New Gay Rights Laws Upheld

[Si Hunt]

Hundreds of people have staged a torchlit protest against new laws designed to give added protection to lesbians and gays against discrimination.

The large crowd of mainly Christians packed into a tiny square opposite the Houses of Parliament to demonstrate over the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

The new laws are designed to prevent businesses discriminating against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services. But the protestors said the new laws would stop religious people from making decisions based on their conscience or faith.

This is an interesting one. It prevents, for examples, hotels from refusing to give rooms to gay couples and, on the other end of the scale, gay clubs from banning straight couples.

Religious groups are saying it is decriminating against them on a religious basis - for example, a parish would be forced to rent out a room for a gay wedding, thereby forcing it to go against bible teachings.

"Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong." they say.

I suppose what it comes down to is that Christianity itself is homophobic - and teaches that homosexuality is wrong. So in ensuring equal rights for gays, the law will force Christians to go against the teachings of the bible.

Anyway, the law has been upheld! So it's now equal rights for all. But was this decision the right one? Is all descrimination against gays and lesbians wrong? Even when it goes against Christian teachings?

Si.

[Paul Monk]

Yes its absolutely right. I think very few Christians follow the Bible to the letter and even the church are coming round to accepting gay vicars (well C of E anyway) The Bible also says that you can't get into heaven if your ***** has been damaged in anyway but do they devotely uphold that?
I've never understood how Christianity can spout out about how we all need to help and love each other, oops except if you're gay!!!
The tale of the Good Samaritan would be very different if he fancied men wouldn't it?

Anyway I'm spouting off a load of rubbbish. Time to shut up.

[Raston]

This law is stupid and its human rights gone mad.

People should have the rights to refuse entry or use of *their* facilities if they choose. They gay issue has just been used as a way of making it look as though it is some sort of nasty anti-gay rule. But its not. If a hotel owner wants to refuse a gay couple, or an unmarried couple using a hotel-then it really should be up to him. And would a gay or an unmarried couple really want to use such a hotel anyway-forcing people to do things is a step backwards not a step forwards.

I fail to see why thousand year old religions should be expected to change their views to accept a group of people. They are a religion, not a night club.
If a religion wants to change its rules then that is up to it, but it should never ever have anything like this forced upon them by state regulations.

This really is a dangerous state of affairs.

Another example of this government making law after law without thinking about it first. It would be more to the point if they dealt with serious crime instead of making silly pointless ill thought out rulings.


I am not anti-gay rights in the slightest. But i am very much against needless laws for the sake of needless laws.

[Si Hunt]

So if you found a hotel to stay, there wasn't any other alternative (say, it was late, you were tired, and the city was packed) and they said "Sorry, we don't accept Scots here", you'd be okay with that?

Si.

[Wayne]

Yes its absolutely right. I think very few Christians follow the Bible to the letter and even the church are coming round to accepting gay vicars (well C of E anyway) The Bible also says that you can't get into heaven if your ***** has been damaged in anyway but do they devotely uphold that?
I've never understood how Christianity can spout out about how we all need to help and love each other, oops except if you're gay!!!
The tale of the Good Samaritan would be very different if he fancied men wouldn't it?

Anyway I'm spouting off a load of rubbbish. Time to shut up.

I can't believe that people still do religion in this day & age. It's dead easy to hide behind religion. It saves people from confronting themselves.
Anyway, that's probably another argument for another thread. I'll come back to the main gist of this thread later. There's a lot here to be discussed really, & i'm off to shops shortly.

[Raston]

So if you found a hotel to stay, there wasn't any other alternative (say, it was late, you were tired, and the city was packed) and they said "Sorry, we don't accept Scots here", you'd be okay with that?

Si.

Its up to the owner.

And i have been 'dicriminated' against in England for being Scottish. Likeiwse i have been discriminated in Scotland for being English (some people don't understand accents!).

Would i want to stay at somewhere that didn't welcome me but only let me in because it was legally required to? No way.

[Si Hunt]

I don't believe you'd be that understanding if you really needed the room Andrew.

Si.

[Ralph]

So if you found a hotel to stay, there wasn't any other alternative (say, it was late, you were tired, and the city was packed) and they said "Sorry, we don't accept Scots here", you'd be okay with that?

Si.

I would question his legitimacy for a start...I don't think verbal abuse on my part could be avoided... I must admit fortunately I don't think this would ever happen..and on this basis I do sympathise with gay couples - of course it should already be the case that such discrimination should be removed.

As for religion - boll**ks to it being around for thousands of years...the length of time is meaningless. I think religions are full of prejudice and hypocrisy which is why I have no time for them. I don't mean to offend those who have strong religious beliefs but thats the way I feel about it.

I feel the Bible is just the world's oldest "bestseller" which contains many points of common sense but also much non-sense.

[Matthew T]

Discriminating against gays isn't any better than discriminating against blacks or asians - you don't choose to be gay!

[Raston]

I don't believe you'd be that understanding if you really needed the room Andrew.

Si.

I'd really like to think i'd have a blazing row for being refused a room.

But i wouldn't, i'm too polite and easy going-i suspect i'd end up saying 'Oh well thank you very much for your time anyway'.

I once missed a flight by minutes because i couldn't get a connecting train because there was a silly japanese tourist taking so long to buy a ticket. When i did managed to get the next train and rush to the airport i got to the flight desk and told they told me i was 2 minutes to late to check in; so i appologised for being late and wasting their time!

[Si Hunt]

"It seems to me, in my simplistic way, that what they (the opponents of the regulations) are arguing for is quite simply the right to discriminate and the right to harass.

It's true isn't it? What anyone who opposes this is saying is that people should have the RIGHT to discriminate, whether that be via colour, sexuality or sex?

Si.

[Raston]

I'd like to quote this from Conservative Gramae Archer (found on the conservativehome website)

:


"It does hurt, you know, the thought that some people would look at Keith and myself and judge us as some sort of sinful reprobates, rather than seeing the love and kindness we try to evince, but I don't think I'd pass a law against it. If the government focused on prosecuting people who commit real crimes of hate, who go out of their way to make the lives of their fellow citizens less pleasant (try living off the Roman Road, E3 for a few years, you'll soon know the definition of "anti-social") maybe we'd become the sort of country where people didn't feel the need to run for legislation to protect their (often real) grievances. Section 28 was egregious and wrong: if councils in the 1980s really were obsessively determined to turn kids gay, they'd have been voted out of office. So this new law is also unnecessary: if there really is a mass of private providers out there who go out of their way to make gay people feel bad, then I'm convinced (through personal experience) that most people would react against it. I'm sufficiently optimistic to believe that the fear is not real; but any country which requires legislation for basic human decency is almost certainly missing the real problem."


I think he makes very valid the point that i was trying to make in regards to the hotel issue.

[Raston]

"It seems to me, in my simplistic way, that what they (the opponents of the regulations) are arguing for is quite simply the right to discriminate and the right to harass.

It's true isn't it? What anyone who opposes this is saying is that people should have the RIGHT to discriminate, whether that be via colour, sexuality or sex?

Si.

With freedom comes responsability.

If we truely want to live in a free society, then we must trust people to do the right thing-if they don't society will judge them and they will change. But i don't think legislation is the way to go. I would much rather see voluntary codes than laws to cover these sorts of matters.

If you don't let people discriminate, does that mean we end women only organisations, or black only awards, or ban india/chinese restraunts from only hiring india/chinese staff?

Discrimination is not always against minority groups-more often than not it is in their favour.

[Si Hunt]

All that statement seems to say is "why arn't the police out catching real criminals" which is just totally besides the point.

And I admire your optimism in "trusting people to do the right thing and letting society judge them otherwise they will change". Shall we legalise murder as well? People will do the right thing, and if they don't then society will judge them and then they will change.

If you don't let people discriminate, does that mean we end women only organisations, or black only awards, or ban india/chinese restraunts from only hiring india/chinese staff?

Why would you end up with women-only organisations?! That would be discriminating against men. Not discriminating means that everyone is equal.

These things all seem to be avoiding the issue, wheter it's by saying "there are more important crimes" or "just trust people not to discriminate" or "end discrimination and the minorities will take over".

