[Closed] Does Nick Griffin have a point? Yes, that Nick Griffin...

Could you legally discriminate against a legally married opposite-sex couple if they turned up dressed as clowns?

I wouldn't want 2 clowns in my guest house

Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy. I wouldn't like it, but that's not the same thing.

Why should people with discriminatory religious beliefs be allowed exceptions to the law when people with discriminatory racist beliefs aren't allowed such exceptions?

You all think it's perfectly OK to marginalise Christian in about as derisory way as those Christians marginalise homosexuals.

Show me one person who's born a Christian, and I'll concede your point.

The level of hypocrisy in the responses above is breathtaking. You all think it's perfectly OK to marginalise Christian in about as derisory way as those Christians marginalise homosexuals.

Not as many tho because you're still in the realms of "religion is a choice". Daily mail would have a field day with it too 🙂

Yes it is and a lot of people on here are biggoted towards CHristians and they think that's OK because people who are Christians are just wackos who don't deserve to be treated with respect

You all think it's perfectly OK to marginalise Christian in about as derisory way as those Christians marginalise homosexuals.

I'm don't want to marginalise Christians. I want to marginalise bigots.
I don't care what their beliefs are, religious or otherwise.

a lot of people on here are biggoted towards CHristians and they think that's OK because people who are Christians are just wackos who don't deserve to be treated with respect.

Could you legally discriminate against a legally married opposite-sex couple if they turned up dressed as clowns?

You wouldn't want them in anyway. They'd only get up to funny business.

Applauds Konabunny 😆

Show me one person who's born a Christian, and I'll concede your point.

[img] [/img]

* May not actually be a real person

Show me one person who's born a Christian, and I'll concede your point.

Jesus? Wait, no he invented christians (the religious types, not people called christian....or maybe them too). Did Jesus invent christians? This religious stuff is so complicated.
Who was Jebidiah? Than name rings a bell too. Is he important? is he a he?

possibly jewish binners

Jesus was born a jew, surely?

Terry Christian? 🙂

Jesus was born a jew, surely?

No - he became Jewish. No-one gets born any religion.

WHAT?? JESUS WAS A JEW??? DO THE CHRISTIANS KNOW??

No-one gets born any religion.

He was born a Jew called Shirley?

This is getting really confusing now

I thought Jesus was Batman?

Or has popular music fooled me again?

No no no no, not at all, that was Bruce Wayne. Typical STW argument, quoting things out of context!

But anyway... Why are people making this a religious matter? Yes it's true that their religious beliefs guided them to believe that homosexuality is a sin.

However their religion does not say "Thou shalt not let bumming transpire in thine B&B". So they have a religious position of disapproval, but a personal and non-religious decision to act upon it.

Hate the sin but love the sinner, no?

"Thou shalt not let bumming transpire in thine B&B"

Why should people with discriminatory religious beliefs be allowed exceptions to the law

They are not as their right to religious freedom which is protected is limited in certain circumstances. The limitation applies where there is a conflict with other law, so the legislation dealing with gays etc would trump that right to religious expression. The question Geetee is raising is why should this be a one way street, why shouldn't the anti discrimination law for homosexuals have a similar limitation so everyone's rights are given equal weight. That is a perfectly sensible question.

How can a person be 'born jewish' (or any other religio for that matter)? religion is a lifestyle choiuce, not a genetic fact.

Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy

So what if I argue that my 'religious beleifs' should take precendent over any law then? Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

The B+B owners have the choice of either running a business and therefore complying with laws that apply to all people equally (as well as following whatever religion they choose of course), or exercising their personal bigotry and not running a business. they have that choice. The couple don't have a choice over their sexuality. That's the fundamental difference here. And if you can't understand that, then you need to go and have a long hard think about what Equality actually means.

His mum and dad had to sleep in a stable. He'd probably do the same. Following starts first? optional

"Thou shalt not let bumming transpire in thine B&B"

Coffee down the nose time again. Genius!!! 😆

Can't you see that you're all playing right into the far right's hands?

If you just passed an exception to the law on the basis of religious grounds and then left them to their own devices, you'd make things like this a non-story, you wouldn't stir up debate, you wouldn't polarise opinion and you wouldn't give idiots like Nick Griffin a platform on which to make points that people listen to.

By being so bloody militant about it, you really are making a rod for your own backs. And that's the problem with an ultra liberal agenda. It stops being liberal and starts being tyranny.

That is a perfectly sensible question.

No it's to. Because choosing to practice a code of behaviour which you believe allows you to discriminate against somebody because of their sex, gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc is not a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Therefore it's not a perfectly sensible question at all. Think about it.

If you just passed an exception to the law on the basis of religious grounds and then left them to their own devices, you'd make things like this a non-story, you wouldn't stir up debate, you wouldn't polarise opinion and you wouldn't give idiots like Nick Griffin a platform on which to make points that people listen to.

Ok then: Just say that my religious beliefs allow me to refuse entry to someone to my business because they are Jewish/Black/Disavbled etc. Can i be left to my own devices please?

Oh, thought not.

Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

Ummmm, I don't think being gay is a lifestyle choice. Some blokes like other blokes. I don't think they have much choice in it.

Hang on a minute. Is it the liberalism, generally, thats the tyranny? Or are we specifically talking about bumming in Christian B&B's now?

Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

Ummmm, I don't think being gay is a lifestyle choice. Some blokes like other blokes. I don't think they have much choice in it.
Ah. You meant the godsquads. Wups.

Bumming christians in B&Bs? Times change eh?

So what if I argue that my 'religious beleifs' should take precendent over any law then? Should i be afforded an exception based on my lifestyle choice?

Two points here.

First, you're patronising reference to it being a lifestyle choice shows up you're own bigotry. Try seeing it from their perspective. It may look like a misguided choice to you and me, but it is point of fact to them. They BELIEVE that's the point and the problem.

Second, we already have exception to the law of discrimination. You CAN discriminate against any protected characteristics for example, where you can clearly show that the requirements of say a job, demand this.

So it's not illegal currently to deny a gay man access to the priest hood because that would be regarded as at odds with the job AS THEY SEE IT (they being the church/religion etc). SImiarly, you couldn't be ordained a catholic priest if actually you were a muslim and vice versa.

So there are exceptions. Always have been, always will be.

Do I think people with religious beliefs should be allowed certain exceptions to the law? Yes I do. As morally repugnant that is to me, it's the price for living in a truly liberal democracy. I wouldn't like it, but that's not the same thing.

Sorry but a liberal democracy should treat all people equally, that means not giving special exemptions and tolerance to religious belief.

Should terrorists be tolerated because slitting the throats of unbelievers is ordained by their religious beliefs? Can I make up my own religion in which I'm allowed to discriminate against heathen protestants?

Was it not all set up by a Gay rights group anyway? IIRC They advertised in Christian magazines (the B&B, NOT the gay rights group) and were chosen on the hope they would refuse a room.

A Tyranny of Bumming would make a great band name

A Tyranny of Bumming would make a great band name

Can't you see that you're all playing right into the far right's hands?

By letting Nick Griffin expose himself for the bigoted thug that he really is?

If you just passed an exception to the law on the basis of religious grounds and then left them to their own devices, you'd make things like this a non-story, you wouldn't stir up debate, you wouldn't polarise opinion

Yep, that's always the best way to deal with bigotry isn't it?
Keep quiet, don't make a fuss, and pass laws to allow it.

that's the problem with an ultra liberal agenda.

I'm not sure how you could define wanting gay people to have an equal right to goods and services as [i]"an ultra liberal agenda"[/i]. 😕

What would normal liberalism be exactly?

Ok then: Just say that my religious beliefs allow me to refuse entry to someone to my business because they are Jewish/Black/Disavbled etc. Can i be left to my own devices please?

As I already said, the law already allows for exemptions and these are used every day to discriminate against certain groups.

Why should people with discriminatory religious beliefs be allowed exceptions to the law

It may not be your eyes but it is in other peoples' and I believe that you need to reach a sensible middle ground - questioning whether the status quo achieves that is perfectly sensible. You can argue your case but the simple act of questioning the status quo is not bigoted or homophobic and if it wasn't allowed none of these rights would exist.

I was thinking more a kind of Death Metal outfit. Probably Swedish? Or possibly Japanese.....

Buohaharrarrrrrrrr

If you drive a 'rights' agenda for one group at the expense of another, then that's not equality its hegemony

I think some people need to learn the difference between a "right" and a privilege.

First, you're patronising reference to it being a lifestyle choice shows up you're own bigotry.

Religion is a lifestyle choice. Nothing more. I'm not being 'bigoted' at all, merely stating a fact.

Try seeing it from their perspective

Why should i, if I chose not to share their beleifs? Why don't they see it from mine?

Second, we already have exception to the law of discrimination. You CAN discriminate against any protected characteristics for example, where you can clearly show that the requirements of say a job, demand this.

Yes, and I pointed this out earlier. I think you failed to understand my point though.

So it's not illegal currently to deny a gay man access to the priest hood because that would be regarded as at odds with the job AS THEY SEE IT (they being the church/religion etc). SImiarly, you couldn't be ordained a catholic priest if actually you were a muslim and vice versa.

So there are exceptions. Always have been, always will be.

That there are holes in our legal system proves it to be an imperfect beast, and one which must always be scrurinised to find ways to improve it. Homosexuality was once illegal. It isn't now, because rational thought took over from religious beliefs, fear and bigotry, and equality prevailed.

Show me one person who's born a Christian, and I'll concede your point.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

So we're free to discriminate against Muslims, Hindu's, Atheists, Christians or anyone with any other religion-related beliefs?

No?

Didn't think so.

I'm not sure how you could define wanting gay people to have an equal right to goods and services as "an ultra liberal agenda".

You and everyone else is failing to see it from the other side.

I am in favour of equality for as long as it doesn't unduly infringe other group's beliefs. I think passing certain exceptions is ugly but necessary.

I was thinking more a kind of Death Metal outfit

duckman - Member

Was it not all set up by a Gay rights group anyway? IIRC They advertised in Christian magazines (the B&B, NOT the gay rights group) and were chosen on the hope they would refuse a room.

CITATION NEEDED

So we're free to discriminate against Muslims, Hindu's, Atheists, Christians or anyone with any other religion-related beliefs?

You can't discriminate against Muslims. They get a bit,... you know... a bit... explody!

Perhaps that what we need to ensure equality. Some militant terrorist gayers? Hmmmmmm

As well as the Japanese Death Metal/Boy bands, obviously

bwaarp - Member
Should terrorists be tolerated because slitting the throats of unbelievers is ordained by their religious beliefs? Can I make up my own religion in which I'm allowed to discriminate against heathen protestants?

This shows how absurd your argument is GeeTee.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

How is demanding that they comply with the same laws as everyone else being discriminatory?

The Christian church, especially, is very good at playing this word trick - "You're not giving due respect to our beliefs, therefore you're discriminating against us"

What if I said that it was my deeply and sincerely held belief that black people were dirty, and so weren't allowed in my shop? Would that be fine?

This shows how absurd your argument is GeeTee.

Arguing with crass satirical absurdity is how I roll

Although I wouldn't have to make up a religion to discriminate against protestants. Just realized you can do that as a Catholic.

This shows how absurd your argument is GeeTee.

Oh dear lord! Pun intended.

How is the turning away of a gay couple from a B&B even remotely analogous to a Muslim slitting the throat of an infidel?

Some years ago, SHAC and other animal rights protesters published shareholders addresses online and organised protests outside the houses of animal rights staff.

I don't recall the police rushing to protect their rights, they would turn up to prevent a breach of the peace, but did sod all to move them on - in fact I seem to recall that it was defended as protecting the protesters freedom of speech!

How is the turning away of a gay couple from a B&B even remotely analogous to a Muslim slitting the throat of an infidel?

What is the arbitrary ethical line that would allow the former and disallow the latter? Discrimination and murder are both illegal in the UK, hence both should be illegal with or without religious belief.

You can't discriminate against Muslims. They get a bit,... you know... a bit... explody!

What, all of them? Or just a tiny minority the gutter press crap you obviously read sensationalises as being representative of all Muslims?

Did you think that up all by yourself in that pub? Or did you have help?

Oh shit. The terminally offended are here.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

How is demanding that they comply with the same laws as everyone else being discriminatory?

That's not quite what I meant. I was commenting with regards to stuff being said about being gay isn't a choice whereas religious beliefs are, the implication (as I read it. or mis-read it) being that it was almost ok to make judgements about someone's lifestyle if it was their choice rather than who they were born as.

Ah I see, so it's ok to discriminate against people who've made a choice to be a certain thing?

Making people abide by the law rather than acting in a discriminatory manner is hardly 'discriminating', rather it's simply upholding rationality and common sense. If someone chooses to beleive in something that has no justification in a universal social context, then they are free to do so, but they are not free to discriminate based on such beleifs. i can't believe some people are struggling with this pretty straightforward concept.

Here is the issue simplfied, for those failing to understand how it all works:

The Law: 'You can run any business you want, as long as you obey the law'

The B+B owners: 'Oh but we want to run our business outside of the law'

The Law: 'You can't. It's illegal. You don't have a choice here'

The B+B owners: 'Oh you're discriminating agains us'

The Law: 'No; we're preventing you from discriminating agains others with no legal, pratcical or otherwise rational basis for your behaviour, in order to protect the rights of all people equally'.

Is it really so hard to understand? The B+B owners want to break the law and can't, so are attempting to use the claim of 'discrimination' to cover up their own bigotry. And failing. Rightly so too.

I feel very much at odds with most of the arguments on here which is odd because I've spent a large part of my adult life standing up for equality and for the rights of all groups, in particular the gay community.

So please know that I do not like the idea of the argument I am putting forward.

I do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.

I am 'against' the idea of religion and I share the view that it is almost certainly a 'temporary insanity' as Aurthur C Clarke put it.

But I also recognise that if you're going to identify groups within society that must be protected from bigotry then that protection must be applied to all groups, for as long as it does cause conflict with other groups.

You need exceptions to protect people during a transition. In 20 years time, everyone will know that if you're going to make the free choice to set up a B&B, then you better be prepared to allow access to people of all sexual persuasions.

Exceptions should protect those caught in that transition period and only those.

What, all of them? Or just a tiny minority the gutter press crap you obviously read sensationalises as being representative of all Muslims?

Did you think that up all by yourself in that pub? Or did you have help?

Michael. Its a simple statement of fact that if the gayers started getting militant, and donning suicide vests along with their leather chaps, then far less people would be discriminating against them.

In fact, its an even more effective tactic. Seriously ...would you want someone with a suicide-belts detonator switch in their sweaty palm, while off their head on GBH and poppers?

I rest my case

What is the arbitrary ethical line that would allow the former and disallow the latter

How about common sense? Just like you would get a different sentence to reflect different crimes. We can therefore agree that not all crimes are equally as bad and the law is not black and white; there are shades of grey.

I do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.

Again, that's the same word trick that often gets played.

Religious groups are not being marginalised, they're having their special privileges removed so they are equal to everyone else.

I do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.

No they are not, they are just having to comply with the laws of the land like everyone else. They should be offered no exemption based on religous belief.

Exceptions should protect those caught in that transition period and only those.

And when is that transition period deemed over?

the law is not black and white; there are shades of grey.

How many shades of grey? And is that kind of thing allowed in a B&B?

You need exceptions to protect people during a transition. In 20 years time, everyone will know that if you're going to make the free choice to set up a B&B, then you better be prepared to allow access to people of all sexual persuasions.

You need exceptions to protect people during a transition. In 20 years time, everyone will know that if you're going to make the free choice to set up a B&B, then you better be prepared to allow access to people of all sexual persuasions.

What about someone who's half rice/half chips, and is having an indecisive weekend, so brings both?

But I also recognise that if you're going to identify groups within society that must be protected from bigotry then that protection must be applied to all groups, for as long as it does cause conflict with other groups.

You can't prevent bigotry because that is a state of mind, and, at the moment at least, we have no government authorised mind control. Discrimination is illegal and the law does apply equally to all groups! If I ran a B&B and refused to allow Christians I could be prosecuted, just as the Christian couple who refused to allow homosexuals were.

How many shades of grey?

about 50. You minx.

I do not think it is a good thing, I think it is necessary because I think that religious groups, in particular Christians, are being marginalised.

But this isn't about marginalising Christians. It is about marginalising bigots.

The fact that these bigots happen to be Christian is entirely irrelevant.
Or at least it should be.

What exactly do you mean by "marginalised" here, GT?

How about common sense? Just like you would get a different sentence to reflect different crimes. We can therefore agree that not all crimes are equally as bad and the law is not black and white; there are shades of grey.

Common sense? How the **** is it common sense if you have no ethical or rational argument to treat religion differently in the eyes of the law to everyone else.

You are marginalizing me, as an atheist.

You can't prevent bigotry because that is a state of mind, and, at the moment at least, we have no government authorised mind control.

We do actually. It's called 'hate crime' and it allows for offences that are racially or otherwise aggravated to be given differential sentences.

Also, inciting racial hatred is a crime. If I stand up and preach hatred and intolerance against Muslisms, I could be arrested and prosecuted for it.

Its a simple statement of fact that if the gayers started getting militant, and donning suicide vests along with their leather chaps, then far less people would be discriminating against them.

Ah, i see you're doing yourt usual 'this discussion's a bit too intellectual for me to get to grips with, so i'll just make stupid provocative statements my mates down the pub might find amusing' trick. Forgive me for taking you seriously, I shall endaevour not to do so in future. Enjoy your inebriation.

It was only in the 80's footy fans were chucking bananas on the pitch.30 years on and we're horrified by the behaviour of the serbs. If it's approached too softly, people won't take it seriously.

Exactly. Nothing to do with 'ultra-liberalism' or any other such crap.

What was that saying – Love the sinner but hate the sin? I personally have no problem with people taking up any religion, whether it’s worshipping the Abrahamic god in any of its flavours, following the Ancient Norse, Greek or Hindi pantheons, Buddhism or Pastafarianism – ‘tis all the same to me. However, if they commit discriminatory, violent or otherwise illegal acts, even if it’s in the name of their religion, they’re fair game for prosecution and a good old fashioned shunning.

As much as people like to justify their homophobic/racist/misogynist beliefs as being dedicated to god – you can’t quote the Bible, the Qu’ran or the Torah as back up, because they’re a mish mash of largely contradictory nonsense. Thou shalt not kill, unless they’re a witch, worked on the Sabbath, have committed adultery - in which case, crack right on my lovely. Live in harmony with Christians and Jewish people, because they’re people of the Book, apart from when we’ve changed our mind and decided they should convert or die.

Religion changes with the times and eventually jettisons the elements that become socially unacceptable – when was the last time you saw even the most devout of Christian women popping down to the Church to burn a couple of pigeons to be cleansed of her period? Or a Christian bloke doing the same because he became unclean by talking to the menstruating woman? Should we allow Christians to keep slaves, as long as they’re from a neighbouring nation? Or allow those of faith to put to death those pesky people who keep on insisting on working on the Sabbath?

Common sense? How the **** is it common sense if you have no ethical or rational argument to treat religion with positive discriminatory practices?

Not sure what you mean here?

We do actually. It's called 'hate crime' and it allows for offences that are racially or otherwise aggravated to be given differential sentences.

Hang on everyone, turns out we're massively over-reacting

"The couple at the bed and breakfast made it clear that they didn't want unmarried couples at all sharing a bed in their room"

So, turned away for not being married, nothing to do with being gay ...

😉

Also, inciting [b]racial[/b] hatred is a crime. If I stand up and preach hatred and intolerance against [b]Muslisms[/b], I could be arrested and prosecuted for it.

You sure about that?

I was under the impression that Muslim was not a race, it was a religion - therefore you could only be arrested if you used actually Threatening words to stir up religious hatred, stirring up hatred by being abusive or insulting about Moslems would not be enough, you have to actually threaten.

Edit:

So, turned away for not being married, nothing to do with being gay ...

Good point! 😈

when was the last time you saw even the most devout of Christian women popping down to the Church to burn a couple of pigeons to be cleansed of her period?

Interesting. I'll mention this to my girlfriend, although perhaps not when she's a bit pre-menstrual.

Or allow those of faith to put to death those pesky people who keep on insisting on working on the Sabbath?

Ah, I suspect I'll be yet again called upon to act as a Shabbos Goy tomorrow. Probably be needed to press a doorbell or something. I doubt i'll be put to death though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbos_goy

So, turned away for not being [b]married[/b], nothing to do with being gay ...

Cougar - Member
What exactly do you mean by "marginalised" here, GT?

Interested too. What with it being the state religion and all. And having representation in our legislature.

A few other points; people have said if it's OK to discriminate against the gay couple would it be OK to do so against blacks for example.

No it wouldn't but no one is claiming the right to do that on religious grounds. Being gay appears to be at odds with the Christian faith; being black isn't.

Historically people have used the bible to justify both apartheid in South Africa and slavery in the US.

Historically people have used the bible to justify both apartheid in South Africa and slavery in the US.

I get your point about not picking up on every little thing geetee lest it be used against liberalism but a couple of guys went on holiday and were discriminated against and (rightly if they so wish) kicked up a fuss. If you tell them to stop making a fuss and leave the poor marginalised christians alone you let stupidity/bigotry "win" and they will continue to act in that way and send out a very bad message that it's ok to do this and gay people should put up with it.