Are Christians discriminated against in the UK?

[sccsux]

You are an atheist and you treat me as a Christian differently.

 

As I've never met you, I don't treat you like anything.

 

I treat your words with contempt though.

 

This has nothing to do with your chosen religion, it's more with your posting manner.

 

In other words YOU discriminate against me.

 

Oh dear.

 

I am not withholding services because you are christian. You can post replies, therefore SF is not discriminating against you either.

 

Do I discriminate against the BNP when I post negative comments on here about them? Of course not.

 

Just because someone disagrees with what your words say, does not equate to discrimination (or are you really as dim as you are now sounding)?

[sccsux]

I do not treat people differently.

 

I asked about the B&B owners. Not yourself.

 

I said I treat people like myself. I do not treat people differently.

 

OK...

 

Was it right for the B&B owners to deny services to the homosexual couple (a simple yes or no, if you don't mind)?

[Grahame]

I asked about the B&B owners. Not yourself.

 

OK...

 

Was it right for the B&B owners to deny services to the homosexual couple (a simple yes or no, if you don't mind)?

 

I would not take a man to a B & B and ask for a double bed on the belief that it is wrong. On the basis of treating people the same as I expect to be treated, then I think the couple in the B & B acted wholly properly.

[sccsux]

I gave you my answer which amounts to being true to yourself.

 

But that's not what I asked.

 

I simply asked if you thought it was OK for the B&B to refuse service to a gay couple. I asked for no other information, yet you attempted to muddy the waters when a simple yes of no was all that was required (I even stated as much in the original question).

[Grahame]

Should homosexuals not be allowed to be true to themselves Grahame?

 

By all means. Are you finding fault with me for being true to myself?

[Grahame]

But that's not what I asked.

 

I simply asked if you thought it was OK for the B&B to refuse service to a gay couple. I asked for no other information, yet you attempted to muddy the waters when a simple yes of no was all that was required (I even stated as much in the original question).

 

I gave you a full answer and you have no right to edit it.

 

What can we know of Elizabeth Markham and the life of the other medieval ladies herein mentioned? Why should we know of them? I repeat what was said by way of introduction: The aim of any history, even a small one as this, should be to stir interest and appreciation, for without that all study of the past is dead and labour lost.

 

We often picture a medieval woman as young and beautiful, who was charming to men, and waited for her knight to rescue her from the tower. This could not be further from the truth. In medieval society, women gained their status through advantageous marriages. Women from wealthy families were normally engaged to be married by their fathers while they were still in their cradles. A girl was held capable of consenting to marriage at the age of seven, and could have her first child by the age of thirteen.

 

The girl's father was the sole person who selected a suitable husband. If he died before she was married, he would have made sure to have left her a suitable dowry, to either wed her or put her into a nunnery.

 

Many girls of wealthy families were educated by being sent to nunneries. Young girls were taught to read and write, tell stories, read romances, and learn of ladies fashion and of manners.

 

Such girls were also sent to the households of great ladies; this way they could learn the etiquette of refined society. Some fathers thought it was more important for a girl to be better equipped with proper manners than intellect.

 

A woman of high status could be a land owner. The woman who owned land or was considered a person of importance. When such woman married, everything she owned became her husbands for the duration of her marriage. After the death of a husband, she could claim one third of her properties, and, if she chose to re-marry, they would remain hers.

 

Wives had to be able to take their husbands places at all times. This was very hard work. She had to be capable of taking her husband's place during his absences. She had to look after the manor, collect rents, and supervise the farming.

 

She had to know about law, in case her lord's rights were ever violated. She had to be able to plan expenses wisely. In a very large manor, several small rooms were set up to accommodate the making of consumable goods. Ale was brewed in the brew-house. Bread was baked in the bake house. Butter and cheese were made in the dairy.

 

The lady of the manor's duties also included governing the house at all times. She monitored daily duties and distributed functions, only going into town herself to buy the finest fish, best wines, and exotic spices from local merchants; thus she also had to know how to bargain. She had to have knowledge of gardening, and be able to hire help to assist her. She could draw up wills and make contracts. She could sue or be sued.

 

http://stanhopefamilyhistory.webs.com/

[Halibut]

By all means. Are you finding fault with me for being true to myself?

 

So you don't mind them having sex together?

[Grahame]

So you don't mind them having sex together?

 

Let them do as they like but they have no right to involve other people.

[Halibut]

Let them do as they like but they have no right to involve other people.

 

How does staying in a B and B involve other people?

[sccsux]

How does staying in a B and B involve other people?

 

Are you trying to make Grahame's head implode?