to think you shouldn't have to accommodate gay / unmarried couples?

[moogstera1]

Re. the b and b owners who have been fined for refusing to allow a gay couple to share a room.
From what I can gather, they are committed Christians who do not allow hetero or homosexual unmarried couples to share a room.
The gay couple deliberatly chose this B and B as they knew they would be refused a shared room and wanted to make a legal point.
They were offered 2 seperate rooms but refused.
So, despite personally not being at all religious and not caring if someone wants to share their bed with whoever they choose, AIBU to think that in their own home, they can choose to uphold their values ( which seem to be consistent as regards no unmarried couples.)

Nick Griffin, is that you hiding behind Moogstera1?

The "Christian" argument is a load of bollocks too. What would Jesus have done? Probably not only given them a bed for the night but made them dinner too.

Im with Empress on this one. We stay away from b and b's too.
It is not up to the owners to dictate on something that is LEGALLY PROTECTED.

In response to the question asked, YANBU to think people don't have to accommodate any kind of person they object to for whatever reason. But until running a b&b or other service business becomes a mandatory activity there is no defence for discrimination. The right to discriminate exists until you start trading in the service industry - at that point you suck it up or fuck off.

CelineMc Bean and FarelyKnuts

Just to clarify, would you therefore make it illegal for a Christian church or a Muslim mosque (or indeed any other creed ) to refuse to conduct a gay marriage or gay blessing?

If they went ahead and did so what sanction would be appropriate and against whom?

I think CelineMcBean says all that needs saying about this. True Christians would have welcomed this couple and treated them courteously and with respect regardless of their personal beliefs about homosexuality.

The law is quite clear. Religion is to be respected only to the point where it conflicts with the law of the land.

A church or mosque is a religious place of worship, not a secular establishment operating for profit. They cannot be compared.

Also. Where do you stop? Is it ok for DD's teachers / GP / Scout leader to refuse to deal with me (non-bio mum) because they disapprove? If the chief executive of Superdrug decided non-marital sex was wrong would all gay people have to buy lube / condoms elsewhere?

somebloke I never gave an opinion on church/mosque/whatever and marriage so I can't see how I can clarify anything for you.

I think it's fine for people to choose who they allow to stay in their own homes (although reveals them as bigots if they make that decision on bigoted grounds).

But not fine for people running a business. Then you have to obey the law.

Waves back to Empress

The issue here is that the B&B owners felt that the guests were entering their home when they're not, they're entering their business which happens to share the same premises.

They, whether they are Christian, Mormon, muslim, 7th day Adventist, JW or Moonie, are entitled to hold their own views, and act upon them within their home, which is their private, personal quarters within the house - bedrooms, living room, kitchen etc. If they don't want unmarried visitors staying with them to sleep together, that's their call.

Their problem is that they tried to extend this to the rooms in the bookings diary, which people pay for, and to the room where they serve breakfasts. These rooms are not their home and people cannot be turned away when you're offering a paying service just because you don't like their lifestyle.

I thought we'd moved on from the "No Blacks, no Dogs, no Irish" posters of the 1960s. Mrs Wilkinson seems not to have done so.

I don't agree with it, but I can't help feel sorry for people who are trapped in uneducated religious minds.

And it's laws like this one which help the dinosaurs catch up with the rest of us.

Ta da - no more need to feel sorry for anyone.

I have not commented on religious ceremonies either so again nothing to clarify, but religious establishments must obey by the law as it currently stands.

Do I think the law should be changed? No. I think we should legislate for civil marriages and/or partnerships as we already do. A religious marriage or blessing is about being accepted into a community. Personally I would not want to belong to a community that disapproved of how I live my life, so not an issue

The best way to change people's attitudes is to start with the state. Eventually the church will catch up. We even have female vicars now - unthinkable 50 years ago.

Also, someguy running a business and running a religious organisation are not comparable.

