Shadow Home Secretary: Hotel Owners Should Be Able To Ban Gays

[Naffa]

Why should one be abandoned before another?

I'll preface this by saying that I do not wish to reignite our previous disagreement(s).

Could you watch the first part of this video and offer your views on what's said? Ignoring the value judgement of the orator, just on the happenings stated in the piece.

EDIT: Maybe I could be a bit more specific. I would be interested to hear if you'd be for allowing freedom of religion, and the rights of the religious even when it can lead to such acts being 'given the ok', as it were.

 

[Dolph]

I'll preface this by saying that I do not wish to reignite our previous disagreement(s).

Could you watch the first part of this video and offer your views on what's said? Ignoring the value judgement of the orator, just on the happenings stated in the piece.

Somewhat of a different issue, because you're comparing direct and easily measurable physical harm which I would consider a much greater rights violation and happily oppose.

The comparison would be more appropriate if we were discussing a claimed religious right to hit homosexuals, which we aren't.

There is a hierarchy of rights, in my view and in law, where some breaches are much worse than others. At the lower end, conflicting rights (which is what this boils down to) are often not appropriate to resolve in absolute terms.

 

[The_Abyss]

The universal declaration of human rights, and the EU declaration of human rights, and our own human rights act, all recognise both sexuality and religious beliefs as protected.

Why should one be abandoned before another?

But they're not equal now...

 

[Naffa]

Somewhat of a different issue, because you're comparing direct and easily measurable physical harm which I would consider a much greater rights violation and happily oppose.

So, you're for freedom of religion and religious expression, within reason?

The comparison would be more appropriate if we were discussing a claimed religious right to hit homosexuals, which we aren't.

I think the comparison is appropriate, because I'm merely trying to gauge where, if at all, you would draw the line in allowing wicked action to be allowed because it's being performed by the religious.

 

[Dolph]

But they're not equal now...

I agree, which is why a conservative suggestion to correct the current inequality isn't as ludicrous as it sounds

 

[James J]

But the vast majority of the discussion in this thread has not revolved around the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, but around the rights someone has over their own home when it is also a place of business, and the long held right in the UK to serve who you wish.

I know what your saying but its never that black and white I'm affraid. Sure if two men walk into a B&B hand in hand and get turned down, okay. But what if we looked at something like a catholic B&B accepting customers who have had abortions or a less extreme example, transgender people entering a B&B.

They'd have absolutely no idea about those persons backgrounds or "beliefs" etc so accept them as normal. That means that it is discrimination against homosexuals.

Amazingly, most homosexuals arent crazy sex obsessed perverts, or put their sexuality "in your face" lol. Due to this I really don't understand the stance of the B&B owners who condone this when I wouldn't even bat an eye lid myself.

 

[The_Abyss]

I agree, which is why a conservative suggestion to correct the current inequality isn't as ludicrous as it sounds

Agreed. However let's not look at sleeping accomodation of a certain standard, and deal with the bigger issue

 

[Dolph]

So, you're for freedom of religion and religious expression, within reason?

I'm for all forms of freedom and expression within reason. The religious aspect is not important.

Furthermore, just because I allow that freedom, doesn't mean I approve of some of the things said.

I think the comparison is appropriate, because I'm merely trying to gauge where, if at all, you would draw the line in allowing wicked action to be allowed because it's being performed by the religious.

It's the same as I would draw a line in allowing 'wicked' action for the non-religious. To be honest, this isn't really a religious debate, although that's how some are trying to frame it. Religion is not required in order to be homophobic, or indeed to simply feel uncomfortable around overt homosexual behaviour, and I would not require religion to be the reason for the exemption in a private B&B that is also the owners home.

 

[Dolph]

I know what your saying but its never that black and white I'm affraid. Sure if two men walk into a B&B hand in hand and get turned down, okay. But what if we looked at something like a catholic B&B accepting customers who have had abortions or a less extreme example, transgender people entering a B&B.

They'd have absolutely no idea about those persons backgrounds or "beliefs" etc so accept them as normal. That means that it is discrimination against homosexuals.

Amazingly, most homosexuals arent crazy sex obsessed perverts, or put their sexuality "in your face" lol. Due to this I really don't understand the stance of the B&B owners who condone this when I wouldn't even bat an eye lid myself.

