An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[b&wpac4]

To b&wpac4,

Hmmn, the gay couples weren’t refused rooms, I don’t think you can make that comparison, I believe the Christian owner also refused unmarried couples rooms to share.
Can I suggest to address the points rather than just look to try and justify the gay position which is already looking on shaky assumptions.

So you have made the same blind error that the gay organisation reporter made. The hotel owned by the Christian didn’t deny the gay couple rooms, so they didn’t break the law.
Furthermore the gay hotel may have done. Do you recognise that?

Now two more things.
Firstly a hotel is generally for a room and food, not sex. If an unmarried couple demanded a shared room, would the law ask the hotel to provide the shared room? What if the unmarried couple then committed adultery?
Secondly the owner of the hotel is of course the owner of the hotel. Why shouldn’t the owner of the hotel, gay or Christian not be able to specify the use of the product they are providing?
I don’t necessarily see it wrong for there to be a gay only hotel, nor do I see it wrong for the Christian owner to offer particular accommodation on the basis of use. What I do see as prejudice and discrimination is if one view is allowed and the other isn’t. So clearly the Christian owner was discriminated against as the gay hotel wasn’t treated the same.

Why is it every time you respond to one of my posts, I get the impression you deliberately ignore what I said and jump to strange conclusions? I am saying if there is a law in the place where the hotel is that says you cannot deny a room, even a shared room to people on the basis of marriage status or sexual orientation, you must follow that law. The rest of your post is just nonsense attacking me at trying to "justify the gay position" when I am doing no such thing. I am asking what the legal position of this case is.

If the law is the hotel owner cannot deny shared rooms based on martial status or sexual orientation, then the hotel owner cannot do so without the penalty prescribed by law. It doesn't matter if the two people are going to have sex, play Yahtzee, or read the Bible. END OF STORY.

 

[Braunwyn]

Thanks for getting the facts- my coworker had gotten an email telling her to protest the bill and she laughed because she said it was the catholics who wanted it. I didn't follow up when she mentioned it.. I'm glad you did.. facts are so disconcerting to the "agenda" folks.

This story has been all over talk radio and nothing, like the truth, that is noted in Maren's post/research was mentioned by any of the talking heads. It's pretty dissapointing and has a mob mentality feel to it.

 

[Psudopod]

Okay let’s start here. Point one, having an attraction is different to committing an act.
How bizarre. Yes that’s what I am saying, which is why they shouldn’t be compared together. You are happy they are put together and then when I point out the difference you point out the difference.

Sorry, you said:

What makes an adulterer an adulterer is the act of adultery. What makes a homosexual a homosexual is having same sex attraction. The adulterer is a heterosexual offender and comparable with the homosexual offender. I would say you are wrong and that’s where we should start the debate.

If I misunderstood and we agree, then that’s fine by me!

No. It would be discriminatory if toilets were provided for men and not for women.

I accept that point. However the function is to urinate, the function of sex is to reproduce.

But it’s not the only function is it?

That gays should be allowed to marry is not a gay view.

I totally disagree, I look at the thread and see gays almost if not unanimously take that view.

Well, yes, I’m sure pretty much every gay person is for gay rights. My point is that many straight people like myself are as well. It’s not just a gay thing.

Just look at this thread for example, there are lots of straight people who accept it. And I don’t view people’s views as discriminatory, just people’s actions.

I yes but straight and gay is a gay view not a Christian one nor necessarily a view that any other person whether religious or not would take. Others may see male and female rather than gay or straight. My basic point stands your benchmark is sexual attraction, gay and straight, whereas mine and many others is male and female.

Sex and orientation exist separate from each other. Everyone has one of each.

They have the same rights, except the right to marry.
But the ‘right’ to marry is noi right at all, as they cant form the same relationship.
That’s the problem, their insistence on a right is outside reality.

Okay, so in what way is my relationship different from a gay couple’s? What can I do that they can’t?

And no, infertile couples cannot reproduce (unassisted at least), that’s what infertile means.

Again that’s deliberately trying to avoid the fact that as opposed to same sex couples, male and female can reproduce. Again outside reality.

But the reality is not all couples can reproduce and not all want to.

No, you’d have to demonstrate this first.

I can’t demonstrate reality to someone who cant see reality. What I have demonstrated is reality. You would have to prove and demonstrate that a couple of the same sex can reproduce together in their union, which I know you can’t because it is outside reality.

But why would I have to demonstrate that? As I said previously, love and reproduction are not tied together. There is no requirement for a couple to be able to reproduce before they get married, otherwise we’d have to ban infertile, post menopausal and child-free couples from getting married. You see, this is the discrimination. You are saying gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce, but you are not holding everyone up to this standard. It’s like me saying Christians shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they are religious, but happily allowing Buddists, Muslims and Jews to marry.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

Why is it every time you respond to one of my posts, I get the impression you deliberately ignore what I said and jump to strange conclusions?

that’s my criticism of your approach.

I am saying if there is a law in the place where the hotel is that says you cannot deny a room, even a shared room to people on the basis of marriage status or sexual orientation, you must follow that law.

Ah that’s better, there is a big difference between denying a room altogether and denying a particular room.
My response did however explore your assumption.

However as to my other point it shows the motive and how the law unfortunately is becoming more and more bigoted prejudice and discriminatory against ‘heterosexuals’

Here is some advice form a UK site.

A business that provides goods or services aimed at the gay community does not have to start providing similar goods or services aimed at heterosexuals. However, it can't turn away any heterosexual customers. For example, a lesbian and gay bookshop will not have to start stocking books aimed at heterosexual readers, but can't turn away heterosexual customers who want to buy its books.

I find that interesting. Could a bookshop describe itself as heterosexual and refuse to stock any homosexual related books?
So why cant a hotel say it is Christian and offer rooms shared rooms for married couples but single rooms for homosexuals?

If you're in a civil partnership, a provider of goods or services can't treat you differently than it would treat a married couple. Goods and services available to unmarried opposite-sex couples must be available to same-sex couples not in a civil partnership.
Ah so we see it cant, the law is designed for gays.

The law also covers advertising. A company can't say in its advertising that its goods or services are only available to heterosexuals. Equally, a gay business cannot advertise that heterosexual people are excluded, although it can say that it's a 'gay-friendly' business.
Ah so the gay hotel should have been penalised but wasn’t.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/civil_rights/discrimination_because_of_sexuality.htm

Its gay discrimination and prejudice.

 

[sidhe]

Why are we talking about gay marriage?

The bill in question wouldn't do what the blog linked to in the OP says it would. Thus /thread.

 

[Psudopod]

Ah that’s better, there is a big difference between denying a room altogether and denying a particular room.
My response did however explore your assumption.

However as to my other point it shows the motive and how the law unfortunately is becoming more and more bigoted prejudice and discriminatory against ‘heterosexuals’

Here is some advice form a UK site.

A business that provides goods or services aimed at the gay community does not have to start providing similar goods or services aimed at heterosexuals. However, it can't turn away any heterosexual customers. For example, a lesbian and gay bookshop will not have to start stocking books aimed at heterosexual readers, but can't turn away heterosexual customers who want to buy its books.

I find that interesting. Could a bookshop describe itself as heterosexual and refuse to stock any homosexual related books?
So why cant a hotel say it is Christian and offer rooms shared rooms for married couples but single rooms for homosexuals?

If you're in a civil partnership, a provider of goods or services can't treat you differently than it would treat a married couple. Goods and services available to unmarried opposite-sex couples must be available to same-sex couples not in a civil partnership.
Ah so we see it cant, the law is designed for gays.

The law also covers advertising. A company can't say in its advertising that its goods or services are only available to heterosexuals. Equally, a gay business cannot advertise that heterosexual people are excluded, although it can say that it's a 'gay-friendly' business.
Ah so the gay hotel should have been penalised but wasn’t.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/civil_rights/discrimination_because_of_sexuality.htm

Its gay discrimination and prejudice.

A Christian hotel could for example only have twin and single rooms, and offer double beds to no one, that would be fine. But they cannot offer the services to one group and not another. Can you imagine a hotel that turned away black couples, for example, saying they only wanted to cater to white people? That wouldn’t last long (and rightly so).

As for the gay hotel, have you got any evidence that it solely caters to gay people (as in, actively turns away straight ones, or denies that double beds)? I’ve never a heard of a hotel like that, and if it does exist, it should be prosecuted.

 

[b&wpac4]

Here is some advice form a UK site.

A business that provides goods or services aimed at the gay community does not have to start providing similar goods or services aimed at heterosexuals. However, it can't turn away any heterosexual customers. For example, a lesbian and gay bookshop will not have to start stocking books aimed at heterosexual readers, but can't turn away heterosexual customers who want to buy its books.

I find that interesting. Could a bookshop describe itself as heterosexual and refuse to stock any homosexual related books?

Yes, but it cannot refuse to sell books to homosexuals. See the difference?

So why cant a hotel say it is Christian and offer rooms shared rooms for married couples but single rooms for homosexuals?

Depends on the law in the place they exist. If the law says you can't do that, then you can't do that legally. But, you probably could not say "single rooms for homosexuals, everybody else can share" but a global policy of "only married couples can have shared rooms". That all depends on law in the place you live.

 

[Polycarp1]

Why are we talking about gay marriage?

The bill in question wouldn't do what the blog linked to in the OP says it would. Thus /thread.

All threads on CF turn into one of four propositions: 1. Teh gheys are ebil. 2. Abortion is murder. 3. Teh Pope is Antichrist/Catholics worship Mary/breadsticks. 4. Bush/Obama/Clinton is teh Ebil Wun incarnate! (Just ask any staff member -- it's true!)

Some just take longer than others to get there.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,

. But they cannot offer the services to one group and not another.

Why not, the gay hotel can.

As for the gay hotel, have you got any evidence that it solely caters to gay people (as in, actively turns away straight ones, or denies that double beds)? I’ve never a heard of a hotel like that, and if it does exist, it should be prosecuted.

Firstly I never said it turned anyone away, it advertises exclusively for gay men only.
Secondly, having checked it again it offers spiritual events as well.
It has a section on why hotels cant discriminate against gays.
Its spiritual section, apart from a promotion of Buddhism and an article on Richard Dawkins and the Islamic Hajj, which seem neither positive nor negative either way the section deals extensively with what it calls the ‘Bible abiuse of homosexuals’ and continues with mocking articles on God.

One could not have made up a better example of the anti-Christian gay agenda.

I have posted the link before, so you don’t need it again.

 

[b&wpac4]

Firstly I never said it turned anyone away, it advertises exclusively for gay men only.

You clearly do not understand. I can create a business that advertises exclusively for Christians, such as a Christian book store, but I am not allowed to turn away Jewish customers who wish to purchase the books I carry. You can advertise after any demographic you desire, but you cannot refuse business to someone based on a protected class status.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To B&wpac4,

Yes, but it cannot refuse to sell books to homosexuals. See the difference?

Yes I do. But its business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

 

[sidhe]

All threads on CF turn into one of four propositions: 1. Teh gheys are ebil. 2. Abortion is murder. 3. Teh Pope is Antichrist/Catholics worship Mary/breadsticks. 4. Bush/Obama/Clinton is teh Ebil Wun incarnate! (Just ask any staff member -- it's true!)

Some just take longer than others to get there.

You left off "The ECUSA/UMC/MCC are apostate/Laodicean churches" and "Baptists/Pentecostals are heretics/non-trinitarians."

 

[b&wpac4]

To B&wpac4,

Yes I do. But its business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

In your example, there would be books in the bookstore that I, a non-Christian, could not buy. Your analogy is incorrect.

 

[Psudopod]

To Psudopod,

. But they cannot offer the services to one group and not another.
​

Why not, the gay hotel can.

As for the gay hotel, have you got any evidence that it solely caters to gay people (as in, actively turns away straight ones, or denies that double beds)? I’ve never a heard of a hotel like that, and if it does exist, it should be prosecuted.
​

Firstly I never said it turned anyone away, it advertises exclusively for gay men only.

If it didn't refuse a double room to a straight couple, then it is not equivalent. There would be no problem with the Christan hotel advertising only in Christian magazines for example. But when either establishment offers services to one group and not another, then that is discrimination. Like I said, if the gay hotel did refuse rooms to straight couples, then it is just as bad as the Christan one. But I haven't seen any evidence that it did.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

All threads on CF turn into one of four propositions: 1. Teh gheys are ebil. 2. Abortion is murder. 3. Teh Pope is Antichrist/Catholics worship Mary/breadsticks. 4. Bush/Obama/Clinton is teh Ebil Wun incarnate! (Just ask any staff member -- it's true!)

Some just take longer than others to get there.

Not sure you can show that ‘gays are evil’ occurs very often if at all. Rather a slur that unless you can show some evidence I would appreciate that withdrawn.
Also if one believes life starts at conception, rather an easy thing to argue as no life develops without it, it is rather a good argument. If no-one proposed abortion I suspect that abortion is murder wouldn’t need to be claimed.
I think its healthy that the big issues can be debated

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

In your example, there would be books in the bookstore that I, a non-Christian, could not buy. Your analogy is incorrect.

Your comment is incorrect, we are discussing the availability of gay/heterosexual books in the Citizens Advice example I have given. Can you comment in the issue please.

The business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

 

[Maren]

To b&wpac4,
that’s my criticism of your approach.

Ah that’s better, there is a big difference between denying a room altogether and denying a particular room.
My response did however explore your assumption.

However as to my other point it shows the motive and how the law unfortunately is becoming more and more bigoted prejudice and discriminatory against ‘heterosexuals’

No, the law is not becoming discriminatory, it is equal. Things are much simpler than you are trying to make it.

Here is some advice form a UK site.

A business that provides goods or services aimed at the gay community does not have to start providing similar goods or services aimed at heterosexuals. However, it can't turn away any heterosexual customers. For example, a lesbian and gay bookshop will not have to start stocking books aimed at heterosexual readers, but can't turn away heterosexual customers who want to buy its books.

I find that interesting. Could a bookshop describe itself as heterosexual and refuse to stock any homosexual related books?

Yes, they can. They can even only advertise in "heterosexual" publications. What they cannot do is refuse to provide the same books (service) to homosexuals that they provide to heterosexuals.

So why cant a hotel say it is Christian and offer rooms shared rooms for married couples but single rooms for homosexuals?

Because it is offering a service for Christians that it is not offering to others -- discriminating on the basis of religion. It would be the same as your heterosexual bookstore not allowing homosexuals to buy some books.

If you're in a civil partnership, a provider of goods or services can't treat you differently than it would treat a married couple. Goods and services available to unmarried opposite-sex couples must be available to same-sex couples not in a civil partnership.
Ah so we see it cant, the law is designed for gays.

No, once again it is the same. If you provide services to married couples, then you must also provide those same services to those who have civil partnerships (which I seem to recall even you stating are legally equivalent to marriage). If one can discriminate against people with civil partnerships, than civil partnerships are not equal to marriage but something less.

And again, services provided to those unmarried must be provided equally whether the couple is same-sex or opposite sex.

To take this to your hotel claim, it appears the hotel owner would have been within his rights if he had a written rule that required people to be married or in a civil partnership to get a room where they would share a bed. Instead, he was breaking the law because he was treating married by one standard and gays, regardless of if they had a civil partnership or not, by a different standard.

The law also covers advertising. A company can't say in its advertising that its goods or services are only available to heterosexuals. Equally, a gay business cannot advertise that heterosexual people are excluded, although it can say that it's a 'gay-friendly' business.
Ah so the gay hotel should have been penalised but wasn’t.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/civil_rights/discrimination_because_of_sexuality.htm

Its gay discrimination and prejudice.

No, again, that isn't true. A business oriented toward gays can advertise that is their target demographic, just like your above "heterosexual bookstore" would be able to advertise they are oriented towards homosexuals. Which again, is just like a bookstore legally being able to advertise they only carry Christian books. What they can't do is advertise that they only will provide services to gays or heterosexuals or Christians. Since you've stated that these gay businesses only advertise as being gay oriented but they do not say they will deny service to others, they are legal.

 

[Skaloop]

Firstly I never said it turned anyone away, it advertises exclusively for gay men only.

You're really not getting it. A store could open up calling itself The Gay Store. It could sell only gay-themed items. It could advertise exclusively in gay newspapers and on gay TV channels and proclaim itself the most exclusive gay business in the world. That's not discrimination of any kind. It's marketing.

But as soon as they turn me away from shopping there just because I am straight, then they are discriminating.

So for your gay hotel example, what they say on their website about being a gay hotel, or about how they speak out against the Bible does not count as legal discrimination unless you can show where they ever refused to provide a room to a straight person or to a Christian. Knowing what the hotel is like might make a Christian less likely to want to stay there, but that's not a problem unless they are refused a room.

 

[Psudopod]

Your comment is incorrect, we are discussing the availability of gay/heterosexual books in the Citizens Advice example I have given. Can you comment in the issue please.

The business is selling books just as the hotel’s business is to sell rooms, however whilst the gay bookshop doesn’t have to cater for the type of book heterosexuals want, the hotel has to cater for the type of room the homosexuals want. See the prejudice?

The hotel had those rooms already. However they chose only to to offer them to hetrosexual couples. That is the prejudice. If the hotel had only twin rooms, there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Belk]

All threads on CF turn into one of four propositions: 1. Teh gheys are ebil. 2. Abortion is murder. 3. Teh Pope is Antichrist/Catholics worship Mary/breadsticks. 4. Bush/Obama/Clinton is teh Ebil Wun incarnate! (Just ask any staff member -- it's true!)

Some just take longer than others to get there.

I wonder if we could work out a formula that would predict the number of posts it takes to move from any given subject to one of those 4?