Where does everyone think the balance of rights lies?
What, if anything, makes religious beliefs 'special'?
What might the consequences of an exception to the law be, and how far could an exception be carried?
wild_quinine wrote:I'm not sure that I have an answer, other than my rapt attention. It's really, really interesting. I don't fully agree with many of the comments on the page you link above, but for a comments thread a number of them are unusually succinct and direct, and there are powerful arguments made in simple terms.
wild_quinine wrote:Religions usually deal in moral absolutes, from the highest moral authority. I'm not convinced that this makes them deserving of special legal treatment. But it does make them quite perculiar.
That's part of the issue here, I think. *If* what this Christian couple believe is true, then it is absolutely so, and they *should* act as they are, even though it seems very objectionable.
To tell them to act otherwise because of the law, is to say that their beliefs are less important than the law.
But because their moral code supposedly comes from the highest moral authority, then this the same thing as to tell them that their beliefs are wrong. Which I think the law is not really supposed to do.
I think their beliefs about gay people are wrong. So do a lot of very committed Christians, let's not forget.
But I also think that it's dangerous to have laws telling people what it is OK to believe.
jollytiddlywink wrote:What might the consequences of an exception to the law be, and how far could an exception be carried?wild_quinine wrote:It's a bloody mess, basically. Two parties with conflicting demands for rights that are theoretically protected by law. Adding an exception will favour one over the other. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen, but it would have to be really, really carefully handled.
I suspect there's a temptation to pronounce one side as 'right', and I feel it, too. Thing is, that's not a hugely compelling moral argument in itself. It's a conclusion, not an argument. And even if we could agree on an argument to support it, and we might well be able to do so, I still reckon there'd be a good deal of collateral damage against other tenets we'd like to hold on to...
jollytiddlywink wrote: Does a claim of divine inspiration for a belief make it more worthy than a claim of empirical evidence for another belief?
And I think its worth noting that nobody has said this couple can or cannot believe what they want, merely that they may not discriminate in providing a service.
The couple (I believe) argue that they are not discriminating, and that they treat unmarried straight couples exactly the same way. But the point is that the state recognizes civil partners (which those two men are) as equal to married couples.
I feel, however, that there is less collateral damage to upholding the law and the judgment... to give a religious exception to the Equality Act could lead to discrimination against other religions (as I suggested above). Not to give an exception might, as the couple argue, infringe on their beliefs...
I cannot help but feel than the central point of Christianity concerns the death and rebirth of Jesus and salvation, and has very little to do with refusing to recognize gay civil partners.
LonelyPilgrim wrote:Regulation creates complexities and paradoxes.
Could a decision not be made that businesses providing lodging inside a proprietors private home fall into a special category?
Really, why can't we take the long view on cases like this? Bigotry is not a sustainable business model, especially when that bigotry is increasingly at odds with majority mores.
David Bean wrote:for the most part ConHome is a haven for intelligent, civilised discussion.
My own personal view is that it is improper for the law to regulate to the effect that a business must serve a given customer, irrespective of the motives on the part of the proprietor in wishing not to do so.
Whenever this matter comes up on ConHome, some of the enthusiastic statists among us usually come up with hoary old arguments about how the abolition of such anti-discrimination laws "would lead" to the return of signs hung on doors to the effect of barring customers by race, religion or whatever else, but I reckon
On the other hand one <insert 'lots of my friends are gay' reference here> wrote an article at one point arguing that the very last thing he wanted was to be admitted to a guest-house run by people who despised him, simply because the law said they must.
wild_quinine wrote:LonelyPilgrim wrote:Regulation creates complexities and paradoxes.
In that case, thanks to New Labour, we now exist only in a quantum state.
wild_quinine wrote:LonelyPilgrim wrote:Could a decision not be made that businesses providing lodging inside a proprietors private home fall into a special category?
