That was quite an interesting thread, I was almost convinced to change my opinion at some points, personally I find their behaviour outdated; but eventually I but decided that I do think its every persons right to be bigoted if they want to be as long as they aren't inciting hatred or causing physical harm. If that couple wish to behave in that manner then IMO it's their right to do so (not by current laws admittedly).

Originally Posted by DTE

And its the place of the law to tell these people that they are wrong.

The law used to say that homosexuality is illegal but now it doesnt so I guess the law was wrong then but right now? I suppose laws change as society does so laws are never inherently right or wrong (in everyones eyes) but reflect the beliefs of the current administration (I was going to say people but since not everyone votes and our system of voting only really allows a choice of two parties it didnt feel right).

Even if a law forces you to do something or act in a way you are not comfortable with you will either accept it and alter your behaviour or you will find a way around it, which is why I think enforcement of laws of this nature (at this sort of level) are a waste of time. For instance if I were in this couples position I would have just said sorry we have overbooked and advised them of another hotel nearby, it would have adhered to their beliefs without causing all this unpleasantness.

My wife and I resided at a B&B run by some homosexuals in Brighton previously but if at the time they had said when we got there that they didn't realise we were heterosexual and we couldn't stay I would have been rightly annoyed, I would have visited every review website possible and slated them but I wouldnt have run to the police.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Being Black does not cause confusion for children, so having Black people in your home is unlikely to cause a problem, also being black does not actually cause any issues for any religion that I know of. There are Black Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc etc...There is no religious bar on being black...thankfully as there are enough other issues...

Do you deliberately overlook the Dutch Reformed Church?

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

However being homosexual always has and always will be frowned upon. Men cannot understand Homosexual men and woman cannot understand homosexual woman. This is a simple fact and it certainly due to the genetic way we are wired up.

This is largely true of any perversion.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Yes we should all be tolerant of Homosexuals and they usually have no more choice in the matter than Black or White people have a choice of skin tone (lets leave Michael Jackson out of this), but you see here comes another important difference between racial and homo discrimination..

Surely the great difference that no one seems prepared to consider is that the one is an activity whilst the other is a condition. Further there is nothing perverse in being of a given colur perhaps if you were 9 foot tall had blue scaley skin and a tail and passed yourself off as in some way hominid that would be different - perverse even!

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Life style, most Black people live and work exactly as most white people do, their lives are similar to that of white people and this can be understood by children and the wider community

One could broaden the issue to smell since we are inclined to smell differently mostly due to diet - I have spent time living on a specific diet using different methods of ablution to alter body odour for my safety in particular situations. No doubt you are aware that Chinese tend to find the smell of most Caucasians offensive as we are users of dairy products. (I found Yak butter tea unpleasant before it entered the digestive tract and the same goes for skhokhian!)

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

however many, not all, homosexuals give the impression of living on the fringe of society, many practice loose sexual morals and general live in a word closed to none homosexuals, as such this causes confusion for children..I accept some of this may be because their parents do not understand it, but this is natural as it is not "normal" for them.

Those that flaunt their high camp sexuality can well be expected to be descriminated against or at very least treated differently as theirs is a perversity rather than merely a perversion!

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

I think that one thing that has been missed here is the following.

The couple who refused the Gays from their home should have been asked a few simple questions.

1. If you knew a couple were not married, would you refuse them a room?
2. If it was two homosexual woman would you make the same ruling?
3. If it was an unmarried mother, would you refuse them?
4. If they were Devil worshippers would you refuse them?
5. Would you allow a Black married couple in your home?

May I counter (cowardice as I'm not answering your contrived questions as you base the question on 'enetering a home' when it was about provision of license to perversion that is in question!)

What would be your position in the instance of a 70 year old booking in with a very young looking 16 year old who seemed none too bright - Please don't cop out with 'girls on top'!

What about a 50 year old with a 16 year old?

How about a domineering male booking in with a Down Syndrome girl who seemed not to know him very well?

Do we not all have moral lines that we would not cross regardless of Law?

It was legally permissable in 1940 to gas Jews with Prussic Acid smash out their gold teeth had they any and incinerate them - that was the law in Germany as colluded with by France and a few other countries would you have obeyed that law?

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Now if they were truly judging these Guys purely on religious grounds then they would say YES to the above questions, then I would say they are daft bible bashers but they apply their rules fairly and equally and as such no action should be taken against them..

You may well consider me daft but Bible basher I am not and I totally endorse their right in a family situation to choose their paying guests - in a situation of commercial supply over that of a family home I believe legislation to be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

HOWEVER...
If they answered NO to any of those questions, then they are liars and bigoted idiots who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Just as I defend the right to be homosexual in toto I also defend the freedom to choose within one's home. No homosexual of any morality would set out to intentionally offend!

I do accept that there is a debate to be had as to when a B&B in a home becomes more than that and yes I suppose The Slyn family could call Longleate their home and run a 300 bedroom B&B but somewhere in the middle is an acceptable, if debatable, situation - the militiant homosexuals are far more militant than their perversion would suppose and as such tend to be revolting in their own right.

Morality and a codex of ethics has since time immemorial been a pendulum of intollerance, perpetually refined. As I am sure the intollerant will point out in their comments and replies!!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Originally Posted by JAMC

All inroads made into tackling discrimination of minority groups have focused on passing laws that prevent people from discriminating where previously they would have had the perogative to do so.

But we live in a society whereby in legislating against discrimination in one area, we implement discrimination in another. The intolerance of politically correct zealots simply moves to another minority group.

As the much respected Labour peer Lord Donoughue recently wrote in a letter to The Tablet, 'In the 1960s I strongly supported Harold Wilson's government in reforming the barbaric laws then prevailing against homosexuals. It is sad to see so many of their supporters now operating with similar intolerance'

We have seen this recently with Labour's law forcing religious adoption agencies to consider same-sex couples as parents, which is a glaring example of hostility towards and prejudice against traditional beliefs. The example under discussion in this thread is but another.

A B+B is not a special case because the proprieter happens to live there as well as work there. It is a business like any other and must comply with the law as it stands. Making exemptions for certain economic activities has the potential to be the thin end of the wedge - what's to say that, for example, a solicitor shouldn't be able to refuse to take a case because the defendant was homosexual? Or an estate agent would refuse to show a client certain houses because they were homosexual?

But it isn't a business like any other. It is almost certain to be a small part time business, where the primary purpose of the property is a home. Most laws have exemptions which are incorporated in an attempt to protect minorities, without this being the thin end of a wedge. This is a weak argument in any case, as a previous poster observed, the creation of a police force could be seen as the thin end of a wedge toward a police state.

Pretty soon the person in question is living in a hovel, has no access to legal representation and cannot travel overnight anywhere because no-one will put them up for the night. These things combine to discriminate against an individual by denying them access to the same services and resources that a heterosexual person would take for granted - i.e. the combined effect of these discriminatory practices is amplified and begins to seriously erode the individual's quality of life.

If you give people enough rope to endulge their own prejudices by refusing to serve people based on this-or-that, the combined effect on society is detrimental to both the individuals being singled out for denial-of-service, and wider society that fails to benefit from the contribution they have to make (which will only be realised when integrated).

You are choosing to project the issue to an illogical conclusion. There is no advocacy in the thread to repeal discrimination laws, but by implication to incorporate exemptions to protect the interests of other minorities. I maintain that a homeowner should have the right to refuse entry, or to provide conditional entry into his own home, to any person irrespective of whether it is also run as a B & B, and that for a law which attempts to force the homeowner to comply with a set of moral or ethical values which fly in the face of his/her own beliefs or moral compass is illiberal, and demonstrates intolerance by those who are usually the most strident in preaching tolerance.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

You are choosing to project the issue to an illogical conclusion. There is no advocacy in the thread to repeal discrimination laws, but by implication to incorporate exemptions to protect the interests of other minorities. I maintain that a homeowner should have the right to refuse entry, or to provide conditional entry into his own home, to any person irrespective of whether it is also run as a B & B, and that for a law which attempts to force the homeowner to comply with a set of moral or ethical values which fly in the face of his/her own beliefs or moral compass is illiberal, and demonstrates intolerance by those who are usually the most strident in preaching tolerance.

So you wouldn't have a problem with the same happening to ethnic or religious minorities?

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

So you wouldn't have a problem with the same happening to ethnic or religious minorities?

Funny isn't it? I guess it's because people feel sex goes deeper than skin colour or religion. Nice Tory chaps like the Major are fair-minded when it comes to ethnicity and God but get all hot under the collar about rumpy-pumpy. As I said earlier, just because the Major has sexual hangups is no excuse to be horrible to gays.

Anyway Major, you're still ignoring the main argument: a B&B is a place of business. It's not a normal home. I agree with you about an Englishman's right to have who the hell he wants in 'Dunroamin'. But once he starts renting out a room he must put his prejudices on one side and avoid discriminating on grounds of sexuality. If he does --->> up before the beak ---->> hefty fine ---->> named and shamed as a grubby little gay-hater in the local press.

One amusing aspect of this saga is how B&B owners who last went to church in 1951 suddenly discover they're "Christians" when it come to being nasty to gays. They're not like Muslims who tend to have a close relationship with the local Mosque - it's embedded in their culture and community. So the gay-hating "Christian" B&B owners are hypocrites and fair-weather Christians who lie about their faith in an attempt to escape the gay-hate laws. I say throw the book at them. Fine them extra for telling lies about their pretend faith.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Anyway Major, you're still ignoring the main argument: a B&B is a place of business. It's not a normal home. I agree with you about an Englishman's right to have who the hell he wants in 'Dunroamin'. But once he starts renting out a room he must put his prejudices on one side and avoid discriminating on grounds of sexuality. If he does --->> up before the beak ---->> hefty fine ---->> named and shamed as a grubby little gay-hater in the local press.

I have to disagree with you there, it's still their home regardless of whether they run a business from it or not, and it should be their absolute right to refuse to admit whosoever they see fit as long as it doesn't break any specific laws such as those surrounding race. Having just had a word with a friend who's a Magistrate (not a lawyer, I admit), he doubts whether any prosecution based on sexual orientation would succeed, or even be brought. They might be ill-advised on commercial grounds to turn away guests based on sexual preference, but if that's how they feel, why should anyone else object and force them to go against their beliefs?

Midas! I never thought I'd see the day when you would condone homophobia! Oh, wait... I see it almost every day.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Midas! I never thought I'd see the day when you would condone homophobia! Oh, wait... I see it almost every day.

I don't specifically condone it nor did I imply that; what I did point out is that people should be free to refuse to accept homosexual couples into their own home if they so wish. Big difference.

Midas, I still don't understand why you're good on anti-racism - the B&B owner must rent to blacks or face a hefty fine - but are happy if they're beastly to shirt-lifters. Is it because you believe shirt-lifting, unlike skin pigmentation, is a choice?

Incidentally, I notice rug-divers haven't been mentioned yet. Major? Do you take the line that a Christian B&B owner should be permitted to exclude button-lickers, also without legal penalty?

http://www.foster-international.net/..._foster_02.jpg

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Midas, I still don't understand why you're good on anti-racism - the B&B owner must rent to blacks or face a hefty fine - but are happy if they're beastly to shirt-lifters. Is it because you believe shirt-lifting, unlike skin pigmentation, to be a choice?

No, I don't believe being gay is a choice at all, but that's got nothing to do with it. It's simply a matter of legality and personal preference.

