Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The reason has become clear: the outcome has been that people are now expected to do things that are against their conscience, such as allow same sex couples to stay in a B&B run by Christians and other faiths. Or face prosecution. They are called bigots, compared to racists (which I think you've said is a false argument).

Whether it is a false argument I think depends on what is being argued. If the person is considered racist for disliking a behaviour e.g. saying "I dislike the pungent smell of fried onion, garlic and ginger emanating from people on the tube who cook a lot of curry" isn't racist in my opinion even if a lot of those people happen to be brown.

I personally do not think I have to consider the feelings and circumstances and views of every minority group before forming or expressing an opinion on something - and if that gets me labelled a bigot, am happy to be labelled a bigot as I think it's a price worth paying for discussing the complexities and myriad implications of arriving at different views or opinions.

There are also gay people who wish to walk away from a homosexual lifestyle. But they now face the psychological pressure to walk into it. I'm thinking of last year's gay pride day episode of eastenders.

Yes - I remember Shaker foaming at the mouth (figuratively) when I said I thought if genetic/ epigenetic engineering was available as an option to change your sexuality from any point on the spectrum from gay to straight to any other point on the spectrum, then that should be a permissible option available to consenting adults - much like lightening or darkening your skin or increasing or decreasing the size of your breasts/ muscles/ penis is an option. He thought people who wanted to change their sexuality should be prevented from having the freedom to pursue that option but they could have the freedom to change other things about themselves they did not like. Seemed an inconsistent argument to me - some/ many atheists appear to not be as rational and consistent as some/ many of them seem to think they are. Presumably because like everyone else, their value judgements are made through a mix of emotion and reason. 

[Roses]

Talking of Shaker, I wonder if anyone is in contact with him, he hasn't posted on R&E since February last year?

[Aruntraveller]

The reason has become clear: the outcome has been that people are now expected to do things that are against their conscience, such as allow same sex couples to stay in a B&B run by Christians and other faiths. Or face prosecution. They are called bigots, compared to racists (which I think you've said is a false argument).

Spud try being turned away from a B&B for being gay. It feels like bigotry. I know.

But in the interests of equality I want to take this idea of yours for refusing services to people a little further and introduce an element of reciprocity to it.

So for the B & B people and indeed any bigots out there that want to refuse gay people services can they simply wear a badge that says "Refusing to serve gay people because I am a bigot/bigoted Christian/ etc" on it. Gay people can wear one that says "gay person/nurse/bus driver etc". Then everyone will know where they are and why services are being refused.

So I trot up to a B & b and I am refused service because I've got a great big gay badge on, that says "I love The Golden Girls" or something similar. The man who opens the door has a "I love Ann Widdecombe" badge on, we both know where we stand and I leave.

Unfortunately, the person wearing the Anne Widdecombe badge has an accident and breaks their leg the next day and turns up at hospital. Unfortunately for them the male nurse has gay emblazoned all over his uniform, accompanied by rather too much glitter for my liking. The nurse sees the Anne Widdecombe badge and says quite rightly, I'm really sorry I can't treat you due to your obvious support for an anti-gay stance that makes me uncomfortable and it goes against my conscience.

So off he limps to get the bus home........and Oh my Lord the bus driver is dressed head to toe in pink with "gay" tattooed on his forehead. He's having a tough day, poor man.

I have another alternative suggestion though. Just treat people as you yourself would like to be treated, then all these problems just disappear.

If life was approached in the spirit of the following we would all be a lot better off.

" A Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Pagan and an Atheist went into a coffee shop. They talk, laugh, have nice conversation over coffee and become good friends"

I wish you would grow up.

[Gordon]

That's a belter, Trent.

[doffs hat]

[Owlswing]

A magnificent post, Trent!

 

[Roses]

Good post TV. 

[SteveH]

Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.

[Roses]

Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.

It is you who is being silly! Gays have as much right to share a bed as heterosexuals.

[SteveH]

It is you who is being silly! Gays have as much right to share a bed as heterosexuals.

I agree. I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy.
I will add that in the famous case, it seemed to me that the gay couple who tried to book a double room were trouble-makers, just trying to get publicity. They would have known the owners' views, but booked with them anyway, rather than anyone else.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree. I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy.
I will add that in the famous case, it seemed to me that the gay couple who tried to book a double room were trouble-makers, just trying to get publicity. They would have known the owners' views, but booked with them anyway, rather than anyone else.

imagine that Rosa Parks just wanting to sit down.

[SteveH]

imagine that Rosa Parks just wanting to sit down.

Typicasl self-righteous, point-missing post.

[Nearly Sane]

Typicasl self-righteous, point-missing post.

Why shouldn't a gay couple highlight discrimination?

[SteveH]

Why shouldn't a gay couple highlight discrimination?

Unlike Rosa Parks, who put herself at serious risk by her action, given the atmosphere of lynchings, other violence, and the blatant bias of the law-enflrcers, these two only put the B&B owners out of business, st no risk to themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gays sleeping together (within a faithful, long-term relationship), but many Christians are opposed, and, with strict limits, there should be a conscience clause for them.
That's my last word, so don't start nagging me to make another U-turn, because I'm not going to, and will not reply.

[Gordon]

I agree. I was pointing out the flaw in his analogy.
I will add that in the famous case, it seemed to me that the gay couple who tried to book a double room were trouble-makers, just trying to get publicity. They would have known the owners' views, but booked with them anyway, rather than anyone else.

Shouldn't discrimination be deliberately and specifically challenged?

[Nearly Sane]

Unlike Rosa Parks, who put herself at serious risk by her action, given the atmosphere of lynchings, other violence, and the blatant bias of the law-enflrcers, these two only put the B&B owners out of business, st no risk to themselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gays sleeping together (within a faithful, long-term relationship), but many Christians are opposed, and, with strict limits, there should be a conscience clause for them.
That's my last word, so don't start nagging me to make another U-turn, because I'm not going to, and will not reply.

  Surely such discrimination needs to be challenged - and that  the circumstances are not exactly the same makes no difference. Your post supports discrimination.

[SteveH]

I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.

That is supporting discrimination.

[Roses]

Shouldn't discrimination be deliberately and specifically challenged?

Of course it should.

[Roses]

I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.

Therefore you are supporting discrimination.

[SteveH]

That is supporting discrimination.

If you say so. I'm not getting into another tedious, never-ending argument with you.What's the weather like up there on the moral high ground?

[Nearly Sane]

If you say so. I'm not getting into another tedious, never-ending argument with you.What's the weather like up there on the moral high ground?

You just don't want to justify things. You are taking a moral position just as I am but you want to poison the well so that you can avoid discussion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

#1452 - good post Trent

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I do not support discrimination; I think there should be strictly limited conscience clauses for conservative Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) who cannot countenance active homosexual relations, although I strongly disagree with them. By analogy, I have always supported female ordination, and am glad that woman can now be bishops in the C of E, and look forward to the first female ABC, maybe after Welby. I abhore the miserable misogynists in "Backward In Bigotry" (officially misnamed "Forward In Faith"), and never on principle enter their churches (on the annual bike ride in aid of the local historic churches trust, I always miss out the BIB church in Hemel). However, I do grudgingly think that they should have the right to refuse a female priest, but that their pretend, non-geographical dioceses and bishops were a step too far.

What do you mean by “cannot countenance”? What would happen to them if they knew there was an active homosexual relationship being conducted? Is it like a Labour supporter being forced to organise a rally to cheer and celebrate Boris and canvas Tory votes? Is it like a Brexiter being forced to organise a speaking engagement to welcome Jean Claude Juncker to Britain to persuade us to accept ECJ jurisdiction after the transition period?

[Roses]

If you say so. I'm not getting into another tedious, never-ending argument with you.What's the weather like up there on the moral high ground?

You will continue to do so, so don't tell porkies!

[Aruntraveller]

Rather a silly post, Trent. The Christian B&B owners did not ban gays from staying there, only from sharing a bed, so your laboured analogy falls at the first fence.

Yes because nothing says we are in a committed relationship that is respected like being forced to sleep in separate rooms.

Would you think it acceptable for gay B & B owners to stop bigoted heterosexual Christians sleeping together?