Gay Poll...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Do you honestly keep ignoring what I put? If there is bad press on it, then people will stop using it and then the business will fail unless they change their ways i.e. survival of the fittest. It's not your problem is business fails because of this. This would be more effective than simply imposing laws against discrimination as a) law is far more rigid and therefore when the morality of society changes, the law might not reflect that and b) it maximises freedom.

---

No I can read perfectly well thank you very much. I wasn't even replying to you so I don't understand how you thought it was in retort to what you said!

We shouldn't impose laws against discrimination? Is that what you're saying? That's hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. The 'law' is not decided by the morality of society, I agree, but wasn't written with a modern mindset, there are far more (openly) gay people now that when it was written and why on earth shouldn't it be updated to reflect this?

The chances of society in a few years time turning round and saying ACTUALLY we don't think these people deserved those rights is so minimal so why shouldn't we lobby for it to be updated? Look at when the slaves were freed, we haven't gone back on that chance for equality, and at the end of the day, what's the difference between one discriminated group and another?

Quote:

---

Surely if someone owns a shop they have as much rights to the property as to a house or any other property?

---

Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura

No I can read perfectly well thank you very much. I wasn't even replying to you so I don't understand how you thought it was in retort to what you said!

We shouldn't impose laws against discrimination? Is that what you're saying? That's hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. The 'law' is not decided by the morality of society, I agree, but wasn't written with a modern mindset, there are far more (openly) gay people now that when it was written and why on earth shouldn't it be updated to reflect this?

The chances of society in a few years time turning round and saying ACTUALLY we don't think these people deserved those rights is so minimal so why shouldn't we lobby for it to be updated? Look at when the slaves were freed, we haven't gone back on that chance for equality, and at the end of the day, what's the difference between one discriminated group and another?




Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

---

What happens if I sell things from my house, am I not allowed to ban Jehovah's witnesses then? I don't see the difference between a home and a B&B. It is your property, you should have the right to say who you want in your establishment.

You're saying you would let anyone into your B&B if you owned one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

What happens if I sell things from my house, am I not allowed to ban Jehovah's witnesses then? I don't see the difference between a home and a B&B. It is your property, you should have the right to say who you want in your establishment.

You're saying you would let anyone into your B&B if you owned one?

---

JFC you're being extremely pedantic now. If you are literally selling odd things from inside your house (which I have literally never heard of anyone doing ever) then it's really up to you who you let on your private property.

Now the thing is I agree that you should have a say in who you let on your property but what I'm really angry about within this context is the fact that the owners do not advertise as such - because as dbgtz has said, it would seriously give them a lot of negative publicity.

That might seem a bit contradictory against some of my other posts: I am completely for LGBT+ rights and will protest vehemently for them but I also believe in the choices of the individual. However, laws should reflect a changing society and it still seems preposterous that gay people would be banned from any commercial establishment.

If you saw this on a B&B nowadays would you think it's perfectly fine?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4QeBZAtzmV...0/no_irish.jpg

Also, yes, yes I would. Because I don't discriminate.

well the key part of the whole B&B story was that it was a business and thats why they weren't allowed to discriminate. although its interesting cos obv its their home as well. basically cos its a business it is against the law to say NO u cant come in cos ur a gay couple

Quote:

---

Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".

---

Quote:

---

"If you are running a B&B you have to abide by the law so either change your job or carry on running a B&B and let gay couples stay."

---

ta dah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura

No I can read perfectly well thank you very much. I wasn't even replying to you so I don't understand how you thought it was in retort to what you said!

We shouldn't impose laws against discrimination? Is that what you're saying? That's hilarious. Seriously, hilarious. The 'law' is not decided by the morality of society, I agree, but wasn't written with a modern mindset, there are far more (openly) gay people now that when it was written and why on earth shouldn't it be updated to reflect this?

The chances of society in a few years time turning round and saying ACTUALLY we don't think these people deserved those rights is so minimal so why shouldn't we lobby for it to be updated? Look at when the slaves were freed, we haven't gone back on that chance for equality, and at the end of the day, what's the difference between one discriminated group and another?

---

I know you were not replying to me but it's silly to keep making the same point when it's been explained.

I also never said law wasn't decided by the morality of society because it is for the most part (I've literally just studied this), for example a lot of laws come from old christian teachings. What I said was that law doesn't change as easily to reflect the morality of the public and in addition to this, can never accommodate each individual's own moral stance and basically leads to the oppression of the minority.

Slavery is beyond mere discrimination. Yes you're right, society wouldn't change it's mind, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses.

Quote:

---

Your private property, aka your house, where you live, is not the same as a commercial property, whether you outright own it or what, it is a commercial space.

---

Just because it is commerical does not mean it is free for anyone to come or go as they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

I know you were not replying to me but it's silly to keep making the same point when it's been explained.

---

lol

I really don't need you to "explain" to me, no matter how much you might think you do, because I realise that bad press means that less people will go to the place but it really doesn't stop the matter in hand to start with.

I know this is going off topic but Everyday Sexism are trying to persuade companies to pull advertising from Facebook because of their strange policies regarding offensive and discriminatory images (mainly targetted at women)... it's the same situation: just because the companies may or may not pull advertising does not stop the pages circulating on the internet (but let's not get into that because that is off topic)

The point still stands that whether you think you have to explain to me (which you don't, I'm actually quite intelligent believe it or not) there is still a discrimination against LGBT+ people WHETHER THE COMPANIES INVOLVED have good OR bad press and the basic facts that LGBT+ people are discriminated against in the first place is wrong to start with IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

I also never said law wasn't decided by the morality of society because it is for the most part (I've literally just studied this), for example a lot of laws come from old christian teachings. What I said was that law doesn't change as easily to reflect the morality of the public and in addition to this, can never accommodate each individual's own moral stance and basically leads to the oppression of the minority.

Slavery is beyond mere discrimination. Yes you're right, society wouldn't change it's mind, but that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses.

---

That's how it came across in your post :s right so now you're saying laws are written from old christian teachings and shouldn't be updated to modern circumstances?

Law isn't about the individual, but about the society as a whole. To say that law "basically leads to the oppression of the minority" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard................ your privilege is showing.

Really though, is it? They were enslaved because of the colour of their skin. Nothing else. Discriminatory. For years after they attained their freedom they were still discriminated purely because of the colour of their skin which is basically the entire definition of 'discrimination'. Point in reference, the photo I posted above. That would be horrendously offensive in our society now: and in a good number of years people will look back and say exactly the same thing about gay people.

"that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses"

oh my you're literally using big words to make yourself sound intelligent now; that sentence doesn't even make sense!!! The tyranny of the masses? What masses?! The same 'masses' that are being subject to that tyranny? I mean, feel free to actually explain that sentence but it's pure rubbish at the moment.

Just because a few select groups (lets face it - mainly religious groups) are opposed to the rights of whichever oppressed group, does that mean we should never try and combat that? Never try to make a difference and try to make it equal? Because that's how it's coming across. In an age where there is already a high of non-religious (let's say non-Christian, for argument's sake) citizens (which is increasing every year)...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...estion.svg.png
... why should we conform to the minority who protest so vehemently to deny another human being the same rights as them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Just because it is commerical does not mean it is free for anyone to come or go as they wish.

---

Hmmm, not really how it works though. Equality Act 2010 - means that shop owners cannot discriminate against people unless it can be objectively justified.

I am all for gay rights (liking guys myself :P)

But I understand why people wouldn't be for it and am not going to force it upon anyone to become accepting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura

lol

I really don't need you to "explain" to me, no matter how much you might think you do, because I realise that bad press means that less people will go to the place but it really doesn't stop the matter in hand to start with.

I know this is going off topic but Everyday Sexism are trying to persuade companies to pull advertising from Facebook because of their strange policies regarding offensive and discriminatory images (mainly targetted at women)... it's the same situation: just because the companies may or may not pull advertising does not stop the pages circulating on the internet (but let's not get into that because that is off topic)

The point still stands that whether you think you have to explain to me (which you don't, I'm actually quite intelligent believe it or not) there is still a discrimination against LGBT+ people WHETHER THE COMPANIES INVOLVED have good OR bad press and the basic facts that LGBT+ people are discriminated against in the first place is wrong to start with IMO.

---

There may be discrimination against those people, but surely by imposing any sort of law is doing the exact same thing? Oh wait, it is, but they shove "positive" infront of "discrimination" to try and distinguish it when it is equally as bad.

Quote:

---

That's how it came across in your post :s right so now you're saying laws are written from old christian teachings and shouldn't be updated to modern circumstances?

Law isn't about the individual, but about the society as a whole. To say that law "basically leads to the oppression of the minority" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard................ your privilege is showing.

Really though, is it? They were enslaved because of the colour of their skin. Nothing else. Discriminatory. For years after they attained their freedom they were still discriminated purely because of the colour of their skin which is basically the entire definition of 'discrimination'. Point in reference, the photo I posted above. That would be horrendously offensive in our society now: and in a good number of years people will look back and say exactly the same thing about gay people.

"that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses"

oh my you're literally using big words to make yourself sound intelligent now; that sentence doesn't even make sense!!! The tyranny of the masses? What masses?! The same 'masses' that are being subject to that tyranny? I mean, feel free to actually explain that sentence but it's pure rubbish at the moment.

Just because a few select groups (lets face it - mainly religious groups) are opposed to the rights of whichever oppressed group, does that mean we should never try and combat that? Never try to make a difference and try to make it equal? Because that's how it's coming across. In an age where there is already a high of non-religious (let's say non-Christian, for argument's sake) citizens (which is increasing every year)...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...estion.svg.png
... why should we conform to the minority who protest so vehemently to deny another human being the same rights as them?

---

No all I was stating is that morals and law overlap which, to me, is problematic.

Law does, for the most part, oppresses the minority as they're forced to conform to the majorities wishes. Though there are some exceptions like minority rights (which are problematic in their own way).

Yes it goes beyond discrimination as it is harming the individuals. I don't really see how you can compare slavery to gay people not being able to attain marriage, especially when there is civil partnership which is virtually identical.

I like how you have to try and attack me personally to get your point across when a simple google search would suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I don't think you even understand the argument anymore. The point is equality should be something shared by everyone but when there is law which goes beyond the protection of citizens, then it is an unneccesary infringement of any individual's liberty.

Quote:

---

Hmmm, not really how it works though. Equality Act 2010 - means that shop owners cannot discriminate against people unless it can be objectively justified.

---

I know it's not how it works, it's what I'm arguing against.

I'm definitely for gay rights. I don't see why people should be allowed to marry for the eighth time, nor why a couple who met four hours ago at a club should be allowed to get married while gay couples aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura

lol

I really don't need you to "explain" to me, no matter how much you might think you do, because I realise that bad press means that less people will go to the place but it really doesn't stop the matter in hand to start with.

I know this is going off topic but Everyday Sexism are trying to persuade companies to pull advertising from Facebook because of their strange policies regarding offensive and discriminatory images (mainly targetted at women)... it's the same situation: just because the companies may or may not pull advertising does not stop the pages circulating on the internet (but let's not get into that because that is off topic)

The point still stands that whether you think you have to explain to me (which you don't, I'm actually quite intelligent believe it or not) there is still a discrimination against LGBT+ people WHETHER THE COMPANIES INVOLVED have good OR bad press and the basic facts that LGBT+ people are discriminated against in the first place is wrong to start with IMO.



That's how it came across in your post :s right so now you're saying laws are written from old christian teachings and shouldn't be updated to modern circumstances?

Law isn't about the individual, but about the society as a whole. To say that law "basically leads to the oppression of the minority" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard................ your privilege is showing.

Really though, is it? They were enslaved because of the colour of their skin. Nothing else. Discriminatory. For years after they attained their freedom they were still discriminated purely because of the colour of their skin which is basically the entire definition of 'discrimination'. Point in reference, the photo I posted above. That would be horrendously offensive in our society now: and in a good number of years people will look back and say exactly the same thing about gay people.

"that doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of individuals subject to the tyranny of the masses"

oh my you're literally using big words to make yourself sound intelligent now; that sentence doesn't even make sense!!! The tyranny of the masses? What masses?! The same 'masses' that are being subject to that tyranny? I mean, feel free to actually explain that sentence but it's pure rubbish at the moment.

Just because a few select groups (lets face it - mainly religious groups) are opposed to the rights of whichever oppressed group, does that mean we should never try and combat that? Never try to make a difference and try to make it equal? Because that's how it's coming across. In an age where there is already a high of non-religious (let's say non-Christian, for argument's sake) citizens (which is increasing every year)...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...estion.svg.png
... why should we conform to the minority who protest so vehemently to deny another human being the same rights as them?



Hmmm, not really how it works though. Equality Act 2010 - means that shop owners cannot discriminate against people unless it can be objectively justified.

---

First of all, I don't know where you got that graph from, but that data is either not for the UK, or inaccurate :P

And you're all busy talking about equality, well what about equality for all the Christians? They're no longer free to practice their religion inside their own property. Is that fair?

Also, I remember reading an article on BBC News, and I cannot find it for the life of me (hopefully someone else can), but some woman (in London I think) opened up either an art gallery or a museum, and only let women in for the first few months. So that's discrimination as well? And she should have legal action taken against her?

You said yourself that people should decide who comes onto their property, and even if it is a 'commerical business', it is still their property at the end of the day, and their rights should extend to that as well. Like I said, if you owned a B&B, would you let some crazy old man with writing all over his arms chanting satanic things in for the night? Probably not :P Clearly the law thinks otherwise, but clearly a few others think the law is wrong :P

Also, how have you never heard people selling things from home? I've heard of many people that do it... Have you never heard of farms, either? :P

And for the record, I'm for gay rights, and I'm probably the least religious person in the world, but it isn't about gay rights and religious rights, it's more about your own rights on your own property.

EDIT: I see where you got your data from, a survey that's 4 years old that surveyed 3,000 people. I think I would rather trust the 2011 census that surveyed nearly everyone in the country...