Homophobic BnB hypocrisy

sports_brah said:
You were the one in the other thread slamming the idea of monogamy and how stupid it was.

So essentially this is just another herpderp thread showing how intolerant he is of things HE doesn't like.

*yawn*
Click to expand...

It's what you get when you step in the den of a morally outraged herpderp.
 
I didn't think they were disgusting. Now if he had been caught having a homosexual relationship then i think OP post would be reasonable. But to make the claim that no one can have a negative opinion about homosexuality unless they never do anything wrong is ludicrous.
 
Westyfield2 said:
From what I remember they were a couple running a business and have every right to pick and chose who their customers are for whatever reason they want (gays/fatties/gingers/indians/martians) and thanks to our free market anyone who has a problem with it can choose to take their custom elsewhere. Most people supported them, regardless of whether they were 'disgusting' Christians or Atheists or whatever.


Oh and since when does not being a fan of gays become homophobia? They weren't stoning them to death or anything!
Click to expand...

Except they don't have every right to pick and chose who their customers are? What a really odd post.
 
groen said:
I didn't think they were disgusting. Now if he had been caught having a homosexual relationship then i think OP post would be reasonable. But to make the claim that no one can have a negative opinion about homosexuality unless they never do anything wrong is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

He tried to justify it by saying "For us, sex when you’re unmarried is a sin before God", only to then try to have sex with someone who was not his wife, who he was not married to. That's pretty disgustingly hypocritical. Never mind the homophobia element to it.
 
Westyfield2 said:
From what I remember they were a couple running a business and have every right to pick and chose who their customers are for whatever reason they want (gays/fatties/gingers/indians/martians) and thanks to our free market anyone who has a problem with it can choose to take their custom elsewhere. Most people supported them, regardless of whether they were 'disgusting' Christians or Atheists or whatever.


Oh and since when does not being a fan of gays become homophobia? They weren't stoning them to death or anything!
Click to expand...

No, they were trying to run a legitimate business and were failing to follow legal requirements. The only people that supported them were other bigoted homophobes.

No one else cared - in the 21st century you can't pick and choose customers based on their sexuality, race or religion.
 
hurfdurf said:
Except they don't have every right to pick and chose who their customers are? What a really odd post.
Click to expand...


Why not??

I have the right to choose where I spend my money, according to whatever criteria I choose to apply (For Now! # :( ). Why should I not have the right to choose who I take money from?

(# Unless I am employing somebody! Already the state is telling me what criteria I may use for this, I imagine there are those out there who think "All" my expenditure should be state regulated in order to ensure "Equality"! :mad:)
 
Muffin` said:
Don't confuse legality with morality.
Click to expand...

The law is intended to follow social moral codes, which is the case here. It is morally wrong to discriminate against someone based on their gender/race/sexuality/religion and thus the law deems such discrimination as illegal. Quite simple.
 
Westyfield2 said:
From what I remember they were a couple running a business and have every right to pick and chose who their customers are for whatever reason they want (gays/fatties/gingers/indians/martians) and thanks to our free market anyone who has a problem with it can choose to take their custom elsewhere. Most people supported them, regardless of whether they were 'disgusting' Christians or Atheists or whatever.


Oh and since when does not being a fan of gays become homophobia? They weren't stoning them to death or anything!
Click to expand...

You'd soon moan if someone turned you away because they didn't like the look of your face or something.
 
Here's my old post on the moral aspects of it, though I'd probably word it differently today:
PMKeates said:
This is a tough issue for me to take a clear stance on. I'm in two minds because equality and fairness for everyone are core beliefs of mine, but I am also gay and don’t enjoy being discriminated against because of it. This confuses things as equality is a two-way street. Not allowing gay partners to sleep together is just as unfair as forcing someone to allow them to. I’ll try to rationalise my thoughts.

It is an unfortunate piece of evolutionary baggage that we humans are discriminatory. We coalesce in to groups that share our looks and our beliefs and attempt to exclude those who do not, out of fear. In the course of history the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ has meant that the largest and most powerful of those groups tended to extinguish the smaller and weaker. As our minds have expanded we have come to realise that despite our differences we are equal, and that the diversity that comes with difference is a positive aspect of society.

We do, however, retain that irrational fear of those who are different. It still bubbles under the surface in our emotions and our instincts. In recent times those who seek power have consciously abused our nature to create arbitrary belief systems or establish groups that discriminate in an often violent and hateful manner, and there is no reason to suggest that people will not continue to do so. The mob does not take much to be rallied, even if it is nowadays rallied by the Daily Mail rather than a warlord or religious mystic.

In a free society discrimination would be possible. However, it would quickly be frowned upon, and the opportunities to discriminate would be very few in number. In theory, one could just require people to make their discriminations public – after all, they shouldn’t be ashamed of them if they believe in them.

Practically speaking in reference to this case, a requirement for the hotel to state clearly at all interfaces with the public that it discriminates towards unmarried couples, and as such all gay couples, would suffice. In my discrimination-free society people would be unhappy with such a hotel. They would protest against them. They’d shout from the rooftops how unfair they are being and how sad a position it is for them to take. Unfortunately, the beliefs held by the couple who run the hotel are quite common in our real society. A large number of people have been indoctrinated by hundreds of years of religious oppression to think that homosexuality is ‘a bit wrong’ and it will take hundreds of years of tolerance and understanding to undo it. Once the irrational belief is not commonplace, the concept of such a belief becomes abhorrent, something like the sign approach outlined above would work, and nobody need be unfairly treated.

To allow casual discrimination now, when as a society we still cannot trust ourselves to think straight, opens the doors to the potential abuse of society by those who would attempt to use it for their own gain; we must therefore not allow casual discrimination. The effect of this is that we have to be unfair towards those who want to discriminate, by not allowing them to.

In the case of this hotel, we must not allow them to prevent partnered couples who are gay from sleeping together if they allow partnered couples who are straight to sleep together. It might not be fair at this stage, but it is for the good of society, and it paves the way for a fair future.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Equality should be about equal provision....there are Gay Exclusive hotels (at least practically as they cater for a distinct and defined demographic), despite the legislation, so why not Hetero Exclusive ones? As long as everyone is catered for then there should be no problem..should there?
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
Equality should be about equal provision....there are Gay Exclusive hotels (at least practically as they cater for a distinct and defined demographic), despite the legislation, so why not Hetero Exclusive ones? As long as everyone is catered for then there should be no problem..should there?
Click to expand...

It's not frowned upon when its punching upwards against multiple bigger attackers. There are gay based hotels, but would they exclude hetero couples? (Not in my experience, I have stayed in them with partners as a heterosexual couple in Brighton a few times)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom