Baroness Hale calls for a rethink on religious and gay rights

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
A judge who condemned a Christian couple for turning away gay guests from their hotel yesterday said her decision may have been wrong.


Supreme Court deputy president Baroness Hale called for a rethink on religious and gay rights six months after she rejected the B&B owners’ arguments in a key test case.

Lady Hale said in a speech that the law has done too little to protect the beliefs of Christians. And she cast doubts over her own judgment in the landmark case in which a gay couple sued Christian hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

Mr Bull, 74, and his 70-year-old wife refused a double room at their Cornish hotel to Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall in 2008 because they were not a married heterosexual couple.

The incident led to a string of court cases, which culminated in defeat for the Bulls at the Supreme Court – where Lady Hale, leading four other judges, ruled that the rights of the gay couple outweighed the conscience of the Christian couple. Lady Hale declared in her Supreme Court ruling that we should be ‘slow to accept’ the right of Christians to discriminate against gay people.

But in March she acknowledged that the laws which ignore Christian consciences might not be ‘sustainable’. Last week, in a highly unusual move, Lady Hale and her fellow judges ordered that the Bulls will not be liable for legal costs – a decision which spares them a huge bill which would pay for the lawyers who represented Mr Preddy and Mr Hall. I may have been wrong to condemn Christian B&B owners for banning gay couple because people with religious beliefs have rights too, says top judge


Source

I think this report is very appropriate to ATS considering several heated threads of late. I think Christian conscience is just as valid as homosexual rights. Mrs Bull said: ‘The pendulum has swung too far one way. ‘Why can't two lifestyles live together?

I think this is a very pertinent question. Why can't Christians and Homosexuals find common ground and live together as mature adults in a civil society?

Can anyone claim to be tolerant, when in other respects, they are intolerant of intolerance?

I am a gay, secular, agnostic btw.

edit on 20/6/2014 by earthblaze because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: earthblaze



Not when you run a business offering a service and then ban/bar one group from using said service.
That case was spot on and the judge was right.

The gay couple were compensated and the Christian couple were penalised, this is the right outcome.

Nothing will be solved by arguing about it for the umpteenth time.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
This is tough either way you look at it in my opinion. You shouldn't refuse to do business with your fellow humans in the first place, but I also have a problem with forcing others to do something against their beliefs.

My question is how did the Bulls know this was a gay couple and not two men sharing a room? I don't believe this issue should have even come up and if it did then I would ask if there was some agenda from the gay couple. There is a difference between an honest need for lodging and someone flaunting their sexuality in order to get a lawsuit.
edit on 2014/6/20 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Why is it that when a gay couple lets it be known that they are gay, it's "flaunting" who they are, but when a religious couple let's it be known that they are religious, it's just expressing their beliefs and not "flaunting" their religion?

Maybe the couple were holding hands or acted in a way that any other couple would act. Do we say that a straight couple is "flaunting" their sexuality by holding hands or acting affectionate in public?

Just something to think about regarding equality.

As regards forcing the owners to admit gay couples, they entered into business knowing that it was illegal to discriminate. If they agree not to discriminate, then discriminate, isn't it only right to "force" them to obey the law? Perhaps you think the law should be changed, but think about the ramifications of that. Should a business owner be forced to provide service if they disagree with a person based on religion, race or handicap? If businesses are going to allow discrimination based on sexuality, should we allow businesses to discriminate against anyone? Christians? Blacks? Jews? Straight people?

Just something to think about regarding equality.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthblaze
Can anyone claim to be tolerant, when in other respects, they are intolerant of intolerance?


I claim to be tolerant and I am intolerant of child molestation, sex trafficking, dog fighting, racism and bigotry... I believe some stances should not be tolerated. And discrimination is one of them.

As an atheist business owner, should I be permitted to turn people away because they're religious? I don't think so.

The gay couple has a right to partake in businesses offered to the public.
The religious couple has a right to practice their religion. Discrimination is not a tenet of religion. Praying, going to church, worshiping ARE tenets of religion. Both rights can and do coexist.
edit on 6/20/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: earthblaze
Can anyone claim to be tolerant, when in other respects, they are intolerant of intolerance?


I claim to be tolerant and I am intolerant of child molestation, sex trafficking, dog fighting, racism and bigotry... I believe some stances should not be tolerated. And discrimination is one of them.

As an atheist business owner, should I be permitted to turn people away because they're religious? I don't think so.

The gay couple has a right to partake in businesses offered to the public.
The religious couple has a right to practice their religion. Discrimination is not a tenet of religion. Praying, going to church, worshiping ARE tenets of religion. Both rights can and do coexist.


Apologies. I meant it more in the context of a tolerance paradox regarding religion and sexuality.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Yeah. Go,go, go baroness. Waste valuable parliament time ranting about gays. Yeah the countries going to hell in a handcart. Forget that. Just go gay bashing.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: blupblup
a reply to: earthblaze



Not when you run a business offering a service and then ban/bar one group from using said service.
That case was spot on and the judge was right.

The gay couple were compensated and the Christian couple were penalised, this is the right outcome.

Nothing will be solved by arguing about it for the umpteenth time.





Did you read the post? The judge has changed her view somewhat and the Christian couple do not have to pay their legal bill. This was the reason for my post.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Metallicus

Why is it that when a gay couple lets it be known that they are gay, it's "flaunting" who they are, but when a religious couple let's it be known that they are religious, it's just expressing their beliefs and not "flaunting" their religion?


I have met people from both extremes that do 'flaunt' their religion and sexuality. I find both irritating and at times downright annoying.
edit on 20/6/2014 by earthblaze because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Was this the case where the people in question also refused to rent room to unmarried couples no matter who they were? And pretty much refused the gay couple because they weren't married, not because they were gay?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

But I think these were the people who refused to let rooms to any unmarried couple, and the basis of the gays' complaint was that they would be married if they could (at the time it wasn't legal in Britain) so they were discriminated against.

So, is it discrimination if I own a B&B and refuse to let a room to an unmarried couple? Would you have a problem with that?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If you have a business based on your atheist stance and a religious person comes in and starts behaving in a manner that detracts from your business even though they are technically patronizing your establishment, then yes, you should be able to turn them away.

Say you have a coffee should that caters primarily to other atheists and agnostics and proudly advertises as such, and a Christian group decides to make it their new Bible group home and then very loudly proceeds to pray and sing hymns and preach and annoy and drive off your preferred clientele. Yes, you should have every right to tell them you won't be serving them anymore.

The same way that the owners of the gay bar in Chicago had every right to stop serving bachelorette parties.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
Yeah. Go,go, go baroness. Waste valuable parliament time ranting about gays. Yeah the countries going to hell in a handcart. Forget that. Just go gay bashing.


Why is she gay bashing? She merely thinks that she failed to strike an appropriate balance between two groups in her ruling.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthblaze
I have met people from both extremes that do 'flaunt' their religion and sexuality. I find both irritating and at times downright annoying.


But, because you find them annoying, does that mean they shouldn't be permitted to do so?
Is a straight couple who holds hands in public "flaunting" their sexuality?
Do you find that annoying?
Should it be prohibited?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, but do they require a marriage license from every couple they allow to stay? Unless there is a history of them checking marriage licenses, then that argument doesn't hold any weight.

I would actually have a big problem if a public accommodation refused to serve me because I wasn't married. That's discrimination based on marital status. It's none of their business whether I'm married or not. If they don't approve of cohabitation without marriage, then they shouldn't do it, but they cannot control how other people live.


originally posted by: ketsuko
If you have a business based on your atheist stance and a religious person comes in and starts behaving in a manner that detracts from your business even though they are technically patronizing your establishment, then yes, you should be able to turn them away.


If ANYONE comes in and behaves in a manner that detracts from my business, then I should be able to turn them away... NOT because of their religion, but because of their particular behavior. The difference is in turning someone away because of WHO THEY ARE or what group they belong to vs WHAT THEY'RE DOING in my establishment at the time.

Do you see the difference?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

Who are YOU to decide what I should and shouldn't do? This country was sought out and formed because of religious freedom and now people like you are trying to trample that religious freedom, what a joke.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
-Martin Luther King Jr.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: earthblaze
I have met people from both extremes that do 'flaunt' their religion and sexuality. I find both irritating and at times downright annoying.


But, because you find them annoying, does that mean they shouldn't be permitted to do so?
Is a straight couple who holds hands in public "flaunting" their sexuality?
Do you find that annoying?
Should it be prohibited?


I was talking of extremes. Holding hands does not fall in that category.



posted on Jun, 21 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Metallicus

Maybe the couple were holding hands or acted in a way that any other couple would act. Do we say that a straight couple is "flaunting" their sexuality by holding hands or acting affectionate in public?


Just to answer that question .. yes, people do say that.

Especially in the case of someone seeing their ex with someone else engaging in acts of PDA.

Then there are those who like to date attractive people and do things to let it be known they are with them .. flaunting it.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Just to answer that question .. yes, people do say that.


I have never heard anyone say that a straight couple is flaunting their sexuality - the fact that they're straight.



Especially in the case of someone seeing their ex with someone else engaging in acts of PDA.


That's not flaunting their sexuality. That's flaunting the fact that they have a new relationship.



Then there are those who like to date attractive people and do things to let it be known they are with them .. flaunting it.


Again, that's not flaunting their sexuality. That's flaunting the fact that they have an attractive date.





top topics
 
0

log in

join