Crosswords0 min ago
Guesthouse Couple Lose Supreme Court Battle.
238 Answers
http://
Just thought I would enter this on behalf of sp1814, because I think he may be a little shy considering that he has been criticising me for repeating the same stories even though mine were years apart.
Just thought I would enter this on behalf of sp1814, because I think he may be a little shy considering that he has been criticising me for repeating the same stories even though mine were years apart.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Still trying to figure out all the stuff AoG was talking about in his OP regarding SP and shyness and repeating stories and everything. Makes no sense to me.
As for the content of the link in the OP - If you run a business, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race or belief or gender. That's the way it is, and a jolly good thing too.
As for WRs post - talking about both sodomy and buggery seems odd - is there a difference between sodomy and buggery? If not, why mention both? For the same reason that the song New York New York was named? So good they named it twice?
Why should christians get their knickers in a twist over what type of sex consenting adults get up to in private? What business is it of theirs?
As for the content of the link in the OP - If you run a business, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race or belief or gender. That's the way it is, and a jolly good thing too.
As for WRs post - talking about both sodomy and buggery seems odd - is there a difference between sodomy and buggery? If not, why mention both? For the same reason that the song New York New York was named? So good they named it twice?
Why should christians get their knickers in a twist over what type of sex consenting adults get up to in private? What business is it of theirs?
-- answer removed --
I agree with both Jom and LazyGun. I don't know which party, the bigoted questhouse owners or the vindictive gays, is the more sad either – but I don’t see why the guest house owners feel entitled to impose their religious values on other people. If the gay couple were swinging from the chandelier and brought the ceiling down, the owners would have cause for complaint, but as it is, other people’s private lives are none of their business.
Frankly, the arrogance of this couple in believing that having been advised they have broken the law once, and fined, they would find an alternative verdict in any other court, indicates their unwillingness to accept the law of the land because it does not suit them.
The notion that Christians like this honestly believe that their faith makes them above the law is what gives Chrisitans a bad name.
The law is there to be obeyed.
If yor faith prevents you running your business in a manner that complies with the law, then it is a strong hint that you are in the wrong business.
I would not wish to stay with this couple, not because they are Chritsian and I am not, but because they are close-minded bigots.
The notion that Christians like this honestly believe that their faith makes them above the law is what gives Chrisitans a bad name.
The law is there to be obeyed.
If yor faith prevents you running your business in a manner that complies with the law, then it is a strong hint that you are in the wrong business.
I would not wish to stay with this couple, not because they are Chritsian and I am not, but because they are close-minded bigots.
naomi24
Hang on - it's the guest house owners who have taken this to the supreme court. The gay couple sued them, they defended themselves, lost and have continued to fritter away their money on legal fees in order to seek redress.
It's pretty straightforward - if you use your home as a business, you need to abide by the Equality Act 2010.
What they are saying is that they should be exempt because it's their home, which is like saying:
"Because we run a commercial catering business from our homes, we should be exempt from all health standards that are applicable to other food manufacturers"
Hang on - it's the guest house owners who have taken this to the supreme court. The gay couple sued them, they defended themselves, lost and have continued to fritter away their money on legal fees in order to seek redress.
It's pretty straightforward - if you use your home as a business, you need to abide by the Equality Act 2010.
What they are saying is that they should be exempt because it's their home, which is like saying:
"Because we run a commercial catering business from our homes, we should be exempt from all health standards that are applicable to other food manufacturers"
dave50
So far, I can only think of a couple of cases of Muslim homophobia involving the law.
£100 fine for the 'No gay zone' sticker poster (Mohammed Hasnath) and then there was that YouTube clip of the Muslims (I believe) hassling the gay lad, but that fizzled out because no witnesses came forward.
I believe the police and CPS would take this very seriously indeed.
So far, I can only think of a couple of cases of Muslim homophobia involving the law.
£100 fine for the 'No gay zone' sticker poster (Mohammed Hasnath) and then there was that YouTube clip of the Muslims (I believe) hassling the gay lad, but that fizzled out because no witnesses came forward.
I believe the police and CPS would take this very seriously indeed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.