The issue is that the couple were gay and in a civil union which is treated in most repsects like a marriage. So the B&B were effectively discriminating against them because of their sexuality not their married status. The ruling could have gone the other way if the couple had not been in a civil union.
Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
The issue is that the couple were gay and in a civil union which is treated in most repsects like a marriage. So the B&B were effectively discriminating against them because of their sexuality not their married status. The ruling could have gone the other way if the couple had not been in a civil union.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 1,387
- Location
- Aberdeen
And preventing a Christian couple from running a B&B because they would have to cater for gay couples, which they think is morally wrong and against their religious beliefs is hurting them.
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I belive that education should be the cornerstone of discrimination prevention, not something tagged on after legislation. We seem to think that once we legislate the problem goes away.
I'm not ignoring this possibility. This kind of exclusion already goes on. The point I'm making is that it would be no worse under the system I propose. Communities are more than capable of pushing out those they see as inferior or undesirable. It can and is done subtly, at least this way it would might be in the open for all to see and judge.
No different than if I was sacked for the same reason under the current system/law. Employment law is a farce, if an employeer wants rid of you, they will find a way. This I have seen many times. Individuals made redundant, with their position advertised with minor changes within weeks. I
I'd feel disgusted and angry. But I'd prefer that that to be admitted to a fun part and know that my children and I are being sneared at for being different. Legislation only paints a happy face on the surface. Take the US for example. They have some of the strongest anti discrimination laws in the world, all they are doing is papering over the surface cracks. The US is one of the most racially segregated societies I've ever seen. Prejudice constant simmers below the surface.
On the contrary I expect people to be small minded, petty and vindictive. I just want it in the open so the root cause can be addressed.
Last edited:
Running a B&B isn't a human right. They are still allowed to disriminate against homosexuals as much as they like in their personal lives however when you open a business things change and you are no longer allowed to discriminate against sexual orientation, gender, race or religion.
Sadly for them they cannot prove their silly pick and chose religious beliefs, where as homosexuals can.
The gay couple were in a civil union...
I acknowledge it, I just don't think the right to religion actually applies in this case. They are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. They are free to discriminate against homosexuals in their private lives as much as they wish. What they are not free to do is start a business that discriminates against homosexuals. Their right to religious freedom does not automatically get passed on to their business. The fact that they run their business form their home is pretty much irrelevant.
ECHR said:
I think that that is a pretty neat piece of text. My problem would be with what the definition of freedom of religion actually means. It's pretty well spelled out here, but if you had an unfettered right to 'practice' your religion, that could easily extend to the stoning of a woman for unveiling her hair, or something along those lines. I feel like religious freedom necessarily has to be limited, if one is to live in a free society.
I think it's impossible to be absolutely consistent, regarding this issue.
I find it amazing at how you sperg out about the law and fail to understand it some times all the same.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
So what are you saying exactly?
If I am selling something on an online selling site and i am selling the product as a cash on collection exchange. That if i do not like the look of the person that arrives at my door, I am obliged by decriminalisation law to make that trade? Are you saying that i, as a seller, I do not have the right to discriminate on the appearance of the buyer, in no way at all?
Well if your "online selling site" established the sale to the extent of being a contract of sale agreed by both parties and by "not like the look of the person" you mean you tinglygroenspidersense can instantly spot peoples sexual preference/religious conviction etc ... well what do you think.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
That does not make much sense. What are you saying exactly? that some sort of telepathic racist/religious bigot is going to dominate the online sales business?
I think that that is a pretty neat piece of text. My problem would be with what the definition of freedom of religion actually means. It's pretty well spelled out here, but if you had an unfettered right to 'practice' your religion, that could easily extend to the stoning of a woman for unveiling her hair, or something along those lines. I feel like religious freedom necessarily has to be limited, if one is to live in a free society.
I think it's impossible to be absolutely consistent, regarding this issue.
No right is absolute, otherwise there could never be any balance if conflicting rights. all rights have limits in a free society due to conflicts. The question in the B&B case is whether the balance was made, and I don't feel it was in that case, rather one right bulldozed another unnecessarily.
Doesn't make much sense coming from you! Well now I've heard it all.
You stated a sale with shall we presume some sort of agreed binding contract.
When the person comes to your door you ask whether you have to continue the sale because "you don't like the look of them".
Now if you don't like the look of them because you are so amazing you can tell let's say they are gay and then you deliberately break the agreed contract because of that sole reason then again I ask: what do you think.
I think that that is a pretty neat piece of text. My problem would be with what the definition of freedom of religion actually means. It's pretty well spelled out here, but if you had an unfettered right to 'practice' your religion, that could easily extend to the stoning of a woman for unveiling her hair, or something along those lines. I feel like religious freedom necessarily has to be limited, if one is to live in a free society.
I think it's impossible to be absolutely consistent, regarding this issue.
Stoning Women for any reason is not something supported by Religion....it is justified by some extremist interpretations of Scripture to support a cultural and tribal tradition.
Any limitations should only apply to extremist viewpoints and practices not to justify the restriction of religious freedom in general. No Right should ever be absolute anyway.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
reply to Xordium
There was absolutely no mention of contract in this thread and from what i understand there was absolutely no mention of contract in the B&B case. If there is a contract agreed upon then that is a different matter entirely. A person does not have the right to void a contract based on petty discrimination.
There was absolutely no mention of contract in this thread and from what i understand there was absolutely no mention of contract in the B&B case. If there is a contract agreed upon then that is a different matter entirely. A person does not have the right to void a contract based on petty discrimination.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,539
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Do you think getting to stay in a B&B is a human right? Really?
That's not true - Rastafarian women get stoned quite frequently.
(And once again thanks for the translation mystery solved no headspinning but the police involved)