Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Aruntraveller]

Steve

I'm glad that you think it is ok for people to discriminate against myself and my partner of 41 years.

I can only hope that you also experience something similar in your life. In the interests of equality.

Your weasel words are fucking insulting.

[Gordon]

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?

I think that is a very good question: and that it deserves an answer.

[Owlswing]

I think that is a very good question: and that it deserves an answer.

As do I - and it will be interesting to put a stop-watch on how long it takes for him to find one!

Other than, of course the most probable one that bigoted Christains would avoid gay owned B&B by as wide a margin as they would a lesbian sex aids and erotic underwear party!

[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.

I've left this awhile in the hope that you would reconsider your prejudiced view of this matter. My analogy does not fall at any fence. The B & B owners were not prepared to treat a homosexual couple in the same way as a heterosexual couple so you are wrong with that analysis. That they offered separate rooms just shows how much you missed the point or don't understand how any couple when they go away prefer to share rooms - unless you are royalty of course.

Moving on from that, I really would like you to explain why you are prepared to see discrimination against me allowed in this country.

Your silence now, indicates a willingness to assert, but when challenged an unwillingness to engage.

Is that because deep down you know you can't defend your position without making yourself look like a person who is willing to allow and encourage prejudice against gay people, of whose number I count myself lucky enough to be.

You frequently criticise another poster for asserting things without back up.

Except for the number of words used I see little difference between you and that posters approach.

[SteveH]

I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.

What if some "genuine religious' people want to exclude black people? What is it about 'genuine religious' views that means you want to privilege them above 'genuine political' views? Surely you are just effectively supporting a system where some people can put up the equivalent of 'No Jews, No Irish, No Blacks'in their window?

[SteveH]

What if some "genuine religious' people want to exclude black people? What is it about 'genuine religious' views that means you want to privilege them above 'genuine political' views? Surely you are just effectively supporting a system where some people can put up the equivalent of 'No Jews, No Irish, No Blacks'in their window?

There is no history of any major religion or denomination excluding black people.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no history of any major religion or denomination excluding black people.

There is a history of justification of slavery of black people in Christianity. Christian values were used to justify (and deny) apartheid. And how given the conscious clause can you avoid someone saying I genuinely religiously believe I should be allowed to exclude black people?

Why do see a difference between homosexuality  and race here.

What about someone refusing to allow Muslims or Jews?

[SteveH]

I'm fed up of your far-fetched, dodgy analogies and your general achingly right-on, sanctimoniou, and rather immature attitude. I've explained my pov, so that's that.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm fed up of your far-fetched, dodgy analogies and your general achingly right-on, sanctimoniou, and rather immature attitude. I've explained my pov, so that's that.

They aren't analogies. They are questions trying to find the limits of how much bigotry you want to be allowed to be enshrined in law and why. That you are unwilling to answer questions is very revealing.

[Roses]

I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.

Using religion as an excuse for bigotry is WRONG, they should be prosecuted for taking that stance if they excluded anyone who didn't have a white skin.

[Owlswing]

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.

Yert another posty based firmly in homophobia land!

What's that song that goes "When will they ever learn"!?

[Owlswing]

Typicasl self-righteous, point-missing post.

Typical mindless response!

[Aruntraveller]

I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.

So you are arguing for what you see as "wrong headedness" to be rewarded?

[Roses]

Typical mindless response!

I agree, he refuses to see that his responses are homophobic.


Totally off topic, but I am surprised to see how this thread has taken off. Maybe it will be granted sticky status sometime?

[Gordon]

I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited. It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religios qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.

That reads like a double helping of fallacies - implying both an argument from tradition, the problem being that the tradition involved is discriminatory, and an argument from authority where the problem there is that, here in the UK anyway, these religious traditions aren't an authoritative source of social policy any more: and since they are inherently discriminatory, and given the shift in the moral zeitgeist that saw marriage equality legislated for, there are no good reasons that I can see to tolerate overt homophobia such as displayed by these B&B providers and the traditions they espouse.   

[Owlswing]

I agree, he refuses to see that his responses are homophobic.

Totally off topic, but I am surprised to see how this thread has taken off. Maybe it will be granted sticky status sometime?

As long as it is a circular parade of everyone chasing aroung trying to get a hint of common sense and a realisation he is a truly unpleasant and unrepentant homophobe so that he wiill, hopefully      S T F U!

The same position repeated again and again but with different words make a thread bloody boring very quickly!

[Outrider]

I think there should be a conscience clause, strictly limited, for misogynists in 'Backward in Bigotry', and for Christian, Jewish and Muslim homophobic B&B owners, but again strictly limited.

There already is - religious organisations, for instance, are not compelled (even the established church) to conform to all the requirements of the Equalities Act with regards to employment, they are not required to fulfil all the variants of marriage despite being authorised to conduct marriage ceremonies.

It won't seriously inconvwnience women priests or gay couples since the vast majority of churches will still be open to the former, and B&Bs and hotels to the latter, but genuine religious qualms should be catered for within limits, however wrong-headed.

Where does that stop?  Why should your 'genuine' religious qualm that gayness is unacceptable get in the way of, for instance, my 'genuine' social qualm that bigotry is unacceptable?

How do you determine what a 'genuine' religious qualm is, over just regular small-minded bigotry?  Is it 'genuine' if it's the result of an historical bigot in the religious records?

O.

[Owlswing]

Is it 'genuine' if it's the result of an historical bigot in the religious records?

O.

I truly pray for the day when another trove like the Dead Sea scrolls is found that express the view that Jesus was actually as bent as a nine-bob note and the real reason for his crucifixion was his offering his bare arse, in public, to Pilate with the words "Come on Big Man let's see what you got!"

[Spud]

In my opinion it is as bad to be an anti-gay bigot as it is to be a racist. It is right to prosecute such people if they discriminate against gays. Using the Bible as an excuse for evil bigotry is PATHETIC, imo

But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.

[Aruntraveller]

But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.

So you are arguing for the right for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a person who campaigns against equal rights for gay people then. After all that is something the doctor would believe is wrong.

[Owlswing]

But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.

My conscience tells me that 90% of the doctrines of the Bible are socially unacceptable in the 21st century!

Does this mean that it perfectly OK for me to tell Christians to stop persecuting gays and lesbians in thought, word and deed?

If you keep it to yourself, i e keep your mouth shut, as your conscience in an internal entity, we neither of us will have a problem, but that is the major problem with militant Christians, they are totally incapable of keeping their bigoted mouths shut!

[Spud]

So you are arguing for the right for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a person who campaigns against equal rights for gay people then. After all that is something the doctor would believe is wrong.

There's quite a difference between treating someone who campaigns against equal rights for gay people and say, blessing a same sex marriage. Your analogy would work if the gay doctor was being required to get involved in the campaign against equal rights for gay people.

[Roses]

But declining to do something because it is against your conscience is neither evil nor unjust. Nor is it bigotry to be intolerant of someone's opinion when to tolerate it would mean becoming involved in something you believe is wrong.

Being gay isn't wrong, being intolerant of gays is WRONG!

[Aruntraveller]

There's quite a difference between treating someone who campaigns against equal rights for gay people and say, blessing a same sex marriage. Your analogy would work if the gay doctor was being required to get involved in the campaign against equal rights for gay people.

Well taking it to an extreme if the doctor is keeping a bigot alive then he is indeed involved in perpetuating a campaign against equal rights.

If it is against your conscience then its against your conscience. That's the whole thrust of your argument.

People have different ideas about what their "conscience" tells them. If you want equality on those grounds then logically you have to let everyone discriminate as their own conscience dictates.