[Closed] Christian Hotel Ruling

Thanks for the clarification but what's all the fuss about then Christianity has just as much respect and toleration under the law as any other belief and if you run a business you can expect to have to obey the law and are not allowed a religious cop out if you don't obey the law.

Surely a country where we are all equal and you are not allowed to discriminate against people and refuse service to them on the grounds of race gender religion or sexuality is a good thing and if any arbitrary or geographic boundary deserves self sacrifice then that is one.

[i]intolerant have as much right to tollerance as everyone else[/i]

I'm 'tollerance' intolerant, where does that leave me?

but you WILL remove your outerwear whenst thou entereth my dwellingplace.

Muslims asks you to remove your shoes as they tend to pray in their own homes and it is an attempt to keep their floor clean as has alrerady been explained. It is not a universal Muslim Thing I would make you take your shoes off as well but of course I would not let you enter my dwelling place as you are just not my type.

Effinchafing's ex and I used to be Mr and Mrs Smiff. She wanted to be Mrs Darcy. Lolcarpetz. Not a chance.

Don't blame you mate. She turned into a right skank after I kicked her out...

I've found two small tangerines in the bottom of my wardrobe! I have no idea how they got there. Seem to be ok, too.

I shall investigate...

I'm afraid he didn't last

🙁

Are those tangerines coming out of the closet, Fred?

More than happy for people to be offended on my behalf

You must be reading stuff which I can't see toab, because as far as I can figure out, it's only Shibboleth who appears to be offended on this thread......everyone else seems to be enjoying biscuits as Shibboleth entertains them with stories of pigs in farm sets, and his awesome powers of decision making in the lavatory.

Someone asked if they could be offended but I only agreed to get the biscuits

Ah, fair enough toab ...... I must have got confused by you saying, [i]"I'm not half as offended as you lot seem to be"[/i]

OH, see what you mean, yes I suppose so - I was just suprised the topic got such a response. Hadn't realised people were Shib baiting all along.

AdamW - Member

Can you believe they're STILL arguing over ordaining women as "Bishops"? Whatever THAT is...

I think it has something to do with not having enough loos of the right type or something.

Is it because women can't move diagonally? Or is it that bishops can't move straight towards the nearest handbag shop?

I'm trying to promote my new business!

Going to branch out into vegan fisheries if the farms take off!

toab - Member
@Junkyard, sorry I have no photos of that Mr. Toad - I'm afraid he didn't last.

You wore him out? Poor bloke - just a spent husk of his former self. 😥

CFH, is there any more tea? This is a bit stewed now.

I was hoping Shibboleth would come back with more. This thread has only allowed me to get halfway through my packet of ChocChip'n'Coconut Maryland™ Cookies.

Freddy, the bar's open now. I'm having to stay on the soft stuff until this blasted call is over!

Large Macallan 18 please. I've got chips and a homemade chilli salsa dip here.

The issue isn't about whether or not they dislike gay people, the issue is that they run a business, which like all businesses is subject to discrimination laws and they fell foul of those laws.

They were fined, and the matter should be closed. They may have repulsive views, but these views shouldn't be allowed to translate into a commercial enterprise.

I hope that this case might set a precedent and get some of the backwards privileges that the church enjoys regarding woman bishops changed as well.

Shibby seems to tun up every few months or so, says something highly contentious that is guaranteed to get a reaction, insult people left right and centre, then disappear again. And probbly bask in his 'notoriety'.

Strikes me as a reasonably intelligent person, so I can only assume he's a bit of a troll really.

As for the ruling itself; good result in my onion. About time people moved into the 21st century and started thinking for themselves really.

Is it because women can't move diagonally? Or is it that bishops can't move straight towards the nearest handbag shop?

Don't know why, but this cracked me up 😀

Let's add some perspective with a sobering story...

My younger brother once lived with A Gay...and one day he walked in on him and his 'friend' kissing in the kitchen. Yes, that's right, near the food preparation areas!

Needless to say, whenever I visited I made sure we ate out.

I made sure we ate out.

Fish supper?

'Tis indeed a sobering story McHamish. I have a first cousin who is "married" to another fella, and whilst I am always happy to shake his hand at family reunions, I always scrupulously wash my hands afterwards ........ for obvious reasons.

I'm suprised no one has started quoting Leviticus yet.

I wonder if they ever served shrimp, do they have a menu posted on the site?

Fish supper?

Sometimes.

Although we once went out for a spit roast, after all that meat I had never felt so full.

Will everyone stop dissing the pink wafers. It's just latent homophobia because they're pink.
There are some brands that contain egg, but most, including Crawford's, don't.
They'll never match fig rolls as the ultimate vegan performance enhancing biscuit, but they make a nice change every now and then.

...that Mr. Toad - I'm afraid he didn't last

Shibboleth - Member

We live in a country that respects other peoples' cultures and religions to the extent that the "powers that be" deem it necessary to remove pigs from childrens' farmyard sets in toy shops, and yet we will persecute a Christian couple for trying to exercise their right to insist that couples who share beds in THEIR home, should be married in accordance with their religion.

I don't necessarily agree with their views, but like my grandparents and great grandparents, I would be prepared to fight to the death to protect their right to make that choice.

This afternoon, I'm starting to wonder whether this country is still worth fighting for.

Yet you wouldn't employ anyone who has a tattoo, interesting way use want to use the tolerance argument. (Maybe this has been pointed out earlier, but do you really think I'm going to read 5 pages?)

I thought I roughly understood the opposing views on this. Until I read this in the Cambridge Evening News:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Playgroup-says-its-ban-on-British-is-not-racist.htm

A playgroup refused to admit two women on the grounds that they are British.

"Under the Equality Act 2010, if the club [was] set up especially for people from a particular ethnic or national group then discrimination on the basis of nationality or ethnic or national origin is not unlawful, but discrimination based on colour is prohibited.”

I really don't understand what's going on. Seems just arbitrary. Perhaps someone could unpack this for me.

Perhaps someone could [b]unpack[/b] this for me.

Unpack? Is it a suitcase or something?

The rationale would be something like this
Women from non British backgrounds living here may share a common experience -and it may be good for them all to get together to share this experience and make friends support one another - perhaps even speak in their native tongue. Imagine a racist infiltrated the group to abuse them or victimise them etc - unlikely but not impossible.
It is not hard to think of similar groups where you need an attribute to join for example you would not have males – generally- at a rape support meeting or one for battered wifes.
OT I know the local Lesbian, gay and Transgender group has had issues with straight people joining simply to out locals and abuse them in the street for example. This has made it difficult to hold meetings as they stand outside to "OUT" people.

I really don't understand what's going on. Seems just arbitrary.

Well it seems very simple and straightforward to me.

First of all despite what the Cambridge News says it is not a playgroup, it is a club for foreign woman which allows them to take their children if they have any. The club is allowed to restrict membership specifically to those for which it was set up to benefit, in the same way that a Polish club could deny membership to someone with no links to Poland, a trade union club could deny membership to someone with no links to trade unions, a cycling club could deny membership to a skateboarder with no bicycle........you get the picture ?

What no club is allowed to do is deny someone membership on the basis of their race. This particular club has denied membership on the basis that the individual was not a foreign woman. They have previously denied membership to men, also on the grounds that they were not foreign women, despite the fact that sex discrimination is generally illegal.

It's all pretty straightforward common-sense, and I have never understood why Sun readers often struggle so much trying to figure that sort of stuff out.

yes much better and simpler explanation ernie

Thank you Junkyard, without getting bogged down with specifics, I can understand the club's fears that if they opened their doors to [i]everyone[/i], then those who were [i]not[/i] foreign women could eventually outnumber those who were, thereby making it completely redundant for the purpose it was originally set up.

...despite what the Cambridge News says it is not a playgroup, it is a club for foreign woman which allows them to take their children if they have any...

So Ernie - under the same law I presume you'd be able to set up a private club for men restricting membership to those with an English heritage? Maybe excluding anyone without English parents and grandparents perhaps? I wonder how long that would last before the thought police closed it down?

I think the hotel owners' words outside court were wise indeed:

"Much is said about 'equality and diversity' but it seems some people are more equal than others"

Zulu-Eleven - Member

So Ernie .............before the thought police closed it down?

Sorry ratty, I can't be arsed discussing anything with someone who uses terms such as "the thought police".

Sorry, would you prefer Thinkpol ernie?

Well someone wanted the right to ban people from their hotel and someone else wanted the right to not be banned hence someone had to win and someone loose so yes someone's rights had to be more important than someone elses.
The issue was which right had the greater merit - there are many issues like this with abortion being the most highly debatable /emotive one where someone's rights must be more equal. Or land owners right versus our right to ride bike's across their land for example – both cannot be equally satisfied.
The judge accepted that this happened but stated that religious freedom

can be limited to protect the rights and freedoms of the claimants

There is no material difference between marriage and a civil partnership. If that is right, then upon what basis do the defendants draw a distinction if it is not on sexual orientation? The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the refusal to allow [the claimants] to occupy the double room which they had booked was because of their sexual orientation and that this is direct discrimination

It's all pretty straightforward common-sense, and I have never understood why Sun readers often struggle so much trying to figure that sort of stuff out.

'Common-sense' and 'The Sun' in the same sentence usually needs 'lack of' as well.

I missed this thread yesterday (driving to job interview and back) and I've just read it though. Plenty chuckles guys, very funny! 🙂

But I'm surprised nobody picked up on this:

I don't have any religious beliefs either. But I believe that their religious views should be respected by the law in the same way that we tend to respect other religions and cultures in this country.

And I think I now realise what Shibb is trying to say. Somehting along the lines of:
"We go out of our way to let other (incoming?) religions do what they like but the resident Christians get the raw end of the deal when they try to do the same"

Or something like that???? Badly worded OP????

Just a thought....

Any chokkie bikkies left? 🙂

this thread is bad for my diet

*opens up the fig rolls*

I'm offended, all this talk of biscuits, what about some cake, CAKE!!!!
Cake discrimination is just wrong 🙁

Apparently there are shops where the staff encourage you to leave if you look too poor. I may not like it, but why isn't a business free to refuse custom - for any reason?

why isn't a business free to refuse custom - for any reason?

Really? You mean like 'No Blacks or Irish' kind of thing?