gay married couple)who I love to bits. It upsets me to think that anyone would treat them badly.

So anything that highlights so called Christians behaving in a way that is anything but Christian is a good thing.

"if you don't like what the terms of your job ask you to do find something else."

Doesn't this discriminate against people of faith in the workplace? Why is not being allowed to stay in a certain hotel so much worse than not being allowed to do certain jobs?

A bit like <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=www.artknowledgenews.com/files2008a/Caravaggio_Taking_of_Christ.jpg&imgrefurl=www.artknowledgenews.com/Caravaggio.html&usg=__PnmcosSYlFDfcyNpCIlshQJf2NY=&h=516&w=710&sz=143&hl=en&start=0&sig2=voH3MWCsLbJGsZXdIDOmkw&zoom=1&tbnid=Mi6DXxbjRcrjWM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=206&ei=IQ02TYHxIJOKhQffnb2iCw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchrist%2Bkiss%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1C1SKPC_enGB337%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D651%26tbs%3Disch:1%26prmd%3Divns&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=974&vpy=355&dur=8659&hovh=191&hovw=263&tx=181&ty=106&oei=IQ02TYHxIJOKhQffnb2iCw&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:20,s:0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this, but I think it was after supper rather than at breakfast, Unrulysun?

Bitoffun - so so true. And a little painful in how obvious it is :(

It's not just an example plucked out of thin air to use in a debate. In the UK in the 60s there were signs in the windows of boarding houses saying, 'No Blacks, no Irish'.

Then it was made illegal to discriminate.

This is a logical extension of that given the legally protected right to be free from discrimination over your sexuality.

I would LOL if it wasn't so offensive:

" besides, black people can't exactly pretend to be otherwise "

Perhaps we should encourage the reverse black and white minstrels? Get all the blacks to 'white' up?

Damn these black people for not being able to pretend to be white.