The Chase.... They Walk Among Us ......
Film, Media & TV2 mins 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.
andy-hughes
/// Er because the 'legal facilities' are not available to them - they should have taken the hint from their first legal case. ///
Of course the 'legal facilities' should be available to everyone, and it matters not if lower courts have found you guilty, there are facilities available to everyone in this country to which one can seek the optimum ruling.
If you yourself was convicted of a crime of which you thought (independent to what others thought) you had a case, then wouldn't you also be prepared to go to the highest court in the land to try and get a more favourable decision, or would you hold your hands up in the air and confess your guilt from the offset?
If the latter very praiseworthy of you, but somewhat rather silly.
/// Er because the 'legal facilities' are not available to them - they should have taken the hint from their first legal case. ///
Of course the 'legal facilities' should be available to everyone, and it matters not if lower courts have found you guilty, there are facilities available to everyone in this country to which one can seek the optimum ruling.
If you yourself was convicted of a crime of which you thought (independent to what others thought) you had a case, then wouldn't you also be prepared to go to the highest court in the land to try and get a more favourable decision, or would you hold your hands up in the air and confess your guilt from the offset?
If the latter very praiseworthy of you, but somewhat rather silly.
"at the end of the day I think that the Bull's are as much entitled to their opinion as the 2 guys who felt they were slighted by being asked to leave. "
You see.... here, I'm not actually sure I agree with you. The Bull's are asking for permission to disallow gay people from staying in their guest house. I'm not actually sure that's a particularly valid opinion because there isn't a good reason to hold it. There's no justifiable reason to object to gay people as a whole demographic. To me it's on about the same level as refusing entry to people with ginger hair or heterochromia because you're worried they'll attract the attention of wood nymphs or something.
You see.... here, I'm not actually sure I agree with you. The Bull's are asking for permission to disallow gay people from staying in their guest house. I'm not actually sure that's a particularly valid opinion because there isn't a good reason to hold it. There's no justifiable reason to object to gay people as a whole demographic. To me it's on about the same level as refusing entry to people with ginger hair or heterochromia because you're worried they'll attract the attention of wood nymphs or something.
andy; Unless you are an ambulance driver, I agree that driving over the speed limit is indefensible, but that isn't the type of offence I had in mind; more like the law against assisted suicide, which I believe should be resisted and changed for many reasons.
jim; The homosexual couple went knowingly to Mr and Mrs Bull's B&B in order to confront them, being refused a room was part of their reprehensible agenda.
jim; The homosexual couple went knowingly to Mr and Mrs Bull's B&B in order to confront them, being refused a room was part of their reprehensible agenda.
WR...of course the Bulls are entitled to their views in this subject. The mistake they made was allowing their bigotry to influence the way they run their business. This is what has got them in this mess.
I am reminded of a true story about my days in BT. In the early 1970's, there was an odious Manager who was hated by everybody, and especially by the engineer, whose wife he seduced, and later married.
In a heated exchange in the Stores one day, of which I was a witness, the Engineer, still reeling from the effects of the divorce, said to the Manager
" If I called you a big c*nt, you could probably have me up on a disciplinary charge couldn't you ? "
The Manager replied that, "yes I could", somewhat smugly.
"But if I just thought you were a big c*nt, you couldn't really do anything could you ? "
"No, well I probably couldn't under those circumstances"
The Engineer then replied " Well I think you are a big c*nt then "
I am reminded of a true story about my days in BT. In the early 1970's, there was an odious Manager who was hated by everybody, and especially by the engineer, whose wife he seduced, and later married.
In a heated exchange in the Stores one day, of which I was a witness, the Engineer, still reeling from the effects of the divorce, said to the Manager
" If I called you a big c*nt, you could probably have me up on a disciplinary charge couldn't you ? "
The Manager replied that, "yes I could", somewhat smugly.
"But if I just thought you were a big c*nt, you couldn't really do anything could you ? "
"No, well I probably couldn't under those circumstances"
The Engineer then replied " Well I think you are a big c*nt then "
AOG - "If you yourself was convicted of a crime of which you thought (independent to what others thought) you had a case, then wouldn't you also be prepared to go to the highest court in the land to try and get a more favourable decision, or would you hold your hands up in the air and confess your guilt from the offset?"
If I was fighting from a position of law - I believed that I was not guilty as charged, and a miscarriage of justice had taken place, then I would appeal to a higher court in an attempt to receive what I believe to be justice.
If I was fighting from a position of principle which had caused me to break the law, i would accept my punishment under the law, while still believing my principle was correct, and would remain unchanged.
What I would not do, is take my principle to a higher court and expect them to oveturn the lower court's ruling because the lower court arrived at its decision based on the law as it stands, and not on my principle, which is not the issue here where the law is concerned.
Having lost again, I would not then expect a further higher court to overturn an established legal ruling, simply because I do not agree with it.
I am not required to agree with the law, the law is not required to agree with my principle - but of the two, only the law has the power to enforce itself, and regardless of how hard-done-to I feel, or however strongly I hold my principle, it is the law that will have its way.
Personally, i would have accepted that further down the line that the Bulls - but that was their choice.
As to the peripheral responses they received, including intimidation, that is absolutely unforgiveable, and from that perspective, I would not deviate from my course for a moment, but mine would be acceptance.
I only fight battles I can see a chance of winning - this was not one of those.
If I was fighting from a position of law - I believed that I was not guilty as charged, and a miscarriage of justice had taken place, then I would appeal to a higher court in an attempt to receive what I believe to be justice.
If I was fighting from a position of principle which had caused me to break the law, i would accept my punishment under the law, while still believing my principle was correct, and would remain unchanged.
What I would not do, is take my principle to a higher court and expect them to oveturn the lower court's ruling because the lower court arrived at its decision based on the law as it stands, and not on my principle, which is not the issue here where the law is concerned.
Having lost again, I would not then expect a further higher court to overturn an established legal ruling, simply because I do not agree with it.
I am not required to agree with the law, the law is not required to agree with my principle - but of the two, only the law has the power to enforce itself, and regardless of how hard-done-to I feel, or however strongly I hold my principle, it is the law that will have its way.
Personally, i would have accepted that further down the line that the Bulls - but that was their choice.
As to the peripheral responses they received, including intimidation, that is absolutely unforgiveable, and from that perspective, I would not deviate from my course for a moment, but mine would be acceptance.
I only fight battles I can see a chance of winning - this was not one of those.
Khandro...with respect...drivel. There is no evidence that the gay chaps planned this in advance. This has been repeated here on AB ad nauseam, but this is all the fault of the Bulls. Nobody is allowed to ignore laws just because their bigotry tells them to. I simply can't understand why you and others are unable to see this very simple point.
Khandro - "The homosexual couple went knowingly to Mr and Mrs Bull's B&B in order to confront them, being refused a room was part of their reprehensible agenda."
Are you seeriously suggesting that this couple set out to cause this situation? That it was their planned intention to experience illegal discrimination in order to make a fight out of it? It appears so, since you refer to their 'reprehensible agenda'.
Te facts speak for themselves - there is no 'agenda' here, reprehensible or otherwise.
One partner booked the room, there was no mention of the couples' stance on rooms for gay couples, the couple turned up, and were illegally refused a room.
If anyone had an 'agenda', it was the Bulls whose stance on sharing of rooms by gay couples was already in place.
i find your analysis of the facts as known to be very strange.
Are you seeriously suggesting that this couple set out to cause this situation? That it was their planned intention to experience illegal discrimination in order to make a fight out of it? It appears so, since you refer to their 'reprehensible agenda'.
Te facts speak for themselves - there is no 'agenda' here, reprehensible or otherwise.
One partner booked the room, there was no mention of the couples' stance on rooms for gay couples, the couple turned up, and were illegally refused a room.
