Drivel Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yes this has got STING written all over it. No doubt they'd heard about the place and purposefully booked a stay there to make a a point about equality. I personally don't care what sexuality people are and I abhor all religions but in this case I have to agree with the couple running the B&B. It's also their home and they should not be forced to allow people to stay if it makes them feel uncomfortable. You can't legislate for personal feelings and things like this will just make traditional Christians like them even more homophobic. I can't stand it when people go out of their way to be offended. It's like all the people who watch Frankie Boyle's show just so they can complain about it later. Why watch it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The judge left them leave to appeal and I don't blame him. Because he essentially ruled that their faith was illegal. Now in the UK Freedom to Worship is a basic human right. Is that now going to be changed to "Freedom to Worship as long as it doesn't offend homosexuals" I wonder? Somehow I doubt it. Its been said before, but I think I can add some further legal debate to the issue. These people's freedom to worship is categorically not been affected by this ruling. They can still pop down to the church and do whatever they want. The question is whether the secular law stops people "manifesting" their religion - now that is a complex issue! But lawyers being lawyers have tried to deal with it - link. What the law says Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right has a special significance under the Human Rights Act. Section 13 of the Act requires courts or tribunals, when they are hearing cases which may impact on the exercise of this right by a religious organisation, to have ‘particular regard to the importance of that right’. The legal view is that it is not an infingement of a believer's right to manifest their religion to prohibit them discriminating against homosexuals who are joined in a civil union. This is a trade off. And I imagine if the couple had gone and snogged in the lounge in front of the blue rinse set then the owner could have argued that any couple doing that would have been asked to leave - but the point is that isn't what this couple did - they just turned up to ask for a room as a couple who have all the civil rights a married couple have as a result of their civil union. I am sure there will be cases about what is decorus behaviour, and so acceptable causes for ejection (!) from a public place, but that isn't what this case is about - its about the law's, and society's, recognition that a civil union has as much force as a civil marriage. [And Addie the reason I brought up Muslims is that a religious Muslim marriage is not recognized by the state - they have to go through a civil ceremony as well - a similar case involving a Muslim couple who'd only married at the Mosque be absolutely fascinating, as would a case involving the couple not being in a civil union, but those are currently totally hypothetical and noting to do with this particular case! Which surely we must discuss based on the facts, and not what we'd like the facts to be!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 For a Christian this could be a difficult problem to face until the question is asked “What would Jesus do?” It’s at this point that the answer becomes clear because there is precedence, or close enough to be precedence as makes little difference. In one example Mark reveals this where he writes in chapter 2 : 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance. I have detestation for homosexuality but not for those who engage in it. As what I hope is a good Christian I would not, indeed could not refuse a reasonable request from a homosexual if it was within my power to provide, and if I was offering accommodation to people as a business I would never discriminate, if anything I would favour such people. Not to bend their ears about their sin but to bear good witness in the hope that I might form part of bringing them to salvation and abandoning their sin. In my opinion if a Christian couple behave in the manner in which these people have done they are demonstrating something but it certainly isn’t Christianity nor is consistent with what Jesus did when he was with the publicans and sinners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 indeed could not refuse a reasonable request from a homosexual if it was within my power to provide... oooer...even 'turning the other cheeks'? That Jebus bloke should be tackled by the government...going by all the 'Jebus lives here' signs I see all over the place, he seems to have several homes on the island yet doesn't pay a penny tax/rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Saw this link having googled homosexuality and the Koran and got more than I expected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Hang on LDV, imho you're in danger of tripping over your own argument. How? To be honest I sometimes find kissing my wife is offensive. There you go... Fair enough. Do you mention that in terms of saying the Landlord reaction to canoodling would be the same for straight people or are you just mentioning this as a joke? How do you know that they are using their faith as an excuse?With your irrational prejudice against religion when does it stop being an "excuse" and start being a "reason" for their actions? Well it does depend on who we are talking about. But those who call themselves Christians believe they follow what is in the Bible. Now those who say that homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE of what is stated in the Bible MUST have an individual morality separate from the morality of the Bible IF they also do not condone such things as stoning an unruly child, eating shellfish, and the many 'commandments' given in the Bible. This picking and choosing is a demonstration of the personal morality. This means that reference to their faith is an excuse for their bigotry for they have chosen to accept those things that suit them. Find a Christian who truly does accept EVERYTHING in the Bible and follows all commandments and I could accept that it is a matter of faith. And I have no PRE-judice against religion and it most certainly isn't irrational (what do you mean 'irrational' here). My disdain for religion is because it is irrational - not based on evidence. It doesn't have the ability to offer truths when it relies on faith. Faith is, well, faith and you can't accuse someone of not holding a specific belief because there simply isn't any evidence - because there never will be. I have answered this. But it is worth bearing in mind that coming to conclusions based on faith is irrational. If conclusions ARE made based on faith in the case of homosexuality then such conclusion are irrational. You would hope in time that attitudes would change - and they do. But I can't help thinking that there will always be those who find homosexuality abhorrent. If you were a gay footballer would you play in the 2022 World Cup?And there will be people who find it abhorrent. But you appear to demonstrate something here about your outlook on homosexuality. You think these reactions to homosexuality are understandable from the basis of what it is or what you think it is. Implicitly, you come across as if you think that this offence is perfectly 'natural', which probably says something about your lack of understanding of the power relationships that sexuality is subject to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 To be honest I sometimes find kissing my wife is offensive. There you go...Fair enough. Do you mention that in terms of saying the Landlord reaction to canoodling would be the same for straight people or are you just mentioning this as a joke? Talking to yourself now are you? Ya nutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 If you go to a pub or other such establishment it usually staes above the door "the management reserve the right to refuse admission" this doesn't give any specific reason, maybe the B & B owners should have had this above the door and maybe refused admission and not giving a reason, however if they chose to stand the moral high ground and make a point with regard to their beliefs then kudos to them for atleast making some sort of stand, but there is always the point to be made that there are homosexuals and other such undesireables (according too religious doctrine, not my own thoughts) and there is a good chance that they will at some point knock on the door looking for a place to stay and if they don't want homosexuals staying the night then they should quite possibly choose another profession. The thing is though are we all to be mute in the future for fear of causing offence to anyone and everyone else the totalitarian society is looming ever closer, with that in mind why would anyone seriously be upset by being offended it's not like anyone has died from being offended it's just being offended it appears that evryone is wound up tighter than a spring in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 To be honest I sometimes find kissing my wife is offensive. There you go...Fair enough. Do you mention that in terms of saying the Landlord reaction to canoodling would be the same for straight people or are you just mentioning this as a joke? Talking to yourself now are you? Ya nutter. As funny as fook that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 If the B & B owners are Christians surely they should've let the two men stay then forgiven them then pray to god for forgiveness, even though christianity teaches tolerance, bit of a contradiction that old bible book thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 however if they chose to stand the moral high ground and make a point with regard to their beliefs then kudos to them for atleast making some sort of standWhat are you talking about? I mean, if you happened to go to the pub and the bouncer turned around to someone and say 'No, no fucking Pakis', for example, would you really think 'kudos to that' and think they were taking the moral high ground? What are you trying to say here? I only read that as you admiring people who aren't afraid to show how bigoted and homophobic they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 If you go to a pub or other such establishment it usually staes above the door "the management reserve the right to refuse admission" this doesn't give any specific reason, maybe the B & B owners should have had this above the door and maybe refused admission and not giving a reason, however if they chose to stand the moral high ground and make a point with regard to their beliefs then kudos to them for atleast making some sort of stand, but there is always the point to be made that there are homosexuals and other such undesireables (according too religious doctrine, not my own thoughts) and there is a good chance that they will at some point knock on the door looking for a place to stay and if they don't want homosexuals staying the night then they should quite possibly choose another profession. The thing is though are we all to be mute in the future for fear of causing offence to anyone and everyone else the totalitarian society is looming ever closer, with that in mind why would anyone seriously be upset by being offended it's not like anyone has died from being offended it's just being offended it appears that evryone is wound up tighter than a spring in this day and age. Good point Just exploring this to see where it goes If the sign said NO pedophiles, would that make any difference to human rights? (I should of read up first, but I'm off to bed and will catch up with the thread tomorrow - sorry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Think of the laundry though, it'll be twice the stainage! That's why Jebus invented the surcharge I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Sting or test case, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 If you go to a pub or other such establishment it usually staes above the door "the management reserve the right to refuse admission" this doesn't give any specific reason, maybe the B & B owners should have had this above the door and maybe refused admission and not giving a reason, however if they chose to stand the moral high ground and make a point with regard to their beliefs then kudos to them for atleast making some sort of stand, but there is always the point to be made that there are homosexuals and other such undesireables (according too religious doctrine, not my own thoughts) and there is a good chance that they will at some point knock on the door looking for a place to stay and if they don't want homosexuals staying the night then they should quite possibly choose another profession. The thing is though are we all to be mute in the future for fear of causing offence to anyone and everyone else the totalitarian society is looming ever closer, with that in mind why would anyone seriously be upset by being offended it's not like anyone has died from being offended it's just being offended it appears that evryone is wound up tighter than a spring in this day and age. Good point Just exploring this to see where it goes If the sign said NO pedophiles, would that make any difference to human rights? (I should of read up first, but I'm off to bed and will catch up with the thread tomorrow - sorry) I do not hold a brief for any of this but firstly there are some very good books in Tynwald Library (Open to the public) where these matters have been written up in digestible form for the layperson. (Go sick 'em!) Secondly, two blokes&/or judies in a bed does not mean they are Gay or whatever even if they have/have not a Civil Partnership. Lastly, and not my problem, get adjusted to the idea of the way the world is because the world, and its wife and/or Civil Partner/multi-racial more than one (cultural) wife etc included is coming to live as your next door neighbour. Sorry, Isle of Man! PS In 1987 I recall a lot of trouble over an Iranian student aged 30 in Manchester who had a wife aged 13. He and his wife were in the country quite legally and his marriage in Iran was legal and the law in the UK/IOM recognised this so here was a 30 year old man presumably bonking a 13 year old...See what I mean about getting real with the idea? There again, (and I call upon J. Wright Advocate) I think up until about 1929 people in UK could get married if one of them was 14 and there was parental permission. (???) The 16 year thing came in about this time. Am I right? (Mr John Wright?) As said Al Jolson (in a different context) "You ain't seen nuthin' yet!" Poor shockable Isle of Man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.