Full rights for the LGBT community.

Nodin

junder wrote: »

Gay marriage, a loyalist perspective

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1656794-pupconf-julieacorr-s-impassioned-successful-motion-supporting-equal-marriage

Good to see.

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

Gay marriage, a loyalist perspective

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1656794-pupconf-julieacorr-s-impassioned-successful-motion-supporting-equal-marriage

PUP have only two councilors; the overwhelming majority of those who call themselves Loyalist vote for either the DUP or TUV both of whom oppose gay marriage. Its good that PUP are coming out with the above as it will help trash their chances of cashing in on the flag protests.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

PUP have only two councilors; the overwhelming majority of those who call themselves Loyalist vote for either the DUP or TUV both of whom oppose gay marriage. Its good that PUP are coming out with the above as it will help trash their chances of cashing in on the flag protests.

Why is the advancement of a socially progressive loyalist party something to be decried?

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

PUP have only two councilors; the overwhelming majority of those who call themselves Loyalist vote for either the DUP or TUV both of whom oppose gay marriage. Its good that PUP are coming out with the above as it will help trash their chances of cashing in on the flag protests.

You getting worried about the progressive unionist party, making gains perhaps a party that does not conform do your stereotypical ideal of unionism undermines your argument about unionism in general, the fact that loyalism can actually be forward thinking annoys you

Eggy Baby!

There's plenty of examples of male animals who pull a runner as soon as the female is impregnated.

Occasionally, human males exhibit such behaviour.

SoulandForm

junder wrote: »

You getting worried about the progressive unionist party, making gains perhaps a party that does not conform do your stereotypical ideal of unionism undermines your argument about unionism in general, the fact that loyalism can actually be forward thinking annoys you

Actually I agree with Jamie Bryson on gay marriage.

There are two socially liberal Unionist Parties- one has been around for a long time and they have masses more elected members than PUP so obviously there are "progressive Unionists".

I would count PUP more as a fascist Party than a Unionist party per se.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Actually I agree with Jamie Bryson on gay marriage.

...........

A regressive simplistic view, which does nothing for anyone.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

A regressive simplistic view, which does nothing for anyone.

Your view and fair enough- a lot of Unionists would agree and a lot would disagree.

Given how PUP refused to condemn the attacks on Alliance offices over them voting to have the flag over Belfast city hall flown on the same day as the mainland UK and the Alliance support gay marriage Im a little surprised that people would be so enthusiatic about its "progressiveness"- the SA was also very "progressive" on such matters.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Your view and fair enough- a lot of Unionists would agree and a lot would disagree.

Given how PUP refused to condemn the attacks on Alliance offices over them voting to have the flag over Belfast city hall flown on the same day as the mainland UK and the Alliance support gay marriage Im a little surprised that people would be so enthusiatic about its "progressiveness"- the SA was also very "progressive" on such matters.

It's a start, which should be encouraged.

Christy42

philologos wrote: »

Not at all, there are various journals that describe the differing roles that mothers have and the differing roles that fathers have.

Men and women are different and act differently. I wouldn't have thought that was hugely problematic.

It's absolutely nothing to do with gender stereotyping in the slightest. Take a look for Gender roles in child development, there is a lot of work done on it and much discussing how children find it difficult to grow up without a father.

I know some women who act far manlier than me. Should they be banned from having children with manly men in case of having two father figures effectively? What exactly is the full role of the man in the house? Should I not be allowed kids if I don't fulfill all the requirements? I am useless at DIY and footy ain't my strong point either. People act differently, you may find more men have certain traits and more women have other traits but they are not completely inclusive nor are they completely exclusive of one gender.

Do you have any studies of children growing up with two parents neither of which is the father? i.e. did they separate the issues of growing up in single parent household as compared to a household without a man about? What about taking into account financial stability and social standing? There are many variables in couples raising children. That the gender of the parents is the most important thing is laughable.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

It's a start, which should be encouraged.

A start? The UDA back in the bad old days had an open transgender person as a spokesperson. Loyalism unlike Unionism has pretty much been "progressive" on such issues.

Name me one out gay Republican volunteer?

junder

SoulandForm wrote: »

A start? The UDA back in the bad old days had an open tranny as a spokesperson. Loyalism unlike Unionism has pretty much been "progressive" on such issues.

Name me one out gay Republican volunteer?

Im sure there where a few

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

A start? The UDA back in the bad old days had an open tranny as a spokesperson. Loyalism unlike Unionism has pretty much been "progressive" on such issues.

Name me one out gay Republican volunteer?

Is this now turning into a orange v green pissing contest? I'm pointing out that a loyalist party taking a socially progressive stance is a good thing for society in general. Given your less than developed views on the matter, you obviously have a problem with this.

junder

If you listen to the audio clip, the lady concerned speaks very well. To begin with I was slightly on the fence, my concern was that while I support equal rights for gay couples, i also support the right of people to object to homosexuality and I didn't want church's put into a position where they would be taken to court for refusing to marry a gay couple ( that saying I would have no issue with a church choosing to marry a gay couple) the case of the couple who ran a b&b I'm England who being Christian refuses to allow a gay couple to share a room, they where taken to court sued and as a result have lost their business which also happened to be their home. The gay couple demanded that thier rights be respected but at the same time refused to accept the rights of the couple who ran the b&b. however after listening to the lady speak she convinced me to support her argument

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

...while I support equal rights for gay couples, i also support the right of people to object to homosexuality...

I don't get that. It's like saying "I support equal rights for women, but I also support the right of people to object to women having rights". I don't understand how you can logically hold both views.

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't get that. It's like saying "I support equal rights for women, but I also support the right of people to object to women having rights". I don't understand how you can logically hold both views.

Im not one to defend Junder but what he said is extremely logical- you can support a position and still believe in the right of free discussion against that position; would you say its illogical to be say a Muslim and yet still believe in religious freedom for Christians and Buddhists?

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im not one to defend Junder but what he said is extremely logical- you can support a position and still believe in the right of free discussion against that position...

Sure, but he cited the specific example of a B&B owner who wanted the right to discriminate against a gay couple. If the B&B owner simply wants the right to find homesexuality distasteful, fair enough; if she wants the right to actively discriminate against them, not so much.

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't get that. It's like saying "I support equal rights for women, but I also support the right of people to object to women having rights". I don't understand how you can logically hold both views.

I think in this case there is a difference, we are not talking about a large hotel chain but a small family run business. The owners of this business are practicing Christians, don't they have rights? Should'nt thier beliefs also be respected? Why was it so important that the gay couple have to stay in that particular b&b, why didn't they exercise thier right to just walk away. Would I have the right To a Muslim run b&b and demand non halal pork sausages while my girlfriend sits there wearing next to nothing? it's my right to eat what I want and her right to dress how she pleases, or should I be respectful of the religious beliefs of the Muslim hosts? When we talk about equality then it should be just that, an equal respect for society's differences

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, but he cited the specific example of a B&B owner who wanted the right to discriminate against a gay couple. If the B&B owner simply wants the right to find homesexuality distasteful, fair enough; if she wants the right to actively discriminate against them, not so much.

Okay what is a B and B owner refuses to rent a room to a non-married hetrosexual couple on the grounds of opposition to pre-marital sex, do you think that that should be illegal?

I dont think also you can talk about homosexual persons the same way that you can talk about black persons or English persons or whatever; you can talk about homosexual acts and people who are either addicted or pre-disposed to them. Comparing a B and B owner not wanting homosexual acts preformed on his property to a B and B owner refusing to rent to say Asians I believe is wrong.

Also you have to understand that Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sikhs dont see homosexual acts as merely distasteful but actually deeply evil. The Roman Catholic Church for instance which is the largest Christian Church in Ireland sees homosexual acts as being equal to willful murder and the oppression of the poor.

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, but he cited the specific example of a B&B owner who wanted the right to discriminate against a gay couple. If the B&B owner simply wants the right to find homesexuality distasteful, fair enough; if she wants the right to actively discriminate against them, not so much.

It could be easier all round if common sense was applied, I fully support gay rights but I can understand why a christian couple would not want a gay couple having sex in their home/business premises. Perhaps the gay community should be more accepting of people who do not want to supply them services? It's not a rare thing after all to just ignore people who don't want to do business with you, that's b&b's loss could have been a more forward thinking owners gain!

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

I think in this case there is a difference, we are not talking about a large hotel chain but a small family run business. The owners of this business are practicing Christians, don't they have rights? Should'nt thier beliefs also be respected?

As the old adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts.

Why was it so important that the gay couple have to stay in that particular b&b, why didn't they exercise thier right to just walk away.

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, they had booked in advance and showed up late in the evening. It wasn't a question of leisurely picking one of several convenient guesthouses and then insisting on staying there.

SoulandForm wrote: »

Okay what is a B and B owner refuses to rent a room to a non-married hetrosexual couple on the grounds of opposition to pre-marital sex, do you think that that should be illegal?

I think it's discriminatory. I don't know if it should be illegal, but if you're going to discriminate on the grounds of your own personal bigotry, I think you should make that clear well in advance to anyone who's booking.

I dont think also you can talk about homosexual persons the same way that you can talk about black persons or English persons or whatever; you can talk about homosexual acts and people who are either addicted or pre-disposed to them.

If you're going to start claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then we don't have the basis of an intelligent conversation.

gallag wrote: »

Perhaps the gay community should be more accepting of people who do not want to supply them services?

Substitute "black" for "gay" and let me know how you get on.

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

As the old adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts. If it's the same case I'm thinking of, they had booked in advance and showed up late in the evening. It wasn't a question of leisurely picking one of several convenient guesthouses and then insisting on staying there.

I think it's discriminatory. I don't know if it should be illegal, but if you're going to discriminate on the grounds of your own personal bigotry, I think you should make that clear well in advance to anyone who's booking. If you're going to start claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then we don't have the basis of an intelligent conversation.

Substitute "black" for "gay" and let me know how you get on.

Would you discover the Christian, islamic jewish faith as bigoted then?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's the same case I'm thinking of, they had booked in advance and showed up late in the evening.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was clearly stated on the website about the religious beliefs. I think the B&B should have had the right to refuse service. Of course, then the couple could go and tell everyone that they did - but nothing further

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

Would you discover the Christian, islamic jewish faith as bigoted then?

Do they require their adherents to discriminate against homosexuals?

bluewolf wrote: »

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was clearly stated on the website about the religious beliefs. I think the B&B should have had the right to refuse service. Of course, then the couple could go and tell everyone that they did - but nothing further

Should a business have a right to discriminate based on skin colour?

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do they require their adherents to discriminate against homosexuals?

Should a business have a right to discriminate based on skin colour?

Do religious people believe God views skin colour in the same way as homesexuality? Bit of a ridiculous argument really.

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do they require their adherents to discriminate against homosexuals?

Should a business have a right to discriminate based on skin colour?

In effect they do

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

Do religious people believe God views skin colour in the same way as homesexuality? Bit of a ridiculous argument really.

So if a religion required its adherents to discriminate against people of different races the same way it requires them to discriminate against people of different sexualities, the law should accomodate that?

NuMarvel

gallag wrote: »

Do religious people believe God views skin colour in the same way as homesexuality? Bit of a ridiculous argument really.

Some religious people did and probably still do. It was a feature of the arguments against interracial marriages in the 50s and 60s that the "intermingling of the races" was against God's plan.

Does that mean people who maintain that belief should be allowed to discriminate on basis of skin colour?

SoulandForm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it's discriminatory. I don't know if it should be illegal, but if you're going to discriminate on the grounds of your own personal bigotry, I think you should make that clear well in advance to anyone who's booking. If you're going to start claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then we don't have the basis of an intelligent conversation.

Substitute "black" for "gay" and let me know how you get on.

We are all bigots to a certain degree and I dont think all bigotry is necessarily bad; what is wrong about being bigoted against those who see child abuse and rape as acceptable for instance? Irish people- whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, Unionist, Nationalist or Republican are among the most bigoted people in Europe; your own bigotry towards "homophobes" could be taken as an example of that.

Maybe you might have an argument is they were refusing a room to someone on the grounds that they were homosexual- however there is a massive difference between that and refusing a homosexual couple wanting a double bed.

oscarBravo

SoulandForm wrote: »

We are all bigots to a certain degree and I dont think all bigotry is necessarily bad; what is wrong about being bigoted against those who see child abuse and rape as acceptable for instance?

I can't think of a kind way of describing that as a bullsh*t argument.

token56

SoulandForm wrote: »

We are all bigots to a certain degree and I dont think all bigotry is necessarily bad; what is wrong about being bigoted against those who see child abuse and rape as acceptable for instance?

