Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Christian B&B owners sued over refusing gay guests can now turn away gay couples Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    If that were the case, the other option of changing the law wouldn't be there either.
    im not saying whether i necessarily agree with this case or not... but if i remember correctly ( and my memory is a bit hazy) a vast percentage of the majority of the population were against civil rights, therefore legislation is sometimes important cos how are attitudes ever going to change if people remain segregated. i just wikid it trying to find an answer and found this which is kinda funny...

    "Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states rights. "

    i dno, personally though, i think for small businesses like a bnb its more harmful to force people to trade with whom they dont want to...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    Hmm. I believe these people should have rights for the issue and be able to chose who enters their house (regardless of whether it's a business but understand it isn't plausible because it would lead to more and more segregation, taking a step backwards.?
    I still don't understand. Essentially, do you believe the couple should be able to ban black people from the hotel?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    I still don't understand. Essentially, do you believe the couple should be able to ban black people from the hotel?
    If it was based on a religion recognised by the state. I do not believe in it, but do not believe the individuals should face a back-lash from said state.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I sided with the gay couple when this came up initially, but only on the grounds that they had paid and travelled to get there only to be refused. Had the owners refused service prior to all that, then it should be up to them. If I want to do business with someone, the government can't then force me to do the same business with everyone who offers the same amount of money. Well, apparently it can, but it shouldn't be able to.

    Employment law makes sense to ensure minorities don't get marginalised, but here you have one party providing a luxury to another where there is no such problem. I think it's sad that the owners have felt forced to change their business model
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    It's my opinion, and in terms of differing opinions it's pretty cutdown the middle. You won't change my views so don't bother.
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    ...

    So ultimately, I now agree with the consensus because of the greater good only. But do not believe the couple should be sued.

    How's that?
    I lol'd.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    If it was based on a religion recognised by the state. I do not believe in it, but do not believe the individuals should face a back-lash from said state.
    Sorry, that is just outrageous.

    Bigotry and prejudice do not deserve 'freedom' to exist, regardless of whether they are in the form of a religion recognised by the state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Not really. You said it infringing on their right to practice their religion. They should not have those rights at all if they let them be discriminatory.
    But the point is people do have right to practice their religion, and they do have the right to hold those views. I never said it was fine. I just said they do, and they aren't the views of some abstract religion, they are the views of the state religion. It's not about right or wrong, it's simply a statement the law says they have the right to practise their religion enshrined in law.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinkhead)
    Sorry, that is just outrageous.

    Bigotry and prejudice do not deserve 'freedom' to exist, regardless of whether they are in the form of a religion recognised by the state.
    No rep left :sad:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I sided with the gay couple when this came up initially, but only on the grounds that they had paid and travelled to get there only to be refused. Had the owners refused service prior to all that, then it should be up to them. If I want to do business with someone, the government can't then force me to do the same business with everyone who offers the same amount of money. Well, apparently it can, but it shouldn't be able to.

    Employment law makes sense to ensure minorities don't get marginalised, but here you have one party providing a luxury to another where there is no such problem. I think it's sad that the owners have felt forced to change their business model
    Actually in law you can, as a business, refuse service to anyone you like provided that you do not do so on the grounds of particular characteristics covered by equality law, ie: gender, age, race, disability, sexuality. You are perfectly entitled to refuse to deal with someone you simply don't like, for example (assuming the reason for that dislike isn't as a result of any of the aforementioned characteristics).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenocide)
    I lol'd.
    -.- Shocking


    (Original post by Pinkhead)
    Sorry, that is just outrageous.

    Bigotry and prejudice do not deserve 'freedom' to exist, regardless of whether they are in the form of a religion recognised by the state.
    Hyppocritical, isn't it?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    But the point is people do have right to practice their religion, and they do have the right to hold those views. I never said it was fine. I just said they do, and they aren't the views of some abstract religion, they are the views of the state religion. It's not about right or wrong, it's simply a statement the law says they have the right to practise their religion enshrined in law.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They should have the right to hold those views but not to enforce them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    It's their property, if they don't want to let gay couples into their home then they shouldn't be forced to.
    I agree 100% with this, If they don't want gay people to come in it's fine as long as they're not like that in public. I kinda think the people that sued overreacted a bit tbh, I would not sue, if I was refused entry into their B&B for being gay I'd be fine with it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanS94)
    I agree 100% with this, If they don't want gay people to come in it's fine as long as they're not like that in public. I kinda think the people that sued overreacted a bit tbh, I would not sue, if I was refused entry into their B&B for being gay I'd be fine with it
    Like what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    But the point is people do have right to practice their religion, and they do have the right to hold those views. I never said it was fine. I just said they do, and they aren't the views of some abstract religion, they are the views of the state religion. It's not about right or wrong, it's simply a statement the law says they have the right to practise their religion enshrined in law.
    True, UK law protects the right of individuals to practise their religion, but that right is not absolute. Rather, it is "subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

    So it's pretty clear that one's right to practise his religion does not entitle him to breach the rights of others, nor to override the fundamental principles of democracy.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenocide)
    Actually in law you can, as a business, refuse service to anyone you like provided that you do not do so on the grounds of particular characteristics covered by equality law, ie: gender, age, race, disability, sexuality. You are perfectly entitled to refuse to deal with someone you simply don't like, for example (assuming the reason for that dislike isn't as a result of any of the aforementioned characteristics).
    Then that's clearly not being able to refuse anyone service. If I as a business owner don't want to do business with someone for any reason, why should I be forced to? From something reasonable like them smelling of illegal drugs to something silly like them wearing a certain colour hat, it should be up to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is discrimination. Not the same as a Christian minister not wanting to marry a gay couple. What if the couple are desperate and it's cold outside? This isn't very Christian or loving of them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))
    They should have the right to hold those views but not to enforce them.
    Fine but what you are saying is there freedom to practise their religion is limited in the public domain, which is distinctly different from religious freedom which is currently in law.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    -.- Shocking




    Hyppocritical, isn't it?
    You are free to hold despicable views and think to yourself (and say out loud probably) that blacks are scum and that gays shouldn't be allowed rent a room in your hotel. I'm not taking away that freedom.
    Enforcing those views in your business which is available to the public is wrong and should not be allowed.

    If a religion allows killing certain kinds of people, that should not be allowed on the grounds of 'religious freedom'. Religious freedom only extends (or should only extend) to yourself. The moment it infringes on other people's rights is when it no longer has power.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Then that's clearly not being able to refuse anyone service. If I as a business owner don't want to do business with someone for any reason, why should I be forced to? From something reasonable like them smelling of illegal drugs to something silly like them wearing a certain colour hat, it should be up to me.
    Because it's about balancing rights.

    You might think you have the right to choose who you do business with - and to a considerable extent you do, as the two examples you gave would be fine - but everyone else in society has the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of personal characteristics over which they have no real control.

    In the big fight: You v Society, Society wins I'm afraid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinkhead)
    You are free to hold despicable views and think to yourself (and say out loud probably) that blacks are scum and that gays shouldn't be allowed rent a room in your hotel. I'm not taking away that freedom.
    Enforcing those views in your business which is available to the public is wrong and should not be allowed.

    If a religion allows killing certain kinds of people, that should not be allowed on the grounds of 'religious freedom'. Religious freedom only extends (or should only extend) to yourself. The moment it infringes on other people's rights is when it no longer has power.
    The law agrees with you - see post 74.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 24, 2013
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.