At the end of the day, we all have to be treated equally and you can't allow one group's rights to overall anothers. Neither can you allow some anti-discrimination laws but not implement others - it's okay for us to be racially equal, but not equal in terms of sexuality? You wouldn't ban two people from a hotel because they were black any more.

Si.

[Raston]

All that statement seems to say is "why arn't the police out catching real criminals" which is just totally besides the point.

And I admire your optimism in "trusting people to do the right thing and letting society judge them otherwise they will change". Shall we legalise murder as well? People will do the right thing, and if they don't then society will judge them and then they will change.


Why would you end up with women-only organisations?! That would be discriminating against men. Not discriminating means that everyone is equal.

These things all seem to be avoiding the issue, wheter it's by saying "there are more important crimes" or "just trust people not to discriminate" or "end discrimination and the minorities will take over".

At the end of the day, we all have to be treated equally and you can't allow one group's rights to overall anothers. Neither can you allow some anti-discrimination laws but not implement others - it's okay for us to be racially equal, but not equal in terms of sexuality? You wouldn't ban two people from a hotel because they were black any more.

Si.

Si your points are all very true. But i worry that this sets a dangerous precident.

I just don't like the whole notion that *any* organisation-be it a golf club, or a WI group, or an India Restraunt, or a Black youth group, or a LGBT centre or whatever; should always have to accept anyone joining. And that is exactly the sort of issue that these legislations will cause.

People should be protected when a crime is committed, yes. But i don't think there should be a law to stop discrimination-it is an issue that should be left to society to deal with. If for example a black couple were banned from a hotel because of their colour then there would rightly be a public outcry, and i suspect the same would happen for a gay couple.

Lets be clear here, it has only been legal to be a practicing homosexual for less than 40 years-you can't expect attitudes to change overnight, but the are changing and they will change. But forcing these things to change are not the way to go.

There are situations when discrimination should not just be allowed, but defended- male only clubs, female only clubs, chinese only, left handed only or whatever. Because it allows people of these specific groups to spend time with people who have the same problems and experiances, and it does no harm to anyone else.

Laws should be for protecting people, not for petty point scoring. And i believe current legislation covering abuse on racial or sexual grounds should be sufficent, for the few extraordinary situations like being banned from a hotel or something-without needing an extra law.

[Si Hunt]

Yes, actually I see what you mean. I misunderstood your point about womens only organisations - of course, they DO exist, e.g the WI!

However, whereas you make good points with regards the WI and the MOBOS, this law is to do with sexuality and I don't really see the need for gays-only groups either, to be honest. Maybe that's controversial but they are a symptom of an otherwise unwelcoming society - needed only as a 'shelter' because gays are not tolerated elsewhere. So let's get rid of them, along with the predujudice.

And actually, although this issue isn't concerned with race, I think the MOBO's are bad as well. I can kind of see the idea of celebrating your culture, but not by actually having "blacks only" awards, which is what they are. You can't cry equality and then say "and now let's award the best black musicians"!

Si.

[Trudi G]

This is such a tricky area, and one that is causing some contoversy on this forum alone!
There's the argument that we shouldn't descriminate against anyone, no matter what sexuality, colour or religion, but does that mean that we have no say in who we would want in our properties?
I have no problems personally with people of any kind, as long as they are decent people, and if i had a guest house i wouldn't turn anyone away. But unfortunately there are still homophobic people out there, just as there are racists and sexists.
I don't really know what the answer is to be honest. Everyone has rights, and no-one group of peoples rights should override anothers, but i don't believe in discrimination either!
As far as using the religious side to prove a point, thats a load of rubbish really, and people just use religion as an excuse to back them up when they can't find anything else.

[Si Hunt]

Again, it's important to note that this issue is solely to do with sexuality. It's not made any ruling on race which, for example, would be a far trickier issue because race is tied up with culture and family e.g Indian weddings etc. It can be blurred with genuine differences in people due to race. But I can't think of a situation where it would be acceptable to discriminate against sexuality.

Si.

