Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

Were the B&B owners being required to campaign for gay rights?

[Spud]

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.

You've now equated campaigning against something with bigotry. Should all campaigning be banned then?
Also, if a doctor lets someone die or their illness get worse that's very different to a priest declining to bless a same sex marriage.

[Roses]

You've now equated campaigning against something with bigotry. Should all campaigning be banned then?
Also, if a doctor lets someone die or their illness get worse that's very different to a priest declining to bless a same sex marriage.

The priest should be booted out of office if they refuse to bless a same sex marriage, imo.

[Aruntraveller]

You've now equated campaigning against something with bigotry. Should all campaigning be banned then?
Also, if a doctor lets someone die or their illness get worse that's very different to a priest declining to bless a same sex marriage.

I wasn't talking about priests. They are already exempt.

[Spud]

Were the B&B owners being required to campaign for gay rights?

They were required to rent a double bed out, which would result in facilitating something they believe is wrong.

[Roses]

They were required to rent a double bed out, which would result in facilitating something they believe is wrong.

In which case they shouldn't be owners of a B&B, there is NOTHING wrong with gay couples having sex.

[Spud]

In which case they shouldn't be owners of a B&B, there is NOTHING wrong with gay couples having sex.

The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.

[Gordon]

They were required to rent a double bed out, which would result in facilitating something they believe is wrong.

You do realise, Spud, that sometimes people go to bed to, you know, go to sleep (as in slumber) - unless you believe that two people sleeping (as in slumbering) in a double bed is wrong: maybe you should form the Bed Police and keep a watchful eye on events (though it might get you arrested)!

In any event, what business is it of yours or anyone else's what two consenting adults do in bed?

[Sebastian Toe]

The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.

So if they had been married, there would have been no problem in letting the room?

[Gordon]

The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.

What law would this be?

[Roses]

The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple; the couple in question were not in a civil partnership or married at the time. If they had been a straight couple they would also have been refused.

I think you have made it up!

[Spud]

What law would this be?

According to one website there's one that says you cannot refuse a married couple a room; it says nothing about unmarried couples.

[Spud]

You do realise, Spud, that sometimes people go to bed to, you know, go to sleep (as in slumber) - unless you believe that two people sleeping (as in slumbering) in a double bed is wrong: maybe you should form the Bed Police and keep a watchful eye on events (though it might get you arrested)!

In any event, what business is it of yours or anyone else's what two consenting adults do in bed?

They were offered single rooms which had they just wanted to sleep would have been all they needed.

[Spud]

So if they had been married, there would have been no problem in letting the room?

Not if they had been married to women, no.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not if they had been married to women, no.

If they had been married to each other?

[Spud]

If they had been married to each other?

This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.

[Aruntraveller]

This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.

I always find it amusing that you are all for stopping gay people access to a B & B but you never ever mention lets say, racists. Must come lower down on the list for "conscientious objectors" 

[Sebastian Toe]

This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?),

The owners were legally allowed to refuse the bed to any unmarried couple;

Doesn't it?

[Outrider]

This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.

So it doesn't protect them, except when it protects them by saying that your 'conscientious objection' isn't sufficient grounds for discrimination.

O.

[Owlswing]

This was my point in #1447. Making sexual relationships between gay people equal to those of straight people, and introducing same-sex marriage, does nothing to protect homosexuals (does it?), yet it can result in some conscientious objectors being fined or made redundant, except in the case of religious organisations.

There can be no doubt to anyone with one iota of intelligence reading the last few posts of yours that you are, without a shadow of a doubt, an unmitigated and unrepentant bigot of the worst possible sort, your bigotry based upon a book whose veracity is dubious at best!

Homosexuals are, whatever else they might not be, including Christian, human beings and as such are entitled to be treated exactly like any and every other human being including an (self-censored) and (self-censored) bigot!     

[Gordon]

According to one website there's one that says you cannot refuse a married couple a room; it says nothing about unmarried couples.

Citation please.

[Owlswing]

Citation please.

You beat me to it!

[Spud]

So it doesn't protect them, except when it protects them by saying that your 'conscientious objection' isn't sufficient grounds for discrimination.

O.

Arguably there was no discrimination in this case, as they were offered single beds.
What damage does the £3,700 fine pay for?

[Roses]

Arguably there was no discrimination in this case, as they were offered single beds.
What damage does the £3,700 fine pay for?

They wanted a double bed so of course there was discrimination. A fine is deserved for anti-gay bigotry.

[Spud]

They wanted a double bed so of course there was discrimination.

Given that discrimination does happen (no unaccompanied children, for example), what damage was done by denying them a double bed? They weren't denied access to the B&B.