Comments

  1. says

    “the powers of political correctness”

    What a wonderful phrase. Pity it doesn’t have any meaning. Perhaps someone should ask Mr. Judge to enumerate those powers. Do they include X-ray vision? Superstrength? Superspeed? Telepathy?

    I’m dying to know.

  2. BZ says

    Culture is renorming. The open display of antigay bigotry is no longer going to be tolerated (much less encouraged or reward as it was in the past.) The same thing happened with sexism and racism.

    That doesn’t mean that racism, homophobia, sexism etc have ceased to exist. It just means that bigotry has been driven underground and into dark corners, where it will never go away. We must remain on our guard lest it attempt a comeback.

  3. Mike says

    Some exemplary “Christians” they are! Am tempted to ask how much they would charge a VERY pregnant young girl and a “holy” if licentious mature man to sleep in a stable, but that is their fairytale . . .

  4. anon says

    Their attitude is self-defeating, silly and very old-fashioned. They somehow acquired the notion that they must prevent sin for anything remotely under their control. Essentially the outward appearance of impiety will shame them as bad Christians. This, of course, is a social more, not a Christian one.

    On the other hand, the UK does not have a first amendment, so parliament can set itself up to enforce any manner of political will it likes, despite protests of conscious. They used to prevent Catholics and Jews from worshiping freely, and now they demand comity from the sanctimonious. The problem is now we have laws in the UK that act in cross purposes and can result in inherent contradictions. For example, a gay couple could be charged with “offending Islam” by demanding to be served at a Pakistani establishment and saying the wrong thing when denied service.

  5. Randal Oulton says

    The fools kept proclaiming that the B&B was first and foremost their home, while deducting every single penny spent on it against tax. They’re lucky the Supreme Court didn’t accept the home argument or the tax man would have been a far bigger worry to them.

  6. john patrick says

    “Just ordinary Christians.” “Britain ought to be a country of freedom and tolerance; but it seems religious beliefs should play second fiddle to the new orthodoxy of political correctness.”

    In other words, their religious beliefs should take precedence over the rights of people who have other religious beliefs or no religious beliefs. And, in other words, Britain should really not be a country of freedom and tolerance.

    No sympathy for them. They are running a public business and have to obey the law, and have to extend freedom and tolerance to gay couples.

  7. Matt27 says

    No apology. Their home, no hostility? Christianity is no excuse for discrimination. I feel sorry for them, because they live their lives looking the tiniest angle to the world, they don’t see the beauty of difference and other people not like themselves. It is a very sad way to live.

  8. Vint says

    The resolution is pretty clear, and I’m not sure why Christians don’t seem able to grasp or accept it.

    You can have your beliefs. Your beliefs can govern your actions. That’s freedom of religion.

    But your beliefs can’t govern the actions of others.
    That’s freedom.

  9. Mike says

    Right JAMAL49 however EVEN then the evangelical does no good because their casket is leaching metal and other harmful chemicals into the soil. Six feet under if fine but let the Christian finally ADD something . . .

  10. says

    @TJ007: Same rules. And if it had been Christians turned away at the inn, same rules.

    @Jamman: The couple wasn’t arguing that. They were arguing that they, as Christians, should have a special exemption from law to discriminate. Holding Christians to the same legal standards as everyone else isn’t fascist.

  11. Den says

    jamman

    They are not being forced into a contract against their will. These laws only apply to the PUBLIC sphere. If they advertise publicly for customers they cannot discriminate on certain grounds. If they wish to have only married heterosexual Christians as guests in their B&B they can do so by running the business by private invitation only. The claim that they are forced to rent rooms to gay couples is a lie.

  12. Jared says

    If you’re going to write an article, please report the entire story. The couple didn’t allow any couple, gay or straight, to share a bed in their B&B. This wasn’t discrimination based on sexual orientation. Very one sided story. Also, the couple had their property vandalized by gay rights advocates.

  13. says

    @Jared: Untrue. They turned away a gay couple in a civil partnership. In Britain, gay couples are unable to marry; therefore, no gay couple would pass their marriage standard. (Would they have allowed in a married gay couple? Doubtful.) Married straight couples and unioned gay couples received different treatment by the inn owners. Furthermore, were straight couples asked to produce marriage licenses at the door? What if they’d been divorced, committed adultery etc.? This was about sexual orientation, as court after court has found.

    If the couple’s property was vandalized, they could pursue criminal charges of the vandals. It wouldn’t change the outcome of the case. If you run a public accommodation you cannot turn people away because you don’t like something about them.

  14. Jared says

    @Ernie That is a matter to take up with your government. I’m from the US, so I am not familiar with your laws. Here though, I’m not allowed to rent a car from most providers because I’m not 25 yet. I am extremely responsible, and have a better credit score than most adults. That doesn’t matter though because that is the company’s policy. I don’t go sue them, instead I rent a car from a company that will allow it. Am I being discriminated against? Everybody is protecting rights as long as it favors them. If it’s their policy, then that’s their decision. Go to another hotel. It’s not that difficult. I don’t come to your office and tell you what you’re allowed to do.

  15. Jared says

    @Ernie Oh and I was commenting on the integrity of the article, not on the ethics of it. Only reporting one side of a story is irresponsible. I don’t presume to speculate, even though you seem to know the thoughts of others. Next time someone isn’t telling me the whole story, I’ll contact you to know read their thoughts.

  16. says

    @Jared: Take up what? I am from the U.S., so I’m quite familiar with our laws. (If you mean our marriage laws in the U.S., I have and now I’m married.) You may not like the rental car laws, but they are the law, just as non-discrimination laws are the law in states that have them, as mine does. Those who oppose laws are free to challenge them.

    I’m also familiar with the British law that applied to the couple running the B&B. (BTW, Towleroad has reported this story since it began several years ago and has provided links to multiple other sources. So it’s not true that only one side has been presented. Furthermore, this is a blog with a POV.) In running a public accommodation, the B&B couple needed to comply with the non-doscrimination laws in place. They did not, breaking the law. Their case went to the courts, and they have lost each time. That is the story. Their Christianity did not give them a special right to discriminate.

  17. FFS says

    You know what “political correctness” used to be called before jerkwads who throw public tantrums to defend their right to be jerkwads thought it up? It was called “being considerate.”

    @Jared: If you’re not yet 25, then you haven’t been an adult long enough to have the length of established credit history it would require for you to have earned the kind of stellar credit score you claim to have.

    Pulling random crap to brag about out of your tuckus that doesn’t make sense casts doubt on the credibility of everything else you say. Just for future reference.

Leave A Reply