Christian Hotel Ruling

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

Typical man, eh, getting off at the wrong stop. 😉

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 unpack 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 everyone, then those who were not 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…

Are you suggesting a newspaper would use a deliberately misleading headline to make a story sound more shocking than it really is ? Surely not.

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

If the Christians had won we could say the same thing about the judgement except they would now have a special place in law to discriminate that no one else had.

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

the judge again
Given that I am not really sure what your [ or there] point is it was acourt case someon would win and someone loose– do you support the judgement or not?

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?

Well if you can show examples of where “outsiders “ religions have greater freedom than Christians [Christians have their leaders sutting in the House of lords where they can affect the law] but no other religions get this.
Perhaps you /he are claiming a Muslim/Sikh/ whatever Hotel owner is allowed in law to ban civil partnership people from staying in their hotel. If so it is just wrong to say this
It is one of those lazy statements that racists/right wingers [ not saying you are either so lets not get sidetracked] say but it does not actually stand up to analysis.
The only thing I am aware of is the right of Sikhs to carry a knife – but then again so can anyone else if they are in full kilt

Ginger nuts , hob nob and bourbons on the vegan plater here whilst we play with our new fish farm set from TSY industries. Can I just let you know a Whale is a mammal 🙄

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 constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions is characterised by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction.

………….is possibly what happened.

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?

Can you really not see the difference between organisations that support minorities (which contrary to the bullshit you often hear still have been proved to suffer more discrimination) and a racist gentleman’s club for the white majority?

Can you really not see the difference between organisations that support minorities (which contrary to the bullshit you often hear still have been proved to suffer more discrimination) and a racist gentleman’s club for the white majority?

Sorry, I appear to have misunderstood the meaning of the word Equality, or perhaps more accuratley Egalitarianism

I thought it meant that people should be treated as equals on dimensions such as religion, politics, race, and culture, and maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status?

PS. – since over 50% of the population are women, then by definition white men are also a minority group – why shouldn’t they have the right to a private club? or does your moral code only apply to minority clubs which you “approve” of?

Blimey this is a bit of a moral dilemma. Thing is, I’m Catholic, so do I sympathise with the hoteliers? Then again, my son’s gay, so do I sympathise with the couple involved? Shibboleth doesnt like people with tattoos so I cant ask his advice, ernie and ratty just confuse me, and people keep talking about pigs. Anybody got a hob nob going spare?

Anybody got a hob nob going spare?

Why hob-nobs? have you got a problem with digestives? you bigot.

Grumm why did you bite his reply was predictable.

B’mitch i think you’ll find you should come to your own risk assessed conclusion based on double blind trials and the mental capacity act. dont forget to factor in rotational injuries and such.

oh, and what’s wrong with my fig rolls you pig denying knitted suit wearing gay son bearing well intentioned religious man?! 😈

*scrubs off my “i love b’mitch” tattoo with a scouring pad*

Grumm why did you bite his reply was predictable.

My very thought. Specially as ratty knows full well that private members clubs are allowed to deny membership to women if they so wish, but not deny membership on the grounds of race. A perfect reasonable situation which no fair-minded person would have a problem with.

But good luck to you Grumm if you want to argue with ratty.

Fig rolls, phil, as any fule kno, are an invention of Satan and all his cheeky imps. Sorry, but hob nobs are the one true biscuit, perhaps with a bit of abilify crumbled on top for a little anti psychotic treat… 😛

Mmmmm tasty biscuity dopamine system stabilisation, tasty and with reduced chance of relapse 😀

You see, this is all health and safety / political correctness gone mad. A bloke down the allotments told me that a swan can break a mans arm with its wing. Just imagine if it was a GAY swan. Doesnt bear thinking about. Then again, I blame the yanks, coming over here and luring our womenfolk with nylons and chewing gum.

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?

What equality law means for membership of an association

Membership just for people who share a protected characteristic

An association (except for a political party) may, if it chooses to, restrict its membership to people who share a protected characteristic.
For example:
• A club for deaf people can restrict membership to people who are deaf and would not need to admit people with other disabilities, such as a blind person.
• An association of blind people of a particular ethnic origin, such as Chinese, could restrict its membership to people who belong to both these groups.
• A gardening club for men does not have to admit women as members.
• An association for Christian women does not have to admit women of beliefs other than Christianity, nor does it have to admit men whether Christian or of any other belief.

But membership must not be solely on the basis of someone’s colour, for example, an association cannot say it will only accept white people or black people as members, and cannot offer different terms of membership on the basis of colour.

Access by associate members and guests who share the same characteristic

An association (except for a political party) may, if it chooses to, restrict access by associate members and guests to people who share the same protected characteristics as the members of the association.
For example:
• A women-only club could, if it chose, refuse to accept guests or associates of the opposite sex. So could a men-only club.
• A club for transsexual people could, if it chose, to refuse to admit someone’s guest if that person was not a transsexual person.
• A club for gay men does not have to accept straight men or straight women or lesbians as associate members or guests.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/service_providers_association__club__society.pdf

😆

just took me about a minute to swallow the last bite of my tesco healthy living granary roll i was laughing so much

And what if it was a muslim swan? Elf, is there such a creature? Just imagine, a big, bi-curious muslim swan, hissing and flapping at you, wanting to break your arm with its wing because you wont let it stay in your spare room. Makes your blood run cold just thinking about it. You couldnt make it up could you? Apart from the fact that I just did, obviously.

A black swan perhaps?

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?

There wouldn’t be a problem with that, as it wouldn’t exclude people on the grounds of race. IE, I would be allowed to join, as would anyone who is born here.

In fact, our national sports teams are organised along such lines. In case you hadn’t noticed, like…

A club is different to a business, however.

I spose these old bigots could get round the Law by setting up a club, and then not actually be open to the ‘public’, only club members, who they could select as they saw fit (except for their colour). I suspect that business might not be quite as good. I dunno.

Just a small point regarding the £1800 the couple received each.

If they had planned a holiday in all innocence and found it ruined by the B&B owner’s bigotry, then fair enough.

If, however, as has been mentioned, they knew about the potential for discrimination in advance and chose this B&B specifically to make a point, then firstly, shouldn’t it be the duty of the police to send in undercover officers to gather evidence, rather than being left to private individuals.
Secondly, is it right that someone should be awarded damages when they deliberately put themselves in that situation.

Yes Fred, I chose the definition carefully to sit within the law by including parents and grandparents born in England, rather than stating anything regards race – which is exactly why I then went on to ask how long you thought it would be before the thinkpol closed it down…

black swans? velvet tippers the lot of them. there’s a film with that in it so it must be true…