Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.

I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.

Being treated as second class citizens is harming the people. Would you support it being ok for the BnB owners to turn away black people?

[Outrider]

I've made it perfectly clear more than once that I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate in practise, but they should be allowed to be prejudiced, and to express their obnoxious opinions, within limits that already exist. Maybe the B&B owners should not be allowed to refuse a double bed, but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity. They knew in advance of the views and policy of the B&B owners.

Isn't that their right of free speech?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I've made it perfectly clear more than once that I don't think people should be allowed to discriminate in practise, but they should be allowed to be prejudiced, and to express their obnoxious opinions, within limits that already exist. Maybe the B&B owners should not be allowed to refuse a double bed, but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity. They knew in advance of the views and policy of the B&B owners.

Imagine those gay trouble makers wanted to be treated equally.. What is they were black people, and the owners wanted to discriminate against them?

[Outrider]

That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.

Being discriminated against is being caused harm.  The more widespread and the more acceptable it is, the more widespread and pernicious the harm.

I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to.

The Equalities Act's provision do not distinguish between types of organisation in that sense - a non-profit is still an organisation subject to the rules.  If they aren't taking payment at all - even in goods in kind or services - then it becomes a purely personal venture and they're effectively inviting guests into their home.  You can discriminate in your private affairs if you want, you just can't take cash for discrimination.

It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?

A distinction needs to be drawn here between non-profit - who can charge fees, cover their costs, invest in the development of the business - and a non-commercial venture where money doesn't change hands.

It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.

It doesn't seem harsh at all to say that you can believe whatever you want to believe in private but your business doesn't get to ignore overdue legislation because you as the owner are a bigot.  When the Disability Discrimination Act came into force people objected to being 'forced' to employ 'spastics'; when the far-less all encompassing Equal Pay Act 1970 came into force there were sections of the populace who railed against the idea that a woman could even contemplate doing a man's job, let alone being paid equally for it.

These ideas are generally seen as patent nonsense now - they were patent nonsense then, but they weren't necessarily seen as such by everyone.  This idea that some sorts of bigotry are acceptable is patent nonsense, and soon that won't even be considered worth talking about.

O.

[Roses]

That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.

I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?
It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.

Those unpleasant religious bigots don't deserve any consideration whatsoever.

[Outrider]

Those unpleasant religious bigots don't deserve any consideration whatsoever.

Everyone deserves consideration.  If you want people's opinions to change, you don't achieve that by haranguing or ostracising them - their ideas, yes, but not them.

O.

[Roses]

Everyone deserves consideration.  If you want people's opinions to change, you don't achieve that by haranguing or ostracising them - their ideas, yes, but not them.

O.

If they are doing something wrong, which they are, they deserve to be ostracised.

[Gordon]

That is true, but it is also true that one causes harm, the other does not.

Both cause harm: discrimination leading to unequal access to services is harmful by being demeaning to those discriminated against and being the cause of social discord - as we see from the varying views expressed in this thread.

I read that the B&B owners are still doing what they did before, but in a non-profit way, and are allowed to decline a room if they choose to. It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?

They can hold discriminatory personal views, be they religious or not, but as soon as they place themselves in a position of inviting social interaction from the populace at large then, and irrespective of how they fund this, they are required to act fairly - this isn't rocket science, Spud.

It seems hard on the BnB owners to take away their means of paying the bills in the basis of a rather drastic change in the law, but it is possible that the benefit to the gay community outweighs this.

I'd say it is more the case that society in general benefits from constraining examples of overt homophobic bigotry.

[Aruntraveller]

but I still think the gay couple who asked for one were wilful trouble-makers, out for a bit of publicity.

Irrelevant.

[BeRational]

No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.

Why?

Once you start allowing certain discrimination where does it end, who decides.

You are advocating discrimination.

[Roses]

Why?

Once you start allowing certain discrimination where does it end, who decides.

You are advocating discrimination.

Quite right.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, except for some very limited conscience clauses for conservative religious people.

Why should conscience clauses only apply to religious people?

Surely that is inherently discriminatory if someone with an extremely firmly held belief is allowed a conscience clause opt-out to the law if they are religious, while someone else with an equally firmly held belief is denied an opt out to the law as they are not religious.

Any conscience clause has to be based on how firmly and consistently that view is held by an individual not whether the individual is religious or not nor whether the belief derives from religion or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

It occurs to me that if religious organizations are non-profit organizations, the same would apply to them?

No - whether an organisation is for-profit or not-for-profit makes no fundamental difference to their requirement to abide by equalities legislation. A charity is held to the same rules on discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services as a for-profit company.

[Roses]

If something is wrong like being an anti-gay bigot no exceptions should be made, religion should never be permitted as an excuse for bigotry.

[Spud]

Both cause harm: discrimination leading to unequal access to services is harmful by being demeaning to those discriminated against and being the cause of social discord - as we see from the varying views expressed in this thread.

They can hold discriminatory personal views, be they religious or not, but as soon as they place themselves in a position of inviting social interaction from the populace at large then, and irrespective of how they fund this, they are required to act fairly - this isn't rocket science, Spud.

I'd say it is more the case that society in general benefits from constraining examples of overt homophobic bigotry.

It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions."
https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte

[Nearly Sane]

It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions."
https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte

Say they didn't want to support a mixed race marriage? Would you be fine with that?

[Roses]

It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions."
https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte

Religious convictions of that sort are sick and should be disregarded.

[Outrider]

It's not really as simple as insisting on equal access to services. The case of a baker in the US who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding "is one of several cases around the country in which bakers, florists, photographers, calligraphers and others have said they don’t want to participate in same-sex nuptials because of religious convictions." https://tinyurl.com/y9ygfcte

And yet, at the same time, we now have taxpayers forced to fund religious schools in the US, following last week's Supreme Court decision - either personal opinion is important or it isn't, or you have religious privilege.  It seems that the US, currently, is moving towards the position that the religious should have entitlements that, say, gay people shouldn't.

It really is as simple as insisting on equal access to services.  If you can discriminate because of a 'sincere belief', then there is no equality, there is no means by which minority groups can be defended from discrimination.    Asking someone who bakes cakes for a living to bake a cake is not an unwarranted assault on their belief; if they can't bring themselves to live and let live they shouldn't be putting themselves in the position where they have to make the choice.  No gay people forced them to become bakers, that was a choice.  No gay people forced them to become homophobic fairy-tale believers, that was a choice.

O.

[Spud]

Say they didn't want to support a mixed race marriage? Would you be fine with that?

Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.

You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.

[Roses]

Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is a perversion of the normal use for sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.

You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.

You are using your version of god, which probably doesn't exist, to back your highly unpleasant anti-gay bigotry.

[Aruntraveller]

Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.

You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.

You haven't really grasped that marriage is a social construct that has changed over the years have you?

At what point in time do you wish to preserve marriage in Aspic? Do you want to take the time of Christ's life for example?

[Nearly Sane]

Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
....

Since I didn't suggest that because mixed race marriage being fine means same sex marriage is fine, the entirety of your post is irrelevant

[Gordon]

Two issues with claiming that if it's ok for a black person to marry a white person then it's ok for a man to marry a man:
1. A race is a group of people of common descent. Therefore: a. Black and white people are of the same race, and b. If you want to base the argument on them being different sub-races, you have to accept that all marriages are between people of different sub-races (according to the definition above), so if mixed race marriages were disallowed, by extension why not ban all non-incestuous ones?
2. It isn't the characteristic of same sex attraction, which can be compared with skin colour, that is the problem, but the action associated with it, which cannot.
A trader might believe that same-sex sex is forbidden by God, since God intended sex to be between a man and a woman. Or he might, in his own reasoning, believe that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity, and be unwilling to become involved. Provided there are other florists (or whoever) available who are willing to provide the service, I don't see any harm in a 'conscientious objector' referring a same sex couple to another florist who is. I don't believe that penalizing such an objector is fair, provided they don't act in a way that is in any way hateful.

You might ask: if we are basing the rules on actions, and we say that if a man is not allowed to have sex with another man, then why allow a black man to move to a high latitude? Well if a black person living in Scotland finds he isn't able to get enough Vitamin D, he still has the option to move to a lower latitude.
The marriage vow, however, is inherently a lifelong commitment.
So I think people can justifiably refuse a service if it involves participation in same-sex marriage.

This is as good an example of condensed idiocy as I've seen for a while.

1. Marriage is a social construct: it is both variable at any one time and changes over time, and is not the property of the religiously inclined.

2. Sexual orientation leads to the possibility of sexual activity in line with that orientation: you don't get to accept the former but deny the latter because you don't approve. As regards what consenting adults do - it is none of your business, Spud.

3. If traders don't wish to provide their services freely and equally because of their religious views, and in prioritising their beliefs they deny their services to those they disapprove of, then the answer is simple: they need to get out of the market-place.

4. Would black people in Scotland be better off moving south - would Carlisle be far enough south do you think?

I think you need to do more thinking.   

[Aruntraveller]

4. Would black people in Scotland be better off moving south - would Carlisle be far enough south do you think?

Probably cheaper to get a supply of Vit D pills from Wilko's* (* alternative retailers are available)

[Gordon]

Probably cheaper to get a supply of Vit D pills from Wilko's* (* alternative retailers are available)

Surely Spud must have thought of that before advising relocation from Scotland to sun-drenched areas such as, say, Wetherby.