UPDATED: Gay couple win damages from B&B owners (From Bucks Free Press)
Send your news, photos and videos by texting bucksfreepress to 80360 or email
UPDATED: Gay couple win damages from B&B owners
11:34am Thursday 18th October 2012 in News By James Nadal
Gay couple Michael Black and John Morgan were turned away from a B&B in Cookham
CHRISTIAN owners of a bed and breakfast have been told to pay damages totalling £3,600 to a gay couple they turned away.
Mike Wilkinson and wife Susanne, who run Swiss B&B in Terry's Lane, Cookham have lost a civil court case after refusing a room to Michael Black and John Morgan.
Mr Black and Mr Morgan brought legal action after not being allowed to stay at the guest house in March 2010.
Mrs Wilkinson said it would have gone against her religious convictions.
The story hit the national headlines at the time and led to threats of violence and abuse directed at the Cookham couple.
The verdict, delivered yesterday by Reading County Court Recorder Claire Moulder, found Mrs Wilkinson had unlawfully discriminated against the couple.
But her ruling gives the hoteliers the chance to appeal.
James Welch, legal director of Liberty, which took up the case for Mr Black and Mr Morgan, said: "Liberty defends the rights of religious groups to manifest their beliefs, even when we disagree with them.
"But it is simply unacceptable for people running a business to refuse to provide a service because of someone’s sexual orientation.
"Hopefully this ruling signals the death knell of such ‘no gays’ policies - policies that would never be tolerated if they referred to a person’s race, gender or religion."
Mrs Wilkinson said: "Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings. We have the option to appeal, and we will give that serious consideration.
"We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law.
"Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home.
"People’s beliefs about marriage are coming under increasing attack, and I am concerned about people’s freedom to speak and act upon these beliefs.
"I am a Christian, not just on a Sunday in church, but in every area of my life - as Jesus expects from his followers. "That’s all I was trying to do and I think it’s quite wrong to punish me for that, especially after enduring over two years of vile abuse and threats.
"We find this a strange justice in a society that aspires to be increasingly tolerant."
Mrs Wilkinson’s legal defence was paid for by The Christian Institute, a national charity that protects the civil liberty of Christians.
Comments (126)
12:05pm Thu 18 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
tigeran
12:29pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheekyminx says...
Perhaps the small business should have thought twice about being so small minded!
Perhaps the small business should have thought twice about being so small minded!
cheekyminx
12:40pm Thu 18 Oct 12
MrsFBucks says...
If such a small business need this sort of money, they shouldn't have turned the PAYING couple down in the first place. I am pretty sure they will lose more business over this....
If such a small business need this sort of money, they shouldn't have turned the PAYING couple down in the first place. I am pretty sure they will lose more business over this....
MrsFBucks
12:48pm Thu 18 Oct 12
sparky49 says...
tigeran wrote:Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers.
As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same.
We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
12:50pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
Good - a pity the fine wasn't more.
It's time some people realised that prejudiced views, especially cowering behind a banner of religion, is not acceptable.
Well done Michael and John for having the courage to take these bigots to court.
Good - a pity the fine wasn't more.
It's time some people realised that prejudiced views, especially cowering behind a banner of religion, is not acceptable.
Well done Michael and John for having the courage to take these bigots to court.
Bill Taxpayer
It's time some people realised that prejudiced views, especially cowering behind a banner of religion, is not acceptable.
Well done Michael and John for having the courage to take these bigots to court.
12:51pm Thu 18 Oct 12
yog says...
Good decision. Let's hope the small minded bigots learn their lesson.
Good decision. Let's hope the small minded bigots learn their lesson.
yog
12:57pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
1:13pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheekyminx says...
sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!
tigeran wrote:Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers.
As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same.
We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
1:14pm Thu 18 Oct 12
readerabc says...
what a waste of time and effort
why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
what a waste of time and effort
why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
readerabc
why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
1:22pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
readerabc wrote:Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people?
what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals?
(Hint: The answer is: it's not).
1:29pm Thu 18 Oct 12
tigeran says...
cheekyminx wrote:It was the people who ran the B&B's view so why cant they excercise their views?! Is it BECAUSE they are christian their views were totally discarded? I bet if it were a muslim couple running it and turned them away, these two gay bigots (they are bigots as they dont respect someone elses views) would be paying them!!
sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!
tigeran wrote:Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers.
As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same.
We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
1:29pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Malc London says...
Whilst discrimination should not be tolerated, I still believe a small business, especially a B&B, should be allowed to accept or reject customers if they so choose.
The ruling now makes those conditions which discriminate against same sex party bookings (Stag Nights / Hen Nights), illegal.
Whilst discrimination should not be tolerated, I still believe a small business, especially a B&B, should be allowed to accept or reject customers if they so choose.
The ruling now makes those conditions which discriminate against same sex party bookings (Stag Nights / Hen Nights), illegal.
Malc London
The ruling now makes those conditions which discriminate against same sex party bookings (Stag Nights / Hen Nights), illegal.
1:35pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
tigeran wrote:They are not bigots, what they are doing is respecting the law - and expecting others to do the same.
cheekyminx wrote:It was the people who ran the B&B's view so why cant they excercise their views?! Is it BECAUSE they are christian their views were totally discarded? I bet if it were a muslim couple running it and turned them away, these two gay bigots (they are bigots as they dont respect someone elses views) would be paying them!!sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
Christians are not above the law, despite often thinking so.
1:45pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheekyminx says...
tigeran wrote:I don't believe it was BECAUSE they were Christian that this ruling was made. It was because they DISCRIMINATED against this couple for being gay. If it was any other religion the same ruling would have been made, the issue was discrimination.
cheekyminx wrote:It was the people who ran the B&B's view so why cant they excercise their views?! Is it BECAUSE they are christian their views were totally discarded? I bet if it were a muslim couple running it and turned them away, these two gay bigots (they are bigots as they dont respect someone elses views) would be paying them!!
sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!
tigeran wrote:Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers.
As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same.
We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
1:57pm Thu 18 Oct 12
mowgli1960 says...
Did the pair(i can't call them a couple) know about the owners views before going ther and decided to make a few quid out of hardworking people,it's their house and should be able to refuse who they want?
Did the pair(i can't call them a couple) know about the owners views before going ther and decided to make a few quid out of hardworking people,it's their house and should be able to refuse who they want?
mowgli1960
2:08pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheekyminx says...
mowgli1960 wrote:It's a house they open up to the public in return for money....ie it is a business not a private home.
Did the pair(i can't call them a couple) know about the owners views before going ther and decided to make a few quid out of hardworking people,it's their house and should be able to refuse who they want?
2:12pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
mowgli1960 wrote:",it's their house and should be able to refuse who they want? "
Did the pair(i can't call them a couple) know about the owners views before going ther and decided to make a few quid out of hardworking people,it's their house and should be able to refuse who they want?
Well, actually, no they shouldn't be able to refuse who they want - and that's not me saying it, it's the law.
Would you accept a pub landlord refusing to serve black people "because it's his pub"? Or a shopkeeper refusing to serve Jewish people "because it's his shop"? Or a restaurant refusing to server a disabled person because, "well it's his restaurant, isn't it?".
Fortunately there are laws to protect Mr Black and Mr Morgan. It's a shame it takes a law really, as common sense and decency should be enough, but laws are needed because of the bigoted views of some people. The fact that some of them try to hide behind a cloak of religion has nothing to do with it. A bigot is a bigot, Christian or not.
2:24pm Thu 18 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:They are bigots, accept it! They chose NOT to accept someone elses views and went off on a 'we are being picked on' squeal! Gays are not above being bigots either!
tigeran wrote:They are not bigots, what they are doing is respecting the law - and expecting others to do the same.
cheekyminx wrote:It was the people who ran the B&B's view so why cant they excercise their views?! Is it BECAUSE they are christian their views were totally discarded? I bet if it were a muslim couple running it and turned them away, these two gay bigots (they are bigots as they dont respect someone elses views) would be paying them!!sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
Christians are not above the law, despite often thinking so.
There was no need to take them to court, they did because they could, not because it was right.
2:26pm Thu 18 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:It is there right to reject someone they feel are not quite right in their eyes! What part of their rights dont you understand?!
readerabc wrote:Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people?
what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals?
(Hint: The answer is: it's not).
2:27pm Thu 18 Oct 12
tigeran says...
cheekyminx wrote:Its a business run FROM a private home. Dont go changing the facts to suit.
mowgli1960 wrote:It's a house they open up to the public in return for money....ie it is a business not a private home.
Did the pair(i can't call them a couple) know about the owners views before going ther and decided to make a few quid out of hardworking people,it's their house and should be able to refuse who they want?
2:36pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheekyminx says...
It's a business - FACT!
It's a business - FACT!
cheekyminx
2:43pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Ivor'sbestfriend says...
tigeran wrote:Was Martin Luther King wrong not to accept the views widely held by people in the USA at the time?
Bill Taxpayer wrote:They are bigots, accept it! They chose NOT to accept someone elses views and went off on a 'we are being picked on' squeal! Gays are not above being bigots either!
tigeran wrote:They are not bigots, what they are doing is respecting the law - and expecting others to do the same.
cheekyminx wrote:It was the people who ran the B&B's view so why cant they excercise their views?! Is it BECAUSE they are christian their views were totally discarded? I bet if it were a muslim couple running it and turned them away, these two gay bigots (they are bigots as they dont respect someone elses views) would be paying them!!sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
Christians are not above the law, despite often thinking so.
There was no need to take them to court, they did because they could, not because it was right.
2:59pm Thu 18 Oct 12
tigeran says...
cheekyminx wrote:Its also a home - FACT!
It's a business - FACT!
3:01pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
tigeran wrote:What part of the LAW don't YOU understand?
Bill Taxpayer wrote:It is there right to reject someone they feel are not quite right in their eyes! What part of their rights dont you understand?!readerabc wrote: what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people? I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals? (Hint: The answer is: it's not).
3:02pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
This is all very odd. On the one hand we have two people who have not broken any law or done anything wrong: Mr. Black & Mr Morgan. On the other hand we have two people, Mr & Mrs Wilkinson, who have done something wrong and broken the law, hence the judgement and the fine. Yet we have people on this forum who would paint them as the victims and Mssrs Black and Morgan as the culprits!
