Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I realise that the discussion has moved on through religion and probably back again but thought I'd like to reply anyway. I don't think it was particularly likely that there wasn't discrimination in the refusal, just saying that it wasn't the most scientific test (which is fine) given the delay in testing might have meant changes were possible in the booking status.
If the couple were targeted specifically then it is somewhat of a low blow, arguable perhaps that "unethical" practices (for want of a better phrase) do need highlighted however they occur but for some reason I'd prefer it if the discrimination was discovered by accident rather than a deliberate operation to pick on specific people.
Very well put. As to the second part I would say I would have to actually remember what their beliefs were from another thread which aint going to happen with my goldfish brain. So achieve that action with far less noble reasons(have enough problem figuring out what I believe)
I think that however you achieve it the result of not always trying to pick up people based on past opinions is probably worthwhile - occasionally it will absolutely be relevant to hold up previous statements but a lot of the time it isn't a terrible problem to reconsider your position appropriate to the circumstances. I suppose it's another way of saying Horace Mann's feelings on arguments "Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because you differ from yourself ten years ago.".
I'm slightly wondering if this was what Naffa wanted when he started the thread, it seems to have become very specific about the gay couple and the B&B owners when I initially interpreted it as a general question about whether it was possible to not hold a hypocritical opinion about absolutely everything - for my money it still isn't possible to be definitive about everything and not occasionally find that circumstances merit a stance opposite to what you'd normally espouse. If that makes me a hypocrit then so be it, I try to be logically consistent but honestly I'd prefer to go with what appears to be the most equitable result (i.e. balanced) rather than worry about whether occasionally I've contradicted myself due to different circumstances.
