TV and Radio   permalink

Moral Maze on the B&B debate

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 38 of 38
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Religion_Host (U1716878) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011

    The Moral Maze, Wed 27 January, 8pm Radio 4

    When a gay couple were turned away from a B&B run by Christians it was more than just what would be going on behind the bedroom door that was at stake. The real question is should English law be based on the changing values of the populace, rather than the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Bible?

    Last week's case was just the latest in a class of cases that has become known as "relitigation" - where the rights of religious communities are pitted against the prohibition on discrimination.

    The gay couple won their case; as the judge put it "Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judeo-Christian position."

    Is the application of the Human Rights Act being turned into a political ideology and being used to persecute a group - the religious - that is now a minority in our society?

    Should religious beliefs have any privileged status in a democratic society? How do we define the boundaries of liberty? Is the state, through the legal system, defending minorities or encroaching in to the very core of our personal freedoms and telling us what to believe?

    Michael Buerk chairs the debate with Michael Portillo, Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox, and Clifford Longley on the panel.

    The Moral Maze, Wed 27 January, 8pm Radio 4

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...


  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011

    One thing reamins entirely unclear at least to me on this whole issue.

    The use of the terms B&B and Hotel have both been used in association with this case. The distinction seems to important though.

    It appears it is the believe among many on these boards that if your place of business is also your clearly home (i.e. you dont have a separate staff house or segregated quaters etc.) then different rules apply anyway?

    Many on here clearly seem to think that if my business is my home these different rules allow me to discriminate in anyway I feel. (I.e I would be perfectly entitled to turn away a black person say). This just doesnt ring true for me.

    I do hope tomorrow's program will clear up this apparent point of law. I.e. Are we really talking about a B&B case at all?

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Steven Waling (U13780259) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011

    rather than the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Bible?  

    One can 'find' whatever prejudice one wants to find in the Bible, just by cutting and pasting whatever you want from it.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Religion_Host (U1716878) on Tuesday, 25th January 2011

    The Moral Maze, Wed 26 January, 8pm Radio 4

    When a gay couple were turned away from a B&B run by Christians it was more than just what would be going on behind the bedroom door that was at stake. The real question is should English law be based on the changing values of the populace, rather than the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Bible?

    Last week's case was just the latest in a class of cases that has become known as "relitigation" - where the rights of religious communities are pitted against the prohibition on discrimination.

    The gay couple won their case; as the judge put it "Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judeo-Christian position."

    Is the application of the Human Rights Act being turned into a political ideology and being used to persecute a group - the religious - that is now a minority in our society?

    Should religious beliefs have any privileged status in a democratic society? How do we define the boundaries of liberty? Is the state, through the legal system, defending minorities or encroaching in to the very core of our personal freedoms and telling us what to believe?

    Michael Buerk chairs the debate with Michael Portillo, Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox, and Clifford Longley on the panel.

    The Moral Maze, Wed 26 January, 8pm Radio 4

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by lakelandterorrist (U14764341) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    When T Blair was in power it was said he didn’t do God. Years later his doctrine is now even more manifest in Britain.
    Under Blair we noticed that you could be a Christian but you were to leave it at home before you went to work or keep it in the four walls of your Church on a Sunday.
    In our Society you have a choice as to whether or not you want to follow a Faith. If you do then that Faith or belief structure becomes what you are. You use it at home at work at play it gives you a moral structure on how to run your life and we should be allowed to use that in whatever area you work in.
    With the implementation of T Blairs “rights” and in this instance the Sexual Orientation Regs, society did not have a choice. We were told to accept a Homosexuality, not tolerate but accept and if you did not accept it (even if your Faith said otherwise) we will prosecute you.
    At the time I and others took part in media debates as to how these PC ideas would trump any rights the Christian had. At the time we were told they would not and Blair said the Regs were the “right thing to do” and we were told that we were bigots, not living in the 21st Cent, you are in business therefore…. You must get with the times and so it went on. Years later the fact that we are having this debate bears our points out.
    In the case of the Hotel owners it was suggested and was in the Judges summary that the case was a set up. He said that even if it was then the only thing that would be different would be the level of compensation. In other words you can lie, cheat and be deceitful but we will still give you a pat on the head and find the moral upright guilty.
    The implications of this case go further that just Homosexual rights.
    We are seeing more and more cases of an accommodation for others but a crack down on what a Christian can and cannot say or do.
    If Cameron D wants people of Faith to uphold society, use their skills in life, allow Faith based schools and businesses and organisations to operate, then Government must accept what comes with that particular Faith. The Government cannot say on one hand “Christians get involved tell us what you can do then go do it” and on the other hand “please keep your opinions to yourself, keep it within the four walls of your Church and dare you bring your opinions to work with you we will allow summary prosecutions to take their course and we will not stand in the way of it.”

    The fact that the BBC is now openly debating this subject says to me that we are now getting to a turning point and things are hitting raw nerves

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Shaker2011 (U14275953) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    <quote>In the case of the Hotel owners it was suggested and was in the Judges summary that the case was a set up.
    No - you couldn't be more wrong. In his summary the judge said that there was absolutely no evidence of any "set up" whatsoever. At least gets your facts right, if at all possible.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by lakelandterorrist (U14764341) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    Reply to message 6
    The point that I am making is clearly stated. in so much and just in case you missed it, is that even if there was a set up, I the Judge, would still award damages. What kind of moral lead does that give?
    If you also read the sentance again "it was suggested and (refered) to in the summary"
    At no point did I say that the judge said it was a set up.
    Learn to read

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by flibbly (U10914379) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    In our Society you have a choice as to whether or not you want to follow a Faith. If you do then that Faith or belief structure becomes what you are. You use it at home at work at play it gives you a moral structure on how to run your life and we should be allowed to use that in whatever area you work in. 

    How would feel about the following?

    In our Society you have a choice as to whether or not you want to be a racist. If you do then that belief structure becomes what you are. You use it at home at work at play it gives you a moral structure on how to run your life and we should be allowed to use that in whatever area you work in.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Shaker2011 (U14275953) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    The point that I am making is clearly stated. in so much and just in case you missed it, is that even if there was a set up, I the Judge, would still award damages. What kind of moral lead does that give? 
    It says that damages are rightfully awarded when the law has been broken, which it was.
    If you also read the sentance again "it was suggested and (refered) to in the summary"
    At no point did I say that the judge said it was a set up.
    Learn to read 

    If you had taken your own advice and read the news reports you would have seen that the judge referred to a set-up and declared that there was absolutely zero evidence of any such, and even if there had been he would still have awarded damages, albeit at a lower level.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    In our Society you have a choice as to whether or not you want to be a racist. If you do then that belief structure becomes what you are. You use it at home at work at play it gives you a moral structure on how to run your life and we should be allowed to use that in whatever area you work in. 



    Why should people feel anything about the above its an opinion that people are surely entitled to hold and express Yes?

    Your obvious point is of course that if you find religious intolerance OK you must by definition accept all other kinds. Indeed for me its just meally mouthed sophistry to pretend any different.

    All societies are intolerant of various things, we are only debating how to define the ones we think are OK I feel.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by flibbly (U10914379) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    Why should people feel anything about the above its an opinion that people are surely entitled to hold and express Yes?

    Your obvious point is of course that if you find religious intolerance OK you must by definition accept all other kinds. Indeed for me its just meally mouthed sophistry to pretend any different.

    All societies are intolerant of various things, we are only debating how to define the ones we think are OK I feel. 


    So you think that B&Bs (and indeed any business) should be able refuse to serve people based on the colour of their skin then?

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by josy (U14065324) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    I think the situation regarding human rights, IMO, has become farcical.

    Take for example the murderer who could not be sent back to his country of origin because it would be infringing his human rights - seriously, this gives the green light to any criminal or the whole of the criminal fraternity, that the UK is a soft touch.

    EU laws on human rights are based on principles which have no touch with reality - they are based on philosophies which are centuries old!

    The gay couple who took the case to court should count themselves lucky that they are allowed to continue with their lifestyle wheresoever they please - but, off course, no minority group is satisfied with getting their rights, they have to make a case of it so that it grabs the headlines, & makes them some money.

    I am a bit old fashioned & feel a degree of discomfort when I see either gays or lesbians in a clinch in a public arena, & when I do see a scene in a movie or tv programme, am likely to switch off, or hop to another channel - does this mean I am bigotted?

    People in the UK do not know their good fortune, gays or otherwise! Homosexuality in some countries is still illegal, & is punishable by law.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by StopTheWorldIWannaGettOff (U14571846) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    Pity the poor judge who would have had to have decided upon this case if it had been an Islamic couple who had been running the B&B.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by flibbly (U10914379) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    EU laws on human rights are based on principles which have no touch with reality - they are based on philosophies which are centuries old! 

