Guesthouse Couple Lose Supreme Court Battle.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514353/Christian-guesthouse-owners-lose-Supreme-Court-battle-ordered-pay-damages-turning-away-gay-couple.html

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.

[mikey4444]

DTC...I was thinking the exact same thing ! They both look like horrors to me, although that is not against the law of course. I hope they are not in Heaven when I get up there !

[sp1814]

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD".

—Leviticus 19:18

[DTCwordfan]

Why are we not surprised with the bigotry against you, jomifl?......just joking.

More seriously, yes you are right but the couple did contravene the law, as it stands. I go back to the role of the Church of England or the Methodists in this - and other cases like the cross on nurses and the BA stewardess......they have been dreadful. I may not agree with their views but I would have expected them (mainly under the Goat Williams) to be more vociferous on these cases and make their morality/leadership known.

And, yes, I am targeting my local bishop, Tim Thornton, and conference leader, Stephen Wild for their moral torpitude......

[mikey4444]

Jomifi...we all have the ability not to be bigoted, but the Bulls don't seem have used the opportunity. It would seem to me that its their religion, rather than their environment that has made them bigoted. Or at least their narrow interpretation of their religion.

For more drivel, read the comments of an idiot spokesman for something called The Christian Institute at the end of AOG's link.

[jackthehat]

Do you actually understand what 'vindictive' means, jomifl?

Going to court because you believe you have discriminated against is *not* being vindictive; it is exercising your right before the law, which every one of us has.

I know that you think, in any given situation, gay people should exercise your right for them to "shut the hell up"......but I'm afraid it doean't work that way.

[jackthehat]

*doesn't

[DTCwordfan]

The Christian Institute - well, the Centre of Bigotry should be it's real title. Fully agree with that comment, Mikey....

[DTCwordfan]

The news down here says that they are considering the ECHR in Strasbourg - but that this would take years and millions...

[naomi24]

Mikey, it isn’t a narrow interpretation of their religion – it’s what their religion teaches. The bible is absolutely clear on the subject. Homosexuality is an 'abomination'. It’s a great pity they’re losing their business, but perhaps they didn’t want to lie either, and so gave the couple the real reason for turning them away. People running small businesses have to make business their main priority, so I could say they’ve been silly - but they wouldn’t agree because they stood by their principles - as did the gay couple. I really do feel very sorry for them. What an awful mess to end up in.

[jomifl]

Jack, I am sure you have a dictionary, if not use google. The Preddy/Hall's situation was not improved by prosecuting the Bulls, they were not claiming redress or advancing gay rights, that has already been done, otherwise they coun't have brought about the prosecution. I think the definition of 'vindictive' covers the situation perfectly. You can try and dress what the Preddy/Halls did as a victory for gay rights but it was in reality vindictiveness plain and simple.

[jackthehat]

You may considering asking a court to decide whether a law of the land has been broken as being vindictive.........I doubt many others would agree.

[jim360]

What's the point of winning rights if you aren't able to exercise them? "So gay people can't be discriminated against. Now when they are, at least they know that it was illegal." That's nice, but misses the point of what rights are there fore. Not to have as an ideal in the abstract, but to have as something that can be used in practice when needed. To protect your job, your identity, and your right to have a peaceful night in (or possibly not so peaceful as you choose).

[DTCwordfan]

//your right to have a peaceful night in (or possibly not so peaceful as you choose).// So gness is in Edinburgh, is she. Jim?

[sp1814]

naomi24

I think the Bulls are practicing 'buffet Christianity'...picking and choosing which tracts to live by.

The Bible indeed describes homosexuality as 'an abomination' (although there are arguments over the original interpretation of the word vs. it's modern meaning) - but the Bible also states:

"you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land"

Leviticus 25:44-46

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

Exodus 21:20-21

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her,"

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.

Leviticus 20:27

(That last one should be of particular concern to Mystic Meg).

All of the above (and many, many more) are rightly illegal, so why should Christians choose this particular law to rail against?

[sp1814]

By the way naomi24 - I largely get what you're saying...just making a point about the Bull's and what I see as their hypocrisy - not having a pop at you!

[naomi24]

SP, I know. There’s also one about killing disobedient children – and people who gather firewood on the Sabbath - but I think the one about homosexuality is deemed relevant today because of the ‘union between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation’ thing, which is the very foundation of the institution of marriage within the church.

[naomi24]

SP, cross posted there. I know you're not having a pop at me. No problem.

I don't think they're hypocrites - I think they stood by their principles - however misguided those principles may be. Just out of interest, why do you think they're hypocrites?

[sp1814]

The hypocritical thing comes from the fact that they're picking bits and pieces from the Bible that dovetail with their own beliefs.

For instance, they say that their Christian beliefs prevent them from rent rooms to gay people and unmarried people...but do they request marriage certificates to prove that straight people are indeed married?

And as marriage is the cornerstone of the Biblical message - why don't they ban divorced people (the Bible is pretty strongly against divorce - one partner basically has to die).