Shadow Home Secretary's views on B&B owners rights

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Mike

As a libertarian, I respect the rights of the B&B owners, or anyone else, to hold whatever filthy set of prejudices they want to.

Sorry, Kevin; your use of the word "filthy" says a bit too much about your attitude to religious tolerance. You are not "libertarian" as you deny people the right to hold sincere views.

quote:

I can see how their "rights" might have been violated, but what about the right of two perfectly law-abiding citizens to be treated with a modicum of respect and dignity?

As I said earlier, I gather from an interview with the couple that they where indeed treated with politeness, respect and dignity.

quote:

Personally, if I'd have been one of the gay couple, I wouldn't have reported them to the police (or even the papers). What I would have done, however is to warn the gay community not to bother with this particular guest house.

Perfectly reasonable response; I think I'd have done the same. However, it seems as if the establishment has been subjected to all sorts of threats, seemingly from tthe gay community.

quote:

I just wonder if these two are such Christians why they can't be a bit more "forgiving" and try to do a bit of good in the world, instead of making things a teeny bit worse.

Christians view active homosexuality as Sinful, AFAICT. This is not the same as homophobia, which is t hatred towards Gays. "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin" is their mantra; as I said above.

quote:

What kind of person worries about "sodomy" between consenting adults in this day and age? Given all the problems that exist all over the world, haven't they got something more important to worry about?

Not me; but if ones religion forbids a practice, its a matter to adherents of that religion.

quote:

My final point - one of the tiresome things about the pious is not only that they believe they have a monopoly on morality but that they think they deserve special treatment, that their rights override everyone else's.

Are you talking about the gays or the Godbotherers?

quote:

Originally posted by JonR:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I can eat bacon, Jews cannot, for example.

Strictly speaking, Mike, I'd assert here that observant Jews do not (eat bacon) - speaking as a non-observant Jew, and being picky

Jon

I'm just a Goy trying to make a point: I stand corrected... hope you are well.

PS - Kevin - at least you are not dim enough to accuse me of homophobia.

Hardly the case. But no doubt somebody will, soon.

now thats just asking for trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Jon

I'm just a Goy trying to make a point... hope you are well.

No worries. Am good thanks - hope you are well too.

I have no time for religion in any shape or form and I have no problem with how people wish to live their lives. Political correctness should be banned.

I do however only conduct business with people I get on with and avoid doing business with people I don't like.

So it was wrong to decline service based on sexuality, if however service was declined because they were not nice clients then that in my book is fine.

Small businesses cannot afford bad clients.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
David's reference is correct. Any action against the discriminators would be via civil proceedings in tort.

Well, that's wholly incorrect.

A tort is an action for a civil wrong, brought between individuals in civil proceedings.

Any breach of the 2007 Regulations referred to here would be brought on behalf of the Crown in criminal proceedings.

Not incorrect at all...

From the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007:

Claims of unlawful action

20.—(1) A claim that a person has done anything that is unlawful by virtue of these Regulations may be brought—

(a) in England and Wales, in a county court, by way of proceedings in tort, or

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
PS - Kevin - at least you are not dim enough to accuse me of homophobia.

Hardly the case. But no doubt somebody will, soon.

''Just because the Law says you *can* do something, does not mean that you *have* to do that thing.''

Wtf does this statement mean then?

quote:

Originally posed by C. E. M. Joad:
"It all depends on what you mean by… ... sodomy"

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Mike, what precisely is the, er, "sin" here?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
The act of sodomy, I gather.

From Wikipedia (inter alia)

Classical Jewish texts are seen by many as not stressing the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger."


Ironic, innit?

quote:

Just because the Law says you *can* do something, does not mean that you *have* to do that thing.

Mike,

I couldn't work out what this meant, either. If it means 'just because you can be gay doesn't mean you have to' then that would seem to be rather an odd thing to say.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, just wondering what you meant.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posed by C. E. M. Joad:
"It all depends on what you mean by… ... sodomy"

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Mike, what precisely is the, er, "sin" here?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
The act of sodomy, I gather.

From Wikipedia (inter alia)

Classical Jewish texts are seen by many as not stressing the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger."


Ironic, innit?

That made me laugh out loud such that I was stared at.

Cheers.

David

Busy day, sorry for the delay in replying.

I made the comment as a way of explaining how I viewed the Christian concept of "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin." My understanding of that concept is that while they may not accept or agree with homosexual acts, it is only those acts which they do not like, not the Gay community.

Stephen Fry, for example, is a celibate homosexual.

Make sense?

There was a comment today in the press where a Christian stated that it was against his beliefs to accept such a thing under his roof. Likewise he would have turned away an unmarried couple.

Mike,

Yes, I see what you mean. I can see why that wouldn't seem like homophobia to the people who thought that way. And as dogma can over ride peoples real feelings it's perfectly possible for someone to behave homophobically out of a sense of duty when they might by inclination be perfectly sympathetic otherwise. However there's no denying that fear of sexuality in general is built in to Christianity, and that homosexuality is singled out for worse treatment ( by some Christians and some sects) than heterosexuality.
So in these instances it's a homophobic religion and those who follow it's dictates are being homophobic - whatever their personal feelings might be. I suppose that's my version of hating the sinner, not the sin, eh?

Also, I'm not sure that many gay people would feel terribly accepted by anyone who told them they were welcome to stay as long as they didn't get up to any funny business.

quote:

Likewise he would have turned away an unmarried couple.

I haven't looked it up, but would this not be against the law too - quite rightly, I think - for all the same sort of reasons?

David

I think - though I do not know - that the prohibition on homosexuality, and also masturbation - roots from the ancient prohibition on "wasting seed", from which the Catholic Church derive their ban on contraception.

Its all quite logical, if somewhat distasteful.

M

For complete clarity, I am neither homophobe nor Christian.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
David

I think - though I do not know - that the prohibition on homosexuality, and also masturbation - roots from the ancient prohibition on "wasting seed", from which the Catholic Church derive their ban on contraception.

Its all quite logical, if somewhat distasteful.

M

In reality the prohibition was entirely there to breed more catholics.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
[QUOTE]


In reality the prohibition was entirely there to breed more catholics.

Actually (much as I'm loathed to come to the rescue of the Catholic church)the practice of ejaculation (external orgasm)is discouraged in all esoteric religions and taoism for the reason that there are alleged benefits in cultivating the practice of internal orgasm where the sexual energy is used to meditate/pray at deeper levels than would be otherwise achievable - ejaculation causes the outward release and waste of an energy that could be more profitably used by directing the energy inwardly. It is easy to take a superficial view of religion in the manner of say Dawkins (who gets some things right but some things wrong)and assume you understand what is going on when in fact there is more to it than meets the casually prejudiced eye.

Mike,
The 'sin of Onan' is the passage a lot of people cite, although there's a body of opinion that maintains that Onan's real sin was disobedience. However one might suggest that there's very little logic - and quite a lot of danger - in handing over control of one's actions to received interpretations of an ancient text.

Sniper,
In Taoism excessive ejaculation is regarded as harmful, whereas Onan's sin is described as detestable (let's just assume spilling his seed was what got him into trouble). Taoists also recommend having as much sex as possible in which the woman comes and the man doesn't and approve of lesbianism. Christianity - in most of its many guises - is less enthusiastic. Some commentators allege that the early church was much less uptight about sex until Paul came along and sorted them all out (doubtless a dreadful simplification.) "Hey look, Paul made us all guilty and miserable. Let's make him a saint!"

So bashing the old bishop is frowned upon too then?

By both Christians and Taoists.

quote:

Originally posted by David Scott?:


Sniper,
In Taoism excessive ejaculation is regarded as harmful, whereas Onan's sin is described as detestable (let's just assume spilling his seed was what got him into trouble). Taoists also recommend having as much sex as possible in which the woman comes and the man doesn't and approve of lesbianism. Christianity - in most of its many guises - is less enthusiastic. Some commentators allege that the early church was much less uptight about sex until Paul came along and sorted them all out (doubtless a dreadful simplification.) "Hey look, Paul made us all guilty and miserable. Let's make him a saint!"

I think Paul is a deeply suspicious character. I had not heard of the sin of Onan before - I will look it up.

Lets replace "gay" in this discussion with your choice of:

"negro"
"jew"
"arab"
"chinese"

Lets not.

Are there non-practising as well practicing "Negros"?

I'm also not sure that there is any Biblically-based prohibition on being a Negro, Jewish, Arabic or Chinese.

I strongly suspect that that Jesus bloke might possibly have been Jewish, too.

Klar?