ChatterBank6 mins ago
It's against her convictions' to let them share a bed.
71 Answers
http://www.dailymail....er-let-share-bed.html
Was she within her rights, in refusing to take in this gay couple, even though to accept them would have been against her strong religious convictions?
Was she within her rights, in refusing to take in this gay couple, even though to accept them would have been against her strong religious convictions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What is it that's against her convictions? The idea that they'll sleep in the same bed together? Or the idea that they'll have sex?
My money is that it's on the latter, because it nearly always is. Which is quite frankly pathetic, seeing as she has no problem letting out double rooms to heterosexual couples. And to have the gall to just go out and shoo them away when they'd booked in advance and turned up is astounding.
Her 'convictions' are quite simply wrong and the law is not on her side - I've no sympathy.
My money is that it's on the latter, because it nearly always is. Which is quite frankly pathetic, seeing as she has no problem letting out double rooms to heterosexual couples. And to have the gall to just go out and shoo them away when they'd booked in advance and turned up is astounding.
Her 'convictions' are quite simply wrong and the law is not on her side - I've no sympathy.
Actually, there's nothing in the article which states that these offend her religious convictions...it just says "it was her policy not to let same sex couples share a room" and "she said it was against her convictions to let us stay"
If these indeed ARE religious convictions, then I would hope that she would also request proof that all couples are married to each other, and not committing adultery. If not, then you could argue that she's simply 'cherry-picking'.
Is she within her rights? Doubtful. She states that she's running a guest house and that it's her right who she accepts into her home...however, if you're operating a business from your home, and providing a service, then you are bound by certain commercial laws, and the 2006 Equality Act is one of them.
If these indeed ARE religious convictions, then I would hope that she would also request proof that all couples are married to each other, and not committing adultery. If not, then you could argue that she's simply 'cherry-picking'.
Is she within her rights? Doubtful. She states that she's running a guest house and that it's her right who she accepts into her home...however, if you're operating a business from your home, and providing a service, then you are bound by certain commercial laws, and the 2006 Equality Act is one of them.
-- answer removed --
ELVIS68
"No gay couples in tv adverts yet, wonder why that is?"
Ikea's already had a same sex couple in print and tv ads. Then there was the controversial Heinz Deli advert (pulled after 200 complaints over 'indecency'). There was a third one, but I can't remember the product. I think it was for a woman's body spray. She bumps into a chap on a street, they make eye contact, and then his boyfriend pulls him away and she realises that she's in Castro (or somewhere similar).
It's a generational thing. I remember a time when seeing an interracial couple on tv was a jaw-dropper, but now it's no big deal. In fact, wasn't there an episode of Star Trek which wasn't shown on telly for something like 30 years because Kirk kissed Uhuru?
Attitudes will change - they always do.
"No gay couples in tv adverts yet, wonder why that is?"
Ikea's already had a same sex couple in print and tv ads. Then there was the controversial Heinz Deli advert (pulled after 200 complaints over 'indecency'). There was a third one, but I can't remember the product. I think it was for a woman's body spray. She bumps into a chap on a street, they make eye contact, and then his boyfriend pulls him away and she realises that she's in Castro (or somewhere similar).
It's a generational thing. I remember a time when seeing an interracial couple on tv was a jaw-dropper, but now it's no big deal. In fact, wasn't there an episode of Star Trek which wasn't shown on telly for something like 30 years because Kirk kissed Uhuru?
Attitudes will change - they always do.
anotheoldgit
"Just because the law says it is perfectly acceptable, doesn't mean that an individual should be forced to make it acceptable to them."
Actually it does. This is an individual running a business. If this was purely her private home and her son were gay and wanted to bring his boyfriend home, she would be perfectly within her rights to say, "I'm not comfortable with you sleeping in the same bed under my roof".
It's the same as if her son were straight and she said, "You and your girlfriend are sleeping in separate beds, because I don't approve of pre-marital sex".
However, she's running a business, and all commercial enterprises, from BT to Esso to, in this case, a guest house, are bound by commercial laws to ensure that people aren't discrimated against.
Imagine going back to a 'No dogs, no Irish, no blacks' situation...not pleasant for anyone.
"Just because the law says it is perfectly acceptable, doesn't mean that an individual should be forced to make it acceptable to them."
Actually it does. This is an individual running a business. If this was purely her private home and her son were gay and wanted to bring his boyfriend home, she would be perfectly within her rights to say, "I'm not comfortable with you sleeping in the same bed under my roof".
It's the same as if her son were straight and she said, "You and your girlfriend are sleeping in separate beds, because I don't approve of pre-marital sex".
However, she's running a business, and all commercial enterprises, from BT to Esso to, in this case, a guest house, are bound by commercial laws to ensure that people aren't discrimated against.
Imagine going back to a 'No dogs, no Irish, no blacks' situation...not pleasant for anyone.
vulcan42
I think there's a slight difference - the law regarding crash helmets was amended because Sikhs have to wear turbans. It's not optional.
However, being a Christian does NOT mean that you HAVE to disapprove of homosexuality.
...and to be honest, with the number of gay vicars we have, I would've thought it was mandatory.
I think there's a slight difference - the law regarding crash helmets was amended because Sikhs have to wear turbans. It's not optional.
However, being a Christian does NOT mean that you HAVE to disapprove of homosexuality.
...and to be honest, with the number of gay vicars we have, I would've thought it was mandatory.
She accepted the booking, as a consumer you have rights.
I also presume she would have to be licensed? Which means she is liable to the law.
As Ummmm says, you must know when you set yourself up in this type of business that you will get all types of custom.
Would single beds have been ok? What if they had been brothers?
I also presume she would have to be licensed? Which means she is liable to the law.
As Ummmm says, you must know when you set yourself up in this type of business that you will get all types of custom.
Would single beds have been ok? What if they had been brothers?
Latest Posts
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News16 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 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.