I was going to say this^. If it's legal for them to do what they want in their home, then it needs to extend to all minorities to be discriminated against, not just homosexuals. I don't know the law, but I think personally if it's not a religiously run business, it should be illegal. If it is a religiously run business, then they can do what they want and discriminate against who they want. it's wrong, but that's the way I understand it works here. and the way that i think makes most sense.
Think about it, if this became legal and the majority of public businesses decided they didn't like homosexuals, they could do what was done to blacks in the South: every business just discriminates against the minority in some way so you can't find a place that doesn't discriminate. that's why I see it important for non-religious institutions to have to follow discrimination laws. So my opinion entirely depends on whether they have religious status for their business.
How do you define a "religiously run business?" The owners of the B&B are religious, and are running their business in accordance with their religion. Is that enough to qualify it as a religiously run business? In which case the distinction would be meaningless since it would require that you prove what was and was not against the individual's religious beliefs. Does it have to be somehow affiliated with a religious institution? In which case freedom of religion is limited to organized religions that are somehow legally recognized as religions, turning freedom of religion into the freedom to choose from a list of approved religions. Are only members of certain religions, who practice in certain ways and have particular kinds of relationships with particular kinds of religious institutions entitled to freedom of religion?
Businesses run by Orthodox Jews are often closed Friday afternoon and Saturday in observation of Shabbat (some employ non-Jews to work during this time, but many close), sell/serve only Kosher foods, and do not sell or display items that are prohibited by their religion (such as fabrics that mix wool and linen, which is forbidden under Jewish law). Clearly these businesses are run in accordance with their religious practices, even though the businesses not affiliated with any religious institution. Would these be considered religiously run businesses? Of course, since the hours a business is open, what items a shop carries, or what food a restaurant serves aren't likely to lead to concerns about discrimination, it's not likely to be an issue, but suppose that it were somehow discriminatory to these things. Should the business owners be prohibited from running a business unless they violate their religious beliefs and observances?
As for the argument about how the majority of businesses could discriminate against homosexuals, I feel like a broken record here, but we're not talking about people banning gay people from a business, but simply not letting same-sex couples (or unmarried heterosexual couples) share a bed while staying at their B&B. In fact, the B&B's policy is that only married couples can share a bed there -- it doesn't discriminate against homosexuals any more than it does against unmarried heterosexual couples. Where the discrimination comes in is that same-sex couples can't be married (and no, civil partnership is NOT the same thing -- the simple fact that it has a different name means that it can be discussed separately from marriage in policies) -- it would be much harder to justify a policy that said that only heterosexual married couples could share a bed than one that simply says that only married couples can share a bed.
Last edited by ~invisible~girl~ : 27-12-2010 at 06:21 AM.
Reason: typo
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
im beginning to see more that the owners of the bnb did actually give a warning that they were strict christians and no-unwed couples but im sticking with my point beforehand. I know many christians that accept civil partnership as a marriage. So its not like the couple were actually 'un-wed'.
Some Christians are fine with same-sex marriage, others aren't. In fact, there are even churches that preform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples (whether or not the marriage is recognized by the state), but there are other churches and Christian organizations that are among the most steadfast opponents of same-sex marriage. Just because some Christians consider civil partnership equivalent to marriage does not mean that all Christians do, or that for those who don't it's not because of their religion.
Religions are not homogenous. There are differences within religions, not just between them. There are lots of varieties of Christianity, there's lots of variation in how much religion people actually practice (how often they go to Church, what holidays they observe, etc.), and Christians interpret and understand their religion in different ways. I'm pretty sure there've been several wars fought, and even a few new countries founded because people disagreed about various aspects of Christianity. Oh, yeah, and a large part of why freedom of religion was so important as a founding principle in the U.S. is that there were a lot of different religions throughout the colonies already. The major religious groups in the American colonies at that point included Catholics, Protestants, Puritans, Separatists, and Calvinists. In case you were wondering, those are all forms of Christianity, and pretty broad divisions at that.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
I don't think anybody is saying (or meaning to say, anyway) that gay rights matter less. But they're not saying that gay people can't come and stay there, they're saying that gay people can't stay there and share the same bed. It's not really comparable with saying that no jews could go, more saying that Jews could go but couldn't openly practice their religion.
It doesn't make it right, but I think it's pretty important distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by durham-red
After reading the following...why is there even a court case?
"Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).
Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you."
Seems fair? Like someone above said, they are welcome but they just are not allowed to share a bed. so the choice is easy...the gay couple go find somewhere that does or stay in seperate beds?
I dont think a straight person would be welcome with his gf(not wife) but they wouldnt expect any free money from them?
I find it hard to believe though that a straight guy with his gf (rather than wife) would have to jump through any hoops to book a double bed though. Would they be required to provide their marriage certificate upon booking? I should certainly hope so if the b&b owners wish to play the marriage card.
I find it hard to believe though that a straight guy with his gf (rather than wife) would have to jump through any hoops to book a double bed though. Would they be required to provide their marriage certificate upon booking? I should certainly hope so if the b&b owners wish to play the marriage card.
Or they could just ask if they're married. If people know about the policy and want to share a room, they're probably going to stay someplace else, and if they don't know about it they'd have no reason to lie. Plus, since they charge per person they probably ask for the names of both guests, and if they have the same last name, there's a good chance that Mr. and Mrs. whatever are a married couple, and if they have different last names, of course not everyone changes their name when they get married, but it wouldn't be that hard to just express interest in why they didn't change their name as a way of asking if they're married without being quite so confrontational about it.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
This was a total set up and to be honest makes me angry.
The couple made it clear on their policies which is fair enough because it is their home and their business.
The gay rights community set this up.
A woman called and made the booking for Mr and Mrs whatever so obviously the couple were surprised to find two men turn up. And they were within their rights to refuse. Obviously the gay rights people knew this would happen and have used it to get publicity and an excuse to protest.
I have nothing against homosexuals but it was wrong to manipulate the B&B owners like that.
This was a total set up and to be honest makes me angry.
The couple made it clear on their policies which is fair enough because it is their home and their business.
The gay rights community set this up.
A woman called and made the booking for Mr and Mrs whatever so obviously the couple were surprised to find two men turn up. And they were within their rights to refuse. Obviously the gay rights people knew this would happen and have used it to get publicity and an excuse to protest.
I have nothing against homosexuals but it was wrong to manipulate the B&B owners like that.
sorry, ive just re-read the article twice and cannot read where it said that a woman called up. it says:
'The following month Steven, from Bristol, rang to book a double room for two nights, but did not mention he was part of a homosexual couple.
Mrs Bull, who took the call, said that she had wrongly assumed he would be staying with his wife before she accepted the booking.'
I am very opinionated. I don't care if you're my mate, and i don't care how many problems you have. I will be blunt. (E)(A)
R.I.P Pingu Only Anarchists are Pretty I miss and love you so much
Urgh I hate it how people say 'they knew the rules - they shouldn't have stayed there'. But surely they are rules that discriminate, so going against them could be a good thing (you know - showing you're not going to stand for their behaviour). My opinion is that if they're going to run the B&B as a business, they cannot discriminate. If it's in their own home, and isn't allowing the public in, it might not be very nice, but fair enough. But as soon as you allow the public into your home for a fee, you cannot just go around saying 'oh - no gays allowed'
Urgh I hate it how people say 'they knew the rules - they shouldn't have stayed there'. But surely they are rules that discriminate, so going against them could be a good thing (you know - showing you're not going to stand for their behaviour). My opinion is that if they're going to run the B&B as a business, they cannot discriminate. If it's in their own home, and isn't allowing the public in, it might not be very nice, but fair enough. But as soon as you allow the public into your home for a fee, you cannot just go around saying 'oh - no gays allowed'
My understanding (which may well be wrong, if someone could find out for certain that would be great!) is that any business can refuse service to anyone at any time and not give a reason for it. It could be because they don't like people with ginger hair, or because they don't want to accept anyone paying by cash, or anyone wearing a bag. Any reason they want.
My understanding (which may well be wrong, if someone could find out for certain that would be great!) is that any business can refuse service to anyone at any time and not give a reason for it. It could be because they don't like people with ginger hair, or because they don't want to accept anyone paying by cash, or anyone wearing a bag. Any reason they want.
completely correct.
as a member of bar staff i could refuse to serve someone because i thought they were ugly.
Urgh I hate it how people say 'they knew the rules - they shouldn't have stayed there'. But surely they are rules that discriminate, so going against them could be a good thing (you know - showing you're not going to stand for their behaviour). My opinion is that if they're going to run the B&B as a business, they cannot discriminate. If it's in their own home, and isn't allowing the public in, it might not be very nice, but fair enough. But as soon as you allow the public into your home for a fee, you cannot just go around saying 'oh - no gays allowed'
exactly what i said!
and just because they can choose who comes in doesn't mean they should.
it is wrong, and thats it in my eyes.
There is no justfication in any situation or discrimination or hate. no matter what belief/lifestyle/look you're choosing you dont like or agree with.
I get comments [even stuff thrown at me] for the way i look all the time by people. So say if i had gone into a family run business and they kicked me out for my old blue mohawk or my piercings people think its acceptable because 'they run it'. lets hope to god none of you have predjudices if you own your own businesses
I am very opinionated. I don't care if you're my mate, and i don't care how many problems you have. I will be blunt. (E)(A)
R.I.P Pingu Only Anarchists are Pretty I miss and love you so much
I think that Invisible Girl's posts have been the most thoughtful and contain general common sense.I know that because of my signature it is obvious I am a christian and that will allow some of you to make judgements of me because of that.
I myself don't have an issue with any aspect of people's sexuality (providing those involved are legal and consensual) but I have to agree with the b&b owners.It clearly states that the beds are for married couples only,nothing about homosexuality. A civil partnership is not the same as marriage.
I know this will more than likely come under attack but as a Christian marriage in the eyes of God is a partnership between a man and a woman,and please don't interpt that statement as I'm homophobic because I myself have had relationships with members of the same sex and know that people fall in love with who they fall in love with...
I'm just saying the gay couple should not have booked into the hotel when it is obvious that the couple running it had strict beliefs.What about the rights of the couple who own the B&B?
“Though she be but little, she is fierce!”
20.12 .07 - Cathryn
I see valid points on both sides, and I'm still deciding how I feel about it, so I'm not going to comment on that so much.
But on a side note, I don't think the B&B owners made the best business decision. Yes, they have their religious beliefs and their right to refuse service to anyone, etc., but you know how much business they are going to lose now? Obviously there are the gay/bi couples who will avoid the place, and - as seen by the opinions in this thread - they've upset a LOT of people who support gay rights, who will also take their business elsewhere.
I'm a Christian too, but I'm not homophobic and I am not so naive as to refuse service to paying customers. I'm a photographer, and if a gay couple wanted me to photograph their wedding, I'd still do it because that's still money in my pocket. I don't think it's worth alienating my client base just for the sake of keeping up my "religious" appearance. Customers are customers, whether they're straight, gay, or otherwise.
Duct tape is like The Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
They are given the right to refuse service to protect themselves for abuse and advantage, not so they can implement their racist, or homophobic views. That's their abuse of power.
I guess it comes down to what you believe. This couple followed the teachings of the bible, the whole homophobia and all. If one chooses to disregard that, that's their own prerogative but it does make me wonder about the quality of the bible, if people are so willing to forget what it teaches for the sake of money/status etc.
I guess it comes down to what you believe. This couple followed the teachings of the bible, the whole homophobia and all. If one chooses to disregard that, that's their own prerogative but it does make me wonder about the quality of the bible, if people are so willing to forget what it teaches for the sake of money/status etc.
or on the other hand, it makes me wonder about the quality of a book that makes people think its acceptable to discriminate against other human beings
suppose it'd be hard to get everyone to agree on it =/
I am very opinionated. I don't care if you're my mate, and i don't care how many problems you have. I will be blunt. (E)(A)
R.I.P Pingu Only Anarchists are Pretty I miss and love you so much
ok i think this couple running the B&B have kind of silly views and they SHOULD view everyboxy equally etc. etc. t
but at the end of the day, they dont, and i dont understand why the gay couple would WANT to spend a night somewhere where people hold those views. Its like look they shouldnt have been refused but they have, why would they want to stay? wouldnt they want to go somewhere they were accepted for who they were?
"this is the room where you don't have to be brave"
There's no excuse for prejudice.
Discrimination on any grounds is wrong. End of.
There are, it has been said, two types of people in the world. There are those who, when presented with a glass that is exactly half full, say: 'This glass is half full'. And then there are those who say: 'This glass is half empty'.
The world belongs, however, to those who can look at the glass and say: 'What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
There's no excuse for prejudice.
Discrimination on any grounds is wrong. End of.
exactly my point :D there's no need for it and no situation where it could possibly be okay
I am very opinionated. I don't care if you're my mate, and i don't care how many problems you have. I will be blunt. (E)(A)
R.I.P Pingu Only Anarchists are Pretty I miss and love you so much