    Religions are based on principles which have no touch with reality - they are based on philosophies which are centuries old!

    I know which I'll go along with thanks.

    but, off course, no minority group is satisfied with getting their rights, they have to make a case of it so that it grabs the headlines 

    Yep, thats christians (in this case, other religions in others) to a T, except of course they're not satisifed with the same rights as everyone else - they demand special priviledges too.

    I am a bit old fashioned & feel a degree of discomfort when I see either gays or lesbians in a clinch in a public arena, & when I do see a scene in a movie or tv programme, am likely to switch off, or hop to another channel - does this mean I am bigotted? 

    I know what you mean. It makes me cringe every time I see anyone spouting superstitious drivel. Of course its far far worse when they attempt to use it to justify bigotry.

    Homosexuality in some countries is still illegal, & is punishable by law. 

    You sound jealous.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by In moderation (U14261945) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    I'm sure what is worse a homophobe or religiophobe! What do you say flibbly?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by flibbly (U10914379) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    I'm sure what is worse a homophobe or religiophobe! What do you say flibbly? 

    Thats simple. A homophobe is someone that exhibits bigotry towards a person for an inate, physical part of "their being", over which they have no control or choice.

    A religiophobe (which is a word you've obviously just made up in an attempt to score a cheap point, but I am guessing what you mean) would be someone that discriminates against a person for an ideology they subscribe to, and which they have control over.

    Your further point is obviously supposed to imply that I'm a "religiophobe", which is of course rubbish. Its religion I despise, not the poor suckers who subscribe to it. I would say consider the christian phrase "hate the sin not the sinner", but of course many christians (not all by any means) forget this and hate the supposed sinner too.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Steven Waling (U13780259) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    rather than the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Bible?  

    Is that actually found in the Bible, or just read into the Bible? Many theologians will tell you that the Bible has nothing to say for or against homosexuality as we know it now. People are always looking into the Bible to find exactly whatever it is that conforms to their previously held prejudices.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by In moderation (U14261945) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011

    flibbly- prejudice is all the same however you dress it up!

    And there seems to be an unhealthy hatred of all things religious here.

    Still you can be haughty with all those 'suckers' around you!

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by josy (U14065324) on Thursday, 27th January 2011

    No jealousy felt or intended, just my thoughts on how I believe the human rights laws are not up to much if it is used/misused by everyone who believes it is their right to impose their lifestyle on the wider society.

    We are arguing a case where a previously minority group, but now part of the main stream, still trying to invent the wheel - I accept that homosexuality is part & parcel of society, I just hate to think of some many more worthier causes to invoke the use of human rights laws, which neither get airtime, nor the frenzied attention of the western media.

    The right not to be tortured, to education, to clean drinking water, housing etc are all so much more influential in determining life chances, & here we are giving time to a cause fought & won in the last century.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Oak_King (U14612120) on Thursday, 27th January 2011

    ..........& here we are giving time to a cause fought & won in the last century. 

    If that were so then this whole incident would never have happened. Just because there are other matters to deal with in the field of human rights does not mean that we can safely turn our backs on existing issues claiming that the matter is closed and well behind us. The legislation might be enacted but the war is obviously still going on.

    BB )O(
    H

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by adzcliff (U14007447) on Thursday, 27th January 2011

    All interesting stuff.

    But would it be acceptable for me to turn away a known racist from my B&B based on my religious and/or non-religious beliefs? My guess is that the BNP experience this sort of prejudice all the time in booking up accommodation for their various conferences and events?

    Not sure what people think?

    Adzcliff

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Thursday, 27th January 2011

    Thats simple. A homophobe is someone that exhibits bigotry towards a person for an inate, physical part of "their being", over which they have no control or choice. 

    Flibbly
    There are many inate human behaviours we choose to control by law and other social controls. This is in essence what civilisation means.

    Surely just because something is inately human isnt an automatic reason for tolerance?

    And if it isnt then surely you have to find other more structured and thought out reasons why homosexuality should be tolerated?

    It is perfectly easy to make an argument that for the good of society and social cohesion say homosexual behaviour should be illegal. (And look no religious or God defined reason at all).

    I could also argue as many Christain groups do (and some non Christian groups on the hard right for example) with I beleive some evidence of success, that psychological treatment can lead people to not display homosexual behaviour.

    This is not something for example you can really say about a non white person is it so your initial argument is much stronger on the case of race.

    I am not saying that these are good or bad arguments so spare me any irre I only report that they can be made. And it wont help you to shot the messenger.

    But I would also say that we can't /shouldnt automatically assume that an argument is right just because it supports the "liberal" position. This is favourite tactic of the liberal meedja. We are advancing "liberal niceness" so we must be right and any who raise thier voice in any kind of opposition are essentially only a small away from being a jackbooted rightwing thug.

    And further laws we all have to obey were often made for less defined reasons that the above.

    So in short I feel your initial statement on its own doesnt really hold water

    A religiophobe (which is a word you've obviously just made up in an attempt to score a cheap point, but I am guessing what you mean) would be someone that discriminates against a person for an ideology they subscribe to, and which they have control over. 

    I could also argue that homophobe is also a pretty naff word made up to score cheap points I think phobe better translates as fearer rather than hater.

    The PC fraternity for me are often just as prone to jingoism and irrational hyperbole as the groups they often run up against.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Robin (U14109877) on Thursday, 27th January 2011

    There's been a lot of talk recently, reflected in the programme, about the need for tolerance towards religion by the secular state.

    Before becoming too strident in this demand, perhaps one should reflect this whole sorry episode arose from an example of extreme intolerance by the owners towards their prospective guests.

    As Christ himself said in different words, what goes around comes around.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by James P (U14413869) on Thursday, 27th January 2011

    First of all, Clifford Longley is peddling the liberal Christian myth that evangelical views are a small minority when all the demographics I've seen show a very different story. Both the C of E and the R Catholic church have become more conservative in general over the past decade or so and the evangelical church is the only part of the C of E that's growing.. and growing fairly quickly. Ok, everyone likes to think that they're the middle ground these days, but Clifford Longley is incorrect in his assessment.

    Now it's a fair point that many evangelicals wouldn't deny a gay couple a double room, even if they didn't approve of homosexual relationships, but some, perhaps many, would. What's more, whilst I might choose to offer a gay couple a double room, Id' like the option to say, double rooms for gay couples only. As CLaire Fox points out, it's not just about religious freedom, it's about freedom in general.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Friday, 28th January 2011

    As CLaire Fox points out, it's not just about religious freedom, it's about freedom in general. 

    Of course it is JP but here's the rub, on your thinking if the majority of the population wanted to dicriminate on the basis of colour it should be OK?
    Intellectually you can't avoid this conclusion, since what you are saying is people with strongly held conviction should be allowed to act on them. The only difference being that you and much of the rest of the religious lobby it seem somehow think adding the abjective religious before convictions somehow makes the actions you want to take because of your convictions.

    Well firstly why should adding the word religious make the conviction more valid it at all?

    And equally importantly if your evangelical movement were to for example conclude that race was a basis for acceptable discrimination by your arguement of special status for religious believe we would have to allow it.

    And dont come back with that could never happen, of course it could "God sanctioned racism" has a very long history James and today I could point you at a thousand websites run by organisations on the US religious right that claim God's sanction for discriminating on the grounds of race, all backed up by suitable scriptural quotations etc and the Apartheid days Dutch Reformed Church claimed Apartheid itself was ordained by God'. And don't forget its only about 150 years sonce the Vatican actually fully condemned slavery on religious grounds and its flip flopping of attitudes on the subject across history of course siggests it could easily flip back.

    THe state has to draw lines we can only argue about where they should be drawn. But claiming special status for religious convictions meaning they should be differently drawn for you if you have them to if you dont is nonsese on stilts. If its OK for you B&B owners to say they don't want homosexual couples in their establishment because God told them, then why can't I as free individual not just conlcude the same on the basis that I just dont like the idea of homosexual couples for entirely secular reasons?
    Or say the same about coloured people, or one legged people etc.

    To make a distinction is entirely artifical and ludicrous logically the distinction just doesnt exist. This is maybe a debate about freedom action yes but the religious arguement is effectively a total red herring. If its OK for the regligous then it is OK for us all. Nothing else makes anykind of logical sense.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Oak_King (U14612120) on Friday, 28th January 2011

    M25 Jack

    smiley - ok Top post

    BB )O(
    H

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Robin (U14109877) on Friday, 28th January 2011

    Agree, top post #25.

    It seems to me the insistence on special status stems from the delusion that religion has a monopoly on morality and ethical thinking and practice. It manifestly doesn't.

    It would be more acceptable if those who adhere to the delusion actually practised some of their religiously-derived morality, but it's clear many don't. Especially noticeable amongst those with the loudest voices.

    In between shouting "relativism" and "cafeteria morality" they themselves pick and choose their morals particularly selectively, as neatly demonstrated by the B&B owners. (cf. their stand on sexual morals vs refusal of hospitality, acceptance and tolerance. As I recall, Christ had little to say on the former, but the latter was the cornerstone of his philosophy).).

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Sunday, 30th January 2011

    In reply to josy:

    << The gay couple who took the case to court should count themselves lucky that they are allowed to continue with their lifestyle wheresoever they please - but, off course, no minority group is satisfied with getting their rights, they have to make a case of it so that it grabs the headlines, & makes them some money. >>

    You seem to have missed the point here that the gay couple were DENIED their right to be treated like any other guests, so quite understandably they made a case of it, to send the message that such behaviour is illegal and unacceptable.

    << People in the UK do not know their good fortune, gays or otherwise! Homosexuality in some countries is still illegal, & is punishable by law. >>

    And that will change if enough people in those countries take action to fight such unjust laws. You don't obtain equality by sitting around waiting for it to happen.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by stotty59 (U14768508) on Sunday, 30th January 2011

    clubs, pubs, hotels have a right to refuse admission without giving a reason....this couple owend their hotel and had rules.....they didnt say your gay get out....they are christian church goers, they have a right to decide if they dont want someone there...totally wrong to take them to court.
    everyday people have not rights in this world today.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Sunday, 30th January 2011

    In reply to stotty59:

    << clubs, pubs, hotels have a right to refuse admission without giving a reason....this couple owend their hotel and had rules >>

    But the rules were unlawful. Why should being a Christian churchgoer give you the right to break the law? And why shouldn't someone who breaks the law be taken to court?

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Mrs D (U14627707) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    I think we have missed a major point in this issue, the law was made based on the loud voice of a small minority, there are still more Christians in UK than there are practising homosexuals, yet the law says that the beliefs of the bigger group must bow to the demands of the smaller one.
    I should have every right to refuse to allow unmarried couples to share a bed in my home, and have done so, the fact that people are offering to pay for that bed should make no difference.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    In reply to Mrs D:

    << I think we have missed a major point in this issue, the law was made based on the loud voice of a small minority >>

    The law was made by a democratically elected government and was based on the idea of fairness and equality.

    << there are still more Christians in UK than there are practising homosexuals, yet the law says that the beliefs of the bigger group must bow to the demands of the smaller one. >>

    We're basically a secular society these days, which means there can be no special treatment for any religious group as regards the freedom to discriminate.

    << I should have every right to refuse to allow unmarried couples to share a bed in my home, and have done so, the fact that people are offering to pay for that bed should make no difference. >>

    I'm sorry, but if you turn your home into a business, different rules apply.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Shaker2011 (U14275953) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    the law was made based on the loud voice of a small minority 
    Johnny has already covered this one: I would just add that the vast majority of the British population are fully supportive of gay equality legislation:

    www.guardian.co.uk/s...

    there are still more Christians in UK than there are practising homosexuals 
    Evidence?
    I should have every right to refuse to allow unmarried couples to share a bed in my home 
    Correct.
    and have done so 
    Fair enough. Ignorant, old-fashioned, narrow-minded, but hey, you're allowed to be.
    the fact that people are offering to pay for that bed should make no difference. 
    It makes all the difference. By offering a bed to fee-paying members of the public you've started a business and thus you're bound by the rules that apply to businesses.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    I think we have missed a major point in this issue, the law was made based on the loud voice of a small minority, there are still more Christians in UK than there are practising homosexuals, yet the law says that the beliefs of the bigger group must bow to the demands of the smaller one.
    I should have every right to refuse to allow unmarried couples to share a bed in my home, and have done so, the fact that people are offering to pay for that bed should make no difference. 



