[Samwest1992]

It is a very tricky situation. It is a clash between the freedom of religion and the equality of sexuality. Either way, one is going to loose out. I support the bill because I believe in the freedom of those people who wish to retain their religious values and beliefs. Religion has been an important aspect of this country for hundreds or even thousands of years. Today, homosexuals have increased rights, and rightly so. Thank goodness they are no longer executed, burned or imprisoned. Christians in the past may have believed in that, but Christians today don't. In fact, Christians today aren't calling for any punishment for homosexuals. All Christians want today is a society where they have the freedom of thought and belief. Not the kind of thought where they want homosexuals to be punished, but the thought and belief that they don't want certain activities going on inside their own home, such as with the case of the hotel owners. Homosexuals do deserve to have rights in our equal and civil society, but I just don't believe this right should invade the rights of others in every single case.

[big-bang-theory]

(Original post by MyJunkIsYou)
I intend to read up on this further but on the surface this would appear to be a complete step backwards for equality.

On the issue of gay bars and hotels, LGBT people still need a place where they (-we) can feel completely comfortable, accepted and meet other people. I appreciate that things have improved from what they were like many years ago but we still have a society where people hold homophobic views even if they are not always publicly declared.

Whilst the large majority of hotels and bars are not discriminatory in regards to sexual orientation this does not necessarily mean that attitude of the people who frequent them is so accepting. A heterosexual couple are able to express their feelings towards one another in public without anybody really batting an eyelid, a homosexual couple are not often afforded the same privilege. Until we have a society that is not only wholly tolerant but wholly accepting of the gay community then gay bars/hotels are needed and wanted.

And under the legislation being repealed here it's possible that gay-only bar and hotels are illegal for discrimination against heterosexuals. The makers of this bill are fully in support of the existence of gay bars and hotels if people want to make a market out of them.

[MyJunkIsYou]

(Original post by big-bang-theory)
And under the legislation being repealed here it's possible that gay-only bar and hotels are illegal for discrimination against heterosexuals. The makers of this bill are fully in support of the existence of gay bars and hotels if people want to make a market out of them.

I see your point. It seems a double edged sword. But if there was a complete repeal of the legislation does that not result in the gay community having no legal protection against discrimination due to sexual orientation? LGBT people (obviously) are far more likely to be subject to discrimination due to orientation than than the heterosexual community. Surely some form of amendment is most appropriate rather than a repeal.

[Wilzman]

No, I understand the need to clarify the law on sexual orientation equality, particularly in relation to the examples stated, but an amendment to The Equality Act would be a far better way to accomplish this.

A repeal is ridiculous.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by Don John)
I completely supported the legal action against the hotel owners, hence I am against this repeal.

+1

[Rhadamanthus]

Aye.

[L i b]

(Original post by MyJunkIsYou)
I see your point. It seems a double edged sword. But if there was a complete repeal of the legislation does that not result in the gay community having no legal protection against discrimination due to sexual orientation? LGBT people (obviously) are far more likely to be subject to discrimination due to orientation than than the heterosexual community.

Doubt it. There's not a great deal of commercial justification for having a 'straight club' or a 'straight hotel'. If we accept that gay clubs, gay hotels and so forth are to be legally, they can be viable commercially.

Some will doubtlessly say that gay clubs don't exclude heterosexuals, but instead provide a gay ethos. I suspect if this point was pushed, however, on the doorsteps of these nightclubs by some sort of heterosexual organisation, we'd quickly see them being more discriminating in their clientele. The sort of openness which is - currently - the only way for gay clubs to operate within the letter of the law can only work for so long as others are ignorant of, or indifferent to, their organisation.

Ultimately though, this is a more fundamentally argument. Do you think it should be legally right for a property owner to have control over who uses his premises - or worse, who can take a service from him. I was raised to believe that people who offer me a service - say, selling me something, serving me dinner and so forth - are not slaves or lackeys. As such, I believe in their right to refuse to serve me, just as much as I believe in their right to refuse to socialise with me or to have me as a guest in their home. Establishing a business is a very positive thing, yet we expect business owners to sacrifice rights not only to their private property but to their body autonomy in order to operate? We should not. For one, it's terribly bad manners.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

Division!!!