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

#21 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 04:55 PM

So am I understanding this correctly? The businesses no longer have the right to refuse services to anyone? They MUST, regardless of their wishes, PROVIDE services for EVERYONE? Is that correct?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#22 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 04:59 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 10 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

So am I understanding this correctly? The businesses no longer have the right to refuse services to anyone? They MUST, regardless of their wishes, PROVIDE services for EVERYONE? Is that correct?


Nope, just the opposite.
Can't Touch This!!

#23 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 05:13 PM

View PostSparkyCola, on Jan 10 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

^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.
Then if one church won't rent to you then go to a different church.  Simple solution.  A church is not a business and neither is it a essential service.  This isn't like you are being denied the use of a hotel or pharmacy.  Anyway if enough people stop using the services of a not for profit for one reason or another that not for profit is done for eventually.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 10 January 2007 - 05:24 PM.

"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

#24 Raina

Raina

    Cpt. Raina 'Starlee'

  • Validation Team
  • 6,009 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:39 AM

View PostKosh, on Jan 10 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 10 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

So am I understanding this correctly? The businesses no longer have the right to refuse services to anyone? They MUST, regardless of their wishes, PROVIDE services for EVERYONE? Is that correct?


Nope, just the opposite.
Huh? What do you mean? The challenge failed... :unsure:

"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

#25 Pixiedust

Pixiedust

    Still the stupidest member of the party

  • Islander
  • 7,901 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:16 PM

Well, during WWII shop-owners and the like would often refuse to serve Jews, and this was perfectly acceptable.

Nice to see the world's developing.
Posted Image

#26 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:19 PM

I don't know. I'm confused now.
Can't Touch This!!

#27 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 03:52 PM

View PostRaina, on Jan 11 2007, 03:39 AM, said:

Huh? What do you mean? The challenge failed... :unsure:


So it is that way then. Meaning that if a person walked into a restaurant butt naked, the restaurant would have to provide them service....Way to go. Nice to see the rights of the businesses being upheld...oh wait, they aren't. My bad.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#28 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 06:37 PM

Except...being naked is against the law (indecent exposure) whereas being gay isn't. In fact, quite the contrary. For example, clubs can refuse people who are wearing trainers - but not refuse black people. Why? Because judging based on colour is against the law, but judging based on footwear is not. Now we're talking about businesses, rather than churches here.

I too am getting a bit confused on this one, I must say. But yeah, Lil, CJ, point taken.

Quote

CJ: This isn't like you are being denied the use of a hotel or pharmacy.

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

#29 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 12 January 2007 - 03:50 AM

Well, the Vicar on Thought For The Day nailed the issue.

You want to bar gays from your hotel because you don't want to be complicit in their sin? Fine, then why aren't you barring unmarried couples from sharing a room (also sinning) and stopping people having large or extra portions of food in your restaurant or drinks in your bar (gluttony).
Using the label of a faith to try and disguise prejudice is Not Christian.
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.

#30 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 12 January 2007 - 11:43 AM

^ Very well said.

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

#31 Pixiedust

Pixiedust

    Still the stupidest member of the party

  • Islander
  • 7,901 posts

Posted 12 January 2007 - 02:36 PM

View PostChakoteya, on Jan 12 2007, 08:50 AM, said:

Well, the Vicar on Thought For The Day nailed the issue.

You want to bar gays from your hotel because you don't want to be complicit in their sin? Fine, then why aren't you barring unmarried couples from sharing a room (also sinning) and stopping people having large or extra portions of food in your restaurant or drinks in your bar (gluttony).
Using the label of a faith to try and disguise prejudice is Not Christian.

Or maybe you should refuse to let anyone in unless they do a confession in the church just before they go to your hotel/bar/whatever? You know, just in case they've sinned at some point.
Posted Image

#32 Sinister Dexter

Sinister Dexter

    You win this time, Clerks...

  • Islander
  • 1,880 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 12:46 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 10 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

So am I understanding this correctly? The businesses no longer have the right to refuse services to anyone? They MUST, regardless of their wishes, PROVIDE services for EVERYONE? Is that correct?
I work in a shop, and we have the right to refuse to serve someone without having to give a reason. If that person then lodges a complaint, we have to justify why we refused to serve them. This is intended to stop abusive customers from coming in the shop, but just saying “I didn’t serve them because of their race/age/sexuality” would probably get you at least suspended, maybe even fired.

So yes, a business still has the right to refuse: the new law just says that they can’t refuse because the customer is gay. Although I agree that the government would be hard pressed to enforce this on any church or religion that is against gay relationships.

Me, I don’t care: my older sister is gay and I know a lot of gay/bisexual people. Doesn’t bother me one way or the other.
Rommie: I just want a day where I can build missiles and tweak fire control in peace
Beka: We need to find you a hobby
Rommie: That IS my hobby

Daniel: She's Hathor, the goddess of fertility, inebriety, and music
Jack: Sex, drugs and rock & roll?

Moist Von Lipvig: Oh, all right. Of course I accept as a natural born criminal, habitual liar, fraudster and totally untrustworthy perverted genius
Lord Vetinari: Capital! Welcome to government service!

Mary Raven: ....your house smells weird
Dr Vukovic: It smells of SCIENCE!

Wooster: Why is it, do you think, Jeeves, that the thought of the "little thing" my Aunt Dahlia wants me to do for her fills me with a nameless foreboding?
Jeeves: Experience, sir?

#33 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 03:20 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on Jan 11 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

View PostRaina, on Jan 11 2007, 03:39 AM, said:

Huh? What do you mean? The challenge failed... :unsure:


So it is that way then. Meaning that if a person walked into a restaurant butt naked, the restaurant would have to provide them service....Way to go. Nice to see the rights of the businesses being upheld...oh wait, they aren't. My bad.



Why am I imagineing a naked Transformer?



Butt naked is still against the law.
Can't Touch This!!

#34 Chakoteya

Chakoteya

    Playing Devil's Advocate

  • Islander
  • 3,035 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 10:11 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/6289301.stm

And now the Catholic Church says it will close down it's adoption agencies if this law does not exempt them. They may not place many children at first glance, but they do find homes for a high proportion of the 'difficult to place' children that most average couples do not want.
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.

#35 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 11:21 AM

And so the question becomes. Is discrimination based on sexual preference worse than discrimination based on religious beliefs.

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.


#36 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 12:16 PM

View PostChakoteya, on Jan 23 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/6289301.stm

And now the Catholic Church says it will close down it's adoption agencies if this law does not exempt them. They may not place many children at first glance, but they do find homes for a high proportion of the 'difficult to place' children that most average couples do not want.

Well in the US, the government isn't supposed to fund Catholic Schools.  Under that logic doesn't it stand to reason that the government should not fund Catholic adoption?  I'm just asking, not suggesting an answer.  It's not necessarily simple.  At what point does the State's interest in avoiding discrimination against a "protected class" (whether it be age, perceived disability, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity...) override a Church's right to adhere to its dogma.  My answer actually is that the government shouldn't tell a church what to do.  But it CAN tell a church that it can't have it both ways:  hiding behind its precepts on the basis of religious freedom, while at the same time expecting government support (usually financing) without having to follow the rules everybody else who gets that support follows.  If they're trying to have it both ways then they're not asking for equal protection, they're asking for preferential treatment.  I think there's a difference.

Lil
Posted Image

#37 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 02:26 PM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 23 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

View PostChakoteya, on Jan 23 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/6289301.stm

And now the Catholic Church says it will close down it's adoption agencies if this law does not exempt them. They may not place many children at first glance, but they do find homes for a high proportion of the 'difficult to place' children that most average couples do not want.

Well in the US, the government isn't supposed to fund Catholic Schools.  Under that logic doesn't it stand to reason that the government should not fund Catholic adoption?

I don't have a problem with religious organizations providing social services -- or competing for federal dollars, as long as it's a level playing field.  Once they want *my* money -- taxpayer money -- they have to play by the Federal government's rules, not their own.  

This same thing happened in Massachusetts when a law was passed prohibiting discrimination in adoption on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Catholic Charities of Boston announced if it could no longer discriminate against gay couples, it was getting out of the adoption business -- and it followed-through on that threat, which is a shame.

Quote

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

#38 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 02:45 PM

Quote

I don't have a problem with religious organizations providing social services -- or competing for federal dollars, as long as it's a level playing field. Once they want *my* money -- taxpayer money -- they have to play by the Federal government's rules, not their own.

Absolutely.

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

#39 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 03:00 PM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Jan 23 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

View PostChakoteya, on Jan 23 2007, 07:11 AM, said:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/6289301.stm

And now the Catholic Church says it will close down it's adoption agencies if this law does not exempt them. They may not place many children at first glance, but they do find homes for a high proportion of the 'difficult to place' children that most average couples do not want.

Well in the US, the government isn't supposed to fund Catholic Schools.  Under that logic doesn't it stand to reason that the government should not fund Catholic adoption?  I'm just asking, not suggesting an answer.  It's not necessarily simple.

I don't think funding is the issue; it's a question of whether or not church policy can be used in adoptions. I don't even know if they required adoptive parents to be Catholic.

#40 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 03:02 PM

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

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.

Management can reserve the right to refuse service to individuals, but they can't make blanket statements refusing to serve a particular group.



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