View Poll Results: Should B&B owners be allowed to refuse gay couples?

Voters
109. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they should be allowed to refuse anyone for any reason

    65 59.63%
  • The should be allowed to refuse if it violates their religious beliefs

    3 2.75%
  • They should be fined for discriminating against gays

    16 14.68%
  • They should lose their B&B license for discriminating against gays

    19 17.43%
  • Other, please explain

    6 5.50%
Page 31 of 41 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 403

Thread: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous grounds

  1. #301
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I recognize that we have all the rights my country has granted us. I just don't agree with the stupid ones. Like the 'right to be served by someone against their will'. Or the 'right to invade private property against the will of the owner.'
    Well, that's another 'right' that differs depending on where you are. In the UK and many European countries there is what is known as "The Right to Roam", which means that members of the general public have the right to access private property for certain stipulated activities. I suspect the situation in the US is different.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam]Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    I agree the government should not discriminate. But individual citizens have no 'right' to expect that from other individual citizens.
    Well, according to the legislation we've been discussing, they do have that right, even if you don't like it

    If I don't want you on my property for ANY reason, I can make you leave. By pretty much any means necessary depending on the state.
    See above - Right to roam.

    That shouldn't change just because I own a business. I should not LOSE rights when I own a business and every other person in the country should not gain the right to be served by me against my will.
    It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.
    The reason I used the 'right not to be offended' is because that's what this is all about.
    Discrimination is more than just about causing offence. You put up a sign saying "I hate Europeans" and I will be offended, end of story. If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.

    From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.

    Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  2. #302
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,155

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Well, the society of the United Kingdom has defined the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. In the US society has defined that you have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. You clearly don't like this, which is your prerogative. Are you saying that the only rights you recognise are those stipulated in the US Bill of Rights?
    It's closer to life, liberty, and property; which are the corner stones to all rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    You cannot grant or deny the right to be offended. I will be offended by whatever the hell makes me so. I will also maintain that Government may and must use legislation where necessary to ensure we do not have a society that victimises, discriminates unfairly or otherwise attacks the equal treatment of its citizens.
    And I think you should do that your own damned self. But using government to infringe upon someone's property is not a just act. No one has the right to be served by absolutely everyone else. If someone owns a business, it's not your right to be a customer of that business. The business owner can decide for himself. That's how it is. If it's something the community doesn't like, y'all can not go there. If the business doesn't do business, the business goes away. And that's the proper way to elicit change in this scenario. But government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is nothing more than an act of tyranny.
    Last edited by Ikari; 03-31-10 at 11:01 AM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #303
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Well, that's another 'right' that differs depending on where you are. In the UK and many European countries there is what is known as "The Right to Roam", which means that members of the general public have the right to access private property for certain stipulated activities. I suspect the situation in the US is different.

    Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Not much point in owning property there, then.


    It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.
    But it *shouldn't*.

    If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.
    No, it causes no harm at all. It just pisses people off, or hurts their feelings. If I refuse to sell you a donut at my donut shop, you can't seriously sit there and expect me to believe that "harms" you.

    That gay couple had plenty of other places to stay since I'm quite sure that bed and breakfast wasn't the only place to stay in the country.

    From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.
    Yup.

    Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.
    Unjust implies government mistreatment. That is not what we're discussing.

  4. #304
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Not much point in owning property there, then.
    How might that impinge on your right to do what the hell you want on your property?

    But it *shouldn't*.
    You say shouldn't, I say should. Let's agree to disagree.


    No, it causes no harm at all. It just pisses people off, or hurts their feelings. If I refuse to sell you a donut at my donut shop, you can't seriously sit there and expect me to believe that "harms" you.
    That's disingenuous. If you owned the only pharmacy in town and refused to sell me my cancer drugs? If you were the sole local electricity supplier?

    Yup.
    Shame on you. But perhaps you liked things better when the minorities knew their place and when might really acted as if it was right, and got away with it.

    Unjust implies government mistreatment. That is not what we're discussing.
    In what dictionary does the definition of justice limit itself to the actions of government? Are you claiming that only government mistreatment can be defined as unjust?

    unjust
    • adjective not just; unfair.
    — DERIVATIVES unjustly adverb. From the OED.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  5. #305
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    How might that impinge on your right to do what the hell you want on your property?
    What I want to do on my property is not have anyone else on it.

    That's disingenuous. If you owned the only pharmacy in town and refused to sell me my cancer drugs? If you were the sole local electricity supplier?
    What if? I'm not sure I see your point? Are people not free to move elsewhere if they're unhappy where they live?


    Shame on you. But perhaps you liked things better when the minorities knew their place and when might really acted as if it was right, and got away with it.
    Shame on me? Why do you think that I approve of discrimination just because I think people should be allowed to do it?

    In what dictionary does the definition of justice limit itself to the actions of government? Are you claiming that only government mistreatment can be defined as unjust?

    unjust
    • adjective not just; unfair.
    — DERIVATIVES unjustly adverb. From the OED.
    I said it implied.

    If you want to just use it as "unfair", well then I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve. So, there you are supporting unjust activities.

    But seriously, unfair? That's the argument you want to use? It's unfair? I know you can do better than that. Nothing is fair to everyone, and it doesn't need to be. People need to get over the fact that there are some people who aren't going to like them.

  6. #306
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by MyOwnDrum View Post
    This is in England where a Christian B&B owner refused a homosexual couple accommodation. Should this be allowed or not? For those of you who haven't visited the UK, B&Bs are much more common over there and American style motels are rare. Many, many homeowners supplement their incomes by operating B&Bs in their homes.

    Should they be forced to take in gay couples if it is against their religious beliefs?

    Gay couple turned away from B&B by Christian owners | World news | The Guardian
    When I was young they wouldn't let you share a room if you did not have a wedding ring and they did not believe you were married.

    Since then things have changed.

    I mean at that time they used to put up placards saying 'No Irish' or 'No Coloureds' and it was against the law to be gay.

    Things have changed. In order to be a homogeneous society where all people were treated equally, not suffering for being different in a way which they could not change, we brought in laws to stop people acting out their prejudices.

    Anyone living in the UK will need to follow them because we live under the rule of law.

    If these Christians have an aversion to putting up gays then they possibly could make their establishment a Christian only one hoping that Christian gays will not bring them to court.

    Otherwise they can find another way to earn their living.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  7. #307
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    If these Christians have an aversion to putting up gays then they possibly could make their establishment a Christian only one hoping that Christian gays will not bring them to court.
    If these "Christians" feel so strongly about discriminating against their fellow men, and women, they could just stop charging people from staying there. Then it would legally be their "private residence" and they could discriminate to their Christian hearts' content.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  8. #308
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    What I want to do on my property is not have anyone else on it.
    Well, of course there are those who believe that if you buy a parcel of land then it is for you to do as you wish with it and behave as you will on it. Of course that's not true. You can't buy a piece of land in Kansas and claim it is the territory of the Philippines. You can't buy a plot of land in Upper East Side NYC and place a land-fill site on it. And you can't shoot people delivering junk-mail to your house despite the fact that technically they may be trespassing.

    The fact that you buy a property does not mean that that property becomes irrevocably and unrestrictedly yours. You must still pay your taxes on it, maintain it according to local and national restrictions and you must still obey the laws of the land in which it lies. Whether you wish to accept these restrictions or not does not change that.

    What if? I'm not sure I see your point? Are people not free to move elsewhere if they're unhappy where they live?
    Absolutely. If property or business owners don't want to abide by the laws of the territory in which they own property, they may move to somewhere where the laws they dislike don't apply.

    Shame on me? Why do you think that I approve of discrimination just because I think people should be allowed to do it?
    I do believe you approve of it, because if you, and the rest of the society in which you live, decide that a certain set of behaviours are unacceptable, then you legislate against them. Those that disagree with such legislation may protest and seek to change those laws, but until that happens they must accept the consequences that their defiance of those laws brings.

    If you disapprove of such discrimination then you, as a responsible citizen, have a responsibility to do something to challenge that discrimination. If you choose to accept that discrimination then you are complicit with it.

    I said it implied.
    If implication was all you were referring to, then why make the statement, "That is not what we're discussing"? True, we were not discussing government mistreatment. We were discussing injustice. You used government mistreatment as a straw horse to avoid discussing injustice. Now you're not being consistent.

    If you want to just use it as "unfair", well then I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve. So, there you are supporting unjust activities.
    You are claiming that forcing a business owner to treat his/her customers equally is unfair. I would suggest that most people wouldn't agree with you.

    But seriously, unfair? That's the argument you want to use? It's unfair? I know you can do better than that. Nothing is fair to everyone, and it doesn't need to be. People need to get over the fact that there are some people who aren't going to like them.
    Unfairness is an inexact term. It runs the spectrum from, "Mummy, he's got a bigger piece of cake than I have, that's not fair!" to "The unrepresentative presence of African Americans on death row points to a judicial system that is both prejudicial and unfair". 'Unfair' is neither a precise nor a flippant, easily-dismissed term. The extent to which unfairness is tolerated is a litmus test for a society. I suspect that the place where you draw the line of fairness and where I might draw that line are some considerable distance apart.
    Last edited by Andalublue; 03-31-10 at 08:35 PM.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  9. #309
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Well, of course there are those who believe that if you buy a parcel of land then it is for you to do as you wish with it and behave as you will on it. Of course that's not true. You can't buy a piece of land in Kansas and claim it is the territory of the Philippines. You can't buy a plot of land in Upper East Side NYC and place a land-fill site on it. And you can't shoot people delivering junk-mail to your house despite the fact that technically they may be trespassing.

    The fact that you buy a property does not mean that that property becomes irrevocably and unrestrictedly yours. You must still pay your taxes on it, maintain it according to local and national restrictions and you must still obey the laws of the land in which it lies. Whether you wish to accept these restrictions or not does not change that.
    Well let's just say, I'm glad we don't have free roaming laws here.


    Absolutely. If property or business owners don't want to abide by the laws of the territory in which they own property, they may move to somewhere where the laws they dislike don't apply.
    Or, we can try and change the laws. And if people don't like the way a business owner does business, they can simply refuse to give them any more business.


    I do believe you approve of it, because if you, and the rest of the society in which you live, decide that a certain set of behaviours are unacceptable, then you legislate against them. Those that disagree with such legislation may protest and seek to change those laws, but until that happens they must accept the consequences that their defiance of those laws brings.

    If you disapprove of such discrimination then you, as a responsible citizen, have a responsibility to do something to challenge that discrimination. If you choose to accept that discrimination then you are complicit with it.
    ROFL

    No. Sorry. Disagreeing with an action is not a reason to legislate against that action. Not at all. There are MANY things I disagree with to my core, but would never - in a million years - try to remove someone's freedom to do them.

    Obviously you're not familiar with the following quote and belief: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    I would never be so fascist as to think that everyone in the country should believe, speak and act the same way I do, or only in ways that I approve of.

    If implication was all you were referring to, then why make the statement, "That is not what we're discussing"? True, we were not discussing government mistreatment. We were discussing injustice. You used government mistreatment as a straw horse to avoid discussing injustice. Now you're not being consistent.
    No, I attribute "injustice" to the realm of the government and our JUSTICE system.

    You are claiming that forcing a business owner to treat his/her customers equally is unfair. I would suggest that most people wouldn't agree with you.
    No, I said it's not RIGHT to force someone to serve you against their will. Fairness has nothing to do with it. No one has the right to be served by someone else.

    I additionally said that the business owner should not lose property rights simply by opening a business.

    Unfairness is an inexact term. It runs the spectrum from, "Mummy, he's got a bigger piece of cake than I have, that's not fair!" to "The unrepresentative presence of African Americans on death row points to a judicial system that is both prejudicial and unfair". 'Unfair' is neither a precise nor a flippant, easily-dismissed term. The extent to which unfairness is tolerated is a litmus test for a society. I suspect that the place where you draw the line of fairness and where I might draw that line are some considerable distance apart.
    In the private realm, between individuals, fairness is simply irrelevant.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 03-31-10 at 09:45 PM.

  10. #310
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,183

    Re: Should a Bed and Breakfast Owner be allowed to refuse Gay couples on religous gro

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Well let's just say, I'm glad we don't have free roaming laws here.
    Well, that's called avoiding the question. I said, "You can't buy a piece of land in Kansas and claim it is the territory of the Philippines. You can't buy a plot of land in Upper East Side NYC and place a land-fill site on it. And you can't shoot people delivering junk-mail to your house despite the fact that technically they may be trespassing." What has this got to do with the Right to Roam?

    Or, we can try and change the laws. And if people don't like the way a business owner does business, they can simply refuse to give them any more business.
    Of course that's true. It just depends on whom you place the burden of change; the person doing the discriminating or the person being discriminated against. You seem more concerned about the 'rights' of the discriminator than those of the discriminated.

    ROFL
    That sounded like a rather nervous ROFL. I think you know that inaction in the face of manifest injustice IS complicity and that you are, therefore, complicit.

    No. Sorry. Disagreeing with an action is not a reason to legislate against that action. Not at all. There are MANY things I disagree with to my core, but would never - in a million years - try to remove someone's freedom to do them.
    If we were merely discussing the exchange of opinions between people then you might have a point. We are, however, discussing actions of one party against the interests of another. That's something beyond disagreement. The actions of the owners caused harm and damaged, to put it in US constitutional terms, the gay couple's "liberty and pursuit of happiness".

    Obviously you're not familiar with the following quote and belief: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    Obviously, I am familiar with Voltaire's quotation, but I fear you may be running out of straw horses. The freedom of expression is not at issue. Voltaire did not say, "I disapprove of what you do, but defend to the death your right to do it". I think he knew what he meant.

    I would never be so fascist as to think that everyone in the country should believe, speak and act the same way I do, or only in ways that I approve of.
    Then what commitment do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Should everyone be free to behave in whatever manner their own conscience (or lack of such) sees fit? What role do you see the law playing in your society?

    No, I attribute "injustice" to the realm of the government and our JUSTICE system.
    I think that is a narrow and insincere definition of justice. As with terms such as conservative, religion, law and liberal, justice may be written with a big or a small j and claiming otherwise is avoiding the matter.

    No, I said it's not RIGHT to force someone to serve you against their will. Fairness has nothing to do with it. No one has the right to be served by someone else.
    Do you think I am not reading your posts? You said, (Post 305) "I consider it unfair to force a business owner to serve someone they don't want to serve." If you are now claiming that you meant to say "not RIGHT" then please define the difference between "unfair" (Post 305) and "not RIGHT" (Post 309).

    I additionally said that the business owner should not lose property rights simply by opening a business.
    They don't lose any property rights (however you might define those) by so doing, they just accept new social responsibilities by doing so.

    In the private realm, between individuals, fairness is simply irrelevant.
    The owners had every 'right' to discriminate against gays by not inviting them into their private home. By opening a business they converted their 'private' home into a 'public' business and had to accept the change in status and responsibilities that such a decision brought.
    Last edited by Andalublue; 03-31-10 at 10:27 PM.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

Page 31 of 41 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •