Religious groups trying keep discrimination of gays legal

BillieTheBot · January 2007

Religious groups are to stage a protest calling for a halt to laws banning discrimination against gay people in the provision of goods and services.
Christians, Jews and Muslims will take part in the rally at Parliament.

The ban on discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality would mean hotels could be prosecuted for refusing to provide rooms for gay couples.

Religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions. Equally, gay bars would not be able to ban straight couples.

Equality Act campaigner Angela Eagle MP told the Today programme: "We're not curtailing religious freedom, people can argue against the practice of homosexuality if they must.

"What this law does is say it's wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'. Actually it's also wrong and it's been illegal since the 1970s to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no blacks', or in fact 'no Catholics' or 'no Protestants. That is right, proper and moderate."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm

Perhaps unsurprisingly

I side with those in favour of introducing this law.

If people are not allow to discriminate on the grounds of race (or religion for that matter) then it's high time homosexuals were covered too.

Former Member · January 2007

oh dear. How embarrassing. Nevermind, no-one will listen to them anyway.

Former Member · January 2007

I don't like the slant of the article- yes, "Christians, Jews and Muslims" will take part, but not even a tiny minority of them will do so. It's to be expected from the "neutral and impartial" BBC though.

It's like saying "Spanish people are against gay rights" because there's some nutter from Bilbao there holding a banner.

Former Member · January 2007

"What this law does is say it's wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'. Actually it's also wrong and it's been illegal since the 1970s to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no blacks', or in fact 'no Catholics' or 'no Protestants. That is right, proper and moderate."

But you must put a sign on YOUR pub saying "No Smokers"

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

But you must put a sign on YOUR pub saying "No Smokers"

It's actually "no smoking." It's quite different. Smokers are quite welcome.

Former Member · January 2007

Either you accept that private business owners can exclude anyone they want based on any attribute they want, or you accept that any business open to the public has to be open to all of the public. You can't pick and choose which groups you want to be allowed to discriminate against. Incidentally, when is this going to extend to car insurers? "This insurer cannot give a quote due to the age/gender of the applicant." How is that any different?

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

It's actually "no smoking." It's quite different. Smokers are quite welcome.

Verbs and nouns are.;)

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Either you accept that private business owners can exclude anyone they want based on any attribute they want

I`ll accept that.

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

I`ll accept that.

Shame. Most other people don't. Mob rules remember.

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Shame. Most other people don't. Mob rules remember.

Thanks for the reminder. I hope everyone else is paying attention.

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Either you accept that private business owners can exclude anyone they want based on any attribute they want, or you accept that any business open to the public has to be open to all of the public. You can't pick and choose which groups you want to be allowed to discriminate against.

I agree but that perhaps needs redefining. Nobody should be banned on religious, race, nationality, gender or sexual orientation grounds (and probably a few more I can't think of now).

It gets a bit murkier when it comes to, say, dress code. Should people be banned from entry in a nightclub if they're wearing trainers?

Former Member · January 2007

Aladdin wrote:

I agree but that perhaps needs redefining.

I`d say the only tweaking that "needs" to be done is as follows :

"private business owners can exclude anyone they want based on any ALLEGED attribute"

Former Member · January 2007

Aladdin wrote:

Should people be banned from entry in a nightclub if they're wearing trainers?

No not at all, in my opinion. Although you can argue that you should be allowed to discriminate against something that someone has a choice in, like what clothes they wear, whereas things like gender, race and sexuality are things that a person cannot change. And there's also other vague areas, like do you let rival groups of football fans in together wearing their shirts. In principle, you shouldn't assume that someone is going to cause trouble based on things like this, but I also wouldn't blame a landlord for having a better to be safe than sorry attitude. And there is also the idea that you cannot discriminate against anything mentioned so far, but you can decide what "acceptable behaviour" is in your establishment. And in that case, in a B&B run by a family who believes homosexuality is wrong, for example, would letting two people of the same sex sleep together be "acceptable behaviour" to them? Although I imagine that many of the same people might have views about sex before marriage, but not worry about renting out a double bed to an unwed couple.

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

I`ll accept that.

So you accept a landlords right to use violence to prevent someone from entering a particular space just because he claims "ownership" of it? How are you defining ownership here? Oh that's right, a few government documents written on a bit of paper.

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

No not at all, in my opinion. Although you can argue that you should be allowed to discriminate against something that someone has a choice in, like what clothes they wear, whereas things like gender, race and sexuality are things that a person cannot change. And there's also other vague areas, like do you let rival groups of football fans in together wearing their shirts. In principle, you shouldn't assume that someone is going to cause trouble based on things like this, but I also wouldn't blame a landlord for having a better to be safe than sorry attitude.

Yeah I agree with that.

And there is also the idea that you cannot discriminate against anything mentioned so far, but you can decide what "acceptable behaviour" is in your establishment. And in that case, in a B&B run by a family who believes homosexuality is wrong, for example, would letting two people of the same sex sleep together be "acceptable behaviour" to them? Although I imagine that many of the same people might have views about sex before marriage, but not worry about renting out a double bed to an unwed couple.

Well they can always ask the gay couple not to have sex while staying there...

At the end of the day, so long as no property is damaged, now law is broken and nothing is seen or heard by others, what goes on inside a room is nobody's business but the guests. Any B&B owner who doesn't want to let gay people stay is simply not fit to be a B&B owner.

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

But you must put a sign on YOUR pub saying "No Smokers"

A smoker wouldn't have a leg to stand on though, because his/her smoking affects everyone around them. It's called passive smoking. I would like to think that any smoker would accept that they cannot smoke whilst in the public space. It isn't targetting him/her as a person but "No Gays" is.

I'd rather stand next to a gay guy in a public area that stand next to a person actively smoking.

Anyway, I'm sure my driving instructor was a lesbian. I passed with her, she was very patient.

Former Member · January 2007

Kermit wrote:

I don't like the slant of the article- yes, "Christians, Jews and Muslims" will take part, but not even a tiny minority of them will do so. It's to be expected from the "neutral and impartial" BBC though.

It's like saying "Spanish people are against gay rights" because there's some nutter from Bilbao there holding a banner.

Only a complete moron would not realise that only a minority of said groups would be taking part.

Why does such an obvious thing need to be spelt out? Have other news sources done this or is it just the BBC?

Scraping the barrel for things to attack them on aren't you?

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

But you must put a sign on YOUR pub saying "No Smokers"

I agree... See being around homosexuals makes you smell and can damage your health... :nervous: you could catch GAY!

:yeees:

Former Member · January 2007

I'm trying to find an article I read in the Independent (although it may have been the Guardian) on this topic, but with religious groups saying they were worried people who fall under the LGBT umbrella would have more rights than them or something.

Anyway, let's be honest on this, society is progressing. If you can't stop people who are black then why stop those of us who are LGBT? I'm sure these relgious groups would have something to say if somewhere had a sign up preventing Christians or Jews.

If it is a case of hiring out a church hall, what is the problem? Would they prevent somebody who was gay from coming to church? Would the hall also be unavailable to a Muslim meeting?

As for landlords, if they want to run a business they should do it to the book. In the UK LGBT rights are widey accepted, people should start to accept that.

Former Member · January 2007

Toadborg wrote:

Only a complete moron would not realise that only a minority of said groups would be taking part.

Oh really?

The implication of the article is that most are, and that the views of these people are somehow officially sanctioned by religious leaders.

I agree with the law, but there are always examples which undermine it. Should hotels and B&Bs be allowed to ban young children, for instance?

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

So you accept a landlords right to use violence to prevent someone from entering a particular space just because he claims "ownership" of it? How are you defining ownership here? Oh that's right, a few government documents written on a bit of paper.

Wising up the marks again

I`d ACCEPT a landlord/lady excluding me from "his/her pub" for any reason (s)he chooses.

I`d ACCEPT at face value his claim to the building, as I wouldn`t be making a claim on it myself.

As for anyone else, be it making a claim or mere occupation, that`s their business.

I hesitate to delve deeper into definitions of "ownership" and your use of "right", and "government" for that matter, because :

(1) of the usual accusations of "hijacking"
(2) this time I don`t believe it`s integral to what is being debated

I`m sure we can change that if the mob agrees

Former Member · January 2007

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

I agree... See being around homosexuals makes you smell and can damage your health... :nervous: you could catch GAY!

:yeees:

Former Member · January 2007

Kermit wrote:

I agree with the law, but there are always examples which undermine it. Should hotels and B&Bs be allowed to ban young children, for instance?

Wouldn't that be nice?

Child-free airplanes would be great too. :yes:

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

Wising up the marks again

I`d ACCEPT a landlord/lady excluding me from "his/her pub" for any reason (s)he chooses.

I`d ACCEPT at face value his claim to the building, as I wouldn`t be making a claim on it myself.

As for anyone else, be it making a claim or mere occupation, that`s their business.

I hesitate to delve deeper into definitions of "ownership" and your use of "right", and "government" for that matter, because :

(1) of the usual accusations of "hijacking"
(2) this time I don`t believe it`s integral to what is being debated

I`m sure we can change that if the mob agrees

Hey I don't know you... But a question.

Have you ever experienced harassment, or been treated differently because of your sexuality, race, ethnicity, social class or nationality? It's all very well you saying that you'd accept the discrimination (I assume you're white and middle class? Or maybe upper working class?) if you've never experienced being discriminated against.

Imagine you're a gay male (or woman... assuming you're straight) and you've just driven 200 miles up to Scotland and it's pitch black, freezing cold and pissing it with rain. The only place to stay within miles is a guesthouse which refuses you because you happen to have a male partner. How would you feel?

Former Member · January 2007

Kermit wrote:

I don't like the slant of the article- yes, "Christians, Jews and Muslims" will take part, but not even a tiny minority of them will do so. It's to be expected from the "neutral and impartial" BBC though.

It's like saying "Spanish people are against gay rights" because there's some nutter from Bilbao there holding a banner.

okay i'll clarify, bigotted members of those communities are trying to stop it i say let them try (and fail)

they've even resorted to making example cases up where this law won't apply, that's the levels they have gone to

Former Member · January 2007

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Either you accept that private business owners can exclude anyone they want based on any attribute they want, or you accept that any business open to the public has to be open to all of the public. You can't pick and choose which groups you want to be allowed to discriminate against. Incidentally, when is this going to extend to car insurers? "This insurer cannot give a quote due to the age/gender of the applicant." How is that any different?

Because it gives the benefits to women and older people, whereas if it was the other way round, I'm confident it would be a different story.

Former Member · January 2007

I was going to post something similar to Kermit.

I'm a Christian and am completely in support of gay rights etc. I know plenty of gay Christians too.

Former Member · January 2007

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Have you ever experienced harassment, or been treated differently because of your sexuality, race, ethnicity, social class or nationality?

I have experienced harassment( as I perceive it) many times.

I couldn`t say with certainty but I came to the conclusion it was due to "the harasser`s" need to be right or need to control.

I`m convinced that everyone treats everyone else differently due to apparent attributes. On the whole I think this makes the world an interesting place provided no violence is involved.

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

It's all very well you saying that you'd accept the discrimination (I assume you're white and middle class? Or maybe upper working class?) if you've never experienced being discriminated against.

I do accept discrimination . . . . .with open arms and without discrimination !

I probably discriminate as much as anybody. I find it helps in creating my values,and I expect others would agree if they think about it.

(As for your assumptions, they seem to be YOUR discriminations.How you classify me is YOUR problem, certainly not mine).

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

Imagine you're a gay male (or woman... assuming you're straight) and you've just driven 200 miles up to Scotland and it's pitch black, freezing cold and pissing it with rain. The only place to stay within miles is a guesthouse which refuses you because you happen to have a male partner. How would you feel?

I imagine initially disappointed.

Disappointed that I was wrong in my expectations that there was a place to stay. There wasn`t.

But I think I would see that little setback as an opportunity.Every cloud has a silver lining,even the pitch black,freezing cold, pissing with rain ones.

At the very least, I would have saved some money,and learned the lesson not to expect anything except the unexpected.

Former Member · January 2007

seeker wrote:

I have experienced harassment( as I perceive it) many times.

I couldn`t say with certainty but I came to the conclusion it was due to "the harasser`s" need to be right or need to control.

I`m convinced that everyone treats everyone else differently due to apparent attributes. On the whole I think this makes the world an interesting place provided no violence is involved.

I do accept discrimination . . . . .with open arms and without discrimination !

I probably discriminate as much as anybody. I find it helps in creating my values,and I expect others would agree if they think about it.

(As for your assumptions, they seem to be YOUR discriminations.How you classify me is YOUR problem, certainly not mine).

I imagine initially disappointed.

Disappointed that I was wrong in my expectations that there was a place to stay. There wasn`t.

But I think I would see that little setback as an opportunity.Every cloud has a silver lining,even the pitch black,freezing cold, pissing with rain ones.

At the very least, I would have saved some money,and learned the lesson not to expect anything except the unexpected.

I'll take first question as a "no" or in a way that I think we interpret harassment differently. I mean verbal harassment for something you cannot control (As in somebody spraypainting "kyke" across your front door, not allowing you in somewhere, gangs of kids hurling abuse... Not for your dress sense, or anything you can control).

It's something that personally I have experienced, having an English family and living in Wales (as well as sexual harassment for something else). You write like whatever harassment you have received has flown over your head... As somebody who at times in their life has been scared to leave the house, it isn't that simple. Maybe it didn't affect you but it hurts other people.

If you live in a society then you should do your best to get on with people, otherwise society becomes dysfunctional. If we decide we are to discriminate against (for arguement's sake) ginger people, then the ginger people of a society are oppressed and will react negatively. Pushing morality aside, perhaps it is in society's best interest to treat everybody as equal, with the exception of relationships such as parental, relationships in work ect.

As far as the UK is concerned, if a group of people are not hurting others, then why should they be discriminated against? If you run a business in this country then why should you have the right to discriminate against potential customers?

Former Member · January 2007

Aladdin wrote:

Wouldn't that be nice? Child-free airplanes would be great too. :yes:

Sadly though this isn't a joke anymore. Children are evermore viewed as an 'incovenience' rather than people who are developing and who are fully withholder of rights. This kind of attitude pisses me off to a degree which I find hard to express...

Former Member · January 2007

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

I'll take first question as a "no" or in a way that I think we interpret harassment differently. I mean verbal harassment for something you cannot control (As in somebody spraypainting "kyke" across your front door, not allowing you in somewhere, gangs of kids hurling abuse... Not for your dress sense, or anything you can control).

It's something that personally I have experienced, having an English family and living in Wales (as well as sexual harassment for something else). You write like whatever harassment you have received has flown over your head... As somebody who at times in their life has been scared to leave the house, it isn't that simple. Maybe it didn't affect you but it hurts other people.

Maybe it is a different interpretation.

I was talking about physical and verbal harrassment.

I wouldn`t exactly say it flew over my head but I did, and do, deal with it.

However, I think you are mixing up harassment and discrimination.

The latter I see as passive (at worst) and personally positive (at best).

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

If you live in a society then you should do your best to get on with people, otherwise society becomes dysfunctional. If we decide we are to discriminate against (for arguement's sake) ginger people, then the ginger people of a society are oppressed and will react negatively. Pushing morality aside, perhaps it is in society's best interest to treat everybody as equal, with the exception of relationships such as parental, relationships in work ect.

Here we have different interpretations.

There are no "ginger people".

There are individuals with "ginger" attributes.

In my experience, grouping people causes,paradoxically, division among individuals.

So "society" can`t treat anyone.

I`m unclear by what you mean as treating people as equal.

My guess is that you don`t. And I bet you discriminate. And I would probably commend you for doing so in many instances.

-[MoonRat]- wrote:

As far as the UK is concerned, if a group of people are not hurting others, then why should they be discriminated against? If you run a business in this country then why should you have the right to discriminate against potential customers?

See above. Repeat and rinse !

Religious groups trying keep discrimination of gays legal

Comments