Religion No Excuse For Gay Discrimination

[Zacs-Master]

In a similar case to Cakegate, a court in the US has ruled that discrimination against gays on religious grounds isn't lawful:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/florist-discrimination-gay-couple-washington-court.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[hereIam]

She is NOT a bigoted, nasty woman, merely someone who is entitled to her opinion, but sadly, as I have stated before, such opinions are no longer allowed in this pc, do-gooding country of mine and you could be thrown into jail for it - MAD!!

[jackthehat]

You can't be imprisoned for opinions.
But you can fall foul of the law if you act on them.

[hereIam]

Oh and Togo at 21:55 HILARIOUS !!

[mikey4444]

Jack....I would give up if I were you !

There are people on here that would love to peel back the years, until it wasn't a crime to discriminate.

[naomi24]

This lady broke the law we’re told, but since she also belongs to a group considered to be ‘a protected class’ (the Attorney General’s words), ie, the religious, there appears to be a very curious anomaly here. In this instance, as in the case of the Christian B&B owners, the rights of one ‘protected class’ (the same one in both examples) have been judged to override those of another so I wonder what the criteria is for deciding whose rights take precedence? Whoever shouts the loudest?

[anotheoldgit]

I was not talking specifically about the guest house proprietors that were recently in the news, I was talking about any other such establishment.

Say if an obvious gay couple turned up and asked for a double bedded room, would the owners be breaking the law if they just said "sorry we can't put you up," providing that they don't add "it is because you are are gay"?

[jackthehat]

No, they wouldn't.
A smile and an "I'm sorry we have no rooms available at the minute" ought to suffice.

[sp1814]

AOG

That's exactly right. The proprietors can say, "Sorry, we're full", without giving an explanation as to why they are not offering a room.

This is key to the issue.

The mistake that people are making is saying, "We are not serving you because of your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or because of a disability."

As a business-owner, you can discriminate to your hearts content - there's no law which states you cannot refuse service to someone who is abusive, drunk, violent or 'inappropriate' (eg. a child who wants to enter a betting shop). But the Equality Act 2010 forbids businesses from discriminating based on the concepts as outlined in previous acts, to whit:

Equal Pay Act 1970
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Race Relations Act 1976
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

[sp1814]

naomi24

You asked:

I wonder what the criteria is for deciding whose rights take precedence? Whoever shouts the loudest?

I think it boils down to who the public feels is discriminated against more.

If the general public feel that religious fundamentalists are being persecuted then eventually sympathy will move towards their plight.

However, as we slide ever more to a secular society, where the majority of people disagree with the teaching of the Church in respect to gay people, they will inevitably (rightly or wrongly) be seen as 'the bad guys'.

[hereIam]

mikey - we're all entitled to our views whether you like it or not ...

[andy-hughes]

HereIam - at 14:54 - //She is NOT a bigoted, nasty woman, merely someone who is entitled to her opinion ... //

and at 16:30 - //mikey - we're all entitled to our views whether you like it or not ... //

In that case, I am entitled to my view - that she is a bigoted nasty woman.

The difference is, I am not breaking the law based on my opinion - she is.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - //Say if an obvious gay couple turned up ... //

How do you recognise an 'obviously gay couple'?

[andy-hughes]

sp1814 underlines my point, that this woman did choose the legal and courteous route - refusing the couple's business because it conflicted with her religious views, she had to use the arrogance that such views give her to make sure that they were made aware of her reason not to serve them - which is against the law.

It's interesting that the common link between the guest house owners and the florist is an overly developed sense of self-importance rooted in the superiority of a 'Christian' viewpoint.

[douglas9401]

Oh my! Such intolerance.

[Mamyalynne]

Yes, we are all entitled to our views but I feel when entering into a business that will entail dealing with the public you need to accept you will be dealing with those from all walks of life.

The fact that this lady suddenly turned from seeing them as good customers to refusal based on her dislike (can't think of a better word) of Gay marriage is most unprofessional.


Just so I don't get shot down for not mentioning everyone else - discrimination is wrong totally.

[-Talbot-]

andy-hughes
How do you recognise an 'obviously gay couple'?



You have never met 'an 'obviously gay couple'?'
Really?

[douglas9401]

Let's just say for the moment that the florist says 'sorry, I can't cater to your request' and our two heroes get the hump and start questioning her as to why.
How many times is she allowed to repeat her statement before homophobia is assumed OR, how long can the potential customer harangue her before she calls the police to eject them AND, who would end up before the beak when the thin blue line arrests her for thought crime?

[hereIam]

And I am entitled to my view and she is NOT a bigoted, nasty woman and I could not care less how many of you think I'm intolerant or I'm discriminating or whatever, I really could not. Got to go now, so go on you do-gooders, have a field day ...

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - until a couple chooses to tell me they are gay, assuming that they are is simply an assumption, and assuming is not always a good idea.

I assume (I think I'm on safe ground here!) that AOG is referring to a pair of camp men who appear together.

Why should we assume that because they are both being effeminate, that they are either gay, or a couple?

Do we assume that every man and woman we see together are a couple simply because they are together and they are opposite genders?

It's a bit like assuming that all Muslims and immigrants are terrorists ...

I'll leave it there ...

[andy-hughes]

douglas - //Let's just say for the moment that the florist says 'sorry, I can't cater to your request' and our two heroes get the hump and start questioning her as to why.
How many times is she allowed to repeat her statement before homophobia is assumed OR, how long can the potential customer harangue her before she calls the police to eject them AND, who would end up before the beak when the thin blue line arrests her for thought crime? //

Your scenario is somewhat full of holes, and I am happy to point out why I believe that to be true -

Firstly, you are using the legal right of a business owner to refuse service, as illustrated by the b & b owners that jack referred to.

The difference here is that our 'two heroes' (any need to be nasty about them?) are known customers at the florists, so simply refusing without explanation would not be appropriate.

The lady could have used any number of excuses - she was too busy would be the most obvious, and I am sure that 'our two heroes' would have accepted that with a smile, and gone elsewhere on this occasion, happy to return for their regular flower orders on another day.