Some bloke-I don't think this is easy-and it is always going to be possible to pick holes in any equality argument. This couple were running a business, not a religious establishment.
I believe that marriage should have the legal bits separated from the religious bit-many countries already do this. Blessings/christenings/bar mitzvahs etc can be up to the individual church/ mosque as is already the case. I do believe that religions who are discriminatory (let's face it, most of them!) should not benefit from any tax free arrangements etc. discrimination should not be state sanctioned. This also applies to any other sort of discrimination-sexism etc.
But as I said it is not easy or any sort of quick-fix. Just can't understand why, out of all the things prohibited in the bible which people do choose to ignore that they fixate on homophobia as being the one they must at all costs uphold.

I think there should be a clear separation between religious blessings and state marriage, I think heterosexual couples and homosexuals should have legal civil marriages/partnerships. I don't think religious institutions should have any legal right to marry people, they should purely provide blessings. If a church, mosque, temple etc, wants to refuse to bless LGBTs they should be able to, if they are pro-LGBT and wants to bless LGBTs then they should be able.

Am a christian. YABU. God welcomes everyone; it is a business, therefore subject to the law; agree too many religious people have an un-healthily prurient interest in other people's sex lives.Excellent points made above.

I hadn't heard of this, but glad they've been prevented from turning away anybody who isn't cut from the same cloth as themselves. It may seem to some like it's their business and their home and they can take your business or not, but it's wider than that.... they get to peddle their belief that they are better or something and lots of tiny incidents like this are almost more toxic overall because they are so insidious. That sentence is badly constructed I know. hope it makes sense.

YABU. This is a very clear cut case, even if it was a 'set up' by the couple. I am not suggesting it was but I just want to be clear that it wouldn't matter even if it were.

People will have made these points up thread but I feel a strong need to go on record with this one.

The owners of the B&B are running a business and need to provide equal access to all members of society per the laws of this country.

Prior to setting up said business, in which they knew they would be approached by all varieties of the public, they needed to ask themselves whether they would be prepared to do this or not.

If not, they're insane as business people apart from anything else because the legal and reputational risk they were exposing themselves too by restricting access to their goods and services on a discriminatory basis woudl be great. As they have indeed found.

From a moral standpoint there is absolutely no difference in what they did and what used to happen in the US with the 'coloureds only' thing and it beggars belief to me (I am from the US) that anyone could seriously pretend otherwsie.

I feel a bit sorry for the B&B owners (hear me out)- whatever point they and that Christian organisation that paid their legal fees were trying to make has been completely hijacked by the arsehole that is Nick Griffith. I don?t agree with them one iota, but I can imagine as soon as they heard about those tweets giving the address of the couple they were like ?oh fuck no!?.

You can?t cherry pick which rules and regulations you fancy sticking with, and as a business owner you should know which legislation will have an impact on your livelihood. If you don?t like it retrain, do something else or start saving for the legal bills you?re ultimately going to incur. The house stopped being a home as soon as they accepted money to allow people to stay.

CelineMc Bean

No of course you have not commented on religious ceremonies but I am nonetheless interested in any views you may have, especially the question of whether the principle of non-discrimination apply equally throughout society or do we divide the world up into the non-religious sphere (where it should) and the religious (where it need not).

Yes of course everyone must "obey the law as it currently stands". It does rather leave open the question, what do you think the law should be?

"Not comparable": So from your last post does that mean that you would not make it illegal for a church or mosque to refuse a gay marriage and/or blessing?

There is also another niggling point: most adherent of most religions would not say that religion is something that only occurs within the walls of a church, mosque but is something which guides and informs the whole person's life, including their home life. If you stop someone living their life according to their religious beliefs you are in a sense repressing their religious identity just as much as if you stopped them going to church.

I have answered what I think the law should be, very clearly.

CelineMcBean

Yes I think you have, namely that you would not make it illegal for a religion to discriminate. Thank you.

somebloke Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Your right to your religious beliefs ends where those beliefs infringe on my rights.