Militant gay couple win £1,800 each in damages

[alexxxxx]

But the religious couple are protected by law, which is why it's a controversial case

i doubt they are protected.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Actually when it comes to a business that deals with members of the public it's not just expression through thought, it's quite clearly in deed as well

It is a private business though, not the state.

Views don't change this though, the b&b owners breached the law when they refused a room on the grounds of sexual orientation.

A draconian law which is totally wrong and flys in the face of liberty and freedom of choice, expression and thought.

If you want to open a business like this in your own home, you should not discriminate against people - by all means it's their home but it's also a public business, if they are allowed to refuse gay people to stay in their B&B, should we allow shops/bars/restauraunts/club and every other business out there to have the right to refuse their service to gay people? No we shouldn't, they haven't done anything wrong so you have to be fair to them, if you dont like what they do then fair enough but they are paying customers like any other couple.

It is not a public business, it is a private business which serves the public of which the owners of that private business can decide whom to serve (or should be able to). HabboxForum itself plays the same game, that the service can be terminated without reason at anytime and quite rightly so as it is a private website.

As for the second example, that is plainly ridiculous and would simply not happen. And if businesses did refuse to serve gay people so what? if they refuse to serve potential paying customers then it is simply to their own financial cost. I think we've reached a mentality in this country where we think that nobody has the right to offend/do something to upset you - well i'm sorry but that is just simply ridiculous and with these dangerous laws you are treading all over your ancient liberties.

Popular speech doesn't need protecting, its unpopular speech that needs protecting.

I think they had every right to take the case to court after they were unfairly treated. Whilst you can say that in hindsight, you have every right to take someone to court if you've been treated unfairly.

So we have a right to now take people to court on whether we disagree with the way somebody has treated us/exercised their own opinions/freedom of thoughts? in the real world despite whatever laws the government may put in, the right to not be offended does not exist and will never exist just as with dictorial regimes the laws against criticism of the regime eventually tumbled down.

All restrictions on freedom of speech and liberty show a culture unsure of itself, and all restrictions of freedom of speech have failed historically and they always will do so. Speech and thought cannot be regulated.

Just leave it - my view. If someone has a problem with someone they should just get over it. If every time someone offended me I took them to court I'd be a very rich man.

Indeed, agreed fully.

Well their followers did turn up at the court with their banners! LOL They did impose their views on others as they refused to give them a double room in a hotel which is a business not a home! Taking people to court is hardly a reason to call anybody militant, Dan.
This is militant:

Yes they did impose their view, but they didnt use the hand of the law to do so - there is no law stating *and this couple aren't actively pursueing it* that would ban gay couples from sharing beds - that would be militant and imposing a view on somebody else, this case on the other hand is one personal choice conflicting with another with the difference being that the hand of the law is wrongly on one side when it shouldn't be.

Dan you're most certainly crazy.
I agree people are allowed to practice their own religions and the views on which they're governed by, but if they wish to have a public business and 'open their homes' then they should accept the same laws we all do if we were to have a business. it's unfair to disregard or refuse people for their choices/religion/sexuality or anything else on which is their own personalities or makes them who they are.

You have just stated firstly that you believe people should be allowed to practice their own religion freely, then gone on to say why you don't believe they should be able to practice their religion/beliefs freely.

Instead of beating around the bush using nannying language, just state what you believe from the onstead.

They are not a militant homosexual couple, they're just normal people whom are gay. Why should they be refused board in a private business just because the owners have a religion on which they believe dictates 'bestiality' or homosexual acts aren't correct or allowed? it's not correct to treat people this way in this day and age, they're most certainly wrong in having a business in which people from all walks of life may use their services and i damn well hope they shut down their business if they can't handle that.

They are normal people are they? let's see, a couple who go to a private business who are turned down by that business who then get together with a militant gay activist group to take that business to court for not agreeing with their lifestyle - sorry but I don't call that normal, that is militant behaviour from a couple who ought to be ashamed for themselves for the simple fact that they are prepared to use the law in order to inflict their views/choices on others.

The business side, you say a their services are for all walks of life - i'm sorry no it is not, who decided that? nobody did. Their business serves who they want it to serve hence it is a private business, if they dont want to serve gay people then let them be - they own the business, if they gay couple do not like it then they can simply set up their own business or go to another business which will accomodate them.

Would you feel the same if they said no to a sufferer of MS? after all, ms isn't choosable as homosexuality isn't choosable. you can't just dictate what you find attractive? you can't dictate what your body suffers from (in the case of MS) it's not fair.

Yes I would, I told you before - if a white couple turn away blacks then i'm fine with that but it doesnt mean I agree, similarly it works the other way around and it is the same if somebody turns me away for having black hair/my sexuality. I may not agree with their views, but they have a right to them views and as they own the business and the land, they have the right to enforce them views.

I defended the rights of the muslim protestors burning the poppies on rememberance day - I don't agree with them, but they should have the freedoms under old English laws to be able to do so. Sadly over recent years, our liberties have been sharply eroded to the point now where you need to ask the police permission to protest in the streets around the supposed 'democratic parliament' - thats modern day democracy for you.

[GommeInc]

i doubt they are protected.

Part 2 Equality: key concepts
Chapter 1 Protected characteristics
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation

However, this Act is up for abuse as those protected characters can go at each other with all guns a blazing so interpreting the Act becomes a challenge. The only thing that is the main issue here is that the Christian couple own a business, and the business is seen as a seperate entity from the couple, even though it is a home. However, they "ad-lib" to turn down custom provided they have decent grounds to do so, their religion, before they accept them. So it's really a case of the couple turning away the gay couple at the wrong time.

[MrPinkPanther]

I challenge any of you to define what is a religion and what isn't a religion. If I myself follow a set of religious beliefs that dictate I should be able to assault people in the name of God should I be able to do so? How about if I run a B&B, well they are in my home so it's my rules can I attack them? Do you see how easily this argument falls down? There will always be limitations upon what you can do, religion or no religion.

[GommeInc]

I challenge any of you to define what is a religion and what isn't a religion. If I myself follow a set of religious beliefs that dictate I should be able to assault people in the name of God should I be able to do so? How about if I run a B&B, well they are in my home so it's my rules can I attack them? Do you see how easily this argument falls down? There will always be limitations upon what you can do, religion or no religion.

Not really, you are free to follow any religion provided they do not break any laws, if they do you're advised to follow the laws in place for everybody and restrict these religious beliefs and/or laws to home or areas where other people follow that particular law, like a church for example So attacking someone is agaisnt the law, murder etc etc. Telling people what you think in a polite manner is perfectly acceptable, which is what you see in this case - no malice or violence involved.

There's a phrase that sums it up but I'm way too exhausted to remember it.

[Oleh]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

[Catzsy]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

I have never heard of this at all :S Do you mean hen parties or stag parties because your post could be misinterpreted here.

[Ajthedragon]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

I don't see how that would be any different for any couples. As an owner or guest I wouldn't want either.

[GommeInc]

i dont know if this has been said but same sex groups are generally not accepted in any B'n'B as it can cause problems (excessive noise). Now unless the couple specifically said "no gays here sorry" then i understand but it is the same with anybody regardless of sexuality.

Uh huh, I'm assuming this is your opinion? They have to accept anyone unless they strictly say "for singles only/for couples only", they cannot be anymore specific than that as it's deemed inappropriate, offensive and discriminatory.