Possibly. But there are disadvantages to that approach, as well.
wild_quinine wrote:LonelyPilgrim wrote:Really, why can't we take the long view on cases like this? Bigotry is not a sustainable business model, especially when that bigotry is increasingly at odds with majority mores.
Because it could be a very long view, indeed. Bigotry is a sustainable business model, when you're discriminating against minorities for whom the majority have little concern. Try running a hotel barring furries, adult babies or coprophiles; I doubt you'll meet with much resistance.
David Bean wrote:My own personal view is that it is improper for the law to regulate to the effect that a business must serve a given customer, irrespective of the motives on the part of the proprietor in wishing not to do so.
David Bean wrote:On the other hand one <insert 'lots of my friends are gay' reference here> wrote an article at one point arguing that the very last thing he wanted was to be admitted to a guest-house run by people who despised him, simply because the law said they must.
David Bean wrote:I'll debate this matter on whatever terms I like, thanks very much.
David Bean wrote:Nor is it irrelevant to relate the contents of a salient post written by someone with an interesting point of view, and frankly anyone touchy enough to find such a view offensive is not someone I'd want to interact with.
David Bean wrote:As for the matter of social change, that is my very point. Statists can't seem to get past the notion that all social change must be driven by legislation, when in fact the world actually works in broadly the opposite direction.
David Bean wrote:I don't think the current generation, as it grows older, will be concerned about these issues at all, because the desire to discriminate on irrelevant bases (and I think it's important to add that clarification, since all the word 'discrimination' by itself means is the capacity to tell the difference between two unlike things) will have become utterly outmoded, in precisely the manner you suggest. However, under those circumstances there would be no justification for anti-discrimination legislation whatsoever, because it would represent a curtailment of liberty in order to prevent a harm nobody accepted would ever occur.
jollytiddlywink wrote:You may not like this regulation much, but we all want *some* regulation, expect perhaps the wildest anarchists.
http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/rooms.html
I respectfully suggest that this view might be informed by the fact that you, personally, are a straight white male, and are thus unlikely to have animus directed at you because of who you were born.
David Bean wrote:I'll debate this matter on whatever terms I like, thanks very much.
Other than having read a few of his articles on ConHome I don't know the fellow I mentioned from Adam, so I don't know where my supposed 'friendship' with him is supposed to come from.
Laws should not impose a more extensive ethical code upon people than would be required to secure their life, liberty and property rights.
macgamer wrote:Another example for Sinners to consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ition.html
LonelyPilgrim wrote:Religion does deserve protection, gentlemen, because it falls under freedom of conscience. If you don't protect the right of individuals to have religious beliefs and to live their lives according to those religious beliefs, then you are placing arbitrary restrictions on everyone's right to believe what they will on no better grounds than your own biases.
[...]
Please note, I'm not set in my thinking here. In fact I'm troubled by it. I feel I'm able to be persuaded to thinking otherwise, but you have to come up with an argument less disingenuous than "Religion doesn't deserve protection under freedom of conscience." There's just too thin a line between religious belief and other types of unproven belief and matters of conscience.
As I understand homosexual couples are allowed to stay at the B&B, just not to share a bed.
wild_quinine wrote:jollytiddlywink wrote:You may not like this regulation much, but we all want *some* regulation, expect perhaps the wildest anarchists.
Well, I'm not an anarchist. Just a liberal, I suppose. It was the other three thousand new laws I was thinking of when I wrote that line. Oh, but how I hated the New Labour government.
macgamer wrote:Another example for Sinners to consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ition.html
LonelyPilgrim wrote:WQ and Jollytiddlywink - I do think you're being uncharitable to Bean...
Second, the statement would be worse if the sexuality of the referenced individual weren't known. Presumably a homosexual individual has more standing to make a general observation about the matter (even though the argument he was making should be obvious, and applicable to anyone). Would it not be more suspect if it were formulated, "This random bloke says homosexual's don't want to stay somewhere they aren't wanted," or, "This straight guy told me he thinks...?"
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests