Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay rights under challenge

LGBT UK Gay rights

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 09:54 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/6243323.stm

Quote

New laws banning discrimination against gay people in the provision of goods and services face a Lords challenge.

The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been criticised by some religious groups who say people will not be allowed to act according to faith.

Quote

gay rights group Outrage's Peter Tatchell said no mainstream religious groups were supporting the protest

That's something at least.

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Quote

Barrister Thomas Cordrey, from the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, which has organised the rally, denied the group was homophobic, saying the regulations did not "strike the correct balance".

He said: "Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong."

Or in other words, they do want to discriminate.

Quote

Labour MP and Equality Act campaigner Angela Eagle told the BBC's Today programme: "We're not curtailing religious freedom, people can argue against the practice of homosexuality if they must.

"What this law does is say it's wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'...That is right, proper and moderate."

Quote

And Alan Wardle, spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, told BBC News: "Some of the things that we've come across are where schools aren't tackling homophobic bullying properly, where people have been struck off by GPs because they were gay.

"These laws will prevent that kind of discrimination - not some of the lurid things that have been said about forcing people to promote a gay lifestyle."

Edited by Godeskian, 09 January 2007 - 09:55 AM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#2 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:06 AM

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

If you dopn't want to provide service for everyone, close the Hotel.
Can't Touch This!!

#3 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:35 AM

The real issue is that the Westminster government imposed this law on Northern Ireland without the amount of consultation they said there would be, no proper debate or anything.
And I can't think of a least accepting part of the UK to force to 'try out' this legislation than Ulster.
Andromeda, Star Trek (all shows) and Doctor Who franchise episode transcripts.


Just because I didn't post a reply doesn't mean I wasn't tempted to.

#4 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 12:51 PM

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Um, you can't MAKE a religious group support gay marriage.
Posted Image

#5 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:38 PM

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 11:06 AM, said:

If you dopn't want to provide service for everyone, close the Hotel.

Sorry Hotels have a clause at the door. Management reserves the right to refuse service. Otherwise how do you refuse service to a woman who has been arrested in your hotel for prostitution. That can be expanded by managemnet to do what they want to do.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#6 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 04:32 PM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Um, you can't MAKE a religious group support gay marriage.


I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.
Can't Touch This!!

#7 Pixiedust

Pixiedust

    Still the stupidest member of the party

  • Islander
  • 7,901 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 05:42 PM

View PostG1223, on Jan 9 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

Sorry Hotels have a clause at the door. Management reserves the right to refuse service. Otherwise how do you refuse service to a woman who has been arrested in your hotel for prostitution. That can be expanded by managemnet to do what they want to do.

But the woman who has been arrested in your hotel for prostitution has done something for her ban, a gay couple who simply wants a room for the night has not. Imagine if a hotel turned away customers for having the wrong colour skin, would people be able to see their side of the argument then?
Posted Image

#8 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 06:26 PM

The sign gives carte blanch to the hotel banning anyone they feel is going to be a problem. But it must be posted and some businesses to avoid the possible lawsuit do not post it. I am only giving an example of how a business can choose who to do business with.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#9 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 07:18 PM

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Um, you can't MAKE a religious group support gay marriage.


I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.


It sounds like what they're saying is that if a church has an auxilliary space (like a reception hall)-which in my experience is not at all uncommon, they can be required to allow that hall to be used for gay wedding receptions.  And I don't think that's right.
Posted Image

#10 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 07:59 PM

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.
It says Hall for churches...  So that implies something like a pavilion or dinner hall that you would rent the space for after a wedding or other event.  So it would most likely be on church grounds.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#11 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 08:49 PM

Quote

But the woman who has been arrested in your hotel for prostitution has done something for her ban, a gay couple who simply wants a room for the night has not. Imagine if a hotel turned away customers for having the wrong colour skin, would people be able to see their side of the argument then?

What Beka's Playgirl said.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#12 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 09:00 PM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 07:18 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Um, you can't MAKE a religious group support gay marriage.


I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.


It sounds like what they're saying is that if a church has an auxilliary space (like a reception hall)-which in my experience is not at all uncommon, they can be required to allow that hall to be used for gay wedding receptions.  And I don't think that's right.

If, in place of "gay," you substitute "mixed race marriage," does that change your opinion?  (I'm not sure where I stand on this--Since it's a church, my gut reaction is to agree with you, but I admit I haven't given it much thought -- and of course, England doesn't have separation of church and state.)

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#13 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:11 PM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Um, you can't MAKE a religious group support gay marriage.


I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.


It sounds like what they're saying is that if a church has an auxilliary space (like a reception hall)-which in my experience is not at all uncommon, they can be required to allow that hall to be used for gay wedding receptions.  And I don't think that's right.

Agreed.
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#14 Raina

Raina

    Cpt. Raina 'Starlee'

  • Validation Team
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 04:27 AM

The challenge failed.

BBC News said:

New rules outlawing businesses from discriminating against homosexuals have been upheld in the House of Lords.

A challenge led by Lord Morrow of the Democratic Unionist Party failed by a margin of three to one.

Article here

Edited by Raina, 10 January 2007 - 04:28 AM.


"First thing they tell you is to assume you're already dead... dead men don't get scared or freeze up under fire. Me, I'm just worried that hell's gonna be a lonely place. And I'm gonna fill it up with every toaster son of a bitch I find." -Racetrack

"I believe what goes around comes around and if I am the instrument of 'coming round' then I'll do it happily. " -Shal


Viper Squadron CAG
Roman Warrior
Browncoat

#15 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 11:47 AM

Fair enough. They should have emphasised the procedural issues, not the 'religious' ones.

I do feel sorry for the couples who occasionally rent out rooms and have a few house rules about what they will or will not allow under their roof, but maybe they need to sit down and decide if they follow Christ's teaching in the Gospels or the Old Testament instead.
Andromeda, Star Trek (all shows) and Doctor Who franchise episode transcripts.


Just because I didn't post a reply doesn't mean I wasn't tempted to.

#16 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:13 PM

View PostCJ AEGIS, on Jan 9 2007, 07:59 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.
It says Hall for churches...  So that implies something like a pavilion or dinner hall that you would rent the space for after a wedding or other event.  So it would most likely be on church grounds.



If they only use it for church events, then it's private. If they are renting it to the public for different events, then they should not be able to discriminate.


But we aren't talking about the USA, so your mileage may vary.
Can't Touch This!!

#17 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 01:38 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Jan 9 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 07:18 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Jan 9 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 9 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Quote

Critics say the regulations would mean hotels could not refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Um, you can't MAKE a religious group support gay marriage.


I would think it only means that if they rent to one, they must rent to all. Churches have no business owning a Hotel anyway.


It sounds like what they're saying is that if a church has an auxilliary space (like a reception hall)-which in my experience is not at all uncommon, they can be required to allow that hall to be used for gay wedding receptions.  And I don't think that's right.

If, in place of "gay," you substitute "mixed race marriage," does that change your opinion?  (I'm not sure where I stand on this--Since it's a church, my gut reaction is to agree with you, but I admit I haven't given it much thought -- and of course, England doesn't have separation of church and state.)

Well we are talking by US standards but I think (maybe I'm wrong) that somewhere down the line, there is law that says that the state's interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of race outweighs a church's right to discriminate on that basis, though actually I might have a problem with that too.  However, I don't think most churches (at least in the US) ever had any church "doctrine" forbidding mix ethnicity marriage whereas they do have doctrine that is anti gay (as much as I disagree with it and as flimsy as I think it is).  So it's my feeling (and again I could be wrong) that in the case of a mixed race marriage you don't have a State Interest running directly afoul of religious doctrine.

You can't make a Catholic Priest marry a Jewish couple.  And vice versa.  It is the very essence of a government telling a church what to do which in turn opens the door for churches telling governments what to do (post the ten commandments, illegalize gay marriage).  

Anyway I'm willing to bet that there is no line of cases or law (again talking US) that says that the State's interest in protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation outweigh's a church's right to not recognize (let alone perform) gay marriage in direct contravention of its doctrine.  

Hope that made sense (I haven't had my caffeine yet)

Lil
Posted Image

#18 Pixiedust

Pixiedust

    Still the stupidest member of the party

  • Islander
  • 7,901 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 03:18 PM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 10 2007, 06:38 PM, said:

You can't make a Catholic Priest marry a Jewish couple.  And vice versa.  It is the very essence of a government telling a church what to do which in turn opens the door for churches telling governments what to do (post the ten commandments, illegalize gay marriage).

I get your point, but the government tells everyone what they can and can't do, and what they have to do. Why should the church be any different?

And I doubt a Jewish couple would want to be married by a Catholic priest, but if they wanted to be married in a Catholic way (and presumably convert) then I suppose he/she should.

Edited by Beka's Playgirl, 10 January 2007 - 03:18 PM.

Posted Image

#19 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 03:28 PM

^It's not like with like though. In that situation, Lil, it's because they are NOT Catholic, not because they ARE Jew. What if you have a Christian gay couple? It's not about them NOT being Christian, it's about them, BEING Gay, and that's out of order.

Like Beka says, when it's about what you're not - you have the choice, you can convert if you want to BE that thing, when it's about what you ARE - you can't change that.

...if that made any sense whatsoever.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#20 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 04:21 PM

View PostBeka, on Jan 10 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 10 2007, 06:38 PM, said:

You can't make a Catholic Priest marry a Jewish couple.  And vice versa.  It is the very essence of a government telling a church what to do which in turn opens the door for churches telling governments what to do (post the ten commandments, illegalize gay marriage).

I get your point, but the government tells everyone what they can and can't do, and what they have to do. Why should the church be any different?

And I doubt a Jewish couple would want to be married by a Catholic priest, but if they wanted to be married in a Catholic way (and presumably convert) then I suppose he/she should.

Well the reason it's different with churches is a topic in and of itself but at least in the US it IS different with churches.  It's in the Constitution and there's a ton of case law too.

sparky I hear you but that's not what I'm getting at.  What I'm getting at is what happens when the "State's Interest" comes into direct conflict with "Church doctrine".  Example:  the Catholic Church says that women cannot be priests.  We all know that in the US it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender.  But the State cannot MAKE the Catholic Church allow female priests.  Is it discriminatory?  Yes.  Do I like that the Catholic Church is full of built in bigotry?  NO.  But I believe very strongly in separation of Church and State and would go to court in a heart beat to prevent the government from making the Church accept female priests.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, UK, Gay rights

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users