I was replying to your theoretical sale thing keep up.
Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
I was replying to your theoretical sale thing keep up.
I had to think about that for a second or two....
No problem, I am pleased it was as simple as it turned out. (I will reply to your latest one anon...fascinating..)
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
You are the one that mentioned contract, twice. Maybe you miss used the word. Fine.
The reality is that some gays walked in to a B&B and were refused a room, there was no contract signed. If this was setting a precedent then there would be no seller rights remaining. Refusing to sell something to anyone, for any reason that the government or its majority self righteous voters dictates, is in conflict with their discrimination laws and you could be found liable. Which will include a hefty revenue generating fine and quite possibly a lengthy jail sentence.
The reality is that some gays walked in to a B&B and were refused a room, there was no contract signed. If this was setting a precedent then there would be no seller rights remaining. Refusing to sell something to anyone, for any reason that the government or its majority self righteous voters dictates, is in conflict with their discrimination laws and you could be found liable. Which will include a hefty revenue generating fine and quite possibly a lengthy jail sentence.
Last edited:
An 'extremist viewpoint' is pretty difficult to define. I mean, if the Bible or the Qur'an explicitly says something 'bad', for example the part in Leviticus that states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death on her father's doorstep, how could somebody reading that as it's written, be considered 'extreme'? Some things in these texts simply cannot be read figuratively.
I don't want to turn this into another debate on religion
o), but how would you set the line? The only reason there is such thing as religious moderates today, is because so much of there various canons and scriptures have been thrown up, or rendered useless by rational conversation. But that doesn't mean those things are no longer part of a canon.groen: this does have your name by it does it not:
This was what I was replying to. And the word you used the for the gay blokes is probably going to get you into a spot of bother might want to change it from something quite so offensive. Edit: good move.
This was what I was replying to. And the word you used the for the gay blokes is probably going to get you into a spot of bother might want to change it from something quite so offensive. Edit: good move.
An 'extremist viewpoint' is pretty difficult to define. I mean, if the Bible or the Qur'an explicitly says something 'bad', for example the part in Leviticus that states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death, how could somebody reading that as it's written, be considered 'extreme'?
I don't want to turn this into another debate on religion
In respect of your reluctance to discuss the finer points of biblical interpretation I will keep this very brief.
You set the line according to the mainstream interpretation as accepted by the society in which the religion is practised...You would be hard pushed to find a Christian Denomination that supports stoning of women for whatever reason, especially as Leviticus is OT and as such the Old Covenant and Christianity is by definition built on the Foundation of the New Apostolic Covenant......
It is disingenuous to suggest that Religious Moderates only exist because of Culture and Society demands it, in reality it is quite the opposite...Religious Moderates have throughout European History been at the forefront of driving the moderation of our Culture and Society.
To be more in keeping with the philosophical tone you wish to maintain I will say the following....
The bottom line is that Religion is a tool, it can be wielded for good or ill, because of this some have wielded the power that religion gives them to do some pretty heinous things, other have wielded it to some amazing things....just as Political Ideologies have been used to justify some abhorrent acts, so has Political Ideals been a driving force for great good...We do not judge Politics by the men who wield it, we judge the Men themselves....the same should be true of Religion.
Last edited:
Ok, I won't set off the same debate that we have had before. I would simply make the point that I think the only way you can determine whether or not something that's written in the Bible is 'extreme' or not, is to judge it by a prevailing social standard, that must, by definition, come from outside religion. So, again by definition, determining whether or not a religious view is extreme or not must result in the limitation of religious freedom.
But there, I have said it.
But there, I have said it.
Ok, I won't set off the same debate that we have had before. I would simply make the point that I think the only way you can determine whether or not something that's written in the Bible is 'extreme' or not, is to judge it by a prevailing social standard, that must, by definition, come from outside religion. So, again by definition, determining whether or not a religious view is extreme or not must result in the limitation of religious freedom.
But there, I have said it.
I disagree slightly, in Western Culture for example, Christianity is ingrained into our Society and as such had to a large extent defined what you would refer to as our social standard so while I would agree that Religious Freedom or ANY freedom for that matter, should be limited by the social standards prevalent in our society, I would not agree that is has to happen outside of, or separate from Religion.
Where did I say it was?