This is just pure bullsh*t really. There is a world of difference between being bigoted towards someone who accepts child abuse or rape as acceptable, and someone being bigoted towards two consenting adults who wish to share the same bed.

You seem to make the conclusion that because its ok to bigoted towards something like child abuse, we should accept bigotry in line with other incomparable personal beliefs. Just ludicrous.

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if a religion required its adherents to discriminate against people of different races the same way it requires them to discriminate against people of different sexualities, the law should accomodate that?

We have 3 major faiths that do preach that homosexuality is a sin, should we ban these religions? Should church's, mosques and synagogs be forced to marry same sex couples? Why should people's rights always be a competition with other people's rights surly mutual respect is the way forward. I firmly believe that same sex couples should not be discriminated against in adoption, in the work place in society in general likewise I believe that in a persons home regardless of wether or not they run a business, thier religious views should be respected. I was listening to a news report today and apparently the coupe on question would not allow in married heterosexual couples to share a room, which again according to thier faith is a sin

aloyisious

SoulandForm wrote: »

Okay what is a B and B owner refuses to rent a room to a non-married hetrosexual couple on the grounds of opposition to pre-marital sex, do you think that that should be illegal?

I dont think also you can talk about homosexual persons the same way that you can talk about black persons or English persons or whatever; you can talk about homosexual acts and people who are either addicted or pre-disposed to them. Comparing a B and B owner not wanting homosexual acts preformed on his property to a B and B owner refusing to rent to say Asians I believe is wrong.

Also you have to understand that Muslims, Christians, Jews and Sikhs dont see homosexual acts as merely distasteful but actually deeply evil. The Roman Catholic Church for instance which is the largest Christian Church in Ireland sees homosexual acts as being equal to willful murder and the oppression of the poor.

@SoulandForm: It seem's to me that the points you posted above in this debate are based around the opinion that when a homosexual couple (or even an unmarried couple) request or share a double-bed that they are going to have sexual congress. Other people could well say use the expression "you have a dirty mind" to describe your apparent preconception that merely because people share a double-bed they are going to have sex together.

One of the other points you mention indicates you apparently believe that all homosexuals are non-christian, non-jewish, non-muslim, non-sikh, or whichever other religious belief you choose to add to your list.

I'd like you to get an official representative of the Roman Catholic Church to openly issue a statement to the media (or on here) stating that it is the view of the RCC that homosexual acts are the same as wilful murder and the oppression of the poor.

Personally I believe that your stated opinions have no credibility and have been posted purely to gain attention and excite angry responses.

aloyisious

junder wrote: »

We have 3 major faiths that do preach that homosexuality is a sin, should we ban these religions? Should church's, mosques and synagogs be forced to marry same sex couples? Why should people's rights always be a competition with other people's rights surly mutual respect is the way forward. I firmly believe that same sex couples should not be discriminated against in adoption, in the work place in society in general likewise I believe that in a persons home regardless of wether or not they run a business, thier religious views should be respected. I was listening to a news report today and apparently the coupe on question would not allow in married heterosexual couples to share a room, which again according to thier faith is a sin

My understanding is that NO religion or church/place of worship is/will be forced to perform same-sex couple marriages or weddings in any statute law propsals or plans. That is being done on the basis you mention; mutual respect of other peoples religious beliefs.

As with SoulandForm's mention of persons operating a guesthouse for profit under the Civil Statute Laws of whatever country refusing the custom of O/P's merely because of preconceptions, I think you'll find the guesthouse operator is well aware that they freely entered into agreement to comply with the laws, and would fall foul of those laws if they did not operate within the same laws remit. If they don't want to honour their word, they should close up shop and hand in their guesthouse licence.

SoulandForm

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd like you to get an official representative of the Roman Catholic Church to openly issue a statement to the media (or on here) stating that it is the view of the RCC that homosexual acts are the same as wilful murder and the oppression of the poor.

Personally I believe that your stated opinions have no credibility and have been posted purely to gain attention and excite angry responses.

There is a list in the old Missal of sins calling for vengence from Heaven- among them is homosexuality.

