LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSince when has it been illegal to discriminate against unmarried people?Originally Posted by Phage
Since when has it been illegal to discriminate against unmarried people?
Their house, their rules.
Also all the people who have been sending them hate mail, calls and what not, what sort of people do this? Would YOU do that?
Personally, I think they are scum.
Isn't the reverse question to the OP also applicable: Should people adhering to a religion be discriminated against and forced to ignore their own beliefs in contravention to the Human Rights Act? The owners believe in the union of man and woman within marriage only and would like within their home to have that respected. Now a tolerant society, you would think, would respect that.
I don't think the bible particularly calls on people to dictate how someone else should live. To anyone who isn't claiming to be Christian it actually expects them to live how they please, and only gives its instruction to live differently to Christians - and the ability to do so is only by God working within to change them. It does explicitly state a few things to Christians though: 1) wherever possible live peacefully 2) do not go against your conscience when it is something required by your faith (and note the required - it also encourages people to look carefully at what actually is required) 3) live according to the laws of the land, so far as they do not force you to go against God.
With this in mind, going back to the couple: According to the bible they do not really have the right to say to others how they should live generally, and I don't think they have been doing so. They have not been stirring up civil unrest, but have had it bought to them. At present the couple feel they are currently within their legal rights to request certain behaviour in accordance with their beliefs in their home - and the legal case will test this. Again, I would think that a tolerant society would respect the beliefs of people to ask for certain tolerance of their beliefs within their home.
Tolerance, if that is the aim, is saying "you think one thing, I think another, fair enough. I'll respect your views, you respect mine, and now let's get on with life."
Tolerance is not "you think one thing, I disagree and so I'm going to restrict your freedom to live according to that."
There are some things which are clearly better for society at large - I don't care how much someone wants to think murder is ok, I think most of us would agree that society works better when we all agree murder is a no-no. But is someone asking for respect of their belief within their home really on that scale? Surely this is a time for live and let live. The people wanting to stay there could have found alternative accommodation.
I have a friend who doesn't use the local butcher. They're not comfortable eating halal. Do they take legal action because they have to walk a bit further and shop elsewhere and because the butcher shop won't sell non-halal meat? No, they respect the difference of beliefs and walk a bit further to where they feel happier shopping. It would be somewhat rude to say "you're running a butchers and I want to buy meet so sell it to me on my terms...." Think carefully and this accommodation saga in this post isn't really that much different.
Yes it is. It's analogous to me walking in off the street and the butcher saying, "Get out I'm not serving you, you're not married, muslim, white" etc.
What you're suggesting is the seller is not supplying something that your friend wants to buy ie. "I want a room with a waterbed. Not the same thing at all."
"I'd like some pork please mate."
"Sorry it's against my religion to sell that here. Have you tried the supermarket up the road?"
"I'd like a room for me and my partner."
"Sorry, we only give doubles to married couples. I can offer you two singles but on a different night."
Hardly screaming get out get out get out is it?
I wonder if the next line was "seems a bit harsh mate, what gives"
"sorry religious belief - gotta stick with my conscience on this one when it's under my roof. Not particularly happy about it, but that's what I believe I'm called to do. Know a guy up the road he might be able to help...?"
Who's being the more intolerant here?
1975
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
It's still not the same.
"I'd like some pork please mate."
"Sorry we don't sell pork."
"I'd like a room for me and my partner."
"Sorry we...... ummm"
If your hypothetical butcher sold pork, but just not to a particular subsection of the populace you might have a valid argument.
Exactly, it's we don't sell pork to people like you.
We don't offer double beds to people like you.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
I think that's kind of what I thought you were saying.
That's where there's still some debate in various denominations. Some believe that homosexuality is in itself a sin, others that it's merely sexual conduct outside of marriage, which therefore precluded gay people because they couldn't get married (its usually mentioned alongside other sexual sins most to do with outside of marriage stuff). Now the question of gay marriage comes up and it's become rather interesting for those of the second viewpoint - is legal marriage going to be the same thing as a church marriage? Is it the same in the eyes of God? If so, then that objection to homosexuality disappears. To others, it's not, but even in the worst of cases it's never seen as any more sinful than all the other things we are of a nature to incline towards that are sinful - pride etc., that is, they are more openings to draw us away from God, and no doubt at least partially steeped in the culture of the times.In other words, is it not sophistry on their part to say they didn't refuse because of homosexuality but because being unmarried, because if that couple had gone away, got married (or civil ceremony, or whatever) and come back, then they're still homosexual but now married, yet those same religious beliefs would still regard that as a sin, despite being married, and therefore, grounds for refusal by their standards.
Is it anyone's right to stop someone opening themselves up to be drawn away from God? Not usually, unless you are the parent of a child I suppose, but they might believe that they also have a duty not to provide additional opportunities for it - hence the application to all possible sexual encounters outside of marriage in this case it seems.
link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Dis...ation_Act_1975
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9750065_en.pdf
What the Act says is you cannot treat people differently based upon whether they are married or not married.
Willzzz (24-09-2012)
Actually if you actually read the law rather just Wikipedia you soon find out that this does not apply to provision of good or services.
I believe the bible is against sex for fun as well. IIRC it's only allowed if it's purely for procreation.
Short of being fundamentalists, any religious person picks and chooses which parts of their religion to follow.
On this issue, I'd say that is someone is advertising for a lodger - one that will be staying for a decent length of time, then it is their business who they let in.
If, however the service provided is anything more than that - for example, food as well, then it is a business and those rules apply. You can't refuse someone service or a job based on marital status (or indeed, sexual orientation, which is more than likely what this was really about).
If the couple don't like that, then stop offering a B&B service. Lets hope our court system sees sense.
I see this issue as being a little different to Sikhs wearing the crash helmet as - correct me if I'm wrong - all Sikhs stick to that and it's pretty fundamental to their religion. Gay bashing isn't fundamental to Christianity.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
That's not how I read it. Which bit were you reading that gave you that idea? I think the bible says sex is great, just that it's at its best within a marriage.
Last edited by kalniel; 24-09-2012 at 10:06 PM.
Nope, quite the opposite. Sex is to be enjoyed but is to be between a man and woman and only within marriage. It's a gift from even before the symbolic fall, there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful about sex itself within the context it is intended for. There are whole chunks, an entire book no less, dedicated to the expression of joy with sexual union between a couple [Song of Songs] and clear teaching that married couples are to enjoy it, and do it often. 1 Corinthians 6-7 for example.
You either believe in Christ and live for him or you don't. If you believe the bible is God's word then it's not something you can pick and choose from. That said, you do need to make sure you're actually understanding what it says in the first place. There are a lot of folk with a grudge to bear who convince themselves that one verse taken grossly out of context justifies their stance (and conveniently ignoring the several other places it clearly contradicts them elsewhere.) Thos folks aren't fundamentalists, they are at best misguided, and some are downright deceivers.
You assume, but on the basis of???
Yes quite, let's hope it rules in the spirit of tolerance and fairness for all - including those who might happen to hold religious beliefs that are not harmful to others.
And again, you are quick to assume that this is about gay bashing. What's your basis for saying this? Evidence please! And as an aside, it is quite different for someone to hold the view that sex is to be between a man and a woman within marriage, and ask others to respect that under their roof, than it is to go gay-bashing which implies direct persecution and bigoted hatred of someone over their sexual preference. The two are very very different and it is wrong to leap from one to the other. In fact, it is entirely the sort of intolerance that I hope the courts see through when assessing the FACTS of this case.
BUT, when you are in the business of running a business. It ceases to be your own roof and becomes a place of business, and different rules apply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3gMDJCZ-4
Sums up the problem I have with people who quote the bible as a source of what's right and wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote