jollytiddlywink wrote: Does a claim of divine inspiration for a belief make it more worthy than a claim of empirical evidence for another belief?
No. Not a claim. But if the belief is
right, or
true, then it clearly is more worthy, or as worthy as any other claim.
We don't know which beliefs are true, and which are not. But the issue is not so much about whether the belief is true, at a specific level. The issue is whether we allow people to live as if
their beliefs are true.
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.
Being told that you can believe what you want, but not live as if your beliefs are true, is really the essence of this problem. So I don't see that as a way out, in the general argument.
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 quite agree with this, and to the extent that the Christian couple are using the line that 'it's because they're not married', then I think the 'well, actually they are married' line is a perfectly acceptable return, no boundaries crossed, and please STFU and get back to running your now infamous B&B.
So in practical terms I think the ruling was correct - discrimination was unfair, and they were rightly slapped on the wrists.
Whether or not people have the right to live as they believe, when they believe something that is legally as well as morally objectionable, such as that being gay is wrong, I don't know. Perhaps every answer to the question, for a time, must be made on a case-by-case basis. The law lives by its spirit, after all.
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...
Again, yes. In this specific case, I don't think there was much more that could have been done. I think that this judgement was sound, and carefully considered. It was made in the light of the law, respectful to the beliefs of all involved and came to a sensible, considered, legal conclusion.
But it was also appropriate to note the difficulties inherent in the case, which were thoughtfully handled. Because there really is something to this 'one protected right vs another' argument, and it will return in force the next time a such a case is brought. As it inevitably will be...
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.
Yes. And I've come to see this more and more clearly, the more I have looked into it. Even if you take the tiny, barely notable possible references to homosexuality and interpret them all strongly, they still represent a much smaller difference in religious belief than that which exists even between different individual sects of Christianity, such as between Catholics and Protestants and, whilst they have their differences, they largely consider one another to be Christians. I mean, the Catholic vs. Protestant bibles have different books in them, for crying out loud!
At best such a prevalent belief is just vestigial cultural trash. "We all think being gay is
wrong, and here's a small collection of sentences which just barely support that notion."
But whilst taking out the trash seems like common sense to me, I definitely wouldn't want to
legislate common sense, as there'd be a great deal more trouble in the world than any religious crusade ever caused, if we tried that...
No, people should be free to come to their own conclusions, and able to live by them, (and with them!), as much as possible.
LonelyPilgrim wrote:Regulation creates complexities and paradoxes.
In that case, thanks to New Labour, we now exist only in a quantum state.
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.
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.
What's that? Those freaky guys don't
haverights? Your childrens' children will disagree. If not on that, then certainly on some other matter which right now seems distateful and obviously wrong.
David Bean wrote:for the most part ConHome is a haven for intelligent, civilised discussion.
Indeed. Cigars and port all round.
No, seriously though, I have no intention of hanging around to find out.
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.
There is a very short list of things that you can't discriminate on the basis of, and I'm largely comfortable with that list. It exists to protect the rights of people to be in minorities, and still part of a functioning society. It is one of the small controls that civilised society rightly accepts to improve the freedom of the people to live as they wish.
If a customer is being rowdy, or rude, or breaking the house rules, or just plain old wasting your time, all to the good. But no, I don't think you should be able to turn someone away because they are gay, or black, or christian.
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
That's not really the problem. Not that we might return to a state of racial discrimination. The problem is that the specific discrimination against gay customers right now is , or will one day be seen to be, in the same category of wrong as racial disrimination. Why do we allow the one, when we do not allow the other?
The problem is not that we might start discriminating against group X. The problem is that we ARE discriminating against group X, right now. We are possibly the last generation who will even think it worth having this argument. Even if you don't care about that, consider how bad you'll look a few years down the line. It's going to be like having dinner with Prince Phillip by the time you're a grandpa.
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.
Story of the week: people don't feel welcome when they're being made to feel unwelcome. I wouldn't want to hang five in a Yakuza bar, either; what's your point? This is a distraction at best, and pretty offensive if you stop to think about it for any length of time.
Nick Griffin says of local muslims that, of course, legally, they're able to come and see him. But he
expects they'll probably want to go elsewhere... so that's all right, then?