Britian knows how to put bigot Christians in their place

[rexbeccarox]

So what other laws does this apply to? Would Sweeney Todd be allowed to run his barber shop in peace?

... and with that, I'm done.

[Ryantology]

Britain ought to be a country of freedom and tolerance but it seems religious beliefs must play second fiddle to the new orthodoxy of political correctness.

Britain ought to be a country of freedom and tolerance but it seems that I'm not allowed to use my religion to justify discriminating against people I don't like and that's just bullshit.

[Chas]

It's called civil rights. There are anti-dscrimination laws.

Yes... anti discrimination laws for public works!

I'm sorry I'm getting so frustrated here, guys, but this is an extremely intelligent forum, and I can't get people to understand the difference between "public" and "private". I understand it's a hot-button issue, and believe me, I get worked up about discrimination too, but this is a really simple concept!

You don't have to agree with my views, in fact, maybe I'm wrong... I'm always willing to explore the possibility... but can we please get past this part?

If a business is open to the public, it is open to the entire public. That's the law.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yes... anti discrimination laws for public works!

I'm sorry I'm getting so frustrated here, guys, but this is an extremely intelligent forum, and I can't get people to understand the difference between "public" and "private". I understand it's a hot-button issue, and believe me, I get worked up about discrimination too, but this is a really simple concept!

You don't have to agree with my views, in fact, maybe I'm wrong... I'm always willing to explore the possibility... but can we please get past this part?

If a business is open to the public, it is open to the entire public. That's the law.

And that's the key.

Unfortunately for those that argue that the private sector is/should be immune from the same kind of legal/legislative restrictions that the public sector are under, it's simply not true.

A bus company could refuse a gay couple travel on their service because of their homosexuality. Had the owners of this B&B not been prevented from discriminating based solely on someone's gender preference for a relationship, than a [legal] precedent would have been set, and that would be far more dangerous than any complaint about laws not preventing 'x' behavior.

The public and private sphere do not exist in independent bubbles. They are both held account to the same laws. Discriminating based on age, sex, sexuality, colour, race (etc) is illegal in the UK. Doesn't matter if you made a business using your own capital. You set up in the UK and benefit from the infrastructure provided by others, you abide by the rules like everyone else.

[Tiberius]

And that's the key.

This is why I hate when this issue comes up, because for some reason everyone forgets how to argue and just defaults to saying "well, it's against the law".

Fair enough, it's against the law. Nobody here is denying that, so there is no need to bring it up. The people here arguing in favour of private businesses being allowed to discriminate are arguing for why the law should be changed. A proper response to that argument is not "it's against the law, so tough", it would be a counter-argument which tries to convince us why the law should remain.

Honestly, no laws would ever get changed if people argued the way people have been in this thread.

[Raven]

rexbeccarox wrote:

Quote:And, you realize that there are a lot of different people on this forum, and that the term "atheist" has absolutely nothing to do with political views, right?

And, what on earth does this mean?

'Raven Wrote:There is room for both of us on this forum. I was not attacking you. I just disagree.

Or is that not alright?

I truly do not understand this. I did not see what you were getting at with pointing out something we all know, that being atheist has nothing to do with political views. I took it, apparently mistakenly, that you felt that I was attacking you for your views, probably out of a misguided notion that all atheists were of necessity of a decidedly left-of-center point of view. I was not doing such, and I don't presume that all my fellow atheists are left-of-center. If I got you upset in any way I apologize for that, but it most assuredly was not my intent to do so.

My words meant what they seem to - that I feel that there is plenty of room here for all of us - whatever any person's views are. I only brought up libertarianism on account of Rand Paul's public utterances. He has a fair number of fans, that was all that was about.

So, again - If I've upset you in any way, I apologize. I never meant to.

[Chas]

And that's the key.

This is why I hate when this issue comes up, because for some reason everyone forgets how to argue and just defaults to saying "well, it's against the law".

Fair enough, it's against the law. Nobody here is denying that, so there is no need to bring it up. The people here arguing in favour of private businesses being allowed to discriminate are arguing for why the law should be changed. A proper response to that argument is not "it's against the law, so tough", it would be a counter-argument which tries to convince us why the law should remain.

Honestly, no laws would ever get changed if people argued the way people have been in this thread.

There is a reason for the law, that is the point.

It is to prevent institutionalized discrimination, which happens when people are allowed to publicly discriminate.

Those of you advocating for allowing businesses to discriminate seem to be ignorant of history and have not thought through the consequences.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

And that's the key.

This is why I hate when this issue comes up, because for some reason everyone forgets how to argue and just defaults to saying "well, it's against the law".

Fair enough, it's against the law. Nobody here is denying that, so there is no need to bring it up. The people here arguing in favour of private businesses being allowed to discriminate are arguing for why the law should be changed. A proper response to that argument is not "it's against the law, so tough", it would be a counter-argument which tries to convince us why the law should remain.

Honestly, no laws would ever get changed if people argued the way people have been in this thread.

I take your point.

The law should remain because it is correct; discriminating against someone based on circumstances they have no control over is wrong. "Tough" is the right response in this specific case (actually EU legislation, and the 2010 equality act, are pretty confused on some issues regarding discrimination, arguably meaning a much more rigorous review of this should be conducted).

The evolution of legislative frameworks in most western states has recognized this over the course of several decades.

I also made a point about legal precedents being set upon the law being flouted by the courts when a complaint is raised and upheld in a spurious case such as this. This leads to disasters through confused and mixed up legislation. One great example, of course, is the exemption laws of the 1970s not enforcing (among other things) hard hats and helmets to be worn by Sikhs on bikes and construction sites, creating all sorts of issues for insurance and legislatures in the years proceeding it (arguably leading to one of the worst policies ever created by the UK government; the racial and religious hatred act).

An argument for the why the law needs to be changed isn't always a good one. In this case, it's a shit one, and is wrong.

Discriminating against someone based on their sexual preferences is wrong, so really, the law doesn't need to be changed. The private sector doesn't and, to clarify in response to you, shouldn't, get a free pass.

[Chad32]

I'm well aware that there was a time not long ago when all businesses did what this couple was doing. It's just that if this is just one among many, and the gay couple could just go down the street to another place and be accepted, I'm not sure why this is so newsworthy. As long as the town isn't forcing people to do this, and it's just one outdated couple doing it, then let them do it.

If I had an inn, I wouldn't want people telling me how to run my business. Either because I only wanted a certain clientele, or because people are coming to me and telling me I have to kick out people they don't like because it's what they want to do. Either way would be bad in my opinion.

[Chas]

I'm well aware that there was a time not long ago when all businesses did what this couple was doing. It's just that if this is just one among many, and the gay couple could just go down the street to another place and be accepted, I'm not sure why this is so newsworthy. As long as the town isn't forcing people to do this, and it's just one outdated couple doing it, then let them do it.

If I had an inn, I wouldn't want people telling me how to run my business. Either because I only wanted a certain clientele, or because people are coming to me and telling me I have to kick out people they don't like because it's what they want to do. Either way would be bad in my opinion.

Then don't open an inn.