I agree with you, but that doesn't mean it should be enshrined in law.

 

[Naffa]

I'm for all forms of freedom and expression within reason. The religious aspect is not important.

Furthermore, just because I allow that freedom, doesn't mean I approve of some of the things said.

Based on what you said in your previous post, I'm to assume that you wouldn't be for the action cited in the video?

It's the same as I would draw a line in allowing 'wicked' action for the non-religious. To be honest, this isn't really a religious debate, although that's how some are trying to frame it. Religion is not required in order to be homophobic, or indeed to simply feel uncomfortable around overt homosexual behaviour, and I would not require religion to be the reason for the exemption in a private B&B that is also the owners home.

I should point out that I wasn't trying to frame this as a religious debate. I was merely phrasing my argument of the bigger issue with Mr Grayling's own words, and his own context.

Mr Grayling later said he was looking at being "sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups" but was not seeking a change in the law.

But the main point of my posing of the original question was just to clarify and ascertain your view regarding various freedoms.

 

[PermaBanned]

I think that what people are getting at is that in a B&B, they should have the right to turn people away, but to do so because of their sexuality is wrong.

 

[Dolph]

Based on what you said in your previous post, I'm to assume that you wouldn't be for the action cited in the video?

Prevention of Physical harm trumps prevention of harm to feelings, if that is what you mean.

It's where you have harm at the same level it gets sticky (hence the right to self defence, for example). This thread is about harm to feelings vs harm to feelings, hence the stickyness.

I should point out that I wasn't trying to frame this as a religious debate. I was merely phrasing my argument of the bigger issue with Mr Grayling's own words, and his own context.

But the main point of my posing of the original question was just to clarify and ascertain your view regarding various freedoms.

Fair enough

 

[James J]

I agree with you, but that doesn't mean it should be enshrined in law.

True, but that being the case, why did george osbourne even bring it up? I fear this may turn into another taboo subject instead of being properly debated and discussed.

 

[Naffa]

Prevention of Physical harm trumps prevention of harm to feelings, if that is what you mean.

It's where you have harm at the same level it gets sticky (hence the right to self defence, for example). This thread is about harm to feelings vs harm to feelings, hence the stickyness.

Absolutely, to both points.

 

[Dolph]

True, but that being the case, why did george osbourne even bring it up? I fear this may turn into another taboo subject instead of being properly debated and discussed.

It was Grayling, not Osborne, and it was most likely brought up because it was relevant to the discussion at the time.

It is worth noting that the law prohibiting this behaviour (that is yet to be tested in court, and likely to fail at high level for the same reason as other similar legislation has done), was passed by Labour in 2007, as one of the 4,300 new laws they have introduced during their time in power.

 

[James J]

It was Grayling, not Osborne, and it was most likely brought up because it was relevant to the discussion at the time.

It is worth noting that the law prohibiting this behaviour (that is yet to be tested in court, and likely to fail at high level for the same reason as other similar legislation has done), was passed by Labour in 2007, as one of the 4,300 new laws they have introduced during their time in power.

Lol this I didn't know, very interesting. I'm now no longer needed in this thread so I can bow out. Thanks for the debate

 

[Redman]

I think that what people are getting at is that in a B&B, they should have the right to turn people away, but to do so because of their sexuality is wrong.

In essence it's nothing to do with the sexuality of the potential guests, it's more to the fact that the guests lifestyles/beliefs conflict with the beliefs of the owners.

Religion is pervasive, it invades every aspect of those suffering it. To ask a true Christian (one who follows the bible, erm, religiously) to be hospitable to a homosexual couple, is to ask me to be hospitable to a person carrying an infectious, fatal disease.

For the record I'm athiest, and have a dislike of fatal, infectious diseases Now the argument that law should ignore religion since it's completely irrelevant, well I'm all for that, but unfortunately that wont be the case for a long time.

 

[arc@css]

I think it should be nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Instead how people behave when staying in a hotel for example should determine whether they are able to stay there again.
You book a room, you check in. You treat the surroundings with disrespect, naturally you may be asked to leave.

 

[Riiya]

meant for new thread