Should tolerant people tolerate intolerence?

[elmarko]

The same could be true of the couple who owned the B&B, The gay couple could have simply stayed somewhere else, that they allegedly targeted that specific B&B because they knew that it would be controversial could be seen as 'forcing their point if view' down someone elses throat.....pardon the pun..

We have to be careful when addressing the rights of individuals and how we prioritise them....I think the law regarding marriage should be clarified, everyone should be able to be legally married as well as everyone should be allowed to enter into a civil partnership, the law as it stands is divisive and in some respects discriminatory to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Also Churches should retain the right to choose who they marry, they should also be actively encouraged to reassess their stance on the issue of homosexuality at the same time.

As long as there is provision for both groups and it is legislated correctly I cannot see why both sets of opinion cannot be equally provided for. We have implicit acceptable discrimination in society all the time, womens only gyms for example...it is about making sure that any one group is not unfairly or unnecessarily discriminated against, not eliminating all discrimination.

The difference is that there is a reason for women's gyms, large groups of women don't like wearing not many clothes in front of testosterone induces males who are likely to pass comment/hit on them/eyeing them up.

A hotel also isn't the same as a club/social group.

Based on what you said, do you think it would a good thing for society to have a number of shops with signs saying "No Blacks", or "No Jews" & the law backing them up on it?

 

[Castiel]

The difference is that there is a reason for women's gyms, large groups of women don't like wearing not many clothes in front of testosterone induces males who are likely to pass comment/hit on them/eyeing them up.

A hotel also isn't the same as a club/social group.

Based on what you said, do you think it would a good thing for society to have a number of shops with signs saying "No Blacks", or "No Jews" & the law backing them up on it?

I wasn't stating that there wa not a reason for the implicit discrimination inherrent in women only gyms....however if the law was applied equally and without bias they should not exist....that they do, implies that is is socially acceptable to discriminate in certain circumstances and not others.

The B&B in question was also the couples home, so the impact on them is greater than if it was a hotel or shop.

And no, Racial discrimination in the way you describe is not acceptable, which is why I said that it is about not unfairly or unnecessarily discriminating against a group and legislating accordingly, not eliminating discrimintion entirely.

 

[elmarko]

There is no mention of homosexuality, and they also make it very clear what their policy is, so I can't think of any reason why this particular couple decided to arrange a stay there other than to cause trouble. This in my opinion immediately makes them ******* regardless of being gay/furries/jewish/black/disabled/old/young/ginger or any other group.

So, you think it wouldn't be a problem if somebody opened a hotel which on the website said.

"Hi, this is The Bob Smith Hotel - I'm an active supporter of Nazi ideology - I'd like to respectfully ask that no Jews or Gypsies apply to sleep in my rooms - because I believe (on my opinion) they are the scum of the earth".

Do you really think that's fine? - because I really don't.

 

[Haggisman]

The difference is that there is a reason for women's gyms, large groups of women don't like wearing not many clothes in front of testosterone induces males who are likely to pass comment/hit on them/eyeing them up.

And this religious couple don't like unmarried couples having sex in their B&B.

Why is it ok for a women's gym to discriminate against men, but not ok for a christian B&B to discriminate against unmarried couples?

A hotel also isn't the same as a club/social group.

In what way?

Based on what you said, do you think it would a good thing for society to have a number of shops with signs saying "No Blacks", or "No Jews" & the law backing them up on it?

We already have rules in certain places for "no hats" where Sikhs are allowed to still wear their turbans? How is that any different?

 

[Haggisman]

So, you think it wouldn't be a problem if somebody opened a hotel which on the website said.

"Hi, this is The Bob Smith Hotel - I'm an active supporter of Nazi ideology - I'd like to respectfully ask that no Jews or Gypsies apply to sleep in my rooms - because I believe (on my opinion) they are the scum of the earth".

Do you really think that's fine? - because I really don't.

I wouldn't see a problem with that. I don't think the hotel would last very long though XD

The other difference of course being that religion is protected and recognised by government legislation, whereas Nazi ideology isn't.

 

[elmarko]

I wasn't stating that there wa not a reason for the implicit discrimination inherrent in women only gyms....however if the law was applied equally and without bias they should not exist....that they do, implies that is is socially acceptable to discriminate in certain circumstances and not others.

The B&B in question was also the couples home, so the impact on them is greater than if it was a hotel or shop.

And no, Racial discrimination in the way you describe is not acceptable, which is why I said that it is about not unfairly or unnecessarily discriminating against a group and legislating accordingly, not eliminating discrimintion entirely.

Unfortunately they made there home there place of business, nobody forced them to do that.

Also, would it be acceptable for a Hotel to say "No Blacks"? (exactly the same set-up as the example given by the OP), to make the example the same

As if it's not then neither is it OK for them to say "No gay couples".

 

[elmarko]

And this religious couple don't like unmarried couples having sex in their B&B.

Get over it, or get out of the hotel business is that I'd say.

Why is it ok for a women's gym to discriminate against men, but not ok for a christian B&B to discriminate against unmarried couples?

Because men & women are actually different, we have mens & women's sports teams but nobody calls that sexist.

A women's gym would be able to cater for the specific gender requirements better.

In what way?

One is a business, one is not.

We already have rules in certain places for "no hats" where Sikhs are allowed to still wear their turbans? How is that any different?

Well, that depends on the reason for the no hat's rule - without good reason I don't believe any place has the right to tell you what you can can't wear on your head.

But, if it's for security or safety then I don't believe they should change the law to pander to specific religions.

While I agree with you on the last point, I'd guess it's for different reasons.

 

[anything I don't mind]

In my opinion, business should be allowed to discriminate as much as they like. Be it age, skin pigmentation, religious beliefs, colour of their hair, the look of their clothes, by how much they earn, by their voice on the phone, by the car that they drive. It should not matter what the business owner decides to discriminate against, that is their business and they should be able to decide who they want to do business with, not the government.

 

[Castiel]

So, you think it wouldn't be a problem if somebody opened a hotel which on the website said.

"Hi, this is The Bob Smith Hotel - I'm an active supporter of Nazi ideology - I'd like to respectfully ask that no Jews or Gypsies apply to sleep in my rooms - because I believe (on my opinion) they are the scum of the earth".

Do you really think that's fine? - because I really don't.

Again, you are going to extremes that I did not imply....as I said, yet again....as long as the legistation is done correctly and equal provision is given and that no group is unfairly or unnecissarily discriminated against there is no reason why the choice to ony allow married couples to rent double rooms should not be permitted, equally I see no reason why a hotel should not be allowed to discriminate against heterosexual couples in the same way, if they wish to maintain a certain ambience within the B&B.

Equating that to persecution of the Jews is simply not worth the time to addres quite frankly and could also be used in any kind of discrimination case, such as the women only gyms, age restricted Hotels, gay only cruises, and gay only resorts such as Key West (which incidently discriminates both by sexual orientation and by gender).....(Godwins Law aside)

The owners of the B&B simply have to register as a private members club......

 

[Haggisman]

Unfortunately they made there home there place of business, nobody forced them to do that.

Also, would it be acceptable for a Hotel to say "No Blacks"? (exactly the same set-up as the example given by the OP), to make the example the same

As if it's not then neither is it OK for them to say "No gay couples".

Except they don't say "No gay couples" they say "No unmarried couples".

And again, race is a factor which is government protected, marriage (afaik) isn't.

Get over it, or get out of the hotel business is that I'd say.

Because men & women are actually different, we have mens & women's sports teams but nobody calls that sexist.

A women's gym would be able to cater for the specific gender requirements better.

One is a business, one is not.

No you're right, a club isn't a business, however we weren't talking about clubs, we were talking about gyms, which most certainly are businesses.

Well, that depends on the reason for the no hat's rule - without good reason I don't believe any place has the right to tell you what you can can't wear on your head.

But, if it's for security or safety then I don't believe they should change the law to pander to specific religions.

While I agree with you on the last point, I'd guess it's for different reasons.

At least we agree on something =P

 

[elmarko]

Again, you are going to extremes that I did not imply....as I said

That reply was not to you regarding the nazi website, so yeah....

yet again....as long as the legistation is done correctly and equal provision is given and that no group is unfairly or unnecissarily discriminated against there is no reason why the choice to ony allow married couples to rent double rooms should not be permitted, equally I see no reason why a hotel should not be allowed to discriminate against heterosexual couples in the same way

So by that same logic, do you believe it's OK to have a "No blacks" hotel?, as there is no difference between discriminating based on sexuality or skin colour - please stop saying "extreme example" - I never said they wanted to murder anybody - just they hate them.

You can't say - Having a "blacks only" hotel is wrong, but having a "no gays" hotel is fine - it's logically inconsistent.

Equating that to persecution of the Jews is simply not worth the time to addres quite frankly and could also be used in any kind of discrimination case, such as the women only gyms, age restricted Hotels, gay only cruises, and gay only resorts such as Key West........

Firstly, the example was not aimed at you.

Secondly, who said I agree with "Gay only" resorts either?, discrimination is still discrimination - I'm also fervently against positive discrimination.

 

[Haggisman]

That reply was not to you regarding the nazi website, so yeah....

So by that same logic, do you believe it's OK to have a "No blacks" hotel?, as there is no difference between discriminating based on sexuality or skin colour - please stop saying "extreme example" - I never said they wanted to murder anybody - just they hate them.

You can't say - Having a "blacks only" hotel is wrong, but having a "no gays" hotel is fine - it's logically inconsistent.

• It's not a "no gays" policy, it's a "no unmarried couples" policy.
• It's not even a "no unmarried couples" policy, it's a "no unmarried couples in our double rooms, you're still welcome to have a twin room or 2 single rooms" policy
• Race is a factor protected by the government, marital status isn't.

 

[Castiel]

So by that same logic, do you believe it's OK to have a "No blacks" hotel?, as there is no difference between discriminating based on sexuality or skin colour - please stop saying "extreme example" - I never said they wanted to murder anybody - just they hate them.

You can't say - Having a "blacks only" hotel is wrong, but having a "no gays" hotel is fine - it's logically inconsistant

The hotel did not discriminate against them due to their sexual orientation, they discriminated against their marriage status as defined by their terms and conditions.

As marriage is not a protected right your attempt to equate a racism anology to it fails, even if we accept it, how does that then apply to your acceptance of gender discrimination regarding Gym membership, Women only hotels and even a women only shop in London.....

Is that not the same as say No Blacks, No Jews, No Whites, No whateveryouwanttocallit......

Secondly, who said I agree with "Gay only" resorts either?, discrimination is still discrimination - I'm also fervently against positive discrimination.

Yet you admittedly support gender discrimination!

 

[elmarko]

The hotel did not discriminate against them due to their sexual orientation, they discriminated against their marriage status as defined by their terms and conditions.

As marriage is not a protected right your attempt to equate a racism anology to it fails, even if we accept it, how does that then apply to your acceptance of gender discrimination regarding Gym membership, Women only hotels and even a women only shop in London.....

Is that not the same as say No Blacks, No Jews, No Whites, No whateveryouwanttocallit......

Yet you admittedly support gender discrimination!

I don't recall saying I supported it (I actually know that I didnt) - I simply stated it was different.

Men & women are actually physically different, we also don't have birth giving classes for men either.

A civil partnership is the same as marriage legally.

Also, if they were to get married in a church the male couple (theoretically), would you think it's OK for them to discriminate against them? (based on sexuality alone)?.

To me it sounds like you wish to distance sexual bigotry from racial bigotry, when in reality they are the same.

 

[elmarko]

• It's not a "no gays" policy, it's a "no unmarried couples" policy.
• It's not even a "no unmarried couples" policy, it's a "no unmarried couples in our double rooms, you're still welcome to have a twin room or 2 single rooms" policy
• Race is a factor protected by the government, marital status isn't.

Well done on ignoring the point of the entire thread.

 

[Castiel]

I don't recall saying I supported it (I actually know that I didnt) - I simply stated it was different.

Men & women are actually physically different, we also don't have birth giving classes for men either.

A civil partnership is the same as marriage legally.

Also, if they were to get married in a church the male couple (theoretically), would you think it's OK for them to discriminate against them? (based on sexuality alone)?.

To me it sounds like you wish to distance sexual bigotry from racial bigotry, when in reality they are the same.

Blacks and Whites are physically different.......does that mean it is acceptable to discriminate.....your own argument goes against you.


Sexual preference is not the same as racial traits....the B&B did not discriminate against their sexuality, they discriminated against their married status, regardless of what the law may say regarding civil partnerships, it is was the same as marriage it woukd be called marriage....the law is divisive and discriminatory in this regard so it is hardly surprising that the B&B owners were not aware of its implied legal status, not to mention the priviso in their T&C's which made no mention of sexuality at all or the intentions of the gay couple themselves.

The owners of the B&B were effectively saying no sex.....not you cannot stay because you are gay. Afaik, the right to have sex in a place of business is not a requirement.

And I attended antnatal classes with my wife, I was not aware they were for women only...

Personally I couldn't care whether there are gay only hotels, married couples only policies or any gender discrimination as long as it is equally applied....if Hotels cannot discriminate against the married status of a couple then Hotels similarly cannot discrimate against age, gender or sexual orientation the other way....

 

[anything I don't mind]

I still think it is disgusting of these two gays are making a big deal about it and are taking this poor old couple to court and they should be ashamed of themselves. It is also disgusting that these organisations support these two gays and want to force this couple to allow gay people in to their double rooms. I mean get a life. When they win, which i am sure they will, because these organisations have a lot of money and this poor couple probably just want to put it behind them because they have better things to do. They will make a speech about how it is a great victory for gays, i mean ******* these people are pathetic.

"Yay i engage in anal sex with another man and that is my identity and now i want extra rights " hahaha

 

[Haggisman]

Well done on ignoring the point of the entire thread.

Eh? Just because I've highlighted flaws in your argument, it doesn't mean I'm suddenly ignoring the point of the thread.

I don't recall saying I supported it (I actually know that I didnt) - I simply stated it was different.

Men & women are actually physically different, we also don't have birth giving classes for men either.

Actually we do

A civil partnership is the same as marriage legally.

But not in the eyes of god (or something along those lines), and I would imagine, for someone religious enough, the word of their god transcends any earthly laws.

Also, if they were to get married in a church the male couple (theoretically), would you think it's OK for them to discriminate against them? (based on sexuality alone)?.

Of course I wouldn't think it's ok. The sexuality of the couple in question should have no significance, and there is no evidence in the B&B case that it does.

The significant factor, which you are repeatedly overlooking, is that the couple weren't married. If the B&B's policy was "no gays" then you would have a point, but it wouldn't have mattered if they were gay/straight/lesbian/threesome/transgender - not married = no double room.

To me it sounds like you wish to distance sexual bigotry from racial bigotry, when in reality they are the same.

You're the one defending women only institutions in the same paragraph as demonising white only ones.

 

[anything I don't mind]

What about if a heterosexual couple arrived and book a room and then this old couple started to hear screaming come from the room and when they opened the door, they witnessed some crazy BDSM act. Do they then have to go to the government and request permission via a lengthy court case in order to throw this couple out of their premises?

 

[Castiel]

You're the one defending women only institutions in the same paragraph as demonising white only ones.

Precisely....this would not be the first thread in which elmarko's position is often at odds with his own words....