to not feel very sorry for these arseholes?

[lagertops]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424983/Christian-B-B-owners-refused-gay-couple-close-business.html

Sorry to link the DM, but I'm just so mad after reading this article, especially the 'Best rated' comments.

I wouldn't wish death threats on anyone, but I really feel that if you're going to bring your religion into your (hospitality) livelihood and alienate customers, then duh! It's not very good for business!

'Shivering and hungry.' Do me a favour.

I am simply pointing out that they didn't say "no gays" and that they apply their beliefs on marriage equally to heterosexual and homosexual relationships

Which is entirely meaningless when it's impossible for a gay couple to be married (as was the case at the time). So it has the effect of "no gay couples at all".

And again - they clearly said "heterosexual married couples only". Several of us have pointed this out.

Link to the Court of Appeal judgment..
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/bull-v-hall-and-preddy.pdf

Don't preach at me Pachacuti - I know the law very well.

All I said was that Preddy and Hall did not act with dignity.

I think they did.

Can someone explain to me why pharmacists can refuse to sell the MAP due to their beliefs.

yet this couple cant express their beliefs

Flapjack, again - why do you equate 'dignity' with 'allowing people to break the law and treat you like shit'?

And actually - having been on the receiving end of some pretty disgusting disablist bigotry I don't just sit there smiling beatifically whilst polishing my halo. Even if that's what people round here would prefer I do.

It's not going to happen. I'm gobby ( who'd a thunk it, eh?)
If someone thinks I'm lesser because of my disability or because of my kids' disabilities then I'm going to shout. Loudly.

I also seek recourse in the law for eg when I had my car criminally damaged by a disablist bigot. Unfortunately Sussex Police do not consider disability hate crime to be a serious matter, but I sought the protection we are supposed to have.

Progress is not achieved by sitting on your bum being 'dignified' aka shut up and put up.

We are actually listening. We just disagree with you. And I find it funny, reading back your posts on this thread, that you are telling other people not to lecture you.

It isn't bigotry to erode "Christian values" (not that all Christians agree with those values, mind you), no, when those values conflict with the law. Just as it isn't bigotry to erode any other values when those values conflict with the law.

The couple in this case didn't stage a Pride rally outside the B&B. They didn't turn up in assless chaps or with a loudspeaker on their car blaring out "YMCA". They quietly and in a dignified manner attempted to book a room in a B&B, which they are entitled to do.

If we want to point at anyone who didn't behave with dignity, IMO it would be the Bulls who pursued this through the courts refusing to accept that they'd been acting illegally when it was blindingly obvious that they had been.

I don't know, McNewPants. That's wrong too, as these academics suggest.

Re: pharmacists....I think that their own code of ethics allows them not to sell a product that is contrary to their religious beliefs, but they are legally required to suggest an alternative & help the customer obtain the medication elsewhere. I suppose, again, this is all down to "protected characteristics", and the right to medication in this case is not protected.

I think - but happy to be corrected.

I think the difference there, McNewPants, is that there isn't anyone you can point to who has been discriminated against on the grounds of their religion/gender/sexuality/disability and who could therefore bring a case for unlawful discrimination. The pharmacists in question won't sell the MAP to anyone , whether they are black/white/gay/straight/married/single/in a wheelchair/dancing the cha-cha-cha, so there's no discrimination.

I don't think it's right, mind you, but it's not a discrimination issue.

In other words - they are allowed to not sell the medication themselves, but actively preventing the customer obtaining it at all would be regarded as them imposing their religious beliefs on another and would be illegal/ unethical.

I don't have too much of a problem with a pharmacist saying, "Well, I cannot sell it to you myself - so please see my colleague or I can recommend another nearby pharmacy". It's not as bad as refusing a couple a bed for the night, anyway.

Alanna and pachi you a both right.

Thanks for the explanation. It make a little more sense to me now.

So if the couple in the B&B only offered single rooms to every one, they could and still uphold their beliefs.

Yes, if they only offered single rooms and split up all couples they would have been fine (in my completely non-expert legal opinion).

Personally I think refusing someone needing MAP is worse than refusing someone a bed in your b&b.
I think that this case would have not have gone to court had it not been Christians.
I am on the fence on this one. I am not on the fence re the death threats though.

the MAP comes under same conscience clause as abortion so you do not have to have anything to do with it yourself if you so choose but you must not discourage or prevent seeking this advice elsewhere or refuse to refer to a colleague who does

this applies to whole process so some does not have to provide pre or post-operative care etc

yes if B&B only had single rooms and forbade sharing ie 1 person per room only that would be perfectly legal

There's "refusing" someone needing MAP and then there's "Right, I'll have to get my colleague Susanne to help you with that. Susanne, could you serve this customer, please?"

Maybe their Christian associates could have spread the word around churches encouraging people to stay? Seems to me that all it has done is highlight that people don't want to stay somewhere that would make them uncomfortable. Obviously whatever they are offering to the market is not desirable hence they are going under. I am sure they are not the only B&B in trouble.

Yeah - personally I'm hoping this proves the 'right-thinking silent majority' (TM Daily Fail) aren't actually as much in the majority as they would have us believe...

Personally I think refusing someone needing MAP is worse than refusing someone a bed in your b&b

Well, yes. But the point being that a pharmacist HAS to enable the customer to obtain the medication elsewhere. If he/she flatly refused to sell & wouldn't enter into any further discussion then they'd be in deep water.

Personally, I think they should all sell the MAP. But the situations are slightly different....and Pachacuti explained why perfectly.

YANBU at all.

Well of course it would have gone to court if they hadn't been Christians. They broke the bloody law. What do you think would have happened? 'madam you are acting illegally here. Can I just check your religious status before I caution you?'