I have yet to hear any of you answer my questions about justifying discrimination to other minority groups. So it seems your bigotry is selective - it's OK (by you) to prejudice against homosexuals but not other groups.
Your justification for that? (Asuming you have any)
This is all very odd. On the one hand we have two people who have not broken any law or done anything wrong: Mr. Black & Mr Morgan. On the other hand we have two people, Mr & Mrs Wilkinson, who have done something wrong and broken the law, hence the judgement and the fine. Yet we have people on this forum who would paint them as the victims and Mssrs Black and Morgan as the culprits!
I have yet to hear any of you answer my questions about justifying discrimination to other minority groups. So it seems your bigotry is selective - it's OK (by you) to prejudice against homosexuals but not other groups.
Your justification for that? (Asuming you have any)
Bill Taxpayer
I have yet to hear any of you answer my questions about justifying discrimination to other minority groups. So it seems your bigotry is selective - it's OK (by you) to prejudice against homosexuals but not other groups.
Your justification for that? (Asuming you have any)
3:11pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheekyminx says...
tigeran wrote:If you wish to make money by opening your home to be a business you have to run the business according to the law which applies to everyone whatever their race, gender or sexual orientation....and relinquish the rights you would other wise have within a private home. You cannot have it both ways. If the B&B owners have such strong beliefs (which they are entitled to) they should think twice about running a business which they feel will conflict with these beliefs.
cheekyminx wrote:Its also a home - FACT!
It's a business - FACT!
3:14pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
tigeran wrote:It might be their home, but it is also their business premises. Presumably they have top operate under a licence and, I'm guessing here, but I would think that licence says they have to run their business according to the law.
cheekyminx wrote: It's a business - FACT!Its also a home - FACT!
And we know what the law says about discrimination, don't we!
(Well WE do, it seems you DON'T).
3:17pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Slacker says...
readerabc wrote:Christians do have the same rights. If they were refused entry to a B&B because of their religion that would be illegal too.
what a waste of time and effort
why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
What makes you think they do not have rights?
3:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Slacker says...
tigeran wrote:Once they run a business from it they are subject to business law.
cheekyminx wrote:Its also a home - FACT!
It's a business - FACT!
3:21pm Thu 18 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
tigeran wrote:Ithink when you use the phrase 'not quite right in their eyes' you reveal the standpoint that you are taking. It is not for them to judge homosexuality as wrong when they are hoteliers providing a service for everyone, they are not allowed by law to do that.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:It is there right to reject someone they feel are not quite right in their eyes! What part of their rights dont you understand?!
readerabc wrote:Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people?
what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?
I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals?
(Hint: The answer is: it's not).
I love you use of the 'Ibet if they were muslims..' etc....
But they aren't they are christians, If a muslim tried to discriminate against a christian along these lines I 'Bet' that they would be found guilty of the same offense, that of discrimination.
I don't accept that christians are discriminated against, they've been, and are in a very privilaged position.
3:38pm Thu 18 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone. It is said somewhere.
.
So I have a medium-sized rock here. Shall I throw it at the landlady , the 'unwelcome' guests or all the critics of either side.
.
However I am inclined to bash myself very hard over the head with it. That's because I too am a sanctimious hypocrite and can only see the faults in other people but not within myself.
.
Ouch - that hurt ! But I haven't changed at all . How disappointing.
Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone. It is said somewhere.
.
So I have a medium-sized rock here. Shall I throw it at the landlady , the 'unwelcome' guests or all the critics of either side.
.
However I am inclined to bash myself very hard over the head with it. That's because I too am a sanctimious hypocrite and can only see the faults in other people but not within myself.
.
Ouch - that hurt ! But I haven't changed at all . How disappointing.
J B Blackett
.
So I have a medium-sized rock here. Shall I throw it at the landlady , the 'unwelcome' guests or all the critics of either side.
.
However I am inclined to bash myself very hard over the head with it. That's because I too am a sanctimious hypocrite and can only see the faults in other people but not within myself.
.
Ouch - that hurt ! But I haven't changed at all . How disappointing.
3:54pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Scarletto says...
Shame on the people who deplore this legal decision.
Time to stamp out such bigoted discrimination.
Shame on the people who deplore this legal decision.
Time to stamp out such bigoted discrimination.
Scarletto
Time to stamp out such bigoted discrimination.
4:04pm Thu 18 Oct 12
washondo says...
Yes a legal decision.
If, however, this is the "Democracy" you want, when one can be bullied and coerced by a tiny minority because of their religion, where lies dictatorship?
Yes a legal decision.
If, however, this is the "Democracy" you want, when one can be bullied and coerced by a tiny minority because of their religion, where lies dictatorship?
washondo
If, however, this is the "Democracy" you want, when one can be bullied and coerced by a tiny minority because of their religion, where lies dictatorship?
4:56pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Malc London says...
I do believe the Christians are being discriminaated against.
Could someone take legal action against a Jewish B&B not serving bacon for breakfast?
I do believe the Christians are being discriminaated against.
Could someone take legal action against a Jewish B&B not serving bacon for breakfast?
Malc London
Could someone take legal action against a Jewish B&B not serving bacon for breakfast?
6:28pm Thu 18 Oct 12
deecee01 says...
sparky49 wrote:'breeders', I didn't know bigot gays called heterosexuals that!
tigeran wrote:Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers.
As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same.
We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So it's alright for them to call people 'breeders' but they soon bleat if they are called po0fs, n@ncy boys, etc.
If there were no breeders, there would be no gays, end of, so breeders have their uses.
6:41pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:In the hope that you can't (rather than won't) understand, perhaps an explanation might be in order?
readerabc wrote: what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people? I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals? (Hint: The answer is: it's not).
To a practising Christian (unlike your word in quotation marks) homosexuality is a sin, and allowing a sin, in your home, is unthinkable.
Your other "examples" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, since no true Christian would think of operating under those parameters, but that, of course, lessens the (perceived by you) strength of your argument.
Under Christian beliefs (law, if you like) certain behaviour is mandatory, and it has been around for over 2000 years.
And, no, I'm not a practising Christian, just a simple soul who hates to see the truth twisted to fit the dogma.
7:04pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Emma179 says...
The term bigot is thrown around very readily these days. It is not bigoted to hold a belief that it is wrong for same sex people to sleep with each other. Presumably they would have been more than welcome to have separate bedrooms. I believe the B&B had a similar view about unmarried couples sharing a room. I'm not afraid to admit this is also my belief. I don't go around bashing people on the head with my views or getting super offended when people don't agree with me. I do take offence to being called a bigot just because I am a Christian though. I am quite alarmed at how anti-Christian people seem to be these days.
The term bigot is thrown around very readily these days. It is not bigoted to hold a belief that it is wrong for same sex people to sleep with each other. Presumably they would have been more than welcome to have separate bedrooms. I believe the B&B had a similar view about unmarried couples sharing a room. I'm not afraid to admit this is also my belief. I don't go around bashing people on the head with my views or getting super offended when people don't agree with me. I do take offence to being called a bigot just because I am a Christian though. I am quite alarmed at how anti-Christian people seem to be these days.
Emma179
7:08pm Thu 18 Oct 12
washondo says...
Slacker wrote:Could that be the same business law as governs halal burtchery? The one which is ignored.
tigeran wrote:Once they run a business from it they are subject to business law.
cheekyminx wrote:Its also a home - FACT!
It's a business - FACT!
8:10pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:Boy! Am I glad there are laws to protect people from people like you!
Bill Taxpayer wrote:In the hope that you can't (rather than won't) understand, perhaps an explanation might be in order?
readerabc wrote: what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people? I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals? (Hint: The answer is: it's not).
To a practising Christian (unlike your word in quotation marks) homosexuality is a sin, and allowing a sin, in your home, is unthinkable.
Your other "examples" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, since no true Christian would think of operating under those parameters, but that, of course, lessens the (perceived by you) strength of your argument.
Under Christian beliefs (law, if you like) certain behaviour is mandatory, and it has been around for over 2000 years.
And, no, I'm not a practising Christian, just a simple soul who hates to see the truth twisted to fit the dogma.
It's not their home, it is their business premises and it has to operate within the law.
If they don't want to work to the law, then don't run a business, simple as that, then they can keep their ridiculous prejudices to themselves (that would be a relief to us all!)
Christians are not above the law, though some of them think they are.
8:39pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Stalemate says...
I know a chap who runs a small hotel in South Bucks with whom I discussed this case when it first hit the headlines several months ago.
In his estimation, as many as 40% of couples, whatever their orientation, engage in jiggy-jiggy whilst staying on his premises; all to do with the fun and freedom of being away.
This does mean that my friend must be on top of his game in the laundry department when it comes to bed linen.
Simply put, he must send away sheets smeared in fecal matter as a result of homosexual intercourse for a specialised wash. It really is a major inconvenience to his business.
Should a business person not be able to raise such a legitimate business concern?
I know a chap who runs a small hotel in South Bucks with whom I discussed this case when it first hit the headlines several months ago.
In his estimation, as many as 40% of couples, whatever their orientation, engage in jiggy-jiggy whilst staying on his premises; all to do with the fun and freedom of being away.
This does mean that my friend must be on top of his game in the laundry department when it comes to bed linen.
Simply put, he must send away sheets smeared in fecal matter as a result of homosexual intercourse for a specialised wash. It really is a major inconvenience to his business.
Should a business person not be able to raise such a legitimate business concern?
Stalemate
In his estimation, as many as 40% of couples, whatever their orientation, engage in jiggy-jiggy whilst staying on his premises; all to do with the fun and freedom of being away.
This does mean that my friend must be on top of his game in the laundry department when it comes to bed linen.
Simply put, he must send away sheets smeared in fecal matter as a result of homosexual intercourse for a specialised wash. It really is a major inconvenience to his business.
Should a business person not be able to raise such a legitimate business concern?
9:20pm Thu 18 Oct 12
cheesepie says...
if i had a hotel i would never let 2 gays stay. what is this world coming too
if i had a hotel i would never let 2 gays stay. what is this world coming too
cheesepie
9:39pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:And what harm am I about to perpetrate on "people," pray? What sort of criminal activity do you know that I'm part of?
Edgar Brooks wrote:Boy! Am I glad there are laws to protect people from people like you! It's not their home, it is their business premises and it has to operate within the law. If they don't want to work to the law, then don't run a business, simple as that, then they can keep their ridiculous prejudices to themselves (that would be a relief to us all!) Christians are not above the law, though some of them think they are.Bill Taxpayer wrote:In the hope that you can't (rather than won't) understand, perhaps an explanation might be in order? To a practising Christian (unlike your word in quotation marks) homosexuality is a sin, and allowing a sin, in your home, is unthinkable. Your other "examples" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, since no true Christian would think of operating under those parameters, but that, of course, lessens the (perceived by you) strength of your argument. Under Christian beliefs (law, if you like) certain behaviour is mandatory, and it has been around for over 2000 years. And, no, I'm not a practising Christian, just a simple soul who hates to see the truth twisted to fit the dogma.readerabc wrote: what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people? I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals? (Hint: The answer is: it's not).
You shout and holler, then, when someone gives you a reason, you change tack, and scream about something else.
You delight in giving a range of "What if" scenarios (which no true Christian would consider,) so let me give you a few.
Would you, during daylight hours, force a Muslim to eat or drink during Ramadan? Would you force a Hindu to eat meat from a cow? Would you force an Islamist, or someone from Judea, to eat pork? If not, why are you so keen on forcing Christians to go against their religious beliefs?
9:57pm Thu 18 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
Malc London wrote:Yes ; it's about time somebody stood up for us pigs.
I do believe the Christians are being discriminaated against.
Could someone take legal action against a Jewish B&B not serving bacon for breakfast?
.
Some people say we are dirty disgusting filthy animals and should be shunned in all aspects of life.
And also that we are not even suitable for human consumption. Well I can tell that our cooked flesh is both delicious and nutritious , I can tell you. Some of us have even been known to eat it ourselves - in tight corners. Humans do that as well.
.
Some people say if you eat pig flesh you are accursed in life and after death are condemned to an eternal existence of unbearable excruciating pain and torture.
.
Just for eating or even touching a piece of bacon !!!!
,.
We pigs find you humans quite funny and very difficult to understand sometimes. You are very strange with weird ideas. Where do you all get this crazy stuff from ?
.
Don't tell us - it was a bloke down the pub or the market wasn't it ? They make it all up, you know. Or they're possibly self-deluded or misinformed
.
That's what we think. Perhaps we are wrong - but that's what we pigs believe. And we don't attack other animals because of what they believe either. Unlike you humans.
11:07pm Thu 18 Oct 12
mejaylee says...
"Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home" says Mrs Wilkinson ... well then decide if it's your family home or a business, you want to run a business then you have to be accountable to the laws on discrimination .. ..
"Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home" says Mrs Wilkinson ... well then decide if it's your family home or a business, you want to run a business then you have to be accountable to the laws on discrimination .. ..
mejaylee
1:13am Fri 19 Oct 12
Angie111 says...
I cant believe some people agree with the B&B owners and think that discrimination is OK! What a pile of tosh!
If I opened up a corner shop and said I am christian and in the bible it says we must worship God so I will not alllow any muslim person in here is that ok because its my religion? Of course its not ok, its discrimination. The owners of the b&b were not offering a room in their family home, they were offering a room in their business.
Woukld everyone that thinks what they did was ok if they was the owners of a premier inn hotel?
What a couple get upto behind there bedroom door is nothing to do with anyone but them and no one has the right to say they are wrong.
I cant believe some people agree with the B&B owners and think that discrimination is OK! What a pile of tosh!
If I opened up a corner shop and said I am christian and in the bible it says we must worship God so I will not alllow any muslim person in here is that ok because its my religion? Of course its not ok, its discrimination. The owners of the b&b were not offering a room in their family home, they were offering a room in their business.
Woukld everyone that thinks what they did was ok if they was the owners of a premier inn hotel?
What a couple get upto behind there bedroom door is nothing to do with anyone but them and no one has the right to say they are wrong.
Angie111
If I opened up a corner shop and said I am christian and in the bible it says we must worship God so I will not alllow any muslim person in here is that ok because its my religion? Of course its not ok, its discrimination. The owners of the b&b were not offering a room in their family home, they were offering a room in their business.
Woukld everyone that thinks what they did was ok if they was the owners of a premier inn hotel?
What a couple get upto behind there bedroom door is nothing to do with anyone but them and no one has the right to say they are wrong.
6:37am Fri 19 Oct 12
Stalemate says...
Angie
Business is business, most are run for profit not charity.
I mentioned above why some couples might cost an establishment more than others.
Hotel owners suffer greatly from "gay drift", that being the loss of other customers who terminate or shorten their stay on the basis of finding a gay couple at the hotel objectionable.
A kiss over the breakfast table can cost an hotelier hundreds of pounds a night. I suppose the hotelier in question should be obliged to fund sensitivity workshops for such customers ;-)
The grey pound is ten times more powerful than the pink in the hotel industry, and most hoteliers simply want to turn a profit, what's wrong with that?
Angie
Business is business, most are run for profit not charity.
I mentioned above why some couples might cost an establishment more than others.
Hotel owners suffer greatly from "gay drift", that being the loss of other customers who terminate or shorten their stay on the basis of finding a gay couple at the hotel objectionable.
A kiss over the breakfast table can cost an hotelier hundreds of pounds a night. I suppose the hotelier in question should be obliged to fund sensitivity workshops for such customers ;-)
The grey pound is ten times more powerful than the pink in the hotel industry, and most hoteliers simply want to turn a profit, what's wrong with that?
Stalemate
Business is business, most are run for profit not charity.
I mentioned above why some couples might cost an establishment more than others.
Hotel owners suffer greatly from "gay drift", that being the loss of other customers who terminate or shorten their stay on the basis of finding a gay couple at the hotel objectionable.
A kiss over the breakfast table can cost an hotelier hundreds of pounds a night. I suppose the hotelier in question should be obliged to fund sensitivity workshops for such customers ;-)
The grey pound is ten times more powerful than the pink in the hotel industry, and most hoteliers simply want to turn a profit, what's wrong with that?
8:24am Fri 19 Oct 12
Lucky Eddie says...
Stalemate wrote:So if a hotelier's regular customers found black or disabled customers objectionable, would operating a no blacks or disabled policy suddenly be acceptable.
Angie
Business is business, most are run for profit not charity.
I mentioned above why some couples might cost an establishment more than others.
Hotel owners suffer greatly from "gay drift", that being the loss of other customers who terminate or shorten their stay on the basis of finding a gay couple at the hotel objectionable.
A kiss over the breakfast table can cost an hotelier hundreds of pounds a night. I suppose the hotelier in question should be obliged to fund sensitivity workshops for such customers ;-)
The grey pound is ten times more powerful than the pink in the hotel industry, and most hoteliers simply want to turn a profit, what's wrong with that?
Would a cafe be justified to ask a group of Asian's to leave if the white customers objected.
Would a gay bar be justified to ask a straight couple to leave.
Obviously not, but somehow people people think these bigots are justified. They made their home a business, that was their choice. They therefore have to comply with the law and what the wider society finds acceptable and can not hide behind their personal beliefs.
8:30am Fri 19 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:"Would you, during daylight hours, force a Muslim to eat or drink during Ramadan? Would you force a Hindu to eat meat from a cow? Would you force an Islamist, or someone from Judea, to eat pork?"
Bill Taxpayer wrote:And what harm am I about to perpetrate on "people," pray? What sort of criminal activity do you know that I'm part of? You shout and holler, then, when someone gives you a reason, you change tack, and scream about something else. You delight in giving a range of "What if" scenarios (which no true Christian would consider,) so let me give you a few. Would you, during daylight hours, force a Muslim to eat or drink during Ramadan? Would you force a Hindu to eat meat from a cow? Would you force an Islamist, or someone from Judea, to eat pork? If not, why are you so keen on forcing Christians to go against their religious beliefs?Edgar Brooks wrote:Boy! Am I glad there are laws to protect people from people like you! It's not their home, it is their business premises and it has to operate within the law. If they don't want to work to the law, then don't run a business, simple as that, then they can keep their ridiculous prejudices to themselves (that would be a relief to us all!) Christians are not above the law, though some of them think they are.Bill Taxpayer wrote:In the hope that you can't (rather than won't) understand, perhaps an explanation might be in order? To a practising Christian (unlike your word in quotation marks) homosexuality is a sin, and allowing a sin, in your home, is unthinkable. Your other "examples" are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, since no true Christian would think of operating under those parameters, but that, of course, lessens the (perceived by you) strength of your argument. Under Christian beliefs (law, if you like) certain behaviour is mandatory, and it has been around for over 2000 years. And, no, I'm not a practising Christian, just a simple soul who hates to see the truth twisted to fit the dogma.readerabc wrote: what a waste of time and effort why is it ok to claim damages because someone didnt like you being gay/muslim or whatever yet christians have no rights?Do you think it would be OK for 'Christians" to put up signs saying no blacks/no disabled/no muslims/no Jewish/no short people? I thought not. So why is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals? (Hint: The answer is: it's not).
First, tell me which one of those is breaking the law?
9:05am Fri 19 Oct 12
Ivor'sbestfriend says...
Stalemate wrote:So if I came across a survey that found ethnic minorities spent more money in B&B's compared to Caucasians, it would be fine for me to open a B&B which refused custom from Caucasians?
Angie
Business is business, most are run for profit not charity.
I mentioned above why some couples might cost an establishment more than others.
Hotel owners suffer greatly from "gay drift", that being the loss of other customers who terminate or shorten their stay on the basis of finding a gay couple at the hotel objectionable.
A kiss over the breakfast table can cost an hotelier hundreds of pounds a night. I suppose the hotelier in question should be obliged to fund sensitivity workshops for such customers ;-)
The grey pound is ten times more powerful than the pink in the hotel industry, and most hoteliers simply want to turn a profit, what's wrong with that?
9:26am Fri 19 Oct 12
Peter Cyprus says...
I am expecting homosexuality to be made compulsory in the UK over the next few years so I have relocated to Cyprus!
I am expecting homosexuality to be made compulsory in the UK over the next few years so I have relocated to Cyprus!
Peter Cyprus
9:34am Fri 19 Oct 12
Stalemate says...
Thanks for the replies to my post, Lucky and IvorsBF.
I really don't feel that most business people have had the time to think this through.
They are in business for money and thinking through a corporate directive on race, sexuality and gender etc is just not in the to do list.
The owners in question here could have handled things very differently and we would not be having this discussion.
These kind of decisions are made every day: why didn't I get admitted into that enclousre at Ascot, why did my boy get turned down by the RGS, why did I not get offered that table....
If you contend that every such arbitrary decision should be put through the court system then society would not function.
The owners should have handled it better, and the couple shouldn't have bothered with the case as these sort of decisions will continue to be made by small business, but just worded a little more appropriately.
Thanks for the replies to my post, Lucky and IvorsBF.
I really don't feel that most business people have had the time to think this through.
They are in business for money and thinking through a corporate directive on race, sexuality and gender etc is just not in the to do list.
The owners in question here could have handled things very differently and we would not be having this discussion.
These kind of decisions are made every day: why didn't I get admitted into that enclousre at Ascot, why did my boy get turned down by the RGS, why did I not get offered that table....
If you contend that every such arbitrary decision should be put through the court system then society would not function.
The owners should have handled it better, and the couple shouldn't have bothered with the case as these sort of decisions will continue to be made by small business, but just worded a little more appropriately.
Stalemate
I really don't feel that most business people have had the time to think this through.
They are in business for money and thinking through a corporate directive on race, sexuality and gender etc is just not in the to do list.
The owners in question here could have handled things very differently and we would not be having this discussion.
These kind of decisions are made every day: why didn't I get admitted into that enclousre at Ascot, why did my boy get turned down by the RGS, why did I not get offered that table....
If you contend that every such arbitrary decision should be put through the court system then society would not function.
The owners should have handled it better, and the couple shouldn't have bothered with the case as these sort of decisions will continue to be made by small business, but just worded a little more appropriately.
9:37am Fri 19 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
cheesepie wrote:Nick Griffin asked if you could give him a call.
if i had a hotel i would never let 2 gays stay. what is this world coming too
9:56am Fri 19 Oct 12
sparky49 says...
cheekyminx wrote:Shall we start with Coutts bank, then we could add Golf clubs, Tennis clubs, The Carlton club, etc, etc.
sparky49 wrote:The only advantage this couple sought to gain is to book a room that was available! I don't see how sexuality is relevant. People who seek to "select" their customers should think twice about being in business!
tigeran wrote:Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it.
Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.
These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers.
As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same.
We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
9:58am Fri 19 Oct 12
sparky49 says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
10:02am Fri 19 Oct 12
Mr Totterdge Hill says...
I think the world just lost a bit more common sense... so wrong you can't choose who you sell your service to.
Hang on, can you choose who to sell a product or service to now?
I think the world just lost a bit more common sense... so wrong you can't choose who you sell your service to.
Hang on, can you choose who to sell a product or service to now?
Mr Totterdge Hill
Hang on, can you choose who to sell a product or service to now?
10:14am Fri 19 Oct 12
Lucky Eddie says...
sparky49 wrote:So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. Surely you must therefore believe that white supremacist must be allowed to break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. How about vegans banning anyone wearing leather etc. This list goes on.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
The bottom line is they run a business that must comply with the law. They can not choose who they want to discriminate against
10:26am Fri 19 Oct 12
Ivor'sbestfriend says...
sparky49 wrote:The bible says lots of things, that doesn't make it a good reason to do them.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
10:27am Fri 19 Oct 12
MrsFBucks says...
Stalemate wrote:What about if a couple of hetro's were at it and the lady was suffering from 'time of the month'? People do still have sex then and wouldn't those heets also need a specialised wash? Does he ask the women if they are due on and if so ask them to refrain?
I know a chap who runs a small hotel in South Bucks with whom I discussed this case when it first hit the headlines several months ago. In his estimation, as many as 40% of couples, whatever their orientation, engage in jiggy-jiggy whilst staying on his premises; all to do with the fun and freedom of being away. This does mean that my friend must be on top of his game in the laundry department when it comes to bed linen. Simply put, he must send away sheets smeared in fecal matter as a result of homosexual intercourse for a specialised wash. It really is a major inconvenience to his business. Should a business person not be able to raise such a legitimate business concern?
10:43am Fri 19 Oct 12
Ivor'sbestfriend says...
MrsFBucks wrote:I've heard that some women are into other things too which can be even messier.
Stalemate wrote:What about if a couple of hetro's were at it and the lady was suffering from 'time of the month'? People do still have sex then and wouldn't those heets also need a specialised wash? Does he ask the women if they are due on and if so ask them to refrain?
I know a chap who runs a small hotel in South Bucks with whom I discussed this case when it first hit the headlines several months ago. In his estimation, as many as 40% of couples, whatever their orientation, engage in jiggy-jiggy whilst staying on his premises; all to do with the fun and freedom of being away. This does mean that my friend must be on top of his game in the laundry department when it comes to bed linen. Simply put, he must send away sheets smeared in fecal matter as a result of homosexual intercourse for a specialised wash. It really is a major inconvenience to his business. Should a business person not be able to raise such a legitimate business concern?
I think Ivor knows more about it, so ask him for further details.
10:55am Fri 19 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Lucky Eddie wrote:"So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs"
sparky49 wrote:So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. Surely you must therefore believe that white supremacist must be allowed to break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. How about vegans banning anyone wearing leather etc. This list goes on.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
The bottom line is they run a business that must comply with the law. They can not choose who they want to discriminate against
There is a certain religion out that seems to preach that on a daily basis and not a lot is done about that but lets keep that one under wraps as that seems to be the way this country works.
"White supremasists"? Why do refer to someone expressing their christian beliefs as that? Very narrow minded in my opinion! I bet you have practised the word 'bigot' over and over so you know it inside and out! People like you normally do as its the only word you know.
11:15am Fri 19 Oct 12
Lucky Eddie says...
tigeran wrote:I never said Christians are white supremacist. But you can't justify one group breaking the law in the name of their belief and still condemn other groups for doing the same.
Lucky Eddie wrote:"So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs"
sparky49 wrote:So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. Surely you must therefore believe that white supremacist must be allowed to break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. How about vegans banning anyone wearing leather etc. This list goes on.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
The bottom line is they run a business that must comply with the law. They can not choose who they want to discriminate against
There is a certain religion out that seems to preach that on a daily basis and not a lot is done about that but lets keep that one under wraps as that seems to be the way this country works.
"White supremasists"? Why do refer to someone expressing their christian beliefs as that? Very narrow minded in my opinion! I bet you have practised the word 'bigot' over and over so you know it inside and out! People like you normally do as its the only word you know.
Free speech and expressing an opinion is totally different to actively discriminating in business.
11:19am Fri 19 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
And of course hetro couples never engage in 'bottom fun' do they?
And of course hetro couples never engage in 'bottom fun' do they?
sai-diva
11:29am Fri 19 Oct 12
John Smith II says...
Whilst I have no objection to anyone practising their chosen religion, I struggle to see the attraction in it myself.
I guess I would ask where 'beliefs' come from, are they simply 'beliefs' because that is what followers have been told over and over again, or something deeper?
Do people continue to practice a certain religion because that is the way they were brought up?
What are the origins of religion, was it a way to control the 'masses' centuries ago, by filling them with the fear of some form of eternal retribution for going against the rules of a given religion?
I am not intending to be provocative, I just don't understand the attraction of it myself.
Whilst I have no objection to anyone practising their chosen religion, I struggle to see the attraction in it myself.
I guess I would ask where 'beliefs' come from, are they simply 'beliefs' because that is what followers have been told over and over again, or something deeper?
Do people continue to practice a certain religion because that is the way they were brought up?
What are the origins of religion, was it a way to control the 'masses' centuries ago, by filling them with the fear of some form of eternal retribution for going against the rules of a given religion?
I am not intending to be provocative, I just don't understand the attraction of it myself.
John Smith II
I guess I would ask where 'beliefs' come from, are they simply 'beliefs' because that is what followers have been told over and over again, or something deeper?
Do people continue to practice a certain religion because that is the way they were brought up?
What are the origins of religion, was it a way to control the 'masses' centuries ago, by filling them with the fear of some form of eternal retribution for going against the rules of a given religion?
I am not intending to be provocative, I just don't understand the attraction of it myself.
11:38am Fri 19 Oct 12
tigeran says...
sai-diva wrote:Wehay Sai Diva!!! And I had you down asa bit of a prude!!
And of course hetro couples never engage in 'bottom fun' do they?
11:40am Fri 19 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Lucky Eddie wrote:You compared the two side by side therfore you must perseive them to be similar.
tigeran wrote:I never said Christians are white supremacist. But you can't justify one group breaking the law in the name of their belief and still condemn other groups for doing the same.
Lucky Eddie wrote:"So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs"
sparky49 wrote:So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. Surely you must therefore believe that white supremacist must be allowed to break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. How about vegans banning anyone wearing leather etc. This list goes on.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
The bottom line is they run a business that must comply with the law. They can not choose who they want to discriminate against
There is a certain religion out that seems to preach that on a daily basis and not a lot is done about that but lets keep that one under wraps as that seems to be the way this country works.
"White supremasists"? Why do refer to someone expressing their christian beliefs as that? Very narrow minded in my opinion! I bet you have practised the word 'bigot' over and over so you know it inside and out! People like you normally do as its the only word you know.
Free speech and expressing an opinion is totally different to actively discriminating in business.
11:46am Fri 19 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Lucky Eddie wrote:You are of course right, I would expect that most christians are not, and would not want to be considered 'white supremesist' but I would imagine most white supremesists will consider themselves christian.
tigeran wrote:I never said Christians are white supremacist. But you can't justify one group breaking the law in the name of their belief and still condemn other groups for doing the same.
Lucky Eddie wrote:"So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs"
sparky49 wrote:So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. Surely you must therefore believe that white supremacist must be allowed to break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. How about vegans banning anyone wearing leather etc. This list goes on.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
The bottom line is they run a business that must comply with the law. They can not choose who they want to discriminate against
There is a certain religion out that seems to preach that on a daily basis and not a lot is done about that but lets keep that one under wraps as that seems to be the way this country works.
"White supremasists"? Why do refer to someone expressing their christian beliefs as that? Very narrow minded in my opinion! I bet you have practised the word 'bigot' over and over so you know it inside and out! People like you normally do as its the only word you know.
Free speech and expressing an opinion is totally different to actively discriminating in business.
12:00pm Fri 19 Oct 12
philbo says...
@tigeran
No, in context it was clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together what Lucky Eddy was saying. If you are unable to discern a simple point like this, maybe you should give up the on-line commenting, as all you seem to be able to do is highlight your own comprehensional inadequacies.
@tigeran
[quote]You compared the two side by side therfore you must perseive them to be similar[/quote]
No, in context it was clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together what Lucky Eddy was saying. If you are unable to discern a simple point like this, maybe you should give up the on-line commenting, as all you seem to be able to do is highlight your own comprehensional inadequacies.
philbo
You compared the two side by side therfore you must perseive them to be similar
No, in context it was clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together what Lucky Eddy was saying. If you are unable to discern a simple point like this, maybe you should give up the on-line commenting, as all you seem to be able to do is highlight your own comprehensional inadequacies.
12:01pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Lucky Eddie says...
sai-diva wrote:I'm not linking the two groups, even if there is a tiny overlap. Simply using them as examples of people who sometimes justify their actions and discrimination as part of their belief system.
Lucky Eddie wrote:You are of course right, I would expect that most christians are not, and would not want to be considered 'white supremesist' but I would imagine most white supremesists will consider themselves christian.
tigeran wrote:I never said Christians are white supremacist. But you can't justify one group breaking the law in the name of their belief and still condemn other groups for doing the same.
Lucky Eddie wrote:"So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs"
sparky49 wrote:So you believe Christians can break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. Surely you must therefore believe that white supremacist must be allowed to break the law and discriminate in the name of their beliefs. How about vegans banning anyone wearing leather etc. This list goes on.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:Why did you bring black people into this.
sparky49 wrote:"These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers."
tigeran wrote: Well I hope Mr Black and Mr Morgan are satisfied. They have cost a small business a relatively large sum of money and gone to prove no one actually has any real rights anymore, its more to do with how much money you have or how loud you squeal.Totally agree. When will people stop using their sexuality to gain an advantage either in the workplace or out of it. These people are running a small business and therefore should be able to choose their customers. As for the threats of violence against them, that would be the militant pink brigade. What was done about that? Nothing probably, but woe betide a breeder (it is a derogatory term they use) who did the same. We are living in a supposed tolerant society, until someone want's to make a few quid. I wonder if they will donate their new found wealth to the Aids foundation.
So, are you saying they should be able to put a sign up in their windows saying "no blacks"?
I sincerely hope not!
The bible says man shall not lay down with fellow man. If the B&B owners are following their religion then they should be allowed to run their business accordingly.
The bottom line is they run a business that must comply with the law. They can not choose who they want to discriminate against
There is a certain religion out that seems to preach that on a daily basis and not a lot is done about that but lets keep that one under wraps as that seems to be the way this country works.
"White supremasists"? Why do refer to someone expressing their christian beliefs as that? Very narrow minded in my opinion! I bet you have practised the word 'bigot' over and over so you know it inside and out! People like you normally do as its the only word you know.
Free speech and expressing an opinion is totally different to actively discriminating in business.
12:17pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Angie111 says...
Lucky Eddie wrote:Completly Agree!!
Stalemate wrote:So if a hotelier's regular customers found black or disabled customers objectionable, would operating a no blacks or disabled policy suddenly be acceptable.
Angie
Business is business, most are run for profit not charity.
I mentioned above why some couples might cost an establishment more than others.
Hotel owners suffer greatly from "gay drift", that being the loss of other customers who terminate or shorten their stay on the basis of finding a gay couple at the hotel objectionable.
A kiss over the breakfast table can cost an hotelier hundreds of pounds a night. I suppose the hotelier in question should be obliged to fund sensitivity workshops for such customers ;-)
The grey pound is ten times more powerful than the pink in the hotel industry, and most hoteliers simply want to turn a profit, what's wrong with that?
Would a cafe be justified to ask a group of Asian's to leave if the white customers objected.
Would a gay bar be justified to ask a straight couple to leave.
Obviously not, but somehow people people think these bigots are justified. They made their home a business, that was their choice. They therefore have to comply with the law and what the wider society finds acceptable and can not hide behind their personal beliefs.
12:33pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Peter Cyprus says...
In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.
In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.
Peter Cyprus
12:51pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Malc London says...
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well.
I wonder if they could sue too?
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well.
I wonder if they could sue too?
Malc London
I wonder if they could sue too?
1:01pm Fri 19 Oct 12
philbo says...
Peter Cyprus wrote:Impressive how someone can say something so completely fallacious. Possibly the only correct part of that statement is that the UK is not a democracy (note, "no longer" is wrong, too. It never was).
In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.
2:54pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Malc London says...
philbo wrote:and the bit about the majority being on the side of the B&B, that is correct too.
Peter Cyprus wrote: In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.Impressive how someone can say something so completely fallacious. Possibly the only correct part of that statement is that the UK is not a democracy (note, "no longer" is wrong, too. It never was).
No-one yet has given a reason why a hetrosexual couple refused a double bed, should not also be allowed to sue the B&B.
Otherwise the hetrosexual couple are being discriminated against by not being treated the same as the gay couple.
3:13pm Fri 19 Oct 12
philbo says...
Malc London wrote:Do you have any evidence to show that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, or is that merely your prejudice speaking?
philbo wrote:and the bit about the majority being on the side of the B&B, that is correct too.
Peter Cyprus wrote: In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.Impressive how someone can say something so completely fallacious. Possibly the only correct part of that statement is that the UK is not a democracy (note, "no longer" is wrong, too. It never was).
No-one yet has given a reason why a hetrosexual couple refused a double bed, should not also be allowed to sue the B&B.
Otherwise the hetrosexual couple are being discriminated against by not being treated the same as the gay couple.
And the rest of your post is simply idiotic and irrelevant.
3:16pm Fri 19 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Malc London wrote:Yes but they are not gay, a minority or even bothered to mouth of like these two muppets did, thats the difference. People like the gay ones like to make a scene and show the world they have a place in society. They did because they can, its that simple.
philbo wrote:and the bit about the majority being on the side of the B&B, that is correct too.
Peter Cyprus wrote: In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.Impressive how someone can say something so completely fallacious. Possibly the only correct part of that statement is that the UK is not a democracy (note, "no longer" is wrong, too. It never was).
No-one yet has given a reason why a hetrosexual couple refused a double bed, should not also be allowed to sue the B&B.
Otherwise the hetrosexual couple are being discriminated against by not being treated the same as the gay couple.
3:40pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Bill Taxpayer says...
Malc London wrote:It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here).
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?
The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court!
Beggars belief really.
3:46pm Fri 19 Oct 12
tigeran says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:No it doesnt beggar belief actually! They saw a couple that didnt fit their views in life and acted accordingly! Yes it was against the law but very possibly they did it not actually KNOWING they breached the law with this. It is possible that some people dont know the full ins and outs of the law and unfortunatley for them they happened to do it to a couple of gays who wanted to cause trouble!
Malc London wrote:It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here).
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?
The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court!
Beggars belief really.
4:12pm Fri 19 Oct 12
tom.marlow2 says...
Its easy to find out the law on this.... https://www.gov.uk/d
iscrimination-your-r
ights
Its easy to find out the law on this.... https://www.gov.uk/d
iscrimination-your-r
ights
tom.marlow2
iscrimination-your-r
ights
4:23pm Fri 19 Oct 12
philbo says...
tigeran wrote:Try saying "oh, I didn't know it was a 30mph zone" next time you're stopped for speeding.. ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially if you're setting up a business and charging people money.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:No it doesnt beggar belief actually! They saw a couple that didnt fit their views in life and acted accordingly! Yes it was against the law but very possibly they did it not actually KNOWING they breached the law with this. It is possible that some people dont know the full ins and outs of the law and unfortunatley for them they happened to do it to a couple of gays who wanted to cause trouble!
Malc London wrote:It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here).
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?
The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court!
Beggars belief really.
4:32pm Fri 19 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
tigeran wrote:''People like the gay ones like to make a scene'' can you explain what you mean?Are you refering to gays, people or gay people or what??
Malc London wrote:Yes but they are not gay, a minority or even bothered to mouth of like these two muppets did, thats the difference. People like the gay ones like to make a scene and show the world they have a place in society. They did because they can, its that simple.
philbo wrote:and the bit about the majority being on the side of the B&B, that is correct too.
Peter Cyprus wrote: In a democracy the majority vote wins. I suspect that the majority are on the side of the B&B owners, but as the UK is no longer a democratic country, the minority interests always win.Impressive how someone can say something so completely fallacious. Possibly the only correct part of that statement is that the UK is not a democracy (note, "no longer" is wrong, too. It never was).
No-one yet has given a reason why a hetrosexual couple refused a double bed, should not also be allowed to sue the B&B.
Otherwise the hetrosexual couple are being discriminated against by not being treated the same as the gay couple.
4:37pm Fri 19 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
tigeran wrote:So we can all behave how w e wish if people don't fit our views, is that what you mean.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:No it doesnt beggar belief actually! They saw a couple that didnt fit their views in life and acted accordingly! Yes it was against the law but very possibly they did it not actually KNOWING they breached the law with this. It is possible that some people dont know the full ins and outs of the law and unfortunatley for them they happened to do it to a couple of gays who wanted to cause trouble!
Malc London wrote:It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here).
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?
The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court!
Beggars belief really.
If they run a business it is up to them to make sure they are aware of all the rules and laws that apply to their business.
Can you offer any evidence that these gentlemen wanted to cause trouble, because the evidence is as plain that the behaviour of the b&b owners caused offence and broke the law,
Now, Pass the KY.
4:43pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Malc London says...
Bill Taxpayer wrote:But the fact (accepted by the court) that the B&B owners were against non-married couples sharing a bed, should have meant they were right to refuse to allow those two gays a double bed in the same way, by treating them the same as a hetrosexual couple.
Malc London wrote: The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here). The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court! Beggars belief really.
I think an appeal is in order.
4:52pm Fri 19 Oct 12
tigeran says...
sai-diva wrote:"Now, Pass the KY" WOOHOO!! We all know what you think about "bottom fun"!!!
tigeran wrote:So we can all behave how w e wish if people don't fit our views, is that what you mean.
Bill Taxpayer wrote:No it doesnt beggar belief actually! They saw a couple that didnt fit their views in life and acted accordingly! Yes it was against the law but very possibly they did it not actually KNOWING they breached the law with this. It is possible that some people dont know the full ins and outs of the law and unfortunatley for them they happened to do it to a couple of gays who wanted to cause trouble!
Malc London wrote:It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here).
The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?
The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court!
Beggars belief really.
If they run a business it is up to them to make sure they are aware of all the rules and laws that apply to their business.
Can you offer any evidence that these gentlemen wanted to cause trouble, because the evidence is as plain that the behaviour of the b&b owners caused offence and broke the law,
Now, Pass the KY.
10:55am Sat 20 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Malc London wrote:Or maybe a change in the law to allow gays to marry?
Bill Taxpayer wrote:But the fact (accepted by the court) that the B&B owners were against non-married couples sharing a bed, should have meant they were right to refuse to allow those two gays a double bed in the same way, by treating them the same as a hetrosexual couple.
Malc London wrote: The B&B couple apparently refused to allow an unmarried hetrosexual couple to share a double bed as well. I wonder if they could sue too?It it because it is not illegal to discriminate against a couple purely on the basis that they are not married (maybe it should be, but that is not the issue here). The issue is that the B&B owners broke the law, then they wonder why they get taken to court! Beggars belief really.
I think an appeal is in order.
11:00am Sat 20 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
What I think about 'bottom fun' is that between two consenting adults you can poke what you want, where you want to.
The point I was making is that hetros also engage in anal sex, so would it be acceptable for hoteliers to give married guests a list of sexual acts they are not allowed to engage in?
Do you fancy answering any of the other points that I raised?
What I think about 'bottom fun' is that between two consenting adults you can poke what you want, where you want to.
The point I was making is that hetros also engage in anal sex, so would it be acceptable for hoteliers to give married guests a list of sexual acts they are not allowed to engage in?
Do you fancy answering any of the other points that I raised?
sai-diva
The point I was making is that hetros also engage in anal sex, so would it be acceptable for hoteliers to give married guests a list of sexual acts they are not allowed to engage in?
Do you fancy answering any of the other points that I raised?
7:01pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
sai-diva wrote:You really don't, can't (or won't) get it, do you? Introducing married couples into this is a total irrelevance, because it's homosexuality (that's two men together)which is the sin in the eyes of the B&B's owners.
What I think about 'bottom fun' is that between two consenting adults you can poke what you want, where you want to. The point I was making is that hetros also engage in anal sex, so would it be acceptable for hoteliers to give married guests a list of sexual acts they are not allowed to engage in? Do you fancy answering any of the other points that I raised?
Asking anyone else what they would do is also a complete waste of time, since it's THEIR religion which tells them how to behave, so direct your questions to them.
3:26pm Sun 21 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
sai-diva
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
10:01pm Sun 21 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
Edgar Brooks
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
10:33pm Sun 21 Oct 12
Lucky Eddie says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc.
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
12:51am Mon 22 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:Liberal people are obliged by their expressed beliefs to lecture and berate and even abuse other people who they think may possible hold the different opposing views.
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
.
History proves it - that's what liberals tend to do. This could be considered to be 'A Good Thing'.
.
Under dogmatic dictatorial strict closed-minded or very religious regimes such behaviour would not be permitted. Severe even fatal punishment sometimes results in overtly expressing liberal views.
.
However in this country the same implied freedom is also extended to more conservatively minded non-liberals too - one is glad to say.
9:29am Mon 22 Oct 12
tigeran says...
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
11:45am Mon 22 Oct 12
Dr James says...
as a friend of mine once said, ''one up the tum, no harm done''
as a friend of mine once said, ''one up the tum, no harm done''
Dr James
1:33pm Mon 22 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:The vehemenence of your argument says different.I am not insulting you so why refer to my argument as twaddle, maybe you are just not expressing yourself in a clear manner.
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
If gay men where laying in the middle of the Rye snogging or being physically demonstative,I've been quite surorised as to what some hetros will get up to, your argument would carry more weight, but because you are disgusted by some something 2 men are or aren't doing doesn't give you or anyone the right to discriminate. That is why we have laws, to prevent people like yourself discriminating against minority groups.
You are right, a shopkeeper has the right to exclude someone for bad behaviour, but not because they are gay, black or any other minority.
1:38pm Mon 22 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
J B Blackett wrote:I don't think the opening paragraph of that post is accurate bearing in mind the abuse thay I've had to tolerate from tigger, that well known liberal, and others on here. It seems to me that the conservatives are more likely to be hurling abuse.
Edgar Brooks wrote:Liberal people are obliged by their expressed beliefs to lecture and berate and even abuse other people who they think may possible hold the different opposing views.
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
.
History proves it - that's what liberals tend to do. This could be considered to be 'A Good Thing'.
.
Under dogmatic dictatorial strict closed-minded or very religious regimes such behaviour would not be permitted. Severe even fatal punishment sometimes results in overtly expressing liberal views.
.
However in this country the same implied freedom is also extended to more conservatively minded non-liberals too - one is glad to say.
1:52pm Mon 22 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
2:23pm Mon 22 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
sai-diva wrote:My rather insubstantial comment was to merely show that if there exists disagreement about a subject - be it lewd sex , prude religion , booed sportsmen , crude politicians , screwed finance etc - there is always several ways of looking at things.
J B Blackett wrote:I don't think the opening paragraph of that post is accurate bearing in mind the abuse thay I've had to tolerate from tigger, that well known liberal, and others on here. It seems to me that the conservatives are more likely to be hurling abuse.
Edgar Brooks wrote:Liberal people are obliged by their expressed beliefs to lecture and berate and even abuse other people who they think may possible hold the different opposing views.
Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so.
As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.
.
History proves it - that's what liberals tend to do. This could be considered to be 'A Good Thing'.
.
Under dogmatic dictatorial strict closed-minded or very religious regimes such behaviour would not be permitted. Severe even fatal punishment sometimes results in overtly expressing liberal views.
.
However in this country the same implied freedom is also extended to more conservatively minded non-liberals too - one is glad to say.
.
Everybody does not start or end up with the same view of life - depending on the nature / nurture balance. Even the the most primitive life forms do not all behave precisely like their 'identical' fellow creatures.
.
There is (I have discovered) no such thing as Absolute Truth - folk like Einstein and Socrates believed that - and I'm on their side.
.
Most arguments end in even more disagreement - where nobody is satisfied.
.
Or compromise - where nobody is satisfied either. Especially the ones looking for a fight in the first place - like politicians or religious people or sports fans for instance.
2:39pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.
2:52pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
sai-diva wrote:Vehemence? Oh, you really love the big dramatic words, don't you? You're right, though; twaddle should not have been used, rather it should have been psycho-babble.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.The vehemenence of your argument says different.I am not insulting you so why refer to my argument as twaddle, maybe you are just not expressing yourself in a clear manner. If gay men where laying in the middle of the Rye snogging or being physically demonstative,I've been quite surorised as to what some hetros will get up to, your argument would carry more weight, but because you are disgusted by some something 2 men are or aren't doing doesn't give you or anyone the right to discriminate. That is why we have laws, to prevent people like yourself discriminating against minority groups. You are right, a shopkeeper has the right to exclude someone for bad behaviour, but not because they are gay, black or any other minority.
And here you go, again, with your "what if?" interjections, which have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case that started all this. Also, if a particular mode of behaviour (or anything at all) disgusts me, I have every right not to have anything to do with it; it's called personal choice, not discrimination, something which you delight in accusing me of, with absolutely no proof, whatsoever.
I'm glad that you agree that a shopkeeper can exclude someone for bad behaviour, because that's how homosexuality is viewed by the B&B owners' religion.
Of course, you have to include blacks, and other minorities, as some weird form of point-scoring, even though nobody has accused the owners of doing that, in fact the only ones trying to widen the debate into that form of discrimination are you and your supporters.
3:02pm Mon 22 Oct 12
tigeran says...
sai-diva wrote:And there it is!! Yet again Sai Diva is talking rubbish!! I will finish my conversation with you here as you have proved to me yet again you dont have a clue what anyone is on about! LOL!! Threatened?!!! Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!! You carry on making accusation and assumptions (and very inaccurate ones at that I might add!) if it makes you feel better and I can imagine it would!
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
3:02pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Peter Cyprus says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:Edgar, you notice that there is reference to minorities including black, disabled and homos but none to Asian Muslims. I wonder why that is? I don't expect it has anything to do with homosexuality being a sin to them, do you?
sai-diva wrote:Vehemence? Oh, you really love the big dramatic words, don't you? You're right, though; twaddle should not have been used, rather it should have been psycho-babble.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.The vehemenence of your argument says different.I am not insulting you so why refer to my argument as twaddle, maybe you are just not expressing yourself in a clear manner. If gay men where laying in the middle of the Rye snogging or being physically demonstative,I've been quite surorised as to what some hetros will get up to, your argument would carry more weight, but because you are disgusted by some something 2 men are or aren't doing doesn't give you or anyone the right to discriminate. That is why we have laws, to prevent people like yourself discriminating against minority groups. You are right, a shopkeeper has the right to exclude someone for bad behaviour, but not because they are gay, black or any other minority.
And here you go, again, with your "what if?" interjections, which have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case that started all this. Also, if a particular mode of behaviour (or anything at all) disgusts me, I have every right not to have anything to do with it; it's called personal choice, not discrimination, something which you delight in accusing me of, with absolutely no proof, whatsoever.
I'm glad that you agree that a shopkeeper can exclude someone for bad behaviour, because that's how homosexuality is viewed by the B&B owners' religion.
Of course, you have to include blacks, and other minorities, as some weird form of point-scoring, even though nobody has accused the owners of doing that, in fact the only ones trying to widen the debate into that form of discrimination are you and your supporters.
3:05pm Mon 22 Oct 12
FH Leveller says...
tigeran wrote:Could you two just get a room?
sai-diva wrote:And there it is!! Yet again Sai Diva is talking rubbish!! I will finish my conversation with you here as you have proved to me yet again you dont have a clue what anyone is on about! LOL!! Threatened?!!! Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!! You carry on making accusation and assumptions (and very inaccurate ones at that I might add!) if it makes you feel better and I can imagine it would!
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
(I believe Mr & Mrs Wilkinson may have one available.)
5:50pm Mon 22 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
FH Leveller wrote:No - I tried that.
tigeran wrote:Could you two just get a room?
sai-diva wrote:And there it is!! Yet again Sai Diva is talking rubbish!! I will finish my conversation with you here as you have proved to me yet again you dont have a clue what anyone is on about! LOL!! Threatened?!!! Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!! You carry on making accusation and assumptions (and very inaccurate ones at that I might add!) if it makes you feel better and I can imagine it would!
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
(I believe Mr & Mrs Wilkinson may have one available.)
.
The room in question is currently occupied by an owl and a **** cat , who are planning a long sea journey - to get away from all these people with phobias.
.
I am not all that keen on cats , but I do confess to really hating owls (tawny , barn , whatever and all that hooting in the middle of the night and the the dismembered rodent carcases etc ). What a strange pair.
.
But I'm not prejudiced - as long as they don't come and stay near me and indulge in their murderous disgusting habits. It's not natural , is it ?
4:48am Tue 23 Oct 12
Foreverbucks says...
Don't know what all the fuss is about.
They should have let them stay. They probaly would have redecorated the room for them.
Don't know what all the fuss is about.
They should have let them stay. They probaly would have redecorated the room for them.
Foreverbucks
They should have let them stay. They probaly would have redecorated the room for them.
10:28am Tue 23 Oct 12
Dr James says...
Foreverbucks wrote:Ha ha Brilliant
Don't know what all the fuss is about. They should have let them stay. They probaly would have redecorated the room for them.
12:39pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Rylstone says...
Do I think that the owners of the guest house made an error of judgement - Yes, especially in todays overbearing PC environment. I am however more curious about the unmarried couple who were also turned away - how come they didn't feel the need to sue, appear on GMTV, This Morning, BBC, ITV to say how their feelings had been hurt!!!!!
Do I think that the owners of the guest house made an error of judgement - Yes, especially in todays overbearing PC environment. I am however more curious about the unmarried couple who were also turned away - how come they didn't feel the need to sue, appear on GMTV, This Morning, BBC, ITV to say how their feelings had been hurt!!!!!
Rylstone
3:40pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Peter Cyprus says...
Rylstone wrote:Because they would have got absolutely nowhere as they are not a minority!
Do I think that the owners of the guest house made an error of judgement - Yes, especially in todays overbearing PC environment. I am however more curious about the unmarried couple who were also turned away - how come they didn't feel the need to sue, appear on GMTV, This Morning, BBC, ITV to say how their feelings had been hurt!!!!!
4:40pm Tue 23 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
tigeran wrote:Thanks for that Tigger, 13 exclamation marks, a personal best i feel.
sai-diva wrote:And there it is!! Yet again Sai Diva is talking rubbish!! I will finish my conversation with you here as you have proved to me yet again you dont have a clue what anyone is on about! LOL!! Threatened?!!! Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!! You carry on making accusation and assumptions (and very inaccurate ones at that I might add!) if it makes you feel better and I can imagine it would!
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
Because I put a different opinion across you quite regularly hurl insults, but I do wish your counter arguments made more sense,
What, for example does this mean?
''Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!!''
No insults this time though eh?
4:44pm Tue 23 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?
Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.
4:56pm Tue 23 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:You can thank my education for my use of big dramatic words, good old bucks' selective system eh?
sai-diva wrote:Vehemence? Oh, you really love the big dramatic words, don't you? You're right, though; twaddle should not have been used, rather it should have been psycho-babble.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.The vehemenence of your argument says different.I am not insulting you so why refer to my argument as twaddle, maybe you are just not expressing yourself in a clear manner. If gay men where laying in the middle of the Rye snogging or being physically demonstative,I've been quite surorised as to what some hetros will get up to, your argument would carry more weight, but because you are disgusted by some something 2 men are or aren't doing doesn't give you or anyone the right to discriminate. That is why we have laws, to prevent people like yourself discriminating against minority groups. You are right, a shopkeeper has the right to exclude someone for bad behaviour, but not because they are gay, black or any other minority.
And here you go, again, with your "what if?" interjections, which have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case that started all this. Also, if a particular mode of behaviour (or anything at all) disgusts me, I have every right not to have anything to do with it; it's called personal choice, not discrimination, something which you delight in accusing me of, with absolutely no proof, whatsoever.
I'm glad that you agree that a shopkeeper can exclude someone for bad behaviour, because that's how homosexuality is viewed by the B&B owners' religion.
Of course, you have to include blacks, and other minorities, as some weird form of point-scoring, even though nobody has accused the owners of doing that, in fact the only ones trying to widen the debate into that form of discrimination are you and your supporters.
If something disgusts then yes you have every right to have nothing to do with it, so running a hotel is a poor choice of career, where the law says you have to treat everyone equally.
So I can personally choose to do an awful lot of things,in the privacy of my own home,but not in public or in the workplace workplace(like an hotel). If I then choose to start discriminating against ANY minority(does that suit, I wont mention blacks again) then I am breaking the law.
5:00pm Tue 23 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Peter Cyprus wrote:Funny that I once stayed in an hotel in Brighton whos proprieters where both practicing muslims, prayers on friday and all that, and do you know what? Their housekeeper was a crossdresser, and their clientel was very erm, cosmopolitan.
Edgar Brooks wrote:Edgar, you notice that there is reference to minorities including black, disabled and homos but none to Asian Muslims. I wonder why that is? I don't expect it has anything to do with homosexuality being a sin to them, do you?
sai-diva wrote:Vehemence? Oh, you really love the big dramatic words, don't you? You're right, though; twaddle should not have been used, rather it should have been psycho-babble.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.The vehemenence of your argument says different.I am not insulting you so why refer to my argument as twaddle, maybe you are just not expressing yourself in a clear manner. If gay men where laying in the middle of the Rye snogging or being physically demonstative,I've been quite surorised as to what some hetros will get up to, your argument would carry more weight, but because you are disgusted by some something 2 men are or aren't doing doesn't give you or anyone the right to discriminate. That is why we have laws, to prevent people like yourself discriminating against minority groups. You are right, a shopkeeper has the right to exclude someone for bad behaviour, but not because they are gay, black or any other minority.
And here you go, again, with your "what if?" interjections, which have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case that started all this. Also, if a particular mode of behaviour (or anything at all) disgusts me, I have every right not to have anything to do with it; it's called personal choice, not discrimination, something which you delight in accusing me of, with absolutely no proof, whatsoever.
I'm glad that you agree that a shopkeeper can exclude someone for bad behaviour, because that's how homosexuality is viewed by the B&B owners' religion.
Of course, you have to include blacks, and other minorities, as some weird form of point-scoring, even though nobody has accused the owners of doing that, in fact the only ones trying to widen the debate into that form of discrimination are you and your supporters.
Who'dve thought? Such tolerance eh?
5:13pm Tue 23 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
sai-diva wrote:When it comes down to it , every single one of us is in a minority of one - completely on our own , on our tod , left to fend for ourselves , solitary figures painted on the vast human canvas - just as in an L S Lowry picture.
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?
Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.
.
Are you discriminated against because you (that's the real you) actually lives somewhere inside your head and cannot escape at all ?
.
Except by using drugs like sleeping tablets , alcohol or opium derivatives etc. But that's only temporarily , as you know.
.
Still - look on the bright side - we all escape all these discriminations when we die (and we will) and the great big universe re-absorbs every one of us back into its enormous welcoming bosom and all your bits get recycled.
.
And then after a short while , you have to go through all that life thing again (except you will not know it except for the very very special 'people')
.
It's like the Hokey-Cokey - and that's what it's all about.
5:17pm Tue 23 Oct 12
tigeran says...
sai-diva wrote:LOL!! You appear completeley ablivious to just how judgemental you are!! Yes I am but the difference with you and I is that I am aware of it where as you are FAR to ignorant and stuck up your own backside to realise!! LOL!!
tigeran wrote:Thanks for that Tigger, 13 exclamation marks, a personal best i feel.
sai-diva wrote:And there it is!! Yet again Sai Diva is talking rubbish!! I will finish my conversation with you here as you have proved to me yet again you dont have a clue what anyone is on about! LOL!! Threatened?!!! Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!! You carry on making accusation and assumptions (and very inaccurate ones at that I might add!) if it makes you feel better and I can imagine it would!
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
Because I put a different opinion across you quite regularly hurl insults, but I do wish your counter arguments made more sense,
What, for example does this mean?
''Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!!''
No insults this time though eh?
8:37pm Tue 23 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
sai-diva wrote:It's homosexuality that was being "discriminated" against, not homosexuals; if those two had agreed to have separate rooms, there would have been no furore, no need to run to the press, or the law.
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't. You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
It's the homosexual act which is against the owners' religion (which means they cannot condone what they see as a sin, in their own home,) not the men themselves, and, if you can't grasp the difference, then there's no hope.
I fail to see what my feelings have to do with this, but, if it makes you feel better (which I very much doubt,) I do not condone any animosity towards homosexuals, as people (I've known, and worked with, too many to harbour such feelings,) but there is not a ghost of a chance that I would allow them to indulge themselves in my own home.
9:09am Wed 24 Oct 12
tigeran says...
sai-diva wrote:They werent being discriminated against. The very same people turned a couple that werent married away as that is their beliefs but as usual you, Sai the 'I am always right and know better than you' Diva have pointed your finger as usual without knowing the facts, and bleated!! Well done!
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?
Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.
9:30am Wed 24 Oct 12
Peter Cyprus says...
sai-diva wrote:Could I have the address please sounds lovely, just my sort of place. I bet the local mosque find it lovely also. Anyway NOTHING surprises me about Brighton and I still can't understand why the pair of queens didn't go there instead of Cookham where they would have stood out like a sore thumb. Have you passed the address on to them?
Peter Cyprus wrote:Funny that I once stayed in an hotel in Brighton whos proprieters where both practicing muslims, prayers on friday and all that, and do you know what? Their housekeeper was a crossdresser, and their clientel was very erm, cosmopolitan.
Edgar Brooks wrote:Edgar, you notice that there is reference to minorities including black, disabled and homos but none to Asian Muslims. I wonder why that is? I don't expect it has anything to do with homosexuality being a sin to them, do you?
sai-diva wrote:Vehemence? Oh, you really love the big dramatic words, don't you? You're right, though; twaddle should not have been used, rather it should have been psycho-babble.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.The vehemenence of your argument says different.I am not insulting you so why refer to my argument as twaddle, maybe you are just not expressing yourself in a clear manner. If gay men where laying in the middle of the Rye snogging or being physically demonstative,I've been quite surorised as to what some hetros will get up to, your argument would carry more weight, but because you are disgusted by some something 2 men are or aren't doing doesn't give you or anyone the right to discriminate. That is why we have laws, to prevent people like yourself discriminating against minority groups. You are right, a shopkeeper has the right to exclude someone for bad behaviour, but not because they are gay, black or any other minority.
And here you go, again, with your "what if?" interjections, which have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case that started all this. Also, if a particular mode of behaviour (or anything at all) disgusts me, I have every right not to have anything to do with it; it's called personal choice, not discrimination, something which you delight in accusing me of, with absolutely no proof, whatsoever.
I'm glad that you agree that a shopkeeper can exclude someone for bad behaviour, because that's how homosexuality is viewed by the B&B owners' religion.
Of course, you have to include blacks, and other minorities, as some weird form of point-scoring, even though nobody has accused the owners of doing that, in fact the only ones trying to widen the debate into that form of discrimination are you and your supporters.
Who'dve thought? Such tolerance eh?
9:47am Wed 24 Oct 12
Lucky Eddie says...
tigeran wrote:Fantastic, so as long as they discriminate against more than one segment of the population it's fine.
sai-diva wrote:They werent being discriminated against. The very same people turned a couple that werent married away as that is their beliefs but as usual you, Sai the 'I am always right and know better than you' Diva have pointed your finger as usual without knowing the facts, and bleated!! Well done!
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?
Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.
So having a no unmarried couple rule is ok in your book as long as that discrimination is equally applied to heterosexual and homosexual couples?
10:06am Wed 24 Oct 12
Peter Cyprus says...
Lucky Eddie wrote:The difference is that they would not necessarily know whether a heterosexual couple where married or not, but they definitely, at the moment, would know that a couple of men were not.
tigeran wrote:Fantastic, so as long as they discriminate against more than one segment of the population it's fine.
sai-diva wrote:They werent being discriminated against. The very same people turned a couple that werent married away as that is their beliefs but as usual you, Sai the 'I am always right and know better than you' Diva have pointed your finger as usual without knowing the facts, and bleated!! Well done!
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?
Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.
So having a no unmarried couple rule is ok in your book as long as that discrimination is equally applied to heterosexual and homosexual couples?
2:01pm Wed 24 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
tigeran wrote:Ah good back to service as usual, i may sound judgemental, but at least I don't resort to base insults which weaken your argument. Only 6 exclamation marks this time, must try harder.
sai-diva wrote:LOL!! You appear completeley ablivious to just how judgemental you are!! Yes I am but the difference with you and I is that I am aware of it where as you are FAR to ignorant and stuck up your own backside to realise!! LOL!!
tigeran wrote:Thanks for that Tigger, 13 exclamation marks, a personal best i feel.
sai-diva wrote:And there it is!! Yet again Sai Diva is talking rubbish!! I will finish my conversation with you here as you have proved to me yet again you dont have a clue what anyone is on about! LOL!! Threatened?!!! Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!! You carry on making accusation and assumptions (and very inaccurate ones at that I might add!) if it makes you feel better and I can imagine it would!
tigeran wrote:Refer to my point above,
sai-diva wrote:No you dont get it. You just like mouthing off!
No I do get it, ta. What I don't get is why 2 apparently intelligent people would put them selves in a position where they would break the law. If I want to buy goods from a shop then my sexuality shouldn't come into it, that's waht the law says, it should be the same if you are buying services or renting an hotel room.
I direct my questions to people on here because this is where the debate is and where opinions are being expressed. If the 2 hoteliers were posting on here I would direct my questions to them.
One thing that I've noticed when discussing homosexuality is that mostly, what it boils down to it, is that men feel threatened by the fact that some men like to put their willies up other mens bottoms,it makes them fell threatened in some way. So I would suggest that they don't think about it.
Thank you for your considered and reasoned reply, mouthing off is something I could never accuse you of.
Because I put a different opinion across you quite regularly hurl insults, but I do wish your counter arguments made more sense,
What, for example does this mean?
''Nothing to do with what any other person opposing this descision on here is on about but there you go Sai Diva knows better!!''
No insults this time though eh?
2:09pm Wed 24 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:makes as much sense as it's their religion that's being discriminated against not the people themselves.
sai-diva wrote:It's homosexuality that was being "discriminated" against, not homosexuals; if those two had agreed to have separate rooms, there would have been no furore, no need to run to the press, or the law.
Edgar Brooks wrote:The point being made is that if you find discrimination against any of the listed minorities abborhant, (i assume that you do) then why would you not object to homosexuas being discriminated against?Lucky Eddie wrote:Is their any evidence that the B&B owners discriminate against black people? No, there isn't. White people, then? No, there isn't. Disabled, then? No, there isn't. You, and your ilk, persist in bringing in scenarios that haven't happened, and are never likely to happen with true Christians, because that seems to be the way that you feel that you can add weight to your rants against this couple.Edgar Brooks wrote: Which shows that you don't get it, nor even come close; go into a shop, and behave in a way that the shopkeeper sees as an affront, and you'll get thrown out, deservedly so. As for this pseudo-psychiatric twaddle about men feeling threatened, try asking several (rather than telling them) how they feel, and you'll find that it's disgust, not fear, that drives them.So as a business owner, is it acceptable to discriminate against any segment of the population because they disgusts your personal sensibilities, black, white, homosexual, disabled etc. etc. No, run a business according to the law of the land or face the consequences.
It's the homosexual act which is against the owners' religion (which means they cannot condone what they see as a sin, in their own home,) not the men themselves, and, if you can't grasp the difference, then there's no hope.
I fail to see what my feelings have to do with this, but, if it makes you feel better (which I very much doubt,) I do not condone any animosity towards homosexuals, as people (I've known, and worked with, too many to harbour such feelings,) but there is not a ghost of a chance that I would allow them to indulge themselves in my own home.
One more time, it's a business first and formost and as such has to abide by the rules that apply to all businesses, whether they are run by xtians, muslims, jews, gays or martians.
I feel that your posts bely the fact that you don't condone animosity towards gays.
3:16pm Wed 24 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
And I feel that you seem to believe that you can pronounce on someone's (anyone's) character, without ever speaking directly to, or meeting, them.
It's to be hoped that you never choose a career in medicine, since, if you diagnose people without seeing them, a lot of your patients would die.
Try journalism, which is full of people who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story (outright lie, in your case.)
And I feel that you seem to believe that you can pronounce on someone's (anyone's) character, without ever speaking directly to, or meeting, them.
It's to be hoped that you never choose a career in medicine, since, if you diagnose people without seeing them, a lot of your patients would die.
Try journalism, which is full of people who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story (outright lie, in your case.)
Edgar Brooks
It's to be hoped that you never choose a career in medicine, since, if you diagnose people without seeing them, a lot of your patients would die.
Try journalism, which is full of people who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story (outright lie, in your case.)
5:02pm Wed 24 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
Some people on here seem to be not applying the old English law - 'Everybody is equal , but some are more equal than others'.
.
Was it George Orwell who wrote 'Two b*lls bad , four b*lls good' ?
.
Or was it the other way round (or words to that effect) ?
Some people on here seem to be not applying the old English law - 'Everybody is equal , but some are more equal than others'.
.
Was it George Orwell who wrote 'Two b*lls bad , four b*lls good' ?
.
Or was it the other way round (or words to that effect) ?
J B Blackett
.
Was it George Orwell who wrote 'Two b*lls bad , four b*lls good' ?
.
Or was it the other way round (or words to that effect) ?
5:44pm Wed 24 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
Try actually reading Orwell; that "old English law" comes from Animal Farm, as does the 4 v 2, which refers to feet (or trotters.)
Try actually reading Orwell; that "old English law" comes from Animal Farm, as does the 4 v 2, which refers to feet (or trotters.)
Edgar Brooks
11:39pm Wed 24 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:Thank you for that answer to a rhetorical question.
Try actually reading Orwell; that "old English law" comes from Animal Farm, as does the 4 v 2, which refers to feet (or trotters.)
.
To which one does not usually expect answers. Very welcome nevertheless. Perhaps I misread what Snowball said (in Chapter 3 wasn't it ?).
7:11am Thu 25 Oct 12
Edgar Brooks says...
J B Blackett wrote:Sorry, matey, it's about 55 years since I read it, and it bored the H--- out of me, so I've never returned to it, which means that I could be in error.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Try actually reading Orwell; that "old English law" comes from Animal Farm, as does the 4 v 2, which refers to feet (or trotters.)Thank you for that answer to a rhetorical question. . To which one does not usually expect answers. Very welcome nevertheless. Perhaps I misread what Snowball said (in Chapter 3 wasn't it ?).
2:03pm Thu 25 Oct 12
sai-diva says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:That's all a bit deep Ed, I just think that ths phrase.
And I feel that you seem to believe that you can pronounce on someone's (anyone's) character, without ever speaking directly to, or meeting, them.
It's to be hoped that you never choose a career in medicine, since, if you diagnose people without seeing them, a lot of your patients would die.
Try journalism, which is full of people who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story (outright lie, in your case.)
''It's homosexuality that was being "discriminated" against, not homosexuals''
shows at the very least a deep misunderstanding about sexuality.
7:11pm Thu 25 Oct 12
J B Blackett says...
Edgar Brooks wrote:So you've not actually read Animal Farm , whereas when you told me I should read it , thought you were writing with some degree of conviction, integrity and knowledge.
J B Blackett wrote:Sorry, matey, it's about 55 years since I read it, and it bored the H--- out of me, so I've never returned to it, which means that I could be in error.
Edgar Brooks wrote: Try actually reading Orwell; that "old English law" comes from Animal Farm, as does the 4 v 2, which refers to feet (or trotters.)Thank you for that answer to a rhetorical question. . To which one does not usually expect answers. Very welcome nevertheless. Perhaps I misread what Snowball said (in Chapter 3 wasn't it ?).
.
I am afraid I have to say that my faith in your texting as an impeccable source of information is now a bit shaken.
Post a comment