CiaranM Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 'Tolerant' meaning prepared to accept other people's beliefs. So that when the hotel owner said, "I'm sorry, it's hotel policy that only married couples may have a double room, may we offer you two single rooms instead? It's part of our Christian beliefs.", the gay couple had a choice - accept the two rooms or go to another hotel. ppl who want to discriminate against ppl on the basis or race, religion or sexuality should not set up a business were by law they must serve all members of the public equally !! and using f**king bigotted religious beliefs as an excuse for this is just pathetic !! the hotel (or B& was breaking the law !!! should blacks in america have accepted being treated as 2nd class citizens because whites thought/believed they were superior?? should catholics in northern ireland have accepted discrimination in education, housing and employment because they were in a minority ?? sometimes u have to stand up for what u believe in !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 ppl who want to discriminate against ppl on the basis or race, religion or sexuality should not set up a business were by law they must serve all members of the public equally !! and using f**king bigotted religious beliefs as an excuse for this is just pathetic !! the hotel (or B& was breaking the law !!! should blacks in america have accepted being treated as 2nd class citizens because whites thought/believed they were superior?? should catholics in northern ireland have accepted discrimination in education, housing and employment because they were in a minority ?? sometimes u have to stand up for what u believe in !! They WEREN'T discriminating against them for any of those reasons. They were discriminating against them because they were unmarried - which is against their religious laws (which in their minds pre-date the UK's rules). They were standing up for what THEY believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 ppl who want to discriminate against ppl on the basis or race, religion or sexuality should not set up a business were by law they must serve all members of the public equally !! and using f**king bigotted religious beliefs as an excuse for this is just pathetic !! the hotel (or B& was breaking the law !!! should blacks in america have accepted being treated as 2nd class citizens because whites thought/believed they were superior?? should catholics in northern ireland have accepted discrimination in education, housing and employment because they were in a minority ?? sometimes u have to stand up for what u believe in !! They WEREN'T discriminating against them for any of those reasons. They were discriminating against them because they were unmarried - which is against their religious laws (which in their minds pre-date the UK's rules). They were standing up for what THEY believe in. so does the KKK and BNP !!!! :roll: :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 so does the KKK and BNP !!!! :roll: :roll: There's a big difference between KKK, BNP and believing in the sancitity of marriage. The gay couple is standing up for its beliefs. The Christian couple is standing up for its beliefs. Why does one side need to win to prevent the other side from following its beliefs? Are there exceptions to UK laws? Sure... Sikh men can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet because their turbans are part of their religion. As a question of safety, isn't that more important than forcing Christians to abandon their belief in the sanctity of marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 so does the KKK and BNP !!!! :roll: :roll: There's a big difference between KKK, BNP and believing in the sancitity of marriage. The gay couple is standing up for its beliefs. The Christian couple is standing up for its beliefs. Why does one side need to win to prevent the other side from following its beliefs? Are there exceptions to UK laws? Sure... Sikh men can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet because their turbans are part of their religion. As a question of safety, isn't that more important than forcing Christians to abandon their belief in the sanctity of marriage? it's very very f**king simple ... u believe in sanctity of marriage ... don't open a f**king hotel or B&B were u may have to service customers who don't hold the same beliefs as urself !! and as for sikhs ... f**king simple ... u don't wanna wear a helmet don't ride a f**king motorbike !!! drive a car, take the bus/train or walk !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinBKK Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 ppl who want to discriminate against ppl on the basis or race, religion or sexuality should not set up a business were by law they must serve all members of the public equally !! Im looking for a flat in Blighty as the moment and put an offer in for one yesterday only to be told the landlord is going to hold out for another few days to see if someone without kids will put an offer in, if not he will think about accepting me and the baby. Now this is clearly discrimination against babies and people with babies would you think it correct to legislate against this. I called about another property this morning and was told again the landlord doesnt want kids staying. Those gays never have to suffer this kind of discrimination. Edit - Now 3 Landlords out of 3 have refused to rent to us due to having a baby, what a bunch of stuck up cnuts English buy2let scumlords are. The day these parastic w4nkers are taxed to the hilt on their 2nd 3rd 4th homes etc will be a great day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinBKK Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 and as for sikhs ... f**king simple ... u don't wanna wear a helmet don't ride a f**king motorbike !!! drive a car, take the bus/train or walk !!! An alternative would be to make them get insurance covering them in case of an accident without wearing a crash helmet, refuse them taxpayer funded healthcare should they crash would be a winner for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 You run a business Dave, and you know that by doing so, you accept certain legilsation and/or rules for doing so. This couple are no different, Yes, but he runs a business in Thailand where the laws can be overlooked for a price and the police can simply make up rules if they so wish. Not really a good comparison. :-) Fair point. Maybe not the best country to choose as an example. Luckily I live in a country where corruption, lies and backhanders are things of the past and we have fantastic politiicians such as Tommy Sheridan who truly represent the people with total honesty. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Point missed about Sikhs. The law was changed to suit their religious beliefs. Sikhs can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet. A compromise was made. I just think a compromise could be found here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stramash Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Christian B&B owners bemoan loss of niche homophobic bigot market Christian B&B owners have revealed their sadness after a judge ruled that the Chymorvah Hotel acted unlawfully when they refused a gay couple a double room in case their presence opened a gateway to hell that would unleash evil upon mankind. Owners of the hotel near Penzance, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, have been in court to defend their right only to allow only heterosexual intercourse to take place within their earshot. Christians everywhere have insisted that they are market leaders when it comes to ensuring that homophobic bigots can enjoy a holiday break without being disturbed by the deviant behaviour of moral-free godless sodomites. One leading Christian hotelier told us, “We are excellent hosts and we guarantee a relaxing weekend for anyone staying here, as long as you aren’t gay, Muslim, living in sin and are happy to spend your time with us worshipping an invisible sky fairy.†“If we were to allow homosexuals to stay at our B&B or hotel, then who’s to say that they wouldn’t attempt to leave their room and mingle with the normal guests?†“Even if they did stay in their room, we’d then be forced to spend every hour of the day wondering what they were getting up to, probably having to repeatedly put a glass against the wall to check nothing was going on.†Speaking outside the court Mr and Mrs Bull revealed that they would be discussing an appeal against the decision with their lawyers. “As committed Christians we should be able to run our business outside the constraints of the law,†They said in unison. “If God wanted us to have gays in our hotels he would said in the Bible that it’s OK to have gays in your hotel, but he didn’t, so it’s definitely wrong.†“Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere belief that God is a big intolerant ball of omnipotent hate gas, who floats around the clouds deciding people’s fate with a flashing remote control device.†“Sometimes you can see the flashing. Non-believers call it lightning.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Point missed about Sikhs.The law was changed to suit their religious beliefs. Sikhs can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet. A compromise was made. I just think a compromise could be found here. the point about sikhs wasn't missed ... i don't think the law should have been changed !! if they don't want to wear helmets there r alternative means of transport that doesn't affect their religious beliefs. having said that i'm pretty sure motorbikes weren't around when ppl decided what rules and regulations the sky fairy decided we all should live by !! here's one for U Dave ... child is dying .... needs a blood transfusion to save it's life ..... however this is against the religious beliefs of the parents ... they r prepared to see their child die because of their religious beliefs ... is this OK with u ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Point missed about Sikhs.The law was changed to suit their religious beliefs. Sikhs can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet. A compromise was made. I just think a compromise could be found here. the point about sikhs wasn't missed ... i don't think the law should have been changed !! if they don't want to wear helmets there r alternative means of transport that doesn't affect their religious beliefs. having said that i'm pretty sure motorbikes weren't around when ppl decided what rules and regulations the sky fairy decided we all should live by !! here's one for U Dave ... child is dying .... needs a blood transfusion to save it's life ..... however this is against the religious beliefs of the parents ... they r prepared to see their child die because of their religious beliefs ... is this OK with u ?? Drama Queen! The gay couple weren't going to die - they were going to have to sleep in separate rooms for one night or find another hotel (in Penzanze? How difficult could that be?) My point is that both sides are intolerant - Gays against Christians, Christians against unmarried couples. Was it necessary to make a court case out of it or would a strongly worded letter to The Guardian have sufficed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Point missed about Sikhs.The law was changed to suit their religious beliefs. Sikhs can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet. A compromise was made. I just think a compromise could be found here. the point about sikhs wasn't missed ... i don't think the law should have been changed !! if they don't want to wear helmets there r alternative means of transport that doesn't affect their religious beliefs. having said that i'm pretty sure motorbikes weren't around when ppl decided what rules and regulations the sky fairy decided we all should live by !! here's one for U Dave ... child is dying .... needs a blood transfusion to save it's life ..... however this is against the religious beliefs of the parents ... they r prepared to see their child die because of their religious beliefs ... is this OK with u ?? Drama Queen! The gay couple weren't going to die - they were going to have to sleep in separate rooms for one night or find another hotel (in Penzanze? How difficult could that be?) My point is that both sides are intolerant - Gays against Christians, Christians against unmarried couples. Was it necessary to make a court case out of it or would a strongly worded letter to The Guardian have sufficed? what's wrong Dave ?? u can't answer the question ?? and why drama queen ? it's a real life scenario !! do u respect this couples religious beliefs ?? why r the gays being intolerant ?? if u open a business to the general public by law u have to serve them !! now ... i'm not sure if this was a set up or not .... seems to be a bit murky. but i just noticed that this couples defence costs were being paid by a fundmental christian organisation ... so perhaps both the gay couple and the hotel owners were being used by organisations with their own particular axe to grind !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Point missed about Sikhs.The law was changed to suit their religious beliefs. Sikhs can ride motorbikes without wearing a helmet. A compromise was made. I just think a compromise could be found here. the point about sikhs wasn't missed ... i don't think the law should have been changed !! if they don't want to wear helmets there r alternative means of transport that doesn't affect their religious beliefs. having said that i'm pretty sure motorbikes weren't around when ppl decided what rules and regulations the sky fairy decided we all should live by !! here's one for U Dave ... child is dying .... needs a blood transfusion to save it's life ..... however this is against the religious beliefs of the parents ... they r prepared to see their child die because of their religious beliefs ... is this OK with u ?? Drama Queen! The gay couple weren't going to die - they were going to have to sleep in separate rooms for one night or find another hotel (in Penzanze? How difficult could that be?) My point is that both sides are intolerant - Gays against Christians, Christians against unmarried couples. Was it necessary to make a court case out of it or would a strongly worded letter to The Guardian have sufficed? what's wrong Dave ?? u can't answer the question ?? and why drama queen ? it's a real life scenario !! do u respect this couples religious beliefs ?? why r the gays being intolerant ?? if u open a business to the general public by law u have to serve them !! now ... i'm not sure if this was a set up or not .... seems to be a bit murky. but i just noticed that this couples defence costs were being paid by a fundmental christian organisation ... so perhaps both the gay couple and the hotel owners were being used by organisations with their own particular axe to grind !! Of course I can - and of course not.... There's no comparison - the death of a child and having to make alternate sleeping arrangements for one night. Why drama queen? Because you have linked these people to the KKK, BNP and now baby killers. They aren't in the same ballpark and you know it! Why are the gays being intolerant? Because they could have walked away or taken the separate rooms - they didn't NEED to make a court case out of it. The hotel owners didn't single them out for being gay. They singled them out for being unmarried. They must have had the same situation in the past with straight couples - who either walked away or slept in separate rooms - they didn't feel the need to prosecute the couple for their beliefs. The gay couple want their sexuality respected, but they didn't show respect to the hoteliers' religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiaranM Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 so where do u draw the line with religious beliefs ?? bigotry ?? sexual discimination ?? not wearing crash helmets ?? allowing a child to die ?? they were breaking the f**king law and using their "religious beliefs" as a screen for their bigotry and homophobia !! in ireland last week ... they had to go to f**king court to stop a couple allowing their kid to die because of their f**king religious beliefs !! f**king bollocks the lot of it !!! http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dramatic-court-hearing-held-in-judges-home-during-early-hours-2494657.html Thursday January 13 2011A judge ordered the baby son of a Jehovah Witness couple to be given a life-saving blood transfusion after a dramatic court hearing in his home in the early hours of the morning. Judge Gerard Hogan said barristers for Temple Street Children's Hospital arrived at his house at 1am on December 27 and argued the desperately ill three-month-old boy needed urgent treatment. Neither the infant nor his parents were identified in the High Court judgment, which was published today. Judge Hogan ruled that while parents have the constitutional right to raise their children to their own religious and philosophical views, the State has a vital interest in ensuring children are protected. "But there is absolutely no doubt but that the court can intervene in a case such as this where the child's life, general welfare and other vital interests are at stake," he added. Judge Hogan heard that when the baby boy was born in September 2010 he had been a twin, with a sister who did not survive. On Christmas Day the infant was suffering from acute bronchiolitis when his condition deteriorated. At one point he stopped breathing and had to be resuscitated. He was transferred to Temple Street the following day where his condition became critical. His liver was distended and by that evening his haemoglobin level plummeted to the point where a transfusion was necessary. The judge said while the boy's parents were clearly anxious for his welfare and had allowed the use of blood products earlier that day, as committed Jehovah Witnesses they were steadfast in their opposition to this procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English_Bob Posted January 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 so where do u draw the line with religious beliefs ?? bigotry ?? sexual discimination ?? not wearing crash helmets ?? allowing a child to die ??they were breaking the f**king law and using their "religious beliefs" as a screen for their bigotry and homophobia !! in ireland last week ... they had to go to f**king court to stop a couple allowing their kid to die because of their f**king religious beliefs !! f**king bollocks the lot of it !!! Well, you draw the line somewhere between baby killing and permitting people to believe what they want. They WERE breaking the law... but as you've conceded already, SOME laws are wrong. This particular law is fairly new and not exactly clear-cut. You keep banging on the 'homophobic' drum - but that wasn't the argument in court. The gay couple were allowed to stay in the hotel, but not in the same rooms - and the policy was the same for hetero and homo couples. Clearly, baby-killing is not the same issue as hotel policy. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Most religions teach love and tolerance - I'm not sure you can label them all '******* bollocks'. In Thailand, there are clubs for Japanese and Thai people. I can't go in. But I don't make a court case about it (although it's against the Thai Constitution), I simply go elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now