If 'gays only' hotels are successfully charged with discriminating against straight people, will Christians finally realised that they're not being 'persecuted'?

[sp1814]

We so often hear from the right wing media that Christians and the so-called 'silent majority' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are being unfairly treated by the new Equality Bill.

However, if 'gays only' hotels are to be charged under the same act, could thus finally put an end to the claims of unfairness?

http://www.mirror.co....robe-115875-22938105/

[jake-the-peg]

I doubt it - groups often make themselves tighter knit by pretending that they are being persecuted.

You see it all the time on here with the laughable "white anglosaxon hetrosexuals are becoming a persecuted minority" rants

[sp1814]

JTP

IT may sound counter-intuitive, but I actually WANT a gays-only establishment to be fined, just so we have a precedent to present to the right wingers who claim everything is always stacked against the straights.

[sp1814]

God only knows how someone like Melanie Phillips would process the story!

[anotheoldgit]

And why shouldn't they be charged?

It's not just about 'Whites', 'Anglo-Saxon', 'Heterosexuals, 'Christians'' 'Right Wingers' or anyone else sp1814 and Co.doesn't side with, being treated unfairly.

All most want is a 'level playing field'.

Something that the 'majority' is continually failing to achieve.

jake-the-peg, you made the following statement, perhaps now you would care to follow it up with facts, so that one can argue the point?

/// You see it all the time on here with the laughable "white anglosaxon hetrosexuals are becoming a persecuted minority" rants ///

Perhaps you can first get your wording correct, since when have the 'white Anglo-Saxon heterosexuals' been the 'minority'? In your dreams perhaps, but not yet, I am pleased to add.

[Kromovaracun]

That's Jake's point, AOG. They're not, but there do seem to be some rants on AB that imply they're becoming one, which is what his comment is aimed at.

[DTCwordfan]

I hear they are hard to get planning regulations for and there are stiff laws on advertising - only can be orally done.

[sandyRoe]

Are there many gay only hotels where hetrosexuals would be refused accommodation ?

[sp1814]

AOG

I agree with you that we currently do not have a level playing field. When people with Muslim-sounding names need to apply for jobs as Tim Smith, or gay men have to pretend their straight to stay in certain establishments, it's clear that there is prejudice that needs to be overcome, which is why I welcome the investigation highlighted in the report.

Fair should apply to everyone.

[pa___ul3]

I can't see any argument against your point sp, such hotels should be treated in exactly the same way a 'heterosexuals only' would be treated.

[anotheoldgit]

I must be careful how I answer you, the last time my question was removed for nothing more than challenging you for using a Daily Mail link, how many times as that not happened to me?

To get back on track, you refer to the Muslim that was allegedly refused a job for having a Muslim sounding name, well that is only an allegation and until the true facts have been before a court of law it is a little unfair to quote that case.

Regarding your favourite 'Gay Men refused to stop in Hotel' story, (I presume this was the one you were referring to?), well this was a one off, enforced by one particular owner, and the fact that they were convicted and punished, proves that there are laws to protect certain minorities.

Yet there are numerous incidents where the fairness hasn't been extended to the majorities.

[rov1100]

I believe the majority of Christians will not feel discrimiated against. In fact most feel it would be doing them a favour and the establishments should be highly identified so that they could steer well clear of these debaunched places. That could also apply to gay bars, etc.

[New Judge]

I think we’re somewhat missing the point of SP’s question: “...will Christians finally realised that they're not being 'persecuted'?”

I doubt that they will. As far as I am aware there is no religion that frowns upon heterosexuality so prosecuting a “Gays only” establishment will give Christians no succour. Other religions are given dispensation so that they are not subject to the laws that bind the rest of us. A couple of examples that spring to mind are Sikhs being allowed to ride motorcycles without a crash helmet and to carry their kirpans (ceremonial knives) in public. As well as this exemptions for certain religions are provided in civil (particularly employment) law which makes provision for various religious trinkets to be worn purely because religion requires it and these exemptions are not available to members of other religions. Of course the distinction is often made between a religious “requirement” and a simple desire and so, for example, no provision can be made for the wearing of a crucifix as it is not absolutely “required”. In my view this is the price Christianity is made to pay for being less prescriptive.

The guest house owners who refused a gay couple a double room were simply arguing that an exemption to the law should be provided for them so that they could adhere to their religious beliefs. They were told no such exemption was available. So whilst “persecution” is perhaps a bit strong and emotive, they may well feel hard done by bearing in mind the various arrangements that are in place for members of other religions.

[pa___ul3]

but new judge, you said it yourself, the 'special dispensations' are for religious requirements. Being against homosexuality is not, as I understand, a requirement of Christianity so such cases cannot be compared.
We hear time and time again, but just because Sikh men do not have to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike, doesn't mean any other request for special dispensation in order to follow any act based on religion should be treated in the same way.
If you want me to be extreme to make a point of view... a Christian feels it's against their religion to allow homosexuals to sleep in the same bed.. a Muslim feels his religion dictates that anyone practicing non-Mulsim followings should be killed. It's a wild comparison but both equate to illegal practices in the name of religion that have ambiguous reasoning. Where is the line?

[redman41]

Where does all this nonsense end ? Whites Only Hotels......Blacks Only Hotels..........Bi-Sexual Only Hotels.............on and on it goes. Just creating Ghettos.

[anotheoldgit]

Still have Ladies only venues, but no Men only venues, unless one counts the loos, but then I have seen women cleaners in them even.

[New Judge]

Quite so, Pa_ul. Both the examples you quote are illegal practices carried out in the name of religion. So are both the examples I quoted.

Of course the law has to strike a balance and I would suggest that allowing one person to kill another because his religion says he should is maybe beyond the line, wheras allowing him to ride without a crash helmet is not.

I think Christians feel let down by the law because I cannot think of any dispensations that are availabe to them which help them adhere to their religion. I would suggest that allowing the guest house owners to decline gay guests is not the end of the world and causes no more harm than a Sikh not wearing a crash helmet.

I think the Christian church needs to get tough with its followers and, like some of the more extreme beliefs, lay down some hard and fast rules that cannot be broken in any circumstances, rather than just providing guidelines. They may then have a greater chance of success in the courts.

[Oneeyedvic]

You do have Men Only establishments - FreeMasonry being a prime example

[eyethenkyew]

There's little if any point to a thread based on a newspaper article full of hearsay and nothing else. Where are the direct quotes from the EHRC? All there is are the ramblings of some hack from the Mirror - who's to say he didn't make it all up to fill a column?

So the ridiculous claim above "if gays only hotels are to be charged...." is a bit like me saying that if it rains later I might not take the mutts out.......or I might?

Phwwwww........twaddle!

[pa___ul3]

it's the ambiguity of the source of opinion which was my main point, I'm not 100% knoweldgable of the practices of Sikhism, but i do believe, as you said, it's a requirement to have uncut hair which hinders the wearing of a helmet.
What are the special requirements of Christianity that require special dispensation? If 99% of Christians are tolerant of homosexuality, it would suggest it's not a requirement of the religion so should, therefore, not require any special dispensation. The wearing of the crucifix as a piece of jewellery is a choice, the banning from wearing such articles is usually due to health and safety reasons due to the fact it's a piece of jewellery rather than the image.

[anotheoldgit]

Oneeyedvic

Freemasonry is almost a religion so therefore doesn't count.

But having said that perhaps you might want to Google 'Women Freemasons', you may come up with many interesting facts.

http://tinyurl.com/62b2xmp