My stated opinions on what exactly? You might find it weird but Ulster folk on both sides of the fence dont have in majority the same PC views on homosexuality that southerners have-"gay bashing" (which I condemn as evil) has its UK capital in Derry. Infact the pro-homosexual/anti-Christian extremism of many in the south is making me re-think my views on the border; maybe for all the nightmare we would be better off and safer within the UK (my views on British militarism and that Loyalism=fascism will not be changing though).

token56

junder wrote: »

We have 3 major faiths that do preach that homosexuality is a sin, should we ban these religions? Should church's, mosques and synagogs be forced to marry same sex couples? Why should people's rights always be a competition with other people's rights surly mutual respect is the way forward. I firmly believe that same sex couples should not be discriminated against in adoption, in the work place in society in general likewise I believe that in a persons home regardless of wether or not they run a business, thier religious views should be respected. I was listening to a news report today and apparently the coupe on question would not allow in married heterosexual couples to share a room, which again according to thier faith is a sin

This here is where the main conflict arises in my opinion. No logical person would say that we should ban religions or that church's etc should be forced to marry same sex couples. Nobody I can see is looking for this to happen. But I do not agree with the highlighted part above. As soon as a person starts to use their home as a place of business in a secular society, whether as a B&B or something else, I do not think religious beliefs should be protected when said beliefs may discriminate against a section of society in a way that prevents that section being afforded the same rights as all others in society.

I accept everyone has a right to their own beliefs and can act in accordance with their own beliefs in their own personal time and their own home as long as it does not impact negatively on those around them within reason. But as soon as they start using their home as a business they have made a choice to offer a service to the general population. They should not be allowed pick and choose who can avail of said service in accordance with their personal beliefs.

junder

aloyisious wrote: »

My understanding is that NO religion or church/place of worship is/will be forced to perform same-sex couple marriages or weddings in any statute law propsals or plans. That is being done on the basis you mention; mutual respect of other peoples religious beliefs.

As with SoulandForm's mention of persons operating a guesthouse for profit under the Civil Statute Laws of whatever country refusing the custom of O/P's merely because of preconceptions, I think you'll find the guesthouse operator is well aware that they freely entered into agreement to comply with the laws, and would fall foul of those laws if they did not operate within the same laws remit. If they don't want to honour their word, they should close up shop and hand in their guesthouse licence.

Under European human rights legislation a gay couple could take a church to court for refusing to marry them. Incidentally the lady in the clip I provided has said that if such a thing was to happen she would get the pup to withdraw the its supper of gay marriage, ( for those that have not listened to the clip the lady in question is already in a civil partnership with her partner). What I gave not yet said that while I had some concerns about gay marriage this articulate young lady convinced me of her argument to support her proposal, I hope we have more articulate loyalists like her step forward

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

We have 3 major faiths that do preach that homosexuality is a sin, should we ban these religions?

Who's talking about banning religions? I'm simply talking about religious beliefs not being an acceptable reason to discriminate against gay people.

...surly mutual respect is the way forward.

I'm not sure what part of "I refuse to do business with you because of your sexual orientation" is supposed to be consistent with mutual respect.

...apparently the coupe on question would not allow in married heterosexual couples to share a room, which again according to thier faith is a sin

Contraception is a sin. Should guesthouses be allowed to stipulate that married couples not use contraception on the premises?

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

Under European human rights legislation a gay couple could take a church to court for refusing to marry them.

I doubt it.

Iwasfrozen

token56 wrote: »

This here is where the main conflict arises in my opinion. No logical person would say that we should ban religions or that church's etc should be forced to marry same sex couples. Nobody I can see is looking for this to happen. But I do not agree with the highlighted part above. As soon as a person starts to use their home as a place of business in a secular society, whether as a B&B or something else, I do not think religious beliefs should be protected when said beliefs may discriminate against a section of society in a way that prevents that section being afforded the same rights as all others in society.

I accept everyone has a right to their own beliefs and can act in accordance with their own beliefs in their own personal time and their own home as long as it does not impact negatively on those around them within reason. But as soon as they start using their home as a business they have made a choice to offer a service to the general population. They should not be allowed pick and choose who can avail of said service in accordance with their personal beliefs.

But you have to have a right to deny the services of your business to anyone you want without giving a reason. Otherwise the entire capitalist concept of private ownership of business is compromised.

oscarBravo

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But you have to have a right to deny the services of your business to anyone you want without giving a reason. Otherwise the entire capitalist concept of private ownership of business is compromised.

So it's OK to discriminate, as long as you lie about your reasons for discrimination?

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who's talking about banning religions? I'm simply talking about religious beliefs not being an acceptable reason to discriminate against gay people. I'm not sure what part of "I refuse to do business with you because of your sexual orientation" is supposed to be consistent with mutual respect. Contraception is a sin. Should guesthouses be allowed to stipulate that married couples not use contraception on the premises?

So in this case the rights of the gay coupe superceed the rights of the Christian couple? Lets say I fancied a holiday in Torquay What if i went to book this hotel

http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

Should I be taking them to court for discriminating against me as a heterosexual male and my female partner, or should I just accept that it's a gay men only hotel and look to book else where

28064212

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But you have to have a right to deny the services of your business to anyone you want without giving a reason.

You don't actually. If a shop turns away every single black person without explicitly saying it's because they're black, they can still be prosecuted under discrimination legislation

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Otherwise the entire capitalist concept of private ownership of business is compromised.

No, one small facet of the capitalist concept is compromised. And unless you're for the complete de-regulation of every single industry and lifting of every restriction of every substance for sale, then you support compromising the capitalist concept as well

28064212

junder wrote: »

So in this case the rights of the gay coupe superceed the rights of the Christian couple? Lets say I fancied a holiday in Torquay What if i went to book this hotel

http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

Should I be taking them to court for discriminating against me as a heterosexual male and my female partner, or should I just accept that it's a gay men only hotel and look to book else where

...

To comply with the equalities act we are a Private Members Club catering for Gay & Bisexual Men. Membership is included when booking

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

So in this case the rights of the gay coupe superceed the rights of the Christian couple? Lets say I fancied a holiday in Torquay What if i went to book this hotel

http://www.keywesttorquay.co.uk/

Should I be taking them to court for discriminating against me as a heterosexual male and my female partner, or should I just accept that it's a gay men only hotel and look to book else where

How about you answer my contraception question, then I'll deal with this one.

token56

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But you have to have a right to deny the services of your business to anyone you want without giving a reason. Otherwise the entire capitalist concept of private ownership of business is compromised.

Yes, but as long as the reason is not against public policy. If the reason you deny your service of business is against public policy you do not have the right to deny a service. If ones public beliefs are against public policy then sorry but either allow them avail of your service or no longer offer your service if you feel a conflict of interest. If ones public beliefs are in line with public policy, no problem, you are lucky.

The question is should irrational/rational personal beliefs which are derived from religious doctrine be afford protection under public policy. In a secular society, of which Ireland is, I think not. Religious doctrine should not directly shape public policy, there is simply no need for it. Public policy should be based on evidence driven, rational, well thought out and debated morals and ethics. Of course religion can be included in such debates but it should always be the wider society that is thought of first when making such policies.

junder

28064212 wrote: »

...

So that's the caveat then, if I'm running a b&b if I make it a private members b&b ( membership included in the booking) I can be selective in who I allow to stay?

aloyisious

SoulandForm wrote: »

There is a list in the old Missal of sins calling for vengence from Heaven- among them is homosexuality.

My stated opinions on what exactly? You might find it weird but Ulster folk on both sides of the fence dont have in majority the same PC views on homosexuality that southerners have-"gay bashing" (which I condemn as evil) has its UK capital in Derry. Infact the pro-homosexual/anti-Christian extremism of many in the south is making me re-think my views on the border; maybe for all the nightmare we would be better off and safer within the UK (my views on British militarism and that Loyalism=fascism will not be changing though).

Going off-topic here in response to your anti-christian extremism quote above, I'd say the sins of the fathers resulted in Christians on this side of the border having their eyes opened as to what was going on around them in the name of Christianity and those newly opened eyes (mote-removed) view things in the manner of true Christianity, beginning with treating other humans with respect.

28064212

junder wrote: »

So that's the caveat then, if I'm running a b&b if I make it a private members b&b ( membership included in the booking) I can be selective in who I allow to stay?

Apparently*. But the simple fact of the matter is that the B&B is not a private members' club, and they were breaking the law

*IANAL

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

How about you answer my contraception question, then I'll deal with this one.

How about you answer the question I put to you about staying in a Muslim run b&b, should I demand ( and haven these demands met ) to eat non halal meat or pork and have my partner wear next nothing ( as long as its still decent or at least what western society still deems as decent) as is our right or should I be respectful of the religious beliefs of the Muslim hosts?