Those Ker-rrazzeee Christians are back

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:12 pm

Spreading the word of tolerance and understanding again:
Http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 30,00.html

A small pic I did to commemorate the story on b3ta:
http://emvee.goldenfanjita.com/images/bandb.jpg
(linked due to minor sweariness)

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:25 pm

i give up, i think i've finally reached that point where i just don't care about **** like this anymore. If people are going to be arses then there's nothing anyone (including the law) can do about it... people will always find a way to persacute others... humanity is doomed to selfdestruct...

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:41 pm

If they're not allowed in the B&B they could make do with the manger outside...

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:53 pm

ove the picture - Religon is racist and evil ? blanket statement, I think not.

Post by **Best First** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:00 pm

@ Impy.

"Homosexuals have human rights, but so do religious people, and potentially there's a clash between them"

notably where the latter want to sh*t all over those of the former, yes.

I think this is kind of funny to be honest, what a bunch of tits.

Love they neighbour*
Thou shalt not kill**

*unless...
**unless...

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:30 pm

Im sorry but essentialy claass segregation is racism by any other term. and racism is evil.

Anyone who belive that someone is a lesser being for thier sexuality, or thier own belifes, and be fair, thier country origin in some respects is a racist - how come if you say, "yeah but its my religon" that means your not?
Isnt that what the Klu-Klux-Klan preach? - yet we damm them.

you can draw lines between many othodox religon - you might roll your eyes at a blanket statement but that the main problem with these religons in the first place, they preach under a huge blanket that, like in the above article, doesnt really stand-up to scrutiny like any other blanket statement does normally.
its no surprise I can level my own blanket statement back at religon itself and ppl find it almost as impossible as religon itself to penetrate.

Dont get me wrong i understand thats its not the most constructive method of conversation but i find it hard to say anything less then sarcastic about religon on the whole now due to its implausible blanket statements.

Take the above article, like Legion says, whats there to talk about really? - Religous ppl in B&B's are essentially being racist. i think its sad, whats more to say?
opps your a racist!

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:39 pm

At least they're not being shy about it - they're demanding an exemption so that they can continue discriminating against people - rather like the one Tony gave them when he introduced legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality in the workplace. It's illegal to fire someone for being gay (or straight, I suppose) in any workplace in Britain...oh, except for the church, where it's okay because our Prime Minister is in the pocket of the ****ing Vatican.

Religion = (discrimination+intolerance)*smugness

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:48 pm

Its a tough one in respects to how our country is setup - the church of england, the queen, the house of lords - supposedly all have a vote in such issues.

One day some new leader will just knock tradition on the head and say "sod all this malarkey this is how it should be done!"

Instantly losing 20 million christian votes of course

Post by **Best First** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:28 pm

it will be a risk i am willing to take.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:16 pm

I don't see those Christians moaning about this getting their way; to do so you'd have to be allowed to bar people because they're Jewish, and that is out-and-out racism as well as religious intolerance regardless of whether people think homosexual rights is important or PC gone mad.

It's ironic how some wish to deny their hospitality to others when that is meant to be exactly what Christianity is all about... allegedly. Personally I think it's almost laughable- you set up a B&B to make money by allowing travellers to stay overnight, not by going bankrupt through getting picky about the exact specifications of your visitor. If you don't like the idea that a range of perfectly harmless, law abiding yet diverse individuals want to stay at your hostel then don't open one. Or move to Iran or something.

Post by **Denyer** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:29 pm

Best First wrote:human rights, but so do religious people

I don't think it qualifies as a human right to be bigoted on the basis of stuff people don't choose, whether that be skin colour, hormones or having a birthmark.

As for being guaranteed the human right to expression of religion, I have a deep-seated belief that members of certain faiths would benefit from six foot of cold iron inserted rectally, and am an accredited Reverend.

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Anyone who belive that someone is a lesser being for thier [...] own belifes

No. Beliefs and political opinions are matters of personal choice.

And "racist" refers to discrimination re: skin colour and xenophobia.

We've had a lot of correspondence from Christian B&B operators who don't want to be forced to accept Satanists

What? Are they going to do spot-checks of luggage? Ban people with beards? Ask each customer as they come in "Do you worship the devil, sir?" If so, this'll sort itself out -- people'll run a ****ing mile.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:13 pm

I have a neat little trick to help me sort out situations like this. When one group wants to be allowed to exclude people from another based on religion, sexual orientation, etc, you simply take their sentiment:

I do not want to provide my services to homosexuals.

Then replace the group they choose to deny services to with another word.

I do not want to provide my services to niggers.

Does this statement still hold any water in any modern society? No. Of course not. If you have a moral objection to your business serving all people equally, then perhaps you should rethink your desire to be in business.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:24 pm

Denyer wrote: No. Beliefs and political opinions are matters of personal choice.

And "racist" refers to discrimination re: skin colour and xenophobia.

I think thats a pretty fine line?

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:27 pm

Is it the law that one can't refuse to serve another based on their religious teachings or their prejudice? I mean, let's say I own a restaurant and didn't serve blacks or Jews. Is that considered breaking the law in the U.S. or Britian?

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:34 pm

Yaya wrote:Is it the law that one can't refuse to serve another based on their religious teachings or their prejudice? I mean, let's say I own a restaurant and didn't serve blacks or Jews. Is that considered breaking the law in the U.S. or Britian?

Yes. That is the law. Discrimination (save on the basis of sex, for some reason) is not legal in the US or the UK.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:49 pm

You cannot refuse service or employment in the UK on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation or disability with one proviso. You can, however, refuse these things if someone is a height you happen to dislike or if the person comes from Exeter and you hate people from Exeter etc.

You can discriminate however if you are an employer and your business employs people in such a manner as to maintain the authenticity of the business- i.e. an Indian restaurant is entitled to only employ individuals of Indian extraction, to maintain the authenticity of the restaurant. Or an Itallian Restaurant can only employ people of Italian origin etc.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:18 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote:Is it the law that one can't refuse to serve another based on their religious teachings or their prejudice? I mean, let's say I own a restaurant and didn't serve blacks or Jews. Is that considered breaking the law in the U.S. or Britian?
Yes. That is the law. Discrimination (save on the basis of sex, for some reason) is not legal in the US or the UK.

I understand that Christianity codemns homosexuality. However, the law of the land is not the Bible. As such, a Christian who believes this has only two options. 1) Obey the law of the land, or 2) leave that land to a place where they can freely practice what they believe.

Besides, one's sexual orientation or sexual endeavors in my opinion are private matters. I don't think others have a right to delve into such personal matters. Personally, I am as averse to seeing public displays of heterosexual activity or affection as I am to homosexual displays. There is a time and place for everything.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:30 pm

Yaya wrote: I am as averse to seeing public displays of heterosexual activity or affection as I am to homosexual displays.

That's all well and good, but so what? It doesn't matter what you like or what you are averse to seeing as long as you're not actively trying to take away a person or groups freedom to do the things you don't like.

If thine eye offends you, then poke it out.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:56 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:I have a neat little trick to help me sort out situations like this. When one group wants to be allowed to exclude people from another based on religion, sexual orientation, etc, you simply take their sentiment:

I do not want to provide my services to homosexuals.

Then replace the group they choose to deny services to with another word.

I do not want to provide my services to niggers.

Does this statement still hold any water in any modern society? No. Of course not. If you have a moral objection to your business serving all people equally, then perhaps you should rethink your desire to be in business.

How about:

I do not want to provide my services to paedophiles.

I can't see many people in modern society disagreeing with the sentiment behind that statement, yet it's exactly the same as the other two.

A very large part of the rationale for religious objections to accomodating unmarried couples or homosexual couple is that to do so could be seen as saying that the behaviour is acceptable. If a business markets itself as specifically Christian, then such an attitude makes a certain amount of sense. If it isn't a Christian business, but just happens to be run by Christians, then the objections are likely to be prejudice hiding behind religion.

I think it basically comes down to a question of freedom of religion. If religious organisations aren't allowed to run according to the principles of their religion, are open about doing so, and aren't seeking to harm others, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:26 pm

On a side-note, personally I think the idea of all things you don't approve of therefore being equivalent is repulsive. Paedophillia == homosexuality == unmarried couples. I had that discussion with Smooth a while back.

I'm not sure I see how one reconciles <religious groups not causing harm to others> with <religious groups allowed to discriminate at will because it is a part of their doctrine>. Discrimination does cause harm, socially and psychologically, imo. I'm also not seeing how freedom of religion, religion essentially being an opinion an individual chooses to hold, can give an individual or group impugnity to disregard laws they happen to disagree with.

Christians can either open normal B&Bs and abide by the same laws as everyone else or they can find another line of work. I don't understand why they need their own hokey little branch of the industry; laws in theory apply to everyone or not at all since exceptions for their own sake tend to make the law look rather inconsistent.

Otherwise why not start entire Christian firms, where people can be hired/contracted according to the doctrines of Christianity? Why not set up whole gettoised areas where only Christians live and they can all abide by their own little subset of national law? It looks like the exact same line of reasoning and imo equally flawed. Freedom of Religion cannot supercede the rule of the State, if for no other reason than the State is in theory answerable to the people whereas religion/God is not by definition.

Businesses must therefore abide by the rule of the State. Bed and Breakfasts are businesses, albeit literal cottage industries.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:42 pm

Bouncelot wrote:
How about:

I do not want to provide my services to paedophiles.

I can't see many people in modern society disagreeing with the sentiment behind that statement, yet it's exactly the same as the other two.

No its not - Pedophiles are mentally ill ppl who take advantage of younger humans for sexual pleasure, and other depraved actions.

Homosexulaity on ther other hand is not a mental illness.

Post by **Denyer** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:00 pm

Bouncelot wrote:How about:

I do not want to provide my services to paedophiles.

I can't see many people in modern society disagreeing with the sentiment behind that statement, yet it's exactly the same as the other two.

No, it isn't the same as saying "I will not provide services to black people" or "I will not provide services to gay people".

And in seriousness, putting on the staff hat for a rare moment, anyone equating homosexuality with paedophilia is not welcome here and will cheerfully be banned. We already lost Jetstorm for racial slurs, and he was a moderator.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:55 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
Yaya wrote: I am as averse to seeing public displays of heterosexual activity or affection as I am to homosexual displays.
That's all well and good, but so what? It doesn't matter what you like or what you are averse to seeing as long as you're not actively trying to take away a person or groups freedom to do the things you don't like.

Public displays of affection irk the hell out of me. I love my wife, but I sure as hell aren't going to make out with her, even hold hands with her, in public. Why? Because I have enough sense to know that others would be uncomfortable with it, some would be envious, others might feel saddened if they don't have someone. Granted, the majority wouldn't give a damn, but I would rather take everyone into consideration.

In this regard, whether its heterosexual or homosexual, its place is behind closed doors.

It doesn't matter what you like or what you are averse to seeing

Not to you. To me, it matters. And to many others, it matters as well.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:14 am

Yaya wrote:Why? Because I have enough sense to know that others would be uncomfortable with it, some would be envious, others might feel saddened if they don't have someone. Granted, the majority wouldn't give a damn, but I would rather take everyone into consideration.

Short of actual humping, I find most couples rather sweet and life-affirming whether I'm single or not. Especially older couples.

It's like the question of whether to make conversation when standing in queues -- not everyone will appreciate it, but we've gotten too hung up as societies on not talking to strangers, not making eye contact, etc.

Yaya · Post by **Yaya** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:48 am

Denyer wrote:
Yaya wrote:Why? Because I have enough sense to know that others would be uncomfortable with it, some would be envious, others might feel saddened if they don't have someone. Granted, the majority wouldn't give a damn, but I would rather take everyone into consideration.
Short of actual humping, I find most couples rather sweet and life-affirming whether I'm single or not. Especially older couples.
.

Perhaps you are attractive. Perhaps you could get a women without any problem.

Its those who are not so, shall we say, physically gifted, the millions upon millions of people who look around and find themselves judged by the way they look, not by their character, who would feel differently than you. Some are completely disfigured, disabled. Is it wrong of me to not take them into consideration? I choose not to take a chance at inflicting some sort of hurt in those who feel this way.

Most do not feel some sort of vicarious joy at seeing couples hug and kiss. If you do, good for you. That's respectable, as it is not the usual response.

In fact, I find myself being extra kind to the overweight women who are quite unattractive, because they live in a world where so much worth is placed on looks.

That's just me.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:59 am

Karl Lynch wrote:On a side-note, personally I think the idea of all things you don't approve of therefore being equivalent is repulsive. Paedophillia == homosexuality == unmarried couples. I had that discussion with Smooth a while back.

I'm not sure I see how one reconciles <religious groups not causing harm to others> with <religious groups allowed to discriminate at will because it is a part of their doctrine>. Discrimination does cause harm, socially and psychologically, imo. I'm also not seeing how freedom of religion, religion essentially being an opinion an individual chooses to hold, can give an individual or group impugnity to disregard laws they happen to disagree with.

Christians can either open normal B&Bs and abide by the same laws as everyone else or they can find another line of work. I don't understand why they need their own hokey little branch of the industry; laws in theory apply to everyone or not at all since exceptions for their own sake tend to make the law look rather inconsistent.

Otherwise why not start entire Christian firms, where people can be hired/contracted according to the doctrines of Christianity? Why not set up whole gettoised areas where only Christians live and they can all abide by their own little subset of national law? It looks like the exact same line of reasoning and imo equally flawed. Freedom of Religion cannot supercede the rule of the State, if for no other reason than the State is in theory answerable to the people whereas religion/God is not by definition.

Businesses must therefore abide by the rule of the State. Bed and Breakfasts are businesses, albeit literal cottage industries.

Denyer wrote:And in seriousness, putting on the staff hat for a rare moment, anyone equating homosexuality with paedophilia is not welcome here and will cheerfully be banned.

yep.

Yaya wrote: Its those who are not so, shall we say, physically gifted, the millions upon millions of people who look around and find themselves judged by the way they look, not by their character, who would feel differently than you. Some are completely disfigured, disabled. Is it wrong of me to not take them into consideration? I choose not to take a chance at inflicting some sort of hurt in those who feel this way.

could you be any more f***ed in the head?

"I choose to consider the needs of the fattys and Mr Wheelchair by not demonstrating the thing i know they could never possibly have - love. Thsi is my gift to them"

So Fatty, would you rather;

a) witness the love between 2 people

or

b) be massivley patronised by someone who is using you to hide his own issues with public affection?

Most do not feel some sort of vicarious joy at seeing couples hug and kiss. If you do, good for you. That's respectable, as it is not the usual response.

how do you know this? Done a survey? Or just... applied your own feelings on the matter to faceles masses as usual?

In fact, I find myself being extra kind to the overweight women who are quite unattractive, because they live in a world where so much worth is placed on looks.

Do you find that they are often extra kind back, because you live in a world where most of what you write is so unintentionally hilarious?

Maybe you could pat 'them' on the head as well?

Have you ever, perchance, written a song that people have stopped you in the street and thanked you for?

That's just me.

Maybe you should speak for just you then?

Altho i am kind of fond of the notion that you speak for ugly people everywhere...

I'm uncomfortbale with seeing people eat tuna as the taste of it makes me want to vom and seeing people eat it reminds me of that somewhat, however at no point would i make the leap that because i have an issue with something that is a basis for stopping people doing it. Thats "I have an issue", not "i'm hiding behind some bizarre excuse".

Christ.

Post by **Denyer** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:33 am

Yaya wrote:Perhaps you are attractive. Perhaps you could get a women without any problem.

Not ugly, not anything stunning. More to the point -- I don't fixate on being in relationships and have never, in common parlance, been out on the pull.

Yaya wrote:Is it wrong of me to not take them into consideration?

I'd say you do more harm to a community (and yourself, quite possibly) by keeping happiness and enjoyment bottled up for fear of offending. There's enough negativity.

Yaya wrote:Most do not feel some sort of vicarious joy at seeing couples hug and kiss.

Certainly as a national average, I don't think we're all that spiteful/jealous. Popular media is full of people with couple-y photos and interviews about couple-y things, and maintains a high readership in spite of the coming of the web.

Yaya wrote:In fact, I find myself being extra kind

People tend to sense when they're being patronised from a very early age. They don't, as a rule, appreciate pity.

My sense of 'attractive' doesn't align very closely with magazine retouching, bleaching, off-the-peg fashions, etc. -- though it doesn't go as far as completely ignoring the bland/generic/artificial, as people turn out to have personality in spite of that.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:44 am

When it comes to public displays of affection, we recently had to ask a couple who were in Mrs. V's pub to please stop what they were doing and get a room because they were basically dry humping in the corner. Straddling was involved. To their credit, they looked very embarrassed and stopped immediately. And they were French. Point being, holding hands is fine in a public place, even kissing is fine. Anything that looks like sex should be done at home or another private place - like the guest room at a B&B or hotel. I mean, presumably the people who run these places don't have to watch their guests having sex, do they? Or are they secretly filming the lot and are turned off by two men in bed together? Enquiring minds need to know.

Paedophilia in the UK is illegal for a reason - to protect children. Homosexuality is not illegal because gay men don't need protecting from one another. Therefore as the owner of a small B&B I can quite appropriately deny my services to paedophiles (and even call the police and have them arrested) but what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business.

This is not a question of freedom of religion. Religious people can join whatever fruity little club they think is cool and worship whichever of the giant space monkeys takes their fancy - they're even allowed to preach hatred against other social, racial and religious groups up to a point, but they should not be allowed to foist their prejudices on people who do not share their delusions.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:11 pm

But my delusion is the best delusion. I know this because its mine.

what?

oh.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:34 pm

I just did a search for "Christian Bed and Breakfast" in Google and of course I found these guys - http://www.christianbandb.com - they're in the USA but they show that the spirit of Christian charity is alive and well. It only costs $40 to get a "basic listing" listed there. Or you can upgrade your account to $110 so that they can take online bookings for you (and presumably a percentage of the sale for handling or surcharge or whatever). For $325 they'll throw in a webpage as well. They mention "Christian standards" but also remind you "to provide a warm, caring, loving atmosphere at your establishment". Seems like there's an asterisk missing from that last bit.