the correct conclusion is of course to state that if these people don't want to receive married gays in their business they shouldn't have gone into the B&B/hotel business in the first place.
the correct conclusion is of course to state that if these people don't want to receive married gays in their business they shouldn't have gone into the B&B/hotel business in the first place.
You have to be consistent. If the government says "no crosses" then "no crescents" is consistent. If it allows crosses but not crescents then it is discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
This doesn't make any sense. In the same sentence, you have a problem with discrimination, but then you also have a problem with a government outlawing said discrimination?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Why is that contradictory? There are plenty of things that I don't approve of that I don't think the government should outlaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Seems to me the judge got it right; having a religion doesn't give yo the right to break the law. If giving that room is against their religion they should have realised they can't operate a business within the confines of the law. Tough luck.
Fair enough, except that for some other forms of discrimination (e.g. racial) I'm willing to bet there is far less concern for 'property rights' when civil rights are in play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Speaking of some being more equal than others: why should religious people be allowed to discriminate freely, but not atheists like me?
Yes, some Catholic adoption agencies said they'd sooner close than adopt a child to gay parents (as they'd be obliged to do under the law). Fine, let them close, but they can't flout the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Atheists aren't really people, so you probably shouldn't be allowed to own property with which to discriminate, it all works out fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Y'all have accidentally shown how People and Equality has evolved in such a convoluted yet powerful and sweeping way. Ideologues, literalists, religious fundamentalists, bigots, racists, and xenophobes have one thing in common, I s'pose. Interpretation. Same thing they complain about when it doesn't turn their way?
As a layperson it's served me well to interchange words like black, white, gay, straight, single, married, handicapped, English-speaking....into any advertisement of an establishment, or their policies. If any of those labels means no service, then I figure they're discriminating.
edit
In other words, even if you're an Atheist who won't accept the above types of people, that's no excuse for "Christians" to do it either.
Interesting to see several people here claim that what the innkeepers did was wrong because it was against the law. I didn't realize law was the arbiter of morality.
Modern law reflects society's values, though. Protecting minorities from tyranny of the majority isn't anything new in modern societies. Don't we call that Civil Rights these days? :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Have you seen any of my discussions with Randblade about statutory rape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not that I can recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I can take it you thought don't ask don't tell was morally justified (until last year), as it was the law? Gay marriage is immoral?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
First of all, I approve of referring to them as "innkeepers".Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm not sure anyone's saying they way they acted was wrong because it was against the law, but rather that they were wrong (as in incorrect) for thinking that their religious belief somehow granted them exemption from the law. And that the idea that they should be exempt from the law because of their beliefs is also wrong (back to morally wrong here, and also wrong as incorrect. And wrong as in fucking stupid.)
I played too many RPGs set in the Middle Ages. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If they genuinely believe what they did was right, what's the difference if they violated the law (from their perspective)? From what I see, the law is rather ambiguous, and it's not unreasonable to have people who think a law is immoral violate that law. You could argue that their beliefs are themselves immoral, but that's a different argument to claiming that what they did was wrong because it was illegal.
Frankly, I'm weary of any law that restricts someone's ability to do something that doesn't do positive harm to another person (as long as A) the former doesn't have a monopoly, and B) most similar people/firms aren't doing the same thing). As long as there are enough inns in an area (and they don't all discriminate against the same group), I see no reason to make it illegal for any one of those inns to discriminate against potential customers.
I thought maybe the couple they turned away could be like a gay Mary and Joesph? No room at the inn (for gayfags)? That sort of thing?
"Genuine belief" is not good enough. You can't just decide you "genuinely believe" something, and then be exempt from societies codes. I genuinely believe that I deserve to have a lot of money, therefore I should feel free to go ahead and steal it? No. Like, if you have a proper reason such as "I don't feel compelled to follow this law, because look at all the harm it causes" then that's one thing. But, no, I'm sorry I don't care how subjective you think morals are "It says so in this book which cites itself as its own authority" is not a good enough fucking reason.Quote:
If they genuinely believe what they did was right, what's the difference if they violated the law (from their perspective)?
It's worth noting that the couple themselves, according to their statements made after case, understand this on one level. They know that their religious beliefs are irrational, and therefore personnel. They said, explicitly, they do not expect others to believe as they do in their statement to the press outside court. What they want is for them to be exempt from the law because their reasons for not following wanting to obey this particular law are religious, which is complete unacceptable for all sorts of reasons.
If one of the fellows can manage to immaculately conceive, the circle will be complete.
You're not exempt from the laws, but you retain the right to claim that what you did was right (i.e. the argument used by the civil rights activists when they broke the law).Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It seems to me that they're saying that they have their religious beliefs, other people have theirs, and each side should respect the other's beliefs. Again, as long as there are other inns in the area that are willing to give rooms to gays, I don't see what the problem is.Quote:
It's worth noting that the couple themselves, according to their statements made after case, understand this on one level. They know that their religious beliefs are irrational, and therefore personnel. They said, explicitly, they do not expect others to believe as they do in their statement to the press outside court. What they want is for them to be exempt from the law because their reasons for not following wanting to obey this particular law are religious, which is complete unacceptable for all sorts of reasons.
Nope, and how did you make that assumption when I said Civil Rights are to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Civil rights are to protect the minority from the government (which is controlled by the majority), not from other individuals.
The law was not ambiguous. They knew what they were doing was illegal, it was widely publicised (and debated) before the law was changed. Its worth noting that many of the Christian activists saying their "rights" are being trampled are the same ones who made the same points years ago when this went through Parliament. They knew it was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Even if we assume these people knew it was illegal, is doing something illegal automatically immoral?
The Christian B & B owners probably saw it that way, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well I don't think that I am so positive about that law. But if it is in place it people have to follow it, otherwise they should vote for a party that opposes it or if possible start a referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What I can't agree with is to call the law "disgusting" or "stupid". They grounds of the law is clearly "anti-discrimination", so I share the goal but maybe not the means.
And if we flip this around and have a law that states black people shouldn't be able to use the same facilities as white people, you'd still think black people should try to get change purely through the ballot box (let's assume they're a minority)?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
He was strangled not shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Citation, please. I also recall that the toothpaste thief was shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Yes, of course they have the right of demonstration too. But if they just ignore the law, we can get rid of laws in the first place, don't we? You think it would be better to have a dictator to set up laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki