Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?

[ik9000]

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.

<is fed up not having proper internet.> can anyone summarise what the clip shows? If it's what I imagine it will be it will be some nut, probably with a southern US accent going off on one as to why so and so should be shot and how the klan is god's will... If it is then I share your sentiment. Can I point out again that Christians are called to measure THEMSELVES and those in the church (ie claiming to be followers of Christ) by the bible. People who don't fall under that header are NOT expected to live in the same way, in fact the bible says expect them to live differently, anyone would - it's inevitable without God at work in them. There simply is not scope for some nut using the bible as justification for hatred, persecution of others, or stirring up dissension. Anyone who does these things only demonstrates their entire lack of understanding, and probably also their entire lack of actual relationship with Christ.

For what it's worth, I am inclined to agree that in general it is not right for a business to be perimitted to discriminate. However there are cases where a "black and white" law might just balls' things up. EG, a synagogue should be at liberty to decline to hold a Hindu wedding. That would be inappropriate. A Catholic nurse ought to be able to request not to have to work on the abortion ward for reasons of belief.

I would also argue the call for no discrimination swings the other way too. Adoption agencies currently don't let Christian parents adopt if they state they would raise the child in accordance with their beliefs. Discrimination by a business on the basis of faith - contrary to the human rights act. Can I presume you would therefore like to see this redressed also?

[Willzzz]

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.

So B&B owners are technically homeless?

Your home is always your home. In any cases businesses are still able to discriminate based on marital status.

[Phage]

So B&B owners are technically homeless?

Your home is always your home. In any cases businesses are still able to discriminate based on marital status.

Your home may also be a place of business.

Where in the act are you drawing your conclusion that it is OK to discriminate on that basis ? It specifically covers all aspects of Employment Law as well as the provision of Goods and Services. (Part III) (The 1975 Act was further strengthened and extended by precedent and the 2010 Act.)

More interestingly, why do you want it to be true ?

[Phage]

For what it's worth, I am inclined to agree that in general it is not right for a business to be perimitted to discriminate. However there are cases where a "black and white" law might just balls' things up. EG, a synagogue should be at liberty to decline to hold a Hindu wedding.

A Synagogue is not a business.

A Catholic nurse ought to be able to request not to have to work on the abortion ward for reasons of belief.

Possibly. But I personally don't agree. I always thought that the foundation of a helath service was equal access for all. How would you feel if the refused treatment to someone on the basis of their sexuality ?

Adoption agencies currently don't let Christian parents adopt if they state they would raise the child in accordance with their beliefs. Discrimination by a business on the basis of faith - contrary to the human rights act. Can I presume you would therefore like to see this redressed also?

Again - adoption is not a business.

[Larkspeed]

Management has the right to refuse service.

It's that simple if I run a business and for whatever reason I do not want your custom I can refuse you service. I do not even have to give a reason.

In the case of the linked story it is a matter of Christians refusing service to homosexuals. Since Homosexuality is against the christian belief they could just refuse them service on religious grounds and the law should protect them since nobody can be forced to do anything that is in direct violation of their religious beliefs (within reason)

Oh and they did not refuse to let them stay they just refused to let them stay in the same room.

[kalniel]

A Synagogue is not a business.

But back to the question of what a business is. If a synagogue accepts money for holding weddings is that different from accepting money to allow someone to stay in your house?

[Willzzz]

Your home may also be a place of business.

Where in the act are you drawing your conclusion that it is OK to discriminate on that basis ? It specifically covers all aspects of Employment Law as well as the provision of Goods and Services. (Part III) (The 1975 Act was further strengthened and extended by precedent and the 2010 Act.)

More interestingly, why do you want it to be true ?

Try actually reading the act and then tell me whether it is true or not.

Does the act also ban discrimination by age when providing goods and services?

[kalniel]

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.

Where does it say that? All I can find is the same thing we said before - you aren't allowed to treat people unfavourably because they are married, I couldn't see anything about discrimination because you were not married.

[directhex]

Management has the right to refuse service.

It's that simple if I run a business and for whatever reason I do not want your custom I can refuse you service. I do not even have to give a reason.

In the case of the linked story it is a matter of Christians refusing service to homosexuals. Since Homosexuality is against the christian belief they could just refuse them service on religious grounds and the law should protect them since nobody can be forced to do anything that is in direct violation of their religious beliefs (within reason)

Oh and they did not refuse to let them stay they just refused to let them stay in the same room.

I religiously believe black people are inferior, therefore I have the right to have "no coloured allowed" signs in my establishment.

Seems reasonable?

[Larkspeed]

I religiously believe black people are inferior, therefore I have the right to have "no coloured allowed" signs in my establishment.

Seems reasonable?

Under the law if you are a member of a recognized religion where being colored is against your religion then under the current law structure yes. You cannot post openly discriminate signage but you are within your rights to refuse service.. However as far as I am aware there is no recognized religion that is anti black so that point is moot.

Religious beliefs very often form the basis of exceptions to rules or laws.

The two that come to mind is the fact that in a lot of countries Sikh's are allowed to carry swords since they are classed as religious paraphernalia. And in Canada the long standing uniform code of the RCMP ended up being changed so that indian officers could wear turbans since it is against thier religion to remove them in public.

[Phage]

Try actually reading the act and then tell me whether it is true or not.

Does the act also ban discrimination by age when providing goods and services?

Different Act - the 2010 one I believe.
I was reading the Act hence my referece to part III. I'll ask again, what are you basing your opinion on ?

EDIT: Why so combative ?

[Phage]

But back to the question of what a business is. If a synagogue accepts money for holding weddings is that different from accepting money to allow someone to stay in your house?

Obviously different. Lack of a profit motive.

[Phage]

Where does it say that? All I can find is the same thing we said before - you aren't allowed to treat people unfavourably because they are married, I couldn't see anything about discrimination because you were not married.

By implication therefore you're Ok with this form of discrmination ?

[Willzzz]

Different Act - the 2010 one I believe.
I was reading the Act hence my referece to part III. I'll ask again, what are you basing your opinion on ?

EDIT: Why so combative ?

The 2010 act does not ban discrimination on providing goods and services with respect to marital status.
The 1975 act is immaterial.

Are we not having a perfectly rational debate here, is that combative?

[Phage]

The 2010 act does not ban discrimination on providing goods and services with respect to marital status.
The 1975 act is immaterial.

I'll ask again - what are you basing these statements on ? What are your references ?

Are we not having a perfectly rational debate here, is that combative?

Since you haven't put forward a single article or reference to back up you bald statements, other than "Try actually reading the Act", I'd say yes. Especially since you hadn't even heard of the either Act until they were pointed out to you.

[Willzzz]

This part (provision of goods and services) does not apply to the protected characteristic of marriage:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/28

Repeal of Sex Discrimination Act 1975:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/27

Now really is there any reason you couldn't have just looked it up yourself?
Why do I have to provide references to an act that you have already referenced yourself?