Rupert_Baehr Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 ... Are you saying that someone who has a problem with homosexuals should simply ignore that because consensus says so? That pretty much condemns any person who is Catholic. ... How did you get Catholics into this argument? - I suspect that were you to ask the people who own the guest house to confirm their religious denomination, 'Catholic' would be the one thing they would not admit to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 Not quite. Should homosexual people flaunt their homosexuality with the intention of causing distress to other people then they too could fall foul of the law. ...if that's the case explain why Graham Norton isn't locked up in Broadmoor (and no jokes about it not being a punishment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 I can't. - I haven't a clue who 'Graham Norton' is. There are laws about 'inciting hatred'. A good idea, IMO. If those laws don't apply to certain people or to certain groups, then that doesn't mean that the logic behind the law is perverse, but suggests rather that the lawmakers are perverse. Quite likely, IME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 you're not saying that acting ubergay could be classed as 'incitement to hatred'? are you?!1 how on earth could someone be prosecuted for being camp, or butch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 you're not saying that acting ubergay could be classed as 'incitement to hatred'? are you?!1 how on earth could someone be prosecuted for being camp, or butch? Quite easily ... and why not? Were heterosexuals to have (f'rinstance) a 'Straight Pride' march which was designed to deter, frighten or otherwise dissuade homosexuals, then it is very probable that the march would be challenged by lawyers for the male homosexual community. And quite rightly so, IMO. Should homosexuals wish to have a 'Gay Pride' march designed to deter, frighten or otherwise dissuade heterosexuals, then should they not be subject to the same laws? The law itself is neutral and will remain so. Do you think the law should be in some way biased towards any particular group? - If so, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 ah i see... you're making it up. hehe. nearly had me there n all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 please explain. I asked you to do that in the last post, but you couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 It's very murky waters, discrimination. Think of this way, a man who is a Muslim, but a total a**ehole, comes in to my shop and wishes to buy something. I refuse, because the man's a complete a**ehole. He goes bleating to the press that I have refused to sell him something because he's a Muslim and I am discrimating against them. In this politically correct sensitive world we live in the accusation, however untrue, is damaging enough. To the wider public, who do not know the man is a complete t*sser, it doesn't matter. He's a Muslim and he's been refused something because he's Muslim. What about the B&B owner, faced with a couple of obnoxious, foul-mouthed men who happen to be gay, refuses to give them a room - because of they way are conducting themselves. Should it be that, for fear of being branded a homophobe, the B&B owner should take the abuse and give them a room? But in both those examples jeremy, the individuals are refused entry because of their behaviour-nobody has an issue with that and Muslims or gays have no special dispensation for the excesses of inappropriate behaviour. The difference in the OP and where it troubles the law, is that the individuals behaviour is irrelevant, they are refused entry because of who they are and the B&B owner states that as his reason. I think homophobia/racism are abhorrent, but accept that people are entitled to hold those views but I agree with others-if you're unable to operate a B&B within the law, then it would be daft to be involved in that sector, the law on discrimination is hardly new or a discrete part of legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 That's not true. If you refuse to provde services you have to give a lawful reason for doing so. So it's fine to not serve a drunk customer, or an aggressive customer, but just saying I'm not serving you and failing to give a reason can land you a discrimination charge. Because I've taken a dislike to you is perfectly valid, I'm not sure that you are required to give any reason though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 I can't. - I haven't a clue who 'Graham Norton' is. There are laws about 'inciting hatred'. A good idea, IMO. If those laws don't apply to certain people or to certain groups, then that doesn't mean that the logic behind the law is perverse, but suggests rather that the lawmakers are perverse. Quite likely, IME. 'Flaunting' your sexuality is not and cannot be a crime, it's a silly idea. Every person of any sexuality would be locked up on a Friday night whilst trying to pull in town. There is no parallel between flaunting and inciting hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.