ChatterBank1 min ago
It's against her convictions' to let them share a bed.
71 Answers
http://www.dailymail....er-let-share-bed.html
Was she within her rights, in refusing to take in this gay couple, even though to accept them would have been against her strong religious convictions?
Was she within her rights, in refusing to take in this gay couple, even though to accept them would have been against her strong religious convictions?
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.
sp1814
/// Imagine going back to a 'No dogs, no Irish, no blacks' situation...not pleasant for anyone.///
There are plenty of establishments that don't allow dogs.
Have you not seen the signs "No Coaches" "No Hikers" "No Muddy Boots" "Females Only" "Free Admission for Females" and wasn't there a recent case when some RAF personnel were not allowed to wear their uniform on the streets of a certain town?
Yes, these are all forms of discrimination, why should Gays be a different case?
In fact if they are to be discrimination laws brought out they should be implicant to all, not only certain groups.
/// Imagine going back to a 'No dogs, no Irish, no blacks' situation...not pleasant for anyone.///
There are plenty of establishments that don't allow dogs.
Have you not seen the signs "No Coaches" "No Hikers" "No Muddy Boots" "Females Only" "Free Admission for Females" and wasn't there a recent case when some RAF personnel were not allowed to wear their uniform on the streets of a certain town?
Yes, these are all forms of discrimination, why should Gays be a different case?
In fact if they are to be discrimination laws brought out they should be implicant to all, not only certain groups.
What the guest house owner did was illegal and that’s that. As far as I am aware no distinction is made between hotels and guest houses. The operators of both establishments are equally bound by the law.
However, it is interesting to note that sp1814 makes a distinction between the allowances the law makes for some religious groups but not for others, and somehow attempts to defend these differences by some flawed lofic.
Indeed Christians do not have to condemn homosexuality, but neither do Sikhs have to wear turbans. They will not die or become seriously ill if they do not. In the UK any adherance to any religious convention is voluntary. People (or at least adults) choose to follow a religion and they choose whether or not to adhere to its beliefs and conventions. To suggest that Sikhs “have to” wear turbans is no different to suggesting that Catholics must refuse all methods of birth control.
Sikhs were allowed special dispensation under the crash helmet law because they choose to wear turbans and the government of the day saw fit to grant such an exemption. Accordingly the overwhelming argument for the compulsory use of crash helmets (to protect the rider from serious injury) was swept away.
However, it is interesting to note that sp1814 makes a distinction between the allowances the law makes for some religious groups but not for others, and somehow attempts to defend these differences by some flawed lofic.
Indeed Christians do not have to condemn homosexuality, but neither do Sikhs have to wear turbans. They will not die or become seriously ill if they do not. In the UK any adherance to any religious convention is voluntary. People (or at least adults) choose to follow a religion and they choose whether or not to adhere to its beliefs and conventions. To suggest that Sikhs “have to” wear turbans is no different to suggesting that Catholics must refuse all methods of birth control.
Sikhs were allowed special dispensation under the crash helmet law because they choose to wear turbans and the government of the day saw fit to grant such an exemption. Accordingly the overwhelming argument for the compulsory use of crash helmets (to protect the rider from serious injury) was swept away.
-- answer removed --
Actually, I am not so convinced that this is illegal: http://www.guardian.c...-adoption-gay-couples
This will run for a while I guess.
This will run for a while I guess.
Oneeyedvic
/// You can not discriminate on certain grounds - age, sex, colour, religion being the prime examples.///
That is my whole point vic, is it fair to only have certain groups that are covered by law against any form of discrimination?
Regarding the "Age one"
I have also seen "No One Under 16", "No One Under 18" and "No One Under 21"
I also know kids who are not allowed to school until they are 5.
The cheek of it all.
On a more serious note, you also quoted Sex, is it not also breaking the law to offer cheap car insurance to females? or admission to night clubs to females?
Let's be honest the law is really only to prevent discrimination of Colour and certain Religions isn't it?
/// You can not discriminate on certain grounds - age, sex, colour, religion being the prime examples.///
That is my whole point vic, is it fair to only have certain groups that are covered by law against any form of discrimination?
Regarding the "Age one"
I have also seen "No One Under 16", "No One Under 18" and "No One Under 21"
I also know kids who are not allowed to school until they are 5.
The cheek of it all.
On a more serious note, you also quoted Sex, is it not also breaking the law to offer cheap car insurance to females? or admission to night clubs to females?
Let's be honest the law is really only to prevent discrimination of Colour and certain Religions isn't it?
It's difficult to draw comparisons with the turban/crash helmet exemption, as the law requiring us to wear crash helmets is based on such a thin argument anyway. It's a bit of an anomaly.
There are very, very few laws that are based purely on paternalism - ie, we must/must not do something because otherwise we'll harm ourselves. Almost all laws are there to prevent us from harming others, or society at large. What we do to ourselves is usually up to us (suicide isn't a crime, for example).
The exemption that allows Sikhs not to wear crash helmets is justified because it doesn't harm anyone other than themselves and it's decided that their right to practice their religion comes before paternalistic safety concerns.
The guesthouse owner's law breaking is different. It's not just herself who's affected - her discrimination harms the interests of gay people.
There are very, very few laws that are based purely on paternalism - ie, we must/must not do something because otherwise we'll harm ourselves. Almost all laws are there to prevent us from harming others, or society at large. What we do to ourselves is usually up to us (suicide isn't a crime, for example).
The exemption that allows Sikhs not to wear crash helmets is justified because it doesn't harm anyone other than themselves and it's decided that their right to practice their religion comes before paternalistic safety concerns.
The guesthouse owner's law breaking is different. It's not just herself who's affected - her discrimination harms the interests of gay people.
There are of course different meanings to the word discrimination, but generally speaking (and I am by no means a legal type) the illegal discriminations are regarding exclusion or rejection - ie we have excluded you from coming on to these premises due to your sex / sexual orientation / religion.
It is of course legal to change the parameters of a deal (in other words discriminate) if you are not excluding - ie cheaper insurance according to age or sex. If you don't allow for this, then you can take it to the n'th degree (eg someone would argue that they are discriminated against in the holiday industry as they have children of school age).
Common sense needs to prevail - and I doubt that most rational people could see that she is indeed breaking the law. As per my above link, I am sure that there are several religious organisations that will lobby on her behalf.
It is of course legal to change the parameters of a deal (in other words discriminate) if you are not excluding - ie cheaper insurance according to age or sex. If you don't allow for this, then you can take it to the n'th degree (eg someone would argue that they are discriminated against in the holiday industry as they have children of school age).
Common sense needs to prevail - and I doubt that most rational people could see that she is indeed breaking the law. As per my above link, I am sure that there are several religious organisations that will lobby on her behalf.
Tambo....are you on drugs???
So in your thinking....a straight couple should announce, at the time of booking, that they are not married. Just in case the owner does not believe in sex before marriage.
NO...Being homosexual is not illegal. Not letting them stay in your B&B because of that fact.... IS.
So in your thinking....a straight couple should announce, at the time of booking, that they are not married. Just in case the owner does not believe in sex before marriage.
NO...Being homosexual is not illegal. Not letting them stay in your B&B because of that fact.... IS.
tamborine
That would be like Jews having to warn potentially anti-semitic pub landlords of their religion prior to being served...in case they'd like to turf them out.
It's just not right.
Re: Sikhs and their right to not to wear crash helmets. I'll hold my hand up and admit - I simply don't care if someone chooses to do this.
At the end of the day, if a Sikh chap comes off his motorbike and suffers brain damage because he's wearing a turban, my attitude would be, "That's pretty horrific, and I feel sorry for you - but you must realise that you accepted the dangers when you chose that form of transport without adequate protection".
He's only harming himself...but anti-discrimination laws are there because we're transitioning into a society where bigotry is to be seen like smoking. It's not illegal...but it should be frowned on wherever possible.
That would be like Jews having to warn potentially anti-semitic pub landlords of their religion prior to being served...in case they'd like to turf them out.
It's just not right.
Re: Sikhs and their right to not to wear crash helmets. I'll hold my hand up and admit - I simply don't care if someone chooses to do this.
At the end of the day, if a Sikh chap comes off his motorbike and suffers brain damage because he's wearing a turban, my attitude would be, "That's pretty horrific, and I feel sorry for you - but you must realise that you accepted the dangers when you chose that form of transport without adequate protection".
He's only harming himself...but anti-discrimination laws are there because we're transitioning into a society where bigotry is to be seen like smoking. It's not illegal...but it should be frowned on wherever possible.
And to the point "Why is it that only certain sections of society have anti-discrimatory laws passed to protect their rights?"
The answer is "because we need anti-discriminatory laws passed to protect the rights of certain sections of society".
Because, even though Britain is light years ahead of many other countries in terms of equlity laws (look how civil partnerships were introduced without barely a murmur), there are still some who are uncomfortable with the speed of change.
Change IS scary - but it's gonna happen.
If someone had told you back in 1980 that in 30 years time, an African American man would be in the White House (not as a cleaner), you'd have been laughed at.
It's a generational thing.
In 2035, my guess is that attitudes like the one displayed by this guest house owner will look as strange as the 'No dogs, no Irish, no blacks' do to us today.
The answer is "because we need anti-discriminatory laws passed to protect the rights of certain sections of society".
Because, even though Britain is light years ahead of many other countries in terms of equlity laws (look how civil partnerships were introduced without barely a murmur), there are still some who are uncomfortable with the speed of change.
Change IS scary - but it's gonna happen.
If someone had told you back in 1980 that in 30 years time, an African American man would be in the White House (not as a cleaner), you'd have been laughed at.
It's a generational thing.
In 2035, my guess is that attitudes like the one displayed by this guest house owner will look as strange as the 'No dogs, no Irish, no blacks' do to us today.
Not sure this is illegal. Yes it's illegal to say "no gays", but it's not illegal to bar someone because you don't like the look of them or even if you are against what they may get up to in the bedroom. Plod will have to show she barred them because they are gay and I don't think they have it in writing. Legal beagle anywhere?
From the article:
///She later admitted she had turned the couple away because it was her policy not to let same sex couples share a room.
///
From BBC website: She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8578787.stm
Not difficult to prove....
///She later admitted she had turned the couple away because it was her policy not to let same sex couples share a room.
///
From BBC website: She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8578787.stm
Not difficult to prove....
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Body & Soul12 mins ago
News25 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.