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.

pretty sure if it was a gay B&B owner refusing christian guests and stating why there’d be plenty of people having a moan.

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

I’ll have you know some of my best friends are christians.

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.

Anyone who thinks their opinions are somehow worth more than anyone else’s because they are based on a book of fairy stories will have to work hard to justify respect. (Heads for bomb shelter).

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

Yes, prejudice on the basis of clown status is not illegal.

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.

* 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.

Yep. If there’s one thing Tony Blair taught us it was this^^

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”

Best post of the thread 😆

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

Yeh. JLS really missed out there.

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 “an ultra liberal agenda”. 😕

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.