    MRS D

    I will ask you what I have asked others who post similar entries and incidentally none of whom have remotely tried to address the issue.

    if you beleive as you do then I should be allowed to refuse to give a bed to couple just becuase they are black. Can you you tell me what is is different becuase you are Christian.
    I have also pointed out before there are plenty of professed Christians who feel racial segregation is ordianed by God.

    So lets narrow the window why as a Christian should you be allowed to decide its not a OK for a gay couple to use your room hotel or otherwise, but not a black couple?

    Or do you accept/ argue that if I play the God Card I can exclude whoever I like just a long as I play the card?

    Further explain to me why actions taken on the basis of strongly held religious beleives differ from those taken for strongly held secular beleives?

    I know plenty of folk who might choose to "discriminate" against black people, homosexuals, muslims etc etc on the basis of very strongly held but entirely secular beliefs.

    So what exactly makes action taken for religous reasons OK while the same actions taken for secular reasons are not?

    No one appears to want to address this point it seems




    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by pipeman64 (U14427317) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    I wonder if there is such a law?
    Are hotel owners compelled by law to take in anyone who asks for a room? Though this [B&B] is a business; surely ASDA are not compelled to sell beans - merely to offer them for sale - is there a difference? (Ignoring the Gay rights bit just for that last part of the argument).

    Also, a B&B is somewhat different to an hotel, in as much as this is a persons home [in which they live] where they choose to accept outsiders for a lodging fee. Consequently they must "live" with the "behaviour" of their guests, if they feel they could not live with that "behaviour" then it would be unfair to demand that they do so. And - against their human rights perhaps?

    Demanding that they shut up shop if they refuse Gay guests, surely removes the B&B owner's human rights to: liberty, freedom of expression, make a living, persuit of happiness, etc.

    Sadly, I think I would have to side with any owner who did not feel it morally right to have (Gay) (Black) (Unmarried) (Islamic) (Christian) persons share their home. Although my own belief is live and let live - so, I have had Gay friends stay in my home. But, that is because I do not have a "moral" problem with "Gay", whilst not being from that back ground myself - nor am I religious, or racist.

    This argument is about human rights - not just about Gay rights. We must accept that there are myriad views held in this "multicultural" land and learn to accept them. No law exists (or could exist) to force us to accept Gay persons into our homes - is that B&B so very different? I agree the owners displayed a bigotted outlook, but do they not have a [right] to?

    Lastly - only last year did it become illegal for one person to own another (a slave) in the UK. What if the prospective customer (in 2001 perhaps) had demanded a room and a kennel for their slave - would you have forced them to accept this situation?

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Surabaya Johnny (U1163609) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    In reply to pipeman64:

    << surely ASDA are not compelled to sell beans - merely to offer them for sale - is there a difference? >>

    No. If ASDA refused to sell you a tin of beans merely because you're gay, then they'd be breaking the law just the same as the B&B was!

    << This argument is about human rights - not just about Gay rights. We must accept that there are myriad views held in this "multicultural" land and learn to accept them. No law exists (or could exist) to force us to accept Gay persons into our homes - is that B&B so very different? >>

    Yes, because it's a business. And you're right, it is about human rights, not gay rights specifically. For instance, a gay B&B has equally no right to turn away a couple because they are heterosexual.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by DoctorDolots (U14165929) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    You are rather confused as well as a writer of poor English. You should perhaps read through your post before clicking the post message button in future. You are also confused about this whole issue. B&Bs are in the public sphere and operating a service 'to the public' for money. The law clearly states you may not, whatever your personal beliefs, discriminate against potential customers. Which part of that don't you understand? I bigots, whether religious or another excuse, want to live by their bigotted 'beliefs' they must avoid any business serving the public, some of whom they clearly despise and refuse to have anything to do with. If this couple had been turned away because they were black, it would be clear racism and, despite the owners being sincere religious racists would have been illegal. Nothing to do with Blair, but then people of 'faith' usually are very confused, it goes with believing in an imaginary friend.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by DoctorDolots (U14165929) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011

    Apparently not 'fought and won in the last centruy' if it's still with us. It's this kind of muddled thinking we have to tolerate from religious fantasists all the time. They deny logic and when you point out their illogicality they cry foul. If you know of anyone being tortured, rfused education of clean water in the UK, report it immediately, it's against the law! If you mean in other countries, that's another matter and not part of this debate. Some other countries, usually the backward religious ones, still murder homosexuals, ie. Uganda. They may or may not have clean water.

    Report message38

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.