[Lissa]

The point of the new law is that businesses are no longer able to discriminate against gay people. If you run a hotel, you are in business to make money renting rooms to people. The more rooms you rent, the more money you make, the more successful your business is. If you find the idea of gay people sharing a bed under your roof disgusting then maybe you shouldn't run a hotel. Plenty of hotels and boarding houses had "no coloureds" signs up until the law was changed. Then the owners of such places had the choice - stop discriminating or stop being a hotelier.

If people want to believe -

People should have the rights to refuse entry or use of *their* facilities if they choose. They gay issue has just been used as a way of making it look as though it is some sort of nasty anti-gay rule. But its not. If a hotel owner wants to refuse a gay couple, or an unmarried couple using a hotel-then it really should be up to him.

Then they are welcome to but only if they would equally advocate -

People should have the rights to refuse entry or use of *their* facilities if they choose. They race issue has just been used as a way of making it look as though it is some sort of nasty anti-black rule. But its not. If a hotel owner wants to refuse a black couple, or an Asian couple using a hotel-then it really should be up to him.

And -

People should have the rights to refuse entry or use of *their* facilities if they choose. They Jewish issue has just been used as a way of making it look as though it is some sort of nasty anti-Semitic rule. But its not. If a hotel owner wants to refuse a Jewish couple, or a non-Aryan couple using a hotel-then it really should be up to him.

[Raston]

Lissa- You make a very good point indeed.

But my point is always that i think anti-discrimination legislation is not the way forward.

I wouldn't use a hotel that banned gay or black or jewish people-and i would trust that society as a majority would not use such places and they would go out of business.

My problem is not that the legislation is to protect people from discrimination-my problem is that there are other ways of dealing with these issues, and extra laws are not the way to go.

More laws just provide jobs for more lawyers, and don't address the problems. Perhaps education people would be a better way to make them accept others, rather than using laws and forcing them to?

[Nathan]

It's hard to argue against religion, because at the end of the day it is a matter of faith and faith transcends argument and logical reasoning.

It is the correct decision (for all the reasons posted above), but should we expect people to act against their faith?

I would say yes, but then I don't have faith. I'm sure there are some religious hotel owners out there who really fear the everlasting fires of hell if they allow "forbidden" sexual practices in their establishment. They might be a nice couple as well with not an inch of discrimination in them, but what God wants, God gets.

Should this elderly, forgiving and otherwise public spirited couple be forced to spend the rest of their lives dreading damnation in the afterlife?

[Nathan]

Lissa- You make a very good point indeed.

But my point is always that i think anti-discrimination legislation is not the way forward.

I wouldn't use a hotel that banned gay or black or jewish people-and i would trust that society as a majority would not use such places and they would go out of business.

But would they? Or would they become a huge success and magnet for bigots of all types throughout the county.

A lot of people actually vote BNP you know.

[Raston]

But would they? Or would they become a huge success and magnet for bigots of all types throughout the county.

A lot of people actually vote BNP you know.

Laws like this are a gift to the BNP-they are making themselves into the party that stands up for 'normal' (in their eyes) peoples freedom.

As for them becoming a magnet for the bigots-well if nothing else it would keep these bigots out of the normal hotels!

[Lissa]

More laws just provide jobs for more lawyers, and don't address the problems. Perhaps education people would be a better way to make them accept others, rather than using laws and forcing them to?

Well drafted legislation, in this instance, would reduce the legal complexity because it would be clear and unambiguous. At present, anyone wishing to take action against a hotel that refused a room to them and their same-sex partner would probably have to prove a breach of their human rights. Lawyers thrive on grey areas and love all purpose safety nets like "human rights".

As for education, the best lessons are always those learned through personal experience so preventing bigots from avoiding all contact with anything even remotely gay might make them see that there is nothing to fear. They won't be raped in the toilets or be forced to watch, they won't get AIDS from touching the bed clothes and they won't be hit by a thunder bolt from an angry god.

[Nathan]

Laws like this are a gift to the BNP-they are making themselves into the party that stands up for 'normal' (in their eyes) peoples freedom.

As for them becoming a magnet for the bigots-well if nothing else it would keep these bigots out of the normal hotels!

That would be "'normal' (in their eyes) people" though, wouldn't it.

There's a lot of them about!