What is disgusting about my attitude exactly?
Besides the fact that I don't agree with you and have pointed put that you are contradicting yourself all the time.
It is interestong that you now resort to insults instead....
Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
What is disgusting about my attitude exactly?
Besides the fact that I don't agree with you and have pointed put that you are contradicting yourself all the time.
It is interestong that you now resort to insults instead....
Oh please - it's getting pretty sad now.
1.I wasn't talking about social groups, party groups - I was originally talking about a business - keep up.
2.The point is that,
A = A Civil partnership is legally the same as marriage, any distinction between the two on religious grounds is liable for suing based on discrimination laws - this is how the world is, read the guardian article.
The fact the church does not recognise gay marriage is meaningless.
B = A business must comply to the laws of the land in how it operates - this is a secular country, get used to it.
Trying to use arguments against real racist/homophobic & sexist discrimination & attempting to compare women's exercise groups, rape groups to real discrimination is not only flawed it's intellectually dishonest.
Gay people can't get married, because the church won't let them, then saying "discrimination by marriage is fine" is basically saying "Religions should be allowed to discriminate".
When you reply next time, please try to think of something original, thought provoking or intelligent to say.
No, you said that.
When replying to somebody else I gave a reason to justify the reason for the existence of a women's only group, you artificially made up the link with rape victims & a leisure centre in a pretty clear attempt to misrepresent my argument.
The original institution under discussion was Women's gymnasiums...
Are you saying now that there is no justification for Womens Only Gyms?
I never said there wasn't any justification for women's only gyms.
I gave an example of a justification for a women's only group (rape victims), separate to that I gave a potential reason for a women's only Gym.
I'm still awaiting a valid & justifiable reason for a none blacks/gays policy (which you seem to be advocating).
Also - what does that have to do with the subject of allowing homophobia/racism in Hotels exactly?
Hang on hang on..., do you think that because we have women's only gyms (which may or may not all have good reasons - I don't know, I'm not a member, due to being male) - that means it's OK for hotel owners to turn away gay couples (who are legally married according to UK law - civil partnership is protected to be equal to marriage) based on religious bigotry?.
Is that your argument?, really? - you are funny.
I could hazard a guess that it was to do with the clothes they were wearing, or the car they turned up in, but that's all it would be, a guess.
Their website quite clearly states they will not offer their double rooms to an unmarried couple, it makes no discrimination about sexual preference, race, religion, gender or disability, purely marriage. Stating that you feel it is actually against homosexuality is simply projecting your own prejudices on the couple, by assuming that since they are religious they must also be against homosexuality.
Fantastic. So more government sponsored discrimination.
Except they aren't the same thing, there are subtle legal differences, and more relevantly to this case, religious differences, therefore you can't draw that conclusion.
And the only small white guy in a room full of large black bodybuilders may not be very comfortable either - but then is that because there is an actual threat, or just a perceived threat based on racism?
But there aren't any justifiable reasons for single sex groups, in the same way there aren't any for the other examples you've given.
And yet you still haven't given any logically consistent & valid reasons.
The couple had a valid reason to refuse to give a double room to an unmarried couple - their religion (which is recognised by legislation)
Please please please can you put all your replies in one post rather than 3-4 separate ones?
So discrimination is OK as long as the person doing it is classified as a group and not a business.....
How about Anti Semitic Groups.....or a social groups that excludes black people or Asians....
I will point out that the UK is not a secular country, it is has not de-established itself from the Church and as such is a Christian Country. And I was questioning the law itself as being discriminatory and divisive not the judgement based on it.
I quite agree, which is why you are dishonest.....
As I pointed out at the very beginning:
Something you went to disagree with, using the argument you are now dismissing:
I suggest you keep better track of exactly what you opinion, for what it's worth, actually is and getting angry at me for your inadequacy is not really very productive.
Actually I am not saying that at all. I ma saying that society allows certain groups to discriminate and it is deemed by society to be acceptable, we have to be careful in how we limit, prioritise and control one groups right to discriminate against another groups rights of freedom and expression.
Grow up, I have not made such insightful and intellectual statements such this:
or this:
Oh I see it was deleted it was that insightful and intelligent.
Oh I see, deflection and avoidance is the order of the day.
Read my original post.....I quoted it for you above.
I am not advocating anything, you are attempting to justify your contradictory opinions. I see no more validation for having a policy based on colour as I do for having one based on gender or orientation. Which if you read my posts properly you would realise.
I would take that up with the various gay only resorts and hotels...the point I was making is that if it is acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation for one group, then why is it not acceptable for the other?
What is funny is your consistent failure to understand even the most simplistic of concepts as we have seen in more than one thread now.
I find it hugely ironic that you accuse others of intolerance when it is clear that you hold your own intolerances, specifically against religious people.
Anyway I have no time for people like you, so I bid you adieu and let you rant on in peace.....
Last edited:
Gay people can't get married, if being married is a requirement to use of services the rule was discriminatory in it's creation.
I could say "My shop will only serve people who do not have a natural disposition to Sickle-cell disease" a round about way of turning away Afro-Caribbean's.
By stating that you will only allow married couples (taking into account gay people can't get married) it's already denying access to a certain sub-group for use of a businesses services.
We the law has given them the SAME protection of rights as normal marriage.
If religious people wish to ignore the law, they should be fully willing to accept the consequences & the law suits.
I never even said I strongly support single sex gyms, but if you had ever been to a gym you would know the horseplay, pick-ups & the actions of many of the other men there, it's also worth noting that men & women have totally different builds & certain exercise routines are more optimal for women than men & visa versa - on average the base ability levels are also different for starter classes.
But the gym argument is also pointless, as people in this society don't deem a single sex gym as sexist, mostly because they run nights for couples/singles/men/women on different nights.
An individual Hotel will have no different requirements for men or women, they just have rooms - there is no reason (other than religious - which does not apply to others) for them to turn away specific customers.
I would if it allowed me to editPlease please please can you put all your replies in one post rather than 3-4 separate ones?
The main problem in this thread has arisen from people responding to replies I did to groen's posts - if you read my posts , then groen's perhaps the thread will make more sense.
Constantly having people say "Your giving silly examples" when I'm replying to groen saying "I think we should allow all discrimination including racial" - is always going to be a waste of time.
There is a slight difference in that your guesses are not at all related to the reason why the couple said they excluded them.
Nope, I know plenty of religious people that have zero problems with homosexuality. What I do not know however are plenty of religious people that have no problems with homosexuality that ignore civil partnerships whilst not ignoring civil marriages.
Well no, more the fact that they need a specific exemption to actually carry on with their work. I do not believe the exemptions for sexual orientation are carte-blanche either, but you would need to check the specific legislation to be sure.
The legal differences are indeed very subtle (mostly around pension rights I believe) but as the aforementioned case suggests, those legal differences do not extend to B&B owners. So I think in this case I can actually draw that conclusion. Not to mention, as previously mentioned, the religous differences would also mean that they would not recognise civil marriages (no God involved) and marriages under different religions (not their God involved) and possibly not even marriages under different denominations (not their particular flavour of God involved).
That is because you are quoting those other people while allegedly replying to someone else...
Bye bye.
Next time reply to the final point you ignored & deflected.
Guilty of what you preach much I think.
I believe (I could be wrong here as I am no legal eagle) that the discrimination law is a civil thing rather than a criminal thing. Therefore the above would need to be challanged in court. FWIW I feel the law should be applied equally so if a heterosexual couple were turned away from a gay only hotel they should be able to sue. They would probably win too.
I agree that the law should be applied equally. I also think that the law should be able to accommodate the rights of the Gay Couple under equality legislation and the B&B owners rights to their beliefs regards sex before marriage.
The elephant in the room in this case for me, is the Civil Partnership legislation...it is divisive and discriminatory, allow couples to get married regardless of their sexual orientation and allow churches to continue to decide for themselves who they marry...at the same time as actively encouraging a change in Church Policy.
This would allow the B&B owners to hold to their beliefs and the Gay Couple to not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.
I understand that Civil Partnerships are supposed to be treated the same as marriages (they are not legally marriages however) but the ruling against the B&B owners was made based on discrimination of sexual orientation under the equality act and not on the basis that the civil partnership was not recognised lawfully as the equivalent of marriage ( a far harder thing to prove I would imagine given the 2006 ruling siting that a civil partnership was not legally a marriage). As the B&B couple arguably did not discriminate on that basis the ruling is flawed.
If Gay Marriage was fully recognised under English law then if the B&B couple refused a double room to the Gay Couple, then they would be guilty of discriminating against the couple due to their sexual orientation and as such acting against the law.
Not to mention the issue of Preddy and Hall intentionally targeting the B&B to illicit just this response, arguably for profit leaves a bad taste in my mouth tbh.
Last edited:
With any luck that is what will eventually happen. However I am sure the CoE and the Catholic Church will argue stridently against it again as they did the last time. It is due in a large part to that lobbying we ended up with the "seperate but equal" situation we are currently in.
I think that you have somewhat more faith in the religious couple than I do. If you look at the website of the hotel they define marriage as between a man and a woman. I doubt it would make any difference to their beliefs, they would just have one less excuse to use.
Has that actually been proven? Most of the sources I have seen that particular slant have been, at best, pro-religion or, at worst, anti-gay.
Then I would suggest it is the law preventing gay marriage which is discriminatory, rather than those who don't see gay marriage as being the same as a civil partnership.
They are different things, it's only natural that in some cases they are treated differently otherwise why the differentiation?
Yes, but religious reasons are valid reasons, and in fact in some cases religious discrimination is enforced by law (example, Sikhs are exempt from the legal requirement to wear a motorcycle helmet).
There is a slight difference in that your guesses are not at all related to the reason why the couple said they excluded them.
They excluded them on the grounds that they weren't married. Which is unrelated to their sexual preferences.
One rule for them, another for the rest of us... again government sponsored discrimination.
I can't really fault that argument, but I think that's a much bigger debate than encompasses this scenario, which could end up going down a very complicated path where everyone is forced to follow every facet of every religion "just in case"
Nail on head really.
The convoluted legislation surrounding the differences in civil/religious/partnerships/marriages, propagated by the CoE is what has caused this whole situation.
Last edited:
I am sure they will, however that doesn't mean we have to accede to their demands. Legalise Gay marriage and allow the Church to choose who it marries. Civil marriages should not be based on religious beliefs...that is why we have religious ceremonies.
In which case they would then be acting contrary to the law on discrimination due to sexual orientation....something the CofE doesn't tacitly support despite their stance on marriage.
I am not so sure considering that Hall and Preddy both initially began proceedings to claim more compensation over the £3000 originally awarded...while I realise that the case was dropped siting a mistake in the judgement of their legal team albeit under significant negative publicity, it does cast some question over their claim that they bought the case to clarify the law.
Interestingly the Commission is investigating Gay Hotels for signs of discrimination against straight couples.....
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/2...tigated-for-discriminating-against-straights/
What do people think about what two hotel owners said:
Last edited: