redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 However all this aggressive defence of homosexuality and the aggressive opposition to religion is a clear example of discrimination against religion in favour of homosexuality. The case in question does not discriminate against religion. No B&B owner can legally discriminate against gays. Neither does it discriminate in favour of homosexuality, unless you can illustrate that B&B owners can legally turn away the religious (or anybody other than gays for that matter) and only accomodate gays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Does anyone else think this is getting a little silly - even by the Pythonesque standards of debates about religion on SF which involve Grahame? Time for something completely different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotPhil Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Mod note. Leave out the personal insults please. And a reminder that misuse of the Quote facility to intentionally misrepresent other users is viewed seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 It is nothing to do with being different we can all enjoy each others company but I would not have wanted the lout in my home who urinated against the war memorial because I do not like what he did. Non-sequitur. The B&B owners are free to refuse access to their home to anyone and on any grounds they like (or should that be don't like?). You can still smoke in your own home but not at your place of business. Do you not see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 The story would not have blown up if the couple had not been Christians. There are plenty of atheists who feel the same way, it was a deliberate attempt by the media and later the religious bigots on the forum who have picked the ball up and run with it in order to discriminate against religion. It's nothing to do with how they felt. It's all to do with how they acted. You've got it topsy turvey. Religious people were trying to discriminate; they weren't being discriminated against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I don't know the details but I imagine if they had asked for separate rooms they would have been more than welcome, so they did have a choice. but if others were welcome in twin/double rooms, then that is discrimination. Q.E.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 I don't know the details but I imagine if they had asked for separate rooms they would have been more than welcome, so they did have a choice. The choice of not receiving the service they had booked, but instead paying double for something they didn't want simply because the business they were dealing with believes some bits of an ancient collection of myths but presumably not all of it (like keeping slaves etc.)? Not a choice as it's commonly understood, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 It was you and others who took me down that road, possibly to make trouble for me. The only thing I was trying to show was that there is discrimination as everyone proved. Claiming that something is so =/= proving it so. The only discrimination in that specific case was B&B owners (...their religion is completely irrelevant...) against gays. Bringing religion into it is a red herring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 As far as I can remember what I said was that there was discrimination away from religion and towards homosexuals as we can see in the B & B thread and this one also to name only two threads. In the event I was proved right. You're so far from being proved right that the Hubble Space Telescope can't see it. Religion was nothing to do with the attempted discrimination against gays. It was cited by the B&B owners to excuse their attempted illegal discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Homosexuals aren't disabled are they? Some are. I doubt if either 'condition' could be claimed to be a lifestyle choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.