Originally Posted by Midas

It's simply a matter of legality and personal preference.

I don't understand. Why legally bash homos but not blacks? You're a very rational person so I suspect you've a powerful argument. Would you share?

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I don't understand. Why legally bash homos but not blacks? You're a very rational person so I suspect you've a powerful argument. Would you share?

Not so sure it's a powerful argument or not. What was at the back of my mind was that if there wasn't a law on race, you'd probably see a great many more people exercising a personal preference not to deal with those who weren't of the same colour/culture as they were. Not specifically for racially motivated reasons per se, but simply because of the quite natural, and sociologically accepted, fact that people would prefer to mix with and deal with, their own kind. I was extrapolating that to the 'gay scene' where it's still perfectly legal, and acceptable amongst a great many people, to choose not to associate themselves with what they see as morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Incidentally, I notice rug-divers haven't been mentioned yet. Major? Do you take the line that a Christian B&B owner should be permitted to exclude button-lickers, also without legal penalty?

http://www.foster-international.net/..._foster_02.jpg

Is that Helen Hunt? How do you know she's gay, is that a bit of wishful thinking? And that's the point, Christians I know would allow any homosexual into their home and put them up for the night if necessary, but should they bring a partner with them and it was clear they were going to make love then they'd refuse. It's a 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing. These same people wouldn't have allowed me to stay with my partner in their house before we were married.
Is that making a judgement? I think so and we had some huge rows about it (they're my parents by the way) but it's also their choice and one I ultimately respected. So the crux of the matter is this - should businesses run from a persons home be an exception to anti-discrimination laws? And although my instinct is to say 'no make the intolerant idiots suck it up', I also think it should be everyone's right to be as discriminating as they like within their homes.

Yeah OK I can now see it's Jodie Foster!!

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't specifically condone it nor did I imply that; what I did point out is that people should be free to refuse to accept homosexual couples into their own home if they so wish. Big difference.

No, you condoned homophobia. The couple acted in a way that was severely homophobic, and you said that it was acceptable.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

But we live in a society whereby in legislating against discrimination in one area, we implement discrimination in another. The intolerance of politically correct zealots simply moves to another minority group.

<snip>

...a law which attempts to force the homeowner to comply with a set of moral or ethical values which fly in the face of his/her own beliefs or moral compass is illiberal, and demonstrates intolerance by those who are usually the most strident in preaching tolerance.

You have hit very succinctly on the core of the argument;

Tolerance = Intolerance of intolerance.

There can be no place in a truly tolerant society for privately exerted bigotry against others. In practice it is more a question of where to draw a line in the sand.

My view: If you're operating a business that is public-facing, you must comply with anti-disrimination laws - no exemptions.

Originally Posted by JAMC

You have hit very succinctly on the core of the argument;

Tolerance = Intolerance of intolerance.

There can be no place in a truly tolerant society for privately exerted bigotry against others. In practice it is more a question of where to draw a line in the sand.

My view: If you're operating a business that is public-facing, you must comply with anti-disrimination laws - no exemptions.

A truly tolerant society will never be achieved through legislation. Whilst legislation may modify behaviour and speech through the threat of negative consequences, legislation, however much the thought police might wish otherwise, has yet to actually force people to think differently. Anti-discrimination laws do no more than spread a veneer of tolerance over the majority of society. Without doubt such legislation is a positive force, but it doesn't contribute to true tolerance; that can only come from within. Unfortunately a negative effect of such legislation is that it has made too many minority groups more equal than other minority groups, and in many cases the majority.

Rather than be honest in their opposition to certain aspects of legislation, particularly legislation related to anti-discrimination, the majority of the population are pragmatic in their attitude and find ways to circumvent it when it suits them. The Christian couple who, for reasons of their own faith, were at the centre of, what I consider to be, state intolerance were too honest for their own good. Personally I consider religious prejudice to be as just as intolerant as homosexual prejudice or racial prejudice.