or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › UK Gay Couple Win Landmark Case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UK Gay Couple Win Landmark Case

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
A gay couple were refused a double room at a hotel/B&B in the UK on the grounds of the proprietors religious beliefs.

The couple took their case to court and have won although the B&B owners intend to appeal.

The argument against renting the room to the couple was presented in court as one applicable to ALL non-married couples and not just gay couples. Although this is difficult to believe as the proprietors claim to be Christians (most likely of the born-again variety) so it seems highly unlikely there would be no objection to gay couples on the grounds of their sexuality.

In any event, they lost the case on that reasoning too. Which is in some ways more appropriate as that position is insane in the light of their professed religious beliefs.

If they had argued they objected to gays per se then fair enough - it is obvious bigotry and homophobia but logically an argument could be made for the bigotry from the pages of Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

But to take the 'unmarried' line is irrational in the light of their beliefs in a way homophobia isn't....what constitutes marriage for example?

Was Abraham married? Was King David? Were Joseph and Mary, Christ's parents? If not then were they sinners? Would they be refused entry - like at the Bethlehem inn?

If so why? Because they did not have a valid marriage certificate? Or because they did not have a UK licensed ceremony?

If on the other hand they WERE married then is this because they were married under the law of the land at the time?

If this is the case it nullifies their argument surely? Should they not then accept Civil Partnerships (which they also refuse to do)?

Are heterosexual Jews and Muslims who have had their own ceremonies or in other countries also banned?

Is far more irrational than the plain common or garden bigotry. And all this in the 21st century.

Thoughts?

Link
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 24
There are actually men who are sexually attracted to other men? I can see women being attracted to women, women are beautiful, but men sexually attracted to men? I thought that was a myth.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #3 of 24
Glad to see that things are getting better for this group.

Isn't it the case though that a gay couple can't have sex in the UK until they're both at least 21 yrs old, or did I miss something?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #4 of 24
Maybe being gay is a security-mechanism by nature to not let certain genetic strands to be reproduced.

Since gay people don't get to reproduce, they should be granted to have fun while they live. So I support the court-decision to allow gay couples to sleep in double-rooms, but what I don't support is the wishes of gay couples to get married and not to speak of being allowed to adopt children or to get children through artificial fertilization.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #5 of 24
It's interesting that the property rights of the hotel/B&B owners are unimportant here.

Why shouldn't they have a right to decide who they will or will not rent to?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's interesting that the property rights of the hotel/B&B owners are unimportant here.

Why shouldn't they have a right to decide who they will or will not rent to?

According to the supporters of the plaintiffs, commercial enterprises were subject to community standards:

Quote:
John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.

I'm curious if it would have been a tolerable alternative if the hotel-owners had offered two single-rooms or a twin-bed-room to the couple instead of the double-room.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

According to the supporters of the plaintiffs, commercial enterprises were subject to:

Quote:
John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.

I understand that this was the reasoning applied. What I'm getting at is what is the basis of that reasoning? I mean unless the "community" owns the property, what gives them a legal/authoritative say in how the owner uses their property?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

According to the supporters of the plaintiffs, commercial enterprises were subject to community standards:
Quote:
John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I understand that this was the reasoning applied. What I'm getting at is what is the basis of that reasoning? I mean unless the "community" owns the property, what gives them a legal/authoritative say in how the owner uses their property?

You raise this issue in another thread about smoking bans and restaurants. Property rights are not absolute, whether for private use or accommodating the public. You are subject to certain government regulations what you can do with your land, you pay taxes on it and if you choose to use the land to serve the public, then the government can impose further regulations on land use.

The B&B is not a private home, you are inviting the public so you can't exclude a guest based on some arbitrary discriminatory criteria. These practices violate the civil rights of the person being denied a room. An analogy would be banning of blacks from eating at lunch counters that led to civil rights legislation in the 1960's. Although the UK might have a different set of laws, here in the US this applies: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II - Public AccommodationTi
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

You raise this issue in another thread about smoking bans and restaurants. Property rights are not absolute, whether for private use or accommodating the public. You are subject to certain government regulations what you can do with your land, you pay taxes on it and if you choose to use the land to serve the public, then the government can impose further regulations on land use.

The B&B is not a private home, you are inviting the public so you can't exclude a guest based on some arbitrary discriminatory criteria. These practices violate the civil rights of the person being denied a room. An analogy would be banning of blacks from eating at lunch counters that led to civil rights legislation in the 1960's. Although the UK might have a different set of laws, here in the US this applies: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II - Public AccommodationTi

You've just said essentially what Nightcrawler said only with more words. Think deeper about this. What is the underlying reasoning supporting this idea? What makes it valid (or invalid)? What are "civil rights" and what are "property rights"? What happens when these conflict?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You've just said essentially what Nightcrawler said only with more words. Think deeper about this. What is the underlying reasoning supporting this idea? What makes it valid (or invalid)? What are "civil rights" and what are "property rights"? What happens when these conflict?

You can sell the property and take the money and spend, save or invest it. In the alternative if you keep the land then you are subject to the laws of the city, county, state and country where you land is situated.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

You can sell the property and take the money and spend, save or invest it. In the alternative if you keep the land then you are subject to the laws of the city, county, state and country where you land is situated.

Perhaps I'm not communicating very clearly. You have said the same thing twice now, but have not provided the underlying reasoning, rational and moral basis for those laws.

What you're basically saying is that some group of people (called the government) makes up some kind of rule (law/ordinance) that says you can/can't/must/must not do X with your property.

What is the moral basis for this?

What happens when you've bought property under one set of laws, and then these change after you've bought the property? What is the moral basis for a majority to suddenly change the rules for property owners?

Again what are "rights?" What are "civil rights?" What are "property rights?" How can rights conflict and how are these to be dealt with? Ultimately what you're saying is that some individuals have rights that trump the rights of other individuals.

These are critical, foundational issues and questions to many of the conflicts we see going on in the world today.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

These are critical, foundational issues and questions to many of the conflicts we see going on in the world today.

Can you explain?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Can you explain?

I started a thread on this.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 
Ultra-right-wing Anti-semite rag Daily Mail leaps to defence of Hotel bigots.

Apparently the Bible "is very clear" on homosexuality.

Well...in that case why don't you follow the Bible you hypocrites - call for these guys to be stoned.

At least then you'll have some logical consistency.

There is no place in the 21st century - or in any form of spirituality or religious thought - for this sort of medieval bigotry....we need to stamp it out and stamp it out NOW!

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post


There is no place in the 21st century - or in any form of spirituality or religious thought - for this sort of medieval bigotry....we need to stamp it out and stamp it out NOW!

Nonesense, you can't stamp it out without getting rid of semitic religions altogether. Be it judaism, christianity or Islam, homosexuality is not accepted and will never be.

It's all rooted in the story of "Sodom" and "Gommorrah".

The only way I see within the religions to interpret it some way to not condemn gay people is to interpret the people of "Sodom" and "Gommorrah" as not being gay but heteros engaging in gay acts, orgies and rapes and therefore transcending their boundaries.

But it's not the task of unbelievers to force religions to accept certain interpretations, it's their very own task.

The other possibility to deal with this situation is to underline the secularity of modern society and to call all businesses to leave religion out of business but that is in the long term only acceptable to christianity based on Jesus' saying: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's", in judaism and islam religion is meant to be used to transform society and to be practiced in private and in business.

Personally I favour the idea to let religious hotel-owners to force certain moral behaviour-code upon hotel-users as long as they don't deny entry completely. For example I would deem it acceptable to see these hotel-owners to make clear that they don't tolerate homosexuality within their hotel and to offer the gay-couple two single-rooms or a twin-bed-room. That way they can stay in the hotel if they wish or decide to leave for another. These "religious" hotels should though be marked from the outside and on the website, if they have one, or in advertisements, if they issue those that they are a religious hotel and therefore have a moral code they want their customers to respect while they are there.

That way the economic dynamic will regulate things.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #16 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Nonesense, you can't stamp it out without getting rid of semitic religions altogether. Be it judaism, christianity or Islam, homosexuality is not accepted and will never be.

If that were the case then I would say fine...get rid of Semitic religions.

Put it this way: I believe in God but my Islam is not the Islam of some conservative bigoted Mullah.

He believes pretty much as you do. I don't. But when I get to the hereafter I will find out...and if Allah says to me "you were wrong in your life - Gays were sinners and it was evil" then I will say to Him "Fair enough - I was wrong in my life about YOU - I should not have believed. Please send me to hell as I don't want to be part of that....".

But I don't think it's remotely possible - I think it is the Conservative Christians and bigoted Muslims who will be in for a shock.

Just ask yourself this: "when I look at the awesomeness of the Universe and the world and life - IF there is a creator how possible is it that all this could be created by a bigoted uptight neurotic with all too human failings?".

There is your answer.

Of course it could also mean that God does not exist.

Quote:
It's all rooted in the story of "Sodom" and "Gommorrah".

No...it's all rooted in human stupidity and the prejudice that springs from it.

Btw....the 'sin' of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality. You do know that don't you?

Quote:
The only way I see within the religions to interpret it some way to not condemn gay people is to interpret the people of "Sodom" and "Gommorrah" as not being gay but heteros engaging in gay acts, orgies and rapes and therefore transcending their boundaries.

Then you need to study current Biblical exegesis on this issue. There are many ways of interpretation and one of them is standard academic opinion. And it is nothing to do with the gay issue.

Quote:
But it's not the task of unbelievers to force religions to accept certain interpretations, it's their very own task.

Religions are corrupt. Islam right now is in a very sick state - and I don't mean the Islamists - many of them are nearer true believers than the Saudis who now have a virtual monopoly of the propaganda sources.

And I disagree - In the case of Islam historically it has often been the input of 'unbelievers' who have revitalized the religion.

In fact, you can sit there now discussing this largely in part to the 'unbelievers' living in Islamic Spain who preserver the thought and science of other 'unbelievers' (the Greeks for example) and painstakingly translated it to house in massive libraries.

Quote:
The other possibility to deal with this situation is to underline the secularity of modern society and to call all businesses to leave religion out of business but that is in the long term only acceptable to christianity based on Jesus' saying: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's", in judaism and islam religion is meant to be used to transform society and to be practiced in private and in business.

Whether you are religious or not there is a morality. Religion has no monopoly on that and in many cases is the worst exemplar of it.

Whatever your beliefs or none - being human means certain things.

One of them is expunging hate and prejudice. You are right about transforming society in Judaism and Islam.

That's why when homophobic bigots run rampant in society it is religions place to transform THAT. If religions fail to do it then someone else has to and religion should be called to account. Especially if it is the CAUSE.

Quote:
Personally I favour the idea to let religious hotel-owners to force certain moral behaviour-code upon hotel-users as long as they don't deny entry completely. For example I would deem it acceptable to see these hotel-owners to make clear that they don't tolerate homosexuality within their hotel and to offer the gay-couple two single-rooms or a twin-bed-room. That way they can stay in the hotel if they wish or decide to leave for another. These "religious" hotels should though be marked from the outside and on the website, if they have one, or in advertisements, if they issue those that they are a religious hotel and therefore have a moral code they want their customers to respect while they are there.

It's simple: obey the laws of the land. If you don't like it then opt out and make a commune or community of your own or move to an place where there are like-minded people.

If you don't want to go that far try this: examining how important your 'beliefs' really are if you don't want to do whatever it takes.

Quote:
That way the economic dynamic will regulate things.

Great idea - that always works...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

If that were the case then I would say fine...get rid of Semitic religions.

Put it this way: I believe in God but my Islam is not the Islam of some conservative bigoted Mullah.

He believes pretty much as you do. I don't.

Of course you don't, you made it clear multiple times that you favour the sufi interpretation of Islam.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But when I get to the hereafter I will find out...and if Allah says to me "you were wrong in your life - Gays were sinners and it was evil" then I will say to Him "Fair enough - I was wrong in my life about YOU - I should not have believed. Please send me to hell as I don't want to be part of that....".

A sufi doesn't believe in hell being a physical punishment, but if it were and you were there sensing the physical reality of everything you interpreted metaphorical or spiritual you wouldn't dare to decide eternal punishment for yourself, and if you did out of pride you would regret it within seconds in hell.

But it's not your decision then where you will reside, it's God's judgment, maybe you will come to paradise after all, eventhough you don't want to, and protesting there for gay's rights to be there too.

See, what you do is put your own thoughts and ideas above God who knows so much more and created everything and expect God to bend into your thoughts otherwise you reject Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But I don't think it's remotely possible - I think it is the Conservative Christians and bigoted Muslims who will be in for a shock.

Trust me, every single one of us will be in for a shock, the beyond will highly likely be beyond our imaginations of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Just ask yourself this: "when I look at the awesomeness of the Universe and the world and life - IF there is a creator how possible is it that all this could be created by a bigoted uptight neurotic with all too human failings?".

Why bigoted, neurotic with all too human failings? Because He calls the homosexual act (not the feelings) between two men sinful and you think it not to be?

I think homosexuality is a considerable part a disease stemming from birth. Scientists have found out in studies with twins that homosexuality is derived from a lack of certain hormones before birth and the lack of masculanation or feminazation of the brain, it's a defect. It happens in the animal world as well, a certain percentage is homosexual.

Probably in a few years with prenatal examination and intervention, these and other defects could be prevented.

But I guess most religious people would be against changing creation, arguing that defects are part of God's will, maybe to test humanity's compassion who knows.

So if homosexuality is a defect like being lame, blind or something, from birth on, it can't be a sin.

I don't know if the born homosexuality is influenced also by upbringing, social environment, influences, maybe it can be strengthened or weakened or even overturned by these influences and will, it would be like changing a lefthanded person into a righthanded person. Maybe it's possible, but probably only seldom and not without many pains and traumas involved.

If homosexual orientation then is not a sin but a defect from birth (maybe 10% of humans are born with that defect), what then does the story of Lot mean?

The story of Lot is not about the 10% of homosexuals that exist in every town (strangely more in towns than in villages) otherwise God would have destroyed every city on the planet, it's about the excess and transgression of boundaries that occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah that led to a breakdown of morality and civility, where not 10% but 99,99% chose to engage in homosexual acts even against the will of their partners (gang-rape) and even against their natural orientation.

Since then homosexual acts are stigmatised and punished with death when being practiced publically, ie. with at least two witnesses among jews.

It's the public act that is punished, not the orientation in itself, maybe in order to prevent the society's degeneration where the boundaries would be washed aside and a everything-goes-mentality develops, just like the act of adultery is punished.

Or maybe it's an act of compassion by God to send those with defects so strong that they can't control their urges and have to do it publically back to Him, and if it's an act of compassion they would get to live in paradise recreated without the defect, therefore being straight.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

There is your answer.

And there's yours.

Back on the topic: I don't see why there can't be religious hotels that can when publically declared expect customers to respect certain moral codes? As long as they don't reject people in general, for example by saying "you are gay, you can't stay here" and instead saying: "Ok, you are gay, but we are religious here, please accept a room with two beds and please refrain from exchanging love-acts in public while you stay with us".
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Of course you don't, you made it clear multiple times that you favour the sufi interpretation of Islam.

I would find nothing in that interpretation that contradicts the Sunna of the Prophet - and much in modern Islam that does contradict it but as it is said in the Qur'an... 'as to any dissent among you - in the end Allah will be the judge'.

Quote:
A sufi doesn't believe in hell being a physical punishment, but if it were and you were there sensing the physical reality of everything you interpreted metaphorical or spiritual you wouldn't dare to decide eternal punishment for yourself, and if you did out of pride you would regret it within seconds in hell.

Exactly. Because a Sufi is rational.

Your reply is a good example of the sort of religiosity that logically God cannot be part of. Even orthodox theologians agree that to be apart from God would be hell (perhaps IS hell in our current case) so why would there be need for a physical punishment on top?

How can there even BE a physical punishment? Is the soul physical? Do you believe then in the resurrection of the body - for the express purpose of punishment?

All these things are insane. And God if he exists, cannot be insane.

Quote:
But it's not your decision then where you will reside, it's God's judgment, maybe you will come to paradise after all, eventhough you don't want to, and protesting there for gay's rights to be there too.

Exactly.

And - according to your view - maybe you will live the purest life ever lived, greater than all the Prophets, and God on a whim could send you straight to hell.

Quote:
See, what you do is put your own thoughts and ideas above God who knows so much more and created everything and expect God to bend into your thoughts otherwise you reject Him.

Except that I don't...you leave out the bit where I said God could not be like that but IF He was....

Time for an example unfortunately:
Me: I support Cardiff City football club but if they made it a condition of my buying a season ticket that I kill and eat my next-door neighbours for a year then I would renounce my support.

You: You see you will pay the price of never watching them. They are the ones who set the rules for ticket purchase - who are you to question them? You get what you deserve. Another thing: A God who created everything could not also hold the characteristics of weakness, stupidity, bigotry and general being a moron.

These are human qualities. And a very un-evolved form of humanity at that.

It's like saying: "Look at that computer - it is the most advanced quantum machine in the world. The person who designed and invented it believes the earth is flat and was made in 7 days..."

You may not see a problem there but I do.....

Re Islam specifically I would build on this point: look at the inventions and discoveries of Islam. They form the basis of modern thought and science. Look at the amazing art and architecture....still unparallelled after 100o years in many cases.

Now ask yourself this: if the current Wahabis, Neobandis and other such groups are THE SAME people then where is their contribution?

Answer: nowhere.

In fact they DESTROY these things. There is nothing left in Mecca of even 200 years ago let alone from the Prophet's time. Nothing. Not his house or mosque. Nothing. Nada. Zero.

The Buddhas of Bamiyan were one of the wonders of the world. They were unquestioned throughout the entire Islamic empire for 1500 years.

Yet the Taleban blew them up.

It's not just me disagreeing with these Islamists - it is the whole of PREVIOUS ISLAMIC HISTORY.

Quote:
Trust me, every single one of us will be in for a shock, the beyond will highly likely be beyond our imaginations of it.

That's just it - I don't trust you.

If Islam teaches anything it teaches never trust another man. Trust in God if you choose but leave it at that.

And as for shocks I quote this poem from the time of real Islam:

Quote:
In cell and cloister, in monastery and synagogue:
Some fear heall and others dream of Paradise.
But no man who really knows the secrets of his God
has planted seeds like this within his heart.

Omar Khayyam

Quote:
Why bigoted, neurotic with all too human failings? Because He calls the homosexual act (not the feelings) between two men sinful and you think it not to be?

I think many things not to be....so yes.

In Islam there is the concept of something called 'aql - this translates roughly to 'reason'.

It used to be a theological benchmark but - interestingly - the Wahabis seem to have banned it. But I digress...in early Islam (ie pure Islam) the idea was simple:

God must be rational and logical to have created a rational and logical universe
If He did then he also created reason and logic itself
Therefore reason and logic lead to God.

It's obvious why a lot of Muslim leaders would want to ban this.

But it revolves just the same - whether or not God created us we have reason. We can use it or not and it is not hard to observe those who do and those who don't.

Quote:
I think homosexuality is a considerable part a disease stemming from birth.

Ok...I have some definite thoughts about this statement and the sort of person who could say it but I will merely ask you this:

Why do you think this? What has made you think it? What in yourself maintains this view?

Quote:
Scientists have found out in studies with twins that homosexuality is derived from a lack of certain hormones before birth and the lack of masculanation or feminazation of the brain, it's a defect.

Except scientists haven't found that.

Defect is a strong word. Have you considered the possibility you may be wrong?

This is what I mean: Islam - along with other religions (perhaps more so) is all about compassion. Ok.

Your statement depends - for compassion - on you being correct. Then all is ok.

But what if you are wrong? Then you are almost Kufr no?

Of course you don't believe you are wrong - that's the whole point. that's what fundamentalism IS - we can do this extreme thing or say this extreme thing BECAUSE WE ARE RIGHT....we admit it would be sick and outrageous if we were wrong BUT WE ARE 100% RIGHT.....

But I ask you again: what if you are wrong?

And how do you know?

Only Allah knows. You can only believe. And that my friend - true belief - require an acceptance that you amy be wrong.

Quote:
It happens in the animal world as well, a certain percentage is homosexual.

You just shot your whole argument down in flames.

Are you saying that Allah created an animal world that also has a 'defect'?

Quote:
Probably in a few years with prenatal examination and intervention, these and other defects could be prevented.

Well...extremists in religions are preventing already aren't they?

Admittedly they chop the heads off or stone them but then that's a cultural thing I guess. If you mean modern western science I don't think that it will happen unless religious extremists and fundies - people with beliefs like your own perhaps - take over the scientific community and move it away from a rational base.

Quote:
But I guess most religious people would be against changing creation, arguing that defects are part of God's will, maybe to test humanity's compassion who knows.

Now you've blown the last bit of your argument.

If homosexuality COULD BE part of God's will as a test then why can't it be part of God's will BECAUE HW WANTS IT TO BE - just like everything else.

Or, put another way - why is not HETEROSEXUALITY a test?

Why is not the existence of BIGOTRY a test?

Perhaps the test is whether you are a bigot - God would surely wish to test that. Perhaps you are failing it.....

I would think about it a bit.

Quote:
So if homosexuality is a defect like being lame, blind or something, from birth on, it can't be a sin.

Umm....ok.....

Quote:
I don't know if the born homosexuality is influenced also by upbringing, social environment, influences, maybe it can be strengthened or weakened or even overturned by these influences and will, it would be like changing a lefthanded person into a righthanded person. Maybe it's possible, but probably only seldom and not without many pains and traumas involved.

If you don't know this then why are you sure you DO know the other stuff you claimed above?

Quote:
If homosexual orientation then is not a sin but a defect from birth (maybe 10% of humans are born with that defect), what then does the story of Lot mean?

I've told you that many people believe it to mean something else entirely and that bigots seem to want to twist this story and have succeeded over hundreds of years.

Since we're quoting scripture though then I have a question for you. It is well known that Islam forbids idol worship.

What then does this Qur'anic verse mean:

Quote:
Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-Uzzá
and Manāt, the third, the other?
These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.

As you probably know, Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were the three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans.

This verse in the Qur'an calls them 'exalted' and hopes for their intercession - this is the sin of shirq btw.

No-one doubts this was revealed to Muhammad.

What is your opinion? Are you prepared to worship those Goddesses? If not then why not? It is in the Qur'an.

Quote:
The story of Lot is not about the 10% of homosexuals that exist in every town (strangely more in towns than in villages) otherwise God would have destroyed every city on the planet,

Exactly. It is about inhospitality to strangers.

Btw, in such a case - would you agree with Lot's action of offering hos daughters to be mass-raped?

Quote:
it's about the excess and transgression of boundaries that occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah that led to a breakdown of morality and civility, where not 10% but 99,99% chose to engage in homosexual acts even against the will of their partners (gang-rape) and even against their natural orientation.

Can't be the gang-rape bit....Lot condoned that with his action re his daughters and it was permissable to the Israelites specifically stated in the Bible.

Thoughts? Agree?

Quote:
Since then homosexual acts are stigmatised and punished with death when being practiced publically, ie. with at least two witnesses among jews.

I think Judaism has moved on. Which is why perhaps most leading rationalists, thinkers and logicians are Jewish.

Some backward Muslims should follow their example - particularly in the Gulf peninsula.

Quote:
It's the public act that is punished, not the orientation in itself, maybe in order to prevent the society's degeneration where the boundaries would be washed aside and a everything-goes-mentality develops, just like the act of adultery is punished.

I'm getting a bit tired of terms like 'defect' and 'degeneration' - I am trying to maintain my rational stance but....

Quote:
Back on the topic: I don't see why there can't be religious hotels that can when publically declared expect customers to respect certain moral codes? As long as they don't reject people in general, for example by saying "you are gay, you can't stay here".

Which - coming full circle - is exactly what they did and what such people always do.

Hence this thread.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 
One more thing about 'defects', 'sin' and logic and reason.

Using our rational senses, which of these two is more likely to be 'defective':

Candidate A: a person who just happens to be attracted to the same sex and enjoys it - the only discomfort connected to it arising from being hassled by people who find this 'defective', people like Candidate B below.

Candidate B: a person who is not attracted to the same sex but somehow feels the need to tell those who are that they are 'wrong', 'sick', 'defective' or otherwise 'unnatural'.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

A gay couple were refused a double room at a hotel/B&B in the UK on the grounds of the proprietors religious beliefs.

The couple took their case to court and have won although the B&B owners intend to appeal.

The argument against renting the room to the couple was presented in court as one applicable to ALL non-married couples and not just gay couples. Although this is difficult to believe as the proprietors claim to be Christians (most likely of the born-again variety) so it seems highly unlikely there would be no objection to gay couples on the grounds of their sexuality.

In any event, they lost the case on that reasoning too. Which is in some ways more appropriate as that position is insane in the light of their professed religious beliefs.

If they had argued they objected to gays per se then fair enough - it is obvious bigotry and homophobia but logically an argument could be made for the bigotry from the pages of Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

But to take the 'unmarried' line is irrational in the light of their beliefs in a way homophobia isn't....what constitutes marriage for example?

Was Abraham married? Was King David? Were Joseph and Mary, Christ's parents? If not then were they sinners? Would they be refused entry - like at the Bethlehem inn?

If so why? Because they did not have a valid marriage certificate? Or because they did not have a UK licensed ceremony?

If on the other hand they WERE married then is this because they were married under the law of the land at the time?

If this is the case it nullifies their argument surely? Should they not then accept Civil Partnerships (which they also refuse to do)?

Are heterosexual Jews and Muslims who have had their own ceremonies or in other countries also banned?

Is far more irrational than the plain common or garden bigotry. And all this in the 21st century.

Thoughts?

Link


I have three thoughts about this. First, from a moral perspective, the actions of the proprietor are clearly discriminatory and I think, wrong. Secondly the "unmarried" argument is one that I find both odd, and weak.

But last...I'm not sure I agree with the court's decision. I was about to, but then it occurred to me that we are talking about a privately owned establishment. I don't know the law in the UK. I think that in the US, the owner could likely get away with this. It's not right, but it is a privately owned business. They have a right to refuse service to pretty much anyone, for any reason. Do I think that should be changed? I don't know. Perhaps. Once can't refuse a black man service to a black person, for example. Perhaps sexual orientation should be added to that.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Once can't refuse a black man service to a black person, for example. Perhaps sexual orientation should be added to that.

I think that is the case here...at least under European law. I guess the UK Court felt that it would anyway be over-ruled by a European Court in the ruling.

Many other things come under discrimination too...some quite silly.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I have three thoughts about this. First, from a moral perspective, the actions of the proprietor are clearly discriminatory and I think, wrong. Secondly the "unmarried" argument is one that I find both odd, and weak.

But last...I'm not sure I agree with the court's decision. I was about to, but then it occurred to me that we are talking about a privately owned establishment. I don't know the law in the UK. I think that in the US, the owner could likely get away with this. It's not right, but it is a privately owned business. They have a right to refuse service to pretty much anyone, for any reason. Do I think that should be changed? I don't know. Perhaps. Once can't refuse a black man service to a black person, for example. Perhaps sexual orientation should be added to that.

Any private business that caters to the public can not discriminate against any based upon race, religion...., haven't researched whether sexual orientation is included.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0---a000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42..._21_20_II.html


Came across this while searching for answer to above

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investig...deral-statutes
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Any private business that caters to the public can not discriminate against any based upon race, religion...., haven't researched whether sexual orientation is included.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0---a000-.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42..._21_20_II.html


Came across this while searching for answer to above

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investig...deral-statutes


That pretty much goes to what I was saying. Sexual orientation is not on that list.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That pretty much goes to what I was saying. Sexual orientation is not on that list.

Yet or I didn't find it. UK & EU have different set of laws.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › UK Gay Couple Win Landmark Case