Surely the only other option would have been for the other right to be bulldozed instead? Though I still disagree that their rights were bulldozed, they entered into running a business of their own free will, surely it is their responsibility to ensure they are aware of any legislation that may conflict with their religious beliefs? Or does personal responsibility not apply in this case?
If however we do need to have a heirarchy of rights I would put sexual orientation about religion due to one being a choice and the other generally not.
Is it a choice though?, it certainly can be a choice but being predisposed to believing in a God and ergo being predisposed to being religious may be as ingrained into the individual as their sexual orientation....
Sexual Orientation can be a choice as well, I think we have to be careful in how we prioritise one set of rights over another...
Of course it would be preferable if people did not have such a narrow interpretation of Scripture in the first place and if the hierarchy of the Church consigned such ambiguous and socially outdated interpretations to history. Although this wouldn't help or stop those predisposed to homophobia who were not religious in the first place, of which there are many.
Last edited:
The compromise position involves a general ban on discrimination with a partial exemption for those running their business from their home, but with an absolute requirement to publish, clearly, the nature of the prejudice so people can make an informed choice about whether they wish to give that business their custom. (I wouldn't give them my custom incidentally)
This leaves protection in place for the general rights of one party to not be discriminated against, the specific right to religious practice to be protected and the people, via the market, the right to make an informed choice about whether to support a business with discriminatory policies.
Do you really think legitimising bigotry & irrational hatred for minority groups (as personal choice/opinion) is the best course of action to solve the problem?.
By that standard should we let "Nazi groups" open up shop & start selling paraphernalia - as it's just a personal opinion (with massive NO JEWS) signs up?.
Do we really want "white shops" & "Black shops" in the high-street - do you really think that's going to help the fabric of society & promote different cultures to effectively learn to co-exist & flourish together, do you think it's going to help mend the bridges of what now is a multi-cultural society?.
Or let me guess, you don't want that perhaps?.
The underline point is that nobody has the right to discriminate or oppress another, the same as rapists don't have the right to rape & paedophiles don't have the right to commit the terrible acts.
I do agree that legislation isn't the answer (it does not solve the problem 100% obviously) - prevention is, but until we put steps in place to prevent it people who are victims of this attitude require the backup of the law to ensure there personal rights are protected to the best possible standard.
It's easy to say "making things illegal does not stop it" - I agree, but until we have the preventative measures in place it's better than simply legitimising & allowing it.
While people may still be victims to various discriminatory practices at least currently they have legal grounds to do something about it - with the kind of systems others are proposing here it would simply remove the ability for them to defend themselves.
Which (rightly or wrongly) isn't recognised by some Christians as being equivalent to marriage.
Except it's not really allowing primacy of one over the other. Allowing a religious business to refuse a double room to an unmarried couple doesn't prevent the unmarried couple from practicing homosexuality; it just means they either have to get married (which they can't due to the backwards laws in this country) or choose to stay at one of the other 180,000 B&Bs in the country.
On the other hand, forcing the religious business to give a double room to an unmarried couple prevents the religious business from following their religious beliefs.
No it doesn't.
Does it say in the bible.
And Jesus said, "Don't give ye Hotel rooms to men who fancy men"?
I don't think so.
The religion stops THEM from engaging in homosexuality, nothing about pushing that belief onto others.
In-fact, I think you will find only those without sin can caste the first stone, and that nobody is without sin.
Also, I'm SURE there is something about not judging in there also, some reasonable advice which even a secularist can appreciate (if only these people in question followed it).
I linked you this the other day for your benefit:
I would say that is more about hypocrisy rather than do not judge. There is also for example:
Again not prohibiting judgement at all but judgement for petty reasons etc. So now you have to ask is this judgement petty rather than totally restricted and that's going to be quite a personal thing.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I think the fact that they were homosexual and that the B&B owners were religious is realy the wrong argument to take from this. As i have already tried to say, i think the argument is realy about whether business have the right to decide what customers they want to serve based on any reason, be it religious or just a silly prejudice. Banning the ability for businesses to make that decision is an abuse of government power and is an infringement on the rights of the business owners.
I have also tried to get a response from some of the people on here if they think that there is any reason that is valid in their view for turning away customers?
I have also tried to get a response from some of the people on here if they think that there is any reason that is valid in their view for turning away customers?