If anyone had an 'agenda', it was the Bulls whose stance on sharing of rooms by gay couples was already in place.
i find your analysis of the facts as known to be very strange.
Everyone has the right to be judgemental, to be sure -- but Christians have a responsibility not to by their Holy Book, which of course says, "Judge not [lest ye be judged]." It also says later, in one of the epistles (1 Peter I think), words to the effect of "honour the laws of your country". In that sense they had a religious as well as a legal duty not to be judgmental or discriminating.
AOG - "Everyone holds the right to be judgemental to a certain extent, no matter what religion or lack of it ..."
I am not a Christian, so i am not as informed as a Christian would be on this, but as i understand it, being non-judgemental is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. Jesus himself healed sinners and ate with prostitutes, while pointing out that judgement was the preserve of God only.
So, I believe your premise to be incorrect.
And to underline my previous point, being judgemental does not entitle you to break the law.
I am not a Christian, so i am not as informed as a Christian would be on this, but as i understand it, being non-judgemental is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. Jesus himself healed sinners and ate with prostitutes, while pointing out that judgement was the preserve of God only.
So, I believe your premise to be incorrect.
And to underline my previous point, being judgemental does not entitle you to break the law.
sp1814
/// The reason these words (bear, twink, otter, gym-bunny) start appearing is because within the gay scene there are a whole number of sub-scenes. ///
/// Think of 'gay' like 'rock music'. ///
/// Within rock, you have heavy metal, punk rock, death metal, rock 'n' roll etc...///
/// It's a quick and easy way to align yourself...///
What a complicated world the homosexual one must be, why do you find the need to 'align' yourselves?
/// The reason these words (bear, twink, otter, gym-bunny) start appearing is because within the gay scene there are a whole number of sub-scenes. ///
/// Think of 'gay' like 'rock music'. ///
/// Within rock, you have heavy metal, punk rock, death metal, rock 'n' roll etc...///
/// It's a quick and easy way to align yourself...///
What a complicated world the homosexual one must be, why do you find the need to 'align' yourselves?
"What a complicated world the homosexual one must be, why do you find the need to 'align' yourselves?"
1) it makes it easier to find the kind of people you like dating (or maybe just sleeping with if you're that way inclined). e.g. you might have a preference for twinks/bears etc.
2) most people don't actually "align" themselves. With the exception maybe of "bears", it isn't taken all that seriously. It tends to come up far more often online - when people can't actually see each other face to face - than it does in real life.
1) it makes it easier to find the kind of people you like dating (or maybe just sleeping with if you're that way inclined). e.g. you might have a preference for twinks/bears etc.
2) most people don't actually "align" themselves. With the exception maybe of "bears", it isn't taken all that seriously. It tends to come up far more often online - when people can't actually see each other face to face - than it does in real life.
This episode brings to mind a discussion we had here some years ago where, because it was against his beliefs, a Muslim pharmacist refused to serve a customer with a prescription for birth control pills. That was upheld. It seems to me we have to make our minds up. Either the religious have a right to impose their beliefs on other people, or they don’t.
AOG
You asked:
What a complicated world the homosexual one must be, why do you find the need to 'align' yourselves?
No - it's complicated to you perhaps, but it's really not. See Jackthehat and Kromovaracun's answers - they have explained perfectly.
It's no more complicated than straight people who describe themselves as 'bookish', 'bubbly', 'fun loving' etc.
Everyone aligns themselves in one way or another, be it by religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, marriage status.
It's really not complicated at all.
You asked:
What a complicated world the homosexual one must be, why do you find the need to 'align' yourselves?
No - it's complicated to you perhaps, but it's really not. See Jackthehat and Kromovaracun's answers - they have explained perfectly.
It's no more complicated than straight people who describe themselves as 'bookish', 'bubbly', 'fun loving' etc.
Everyone aligns themselves in one way or another, be it by religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, marriage status.
It's really not complicated at all.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
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.