Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination
316 Answers
In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:
https:/
https:/
Answers
A, I am not ranting. B, I have the balls to call out homophobic bigots what ever their religion ... try it for once.
10:18 Fri 17th Feb 2017
///Yes. It's a dilemma isn't it. Which would I prefer, somebody who won't bake me cake or sell me some flowers, or somebody who'll throw me off a high building. Decisions, decisions. ///
As a citizen of a civilised country, I don't have to worry that someone will hurl me from a tall building. However, it does not necessarily follow that because of that I ought to be willing to accept discriminatory service elsewhere.....and consider myself jolly lucky!!
As a citizen of a civilised country, I don't have to worry that someone will hurl me from a tall building. However, it does not necessarily follow that because of that I ought to be willing to accept discriminatory service elsewhere.....and consider myself jolly lucky!!
It is, indeed , a dilemma. I have 3 couples who are friends, who are 'gay' (I don't like the term). I should say that I had 3 couples who are gay, because one has died. In France, both couples were male, in UK an ex-pupil and her wife keep in touch and value my friendship - as I value theirs. From my experience I have no doubt of the depth of love which can exist between same-sex couples. The couple in France, where one died, was an exemplar of devotion - I went to C's last birthday party (same date as me) and helped his partner put him to bed.
I would say we are close and any of these people are welcome to stay here when-ever they wish and I will shrug off any local gossip.
There is a 'but'. As a Christian, I cannot accept gay marriage in
Church. The female couple are married in law - as are my husband and I. We were prevented from marrying in Church because he was divorced from his 1st wife in the late 1970's. So I don't think that that should be an issue, but people are forcing the issue.
Mr J2's ex-wife died in May last year and at last we feel free to marry in Church - but I am not sure that it is necessary, we are accepted. Religion can be a very reasonable ground for saying that 'this is where the line is drawn, sorry' - after all we have been constrained by this ourselves as a heterosexual couple.
I would say we are close and any of these people are welcome to stay here when-ever they wish and I will shrug off any local gossip.
There is a 'but'. As a Christian, I cannot accept gay marriage in
Church. The female couple are married in law - as are my husband and I. We were prevented from marrying in Church because he was divorced from his 1st wife in the late 1970's. So I don't think that that should be an issue, but people are forcing the issue.
Mr J2's ex-wife died in May last year and at last we feel free to marry in Church - but I am not sure that it is necessary, we are accepted. Religion can be a very reasonable ground for saying that 'this is where the line is drawn, sorry' - after all we have been constrained by this ourselves as a heterosexual couple.
I didn't feel the need to marry in a church (which wouldn't accept us in any case) but I did want to be married.
I was married in a Civil ceremony and that was quite sufficient.
But this particular post in not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage but rather the discriminatory decision to NOT provide services to a gay couple......because they are gay.
I was married in a Civil ceremony and that was quite sufficient.
But this particular post in not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage but rather the discriminatory decision to NOT provide services to a gay couple......because they are gay.
Apologies, jack - I was equating discrimination in services with discrimination in Religious services, which is, a sort of equal. These people are (if I'm not wrong - and I easily could be - working on their basis of refusal of services as their understanding of their religion. Tolerance should be applied, I think.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - The hoteliers contravened the law. It has been established, confirmed and reconfirmed. If you can't adhere to the Laws which govern your particular business......change businesses.
I don't demand to be treated with tolerance......I demand to be treated exactly the same as you are.
Sincere belief does not provide you with exemption from following the Law. My (gay) rights are no more and should be no less than your (heterosexual) rights. Surely you have to agree with that?
I don't demand to be treated with tolerance......I demand to be treated exactly the same as you are.
Sincere belief does not provide you with exemption from following the Law. My (gay) rights are no more and should be no less than your (heterosexual) rights. Surely you have to agree with that?
Divebuddy, I think this line from the article summed it up quite well:
> The case, the court said in its 59-page decision, “is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.”
In a nutshell - you can't choose who you will and won't serve based on prejudice.
> The case, the court said in its 59-page decision, “is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.”
In a nutshell - you can't choose who you will and won't serve based on prejudice.
-- answer removed --
I'm aware of the conspiracy theories about how the poor hoteliers were 'set up'.......all arrant nonsense.
Sometimes you can get thoroughly cheesed-off with 'having to let things go'.
These small victories are down to individuals or couples who have decided that they just aren't going to 'take it any more'.
Sometimes you can get thoroughly cheesed-off with 'having to let things go'.
These small victories are down to individuals or couples who have decided that they just aren't going to 'take it any more'.
> I'm not saying the B & B were in the right (they were not) but sometimes in life you should just let something go down the leg side
Why let this go? Because they were "only" gay? If they were black, or German, and refused on that basis, that would be wrong? But because they were gay, it's kind of understandable because of some religious belief ... "belief", i.e. not founded in fact, logic or reason.
It doesn't really wash. Their belief is just their excuse for their prejudice. As I wrote above, if you're in business, you can't choose who you will and won't serve based on prejudice.
There's something else about this "discrimination against blacks is worse than discrimination against gays" type thinking. It reinforces the idea that you can't choose whether you're black or not, but you can choose whether you're gay or not. Simply wrong.
Why let this go? Because they were "only" gay? If they were black, or German, and refused on that basis, that would be wrong? But because they were gay, it's kind of understandable because of some religious belief ... "belief", i.e. not founded in fact, logic or reason.
It doesn't really wash. Their belief is just their excuse for their prejudice. As I wrote above, if you're in business, you can't choose who you will and won't serve based on prejudice.
There's something else about this "discrimination against blacks is worse than discrimination against gays" type thinking. It reinforces the idea that you can't choose whether you're black or not, but you can choose whether you're gay or not. Simply wrong.
-- answer removed --
I have absolutely no idea what it is like to live in a world where I may encounter prejudice at any moment for being who and what I am - and I suspect that those who think this is a 'fuss about nothing' - and we should let it 'slide down the leg side' don't know either.
I suggest that these views are from people who, like me, know prejudice as an abstract concept, and have never actually experienced it.
That is why I always study the posts of jack and other gay people because they know of what they speak in a way that none of the rest of us can.
The telling argument that runs through jack's position on this, and every similar thread, which she has put forward with depthless tolerance and gentle humour, while never getting off the point, or into slanging matches is this -
Yes, gay people can stay somewhere else / buy flowers elsewhere, and so on and so forth, but why the hell should they!
We should be a tolerant encompassing welcoming moral society that accepts everyone as they are, not simply expect some people to shut up and fit in because 'we' think they should, and they are making a fuss.
It's not about 'agendas', or 'demands for tolerance'. The responsibility for accepting everyone in society is ours, the majority, who don't live with nasty ignorant bigots chipping away at our lives in big and little ways every day of every week of every month of every year.
It is for us to see that our laws are kept, not moan at people who have had them broken on them, not us, them.
Some tolerance and acceptance, and a little less huffing and puffing and similar nonsense would mean that acts like those of this bigoted nasty woman will gradually fade away, and people like jack and her wife, and other gay people, can enjoy what the rest of us take for granted - acceptance and tolerance.
I suggest that these views are from people who, like me, know prejudice as an abstract concept, and have never actually experienced it.
That is why I always study the posts of jack and other gay people because they know of what they speak in a way that none of the rest of us can.
The telling argument that runs through jack's position on this, and every similar thread, which she has put forward with depthless tolerance and gentle humour, while never getting off the point, or into slanging matches is this -
Yes, gay people can stay somewhere else / buy flowers elsewhere, and so on and so forth, but why the hell should they!
We should be a tolerant encompassing welcoming moral society that accepts everyone as they are, not simply expect some people to shut up and fit in because 'we' think they should, and they are making a fuss.
It's not about 'agendas', or 'demands for tolerance'. The responsibility for accepting everyone in society is ours, the majority, who don't live with nasty ignorant bigots chipping away at our lives in big and little ways every day of every week of every month of every year.
It is for us to see that our laws are kept, not moan at people who have had them broken on them, not us, them.
Some tolerance and acceptance, and a little less huffing and puffing and similar nonsense would mean that acts like those of this bigoted nasty woman will gradually fade away, and people like jack and her wife, and other gay people, can enjoy what the rest of us take for granted - acceptance and tolerance.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Motoring68 mins ago
Crosswords77 mins ago
ChatterBank93 mins ago
Family & Relationships158 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.