B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

PianoBasher said:
The thing that puzzles me is why this is such a surprise... I always though that Marriage was a religious institution? Therefore the way it works is aligned with the beliefs/moral code of that/those institution(s).

If, for example, Christianity/Catholicism says that "homobumfun is wrong, therefore only men & women can marry", then I don't think they're likely to completely rewrite their ancient texts to accommodate modern society.
Click to expand...
I personally think marriage ceased to be a religious institution when we afforded special rights and benefits to those who are married. It became a societal institution, and we are, in effect, not a religious society (we 'technically' are, but we are technically a monarchy even though we aren't in effect).

It raises the question of whether religion should be allowed to have a monopoly on marriage. In my view it should not. I think that in law we should either have marriage for everyone or partnerships for everyone - there should be no distinction based upon religion (which the current system is derived from) because as Castiel says, having a two-tier parnership system is discriminatory in itself.
 
Last edited:
PianoBasher said:
The thing that puzzles me is why this is such a surprise... I always though that Marriage was a religious institution? Therefore the way it works is aligned with the beliefs/moral code of that/those institution(s).

If, for example, Christianity/Catholicism says that "homobumfun is wrong, therefore only men & women can marry", then I don't think they're likely to completely rewrite their ancient texts to accommodate modern society.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Click to expand...

Up the wrong tree, sort of.

There was pressure for the CofE to stop marriages being open to all I suspect, but Marriage is not a religious ceremony as such, it is a civil one also.

The only Church who can officiate a wedding without prior licencing from the state is the CofE.
 
PMKeates said:
I personally think marriage ceased to be a religious institution when we afforded special rights or benefits to those who are married. It became a societal institution.

It raises the question of whether religion should be allowed to have a monopoly on marriage. In my view it should not. I think that in law we should either have marriage for everyone or partnerships for everyone - there should be no distinction based upon religion (which the current system is derived from) because as Castiel says, having a two-tier parnership system is discriminatory in itself.
Click to expand...

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, civil weddings far outnumber religious ones. However there should be no two tier system, if same sex couples wish to commit legally then marriage should be the way, the same as everyone else.

Equality is equality for everyone in everything.
 
The case that civil partnerships be open to heterosexuals is en route to the European Court of Human Rights though. Last I heard, there was a paperwork error and that is what is stalling it.
When it eventually gets there, then I'm 99% sure that the Court will rule that to keep civil partnerships as gay only will be ruled to be inbreach of the human rights act and as such heterosexuals will be able to become civil partners.
Will be an interesting case, once it finally gets there though.
 
Agreed. I watch the situation in the USA very closely as I think the outcome will be marriage for all, and I think the desire for it will cross the pond.
 
Castiel said:
It seems to be one of those impossible dilemma's. I can see each parties POV on this and support both, which is says a lot about how the law deals with this.
Click to expand...

Each party can still hold to their point of view, the only difference is that you cannot run a business that is discriminatory. So if the B&B couple do not want gay people sleeping under their roof, fine, don't run a B&B. When you do, you have to abide by the law which says you cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation. You could argue for a change in the law to allow small business like their's to opt out of certain parts of the law, but do we really want to go down that route?
 
RDM said:
Each party can still hold to their point of view, the only difference is that you cannot run a business that is discriminatory. So if the B&B couple do not want gay people sleeping under their roof, fine, don't run a B&B. When you do, you have to abide by the law which says you cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation. You could argue for a change in the law to allow small business like their's to opt out of certain parts of the law, but do we really want to go down that route?
Click to expand...

As long as the opt outs are regulated and within limitations and apply to all, then I see no problem.
 
Castiel said:
As long as the opt outs are regulated and within limitations and apply to all, then I see no problem.
Click to expand...

So what opt outs do we allow? Obviously "No Gays", can we also so "No Blacks" or "No Irish"? Or maybe "No God Botherers"? What is acceptable to discriminate against in a workplace? What limitations do you put on people's discriminations? How do you regulate them?
 
I'm curious whether or not in the eyes of the law it would also be discriminatory for them to turn away straight unmarried couples.

Surely it's the same thing?
 
RDM said:
So what opt outs do we allow? Obviously "No Gays", can we also so "No Blacks" or "No Irish"? Or maybe "No God Botherers"? What is acceptable to discriminate against in a workplace? What limitations do you put on people's discriminations? How do you regulate them?
Click to expand...

Opt outs regarding lifestyle. Seems simple enough. Limit it to certain industries such as Bars/Clubs/Hotels and only allow a Gay only hotel or a Hetero Only hotel if the provision is available for all within the community.

There are already certain discriminations in law already, such as private members clubs, Women only Leisure centres, Gay only charities and so on.
 
Castiel said:
Opt outs regarding lifestyle. Seems simple enough. Limit it to certain industries such as Bars/Clubs/Hotels and only allow a Gay only hotel or a Hetero Only hotel if the provision is available for all within the community.
Click to expand...

Why only "lifestyle" and what exactly do you mean by lifestyle?

And as a society should we be saying "It is OK to discriminate against the gays, let them have their own hotels"?
 
RDM said:
Why only "lifestyle" and what exactly do you mean by lifestyle?

And as a society should we be saying "It is OK to discriminate against the gays, let them have their own hotels"?
Click to expand...

You know exactly what I mean. If a group wish to socialise within their own group why should they not? Sometime equality can be too restrictive to the freedom of the individual, we are not all the same and we should accept that.

Personally I couldn't care less whether there are gay clubs or straight hotels or not, but I think that each should have the choice.

There are female only hotels, that doesn't seem to be a problem, yet by the same token as 'Straight' only hotels or 'Gay' only hotels is just as discriminatory.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom