Chindie Posted April 24, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 24, 2010 Just because they don't want to facilitate homosexual activity in their own home doesn't make them homophobic. It stopped solely being their home when they started a business. Don't like it? Pack up and find something else to do. I'd also suggest that it would make someone mildly homophobic at least if they decided they didn't like homosexual activity in their B&B, particularly if they allowed heterosexual activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 And I assume from your message that people with religious views have no rights? People with religious views have no rights that supersede the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Moving things along. In my local free sheet this week there is a half page advert for a 'no men' gym Is that discriminatory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Who cares? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Who cares? . Not a 'cause' worthy enough then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 And I assume from your message that people with religious views have no rights? People with religious views have no rights that supersede the law. I think that you will find religion came first :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 And I assume from your message that people with religious views have no rights? People with religious views have no rights that supersede the law. I think that you will find religion came first :winkold: Not really, you're bound to the laws of the land from the second you're born, you're only tied to the rules of religion when you become part of it. Therefore in someones life time the law of the land comes first :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Good one Mike - on the ball as ever - good to see some of us are up early and awake Up early maybe, not sure I was on the ball..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykeyb Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Drove through Colley Gate near Lye, this morning and was quite suprised that the BNP had a little stall set up to canvas for vote. The stall was on the car park of an Indian Restaurant (now theres irony) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 • As a gay man, could someone explain to me what sort of a gay couple would choose to stay at a B&B instead of a boutique hotel? Paul Wishart Leicester I agree with grayling - to an extent. People started offering a B&B years back, legislation has changed since they started. A legislation that said all new 'B&B's must comply with the new rules would have achieved the requirements of the legislation without criminalising those that were carrying on their business with no complaints for the last twenty years. But PC politicis fuchs up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 What, so if I was racist I could start a B&B and refuse all non-white customers? You don't want to exclude the racists after all. I'm sorry but that their homophobia is religiously derived doesn't make it ok and doesn't mean that they suddenly gain the right to discriminate based upon it. It's not "plain speaking" it's fundamentally wrong.Pink news - great. Like thatchell claiming that they didn't want to go back to the 50's when there were signs saying, "no irish, no blacks, no gays". But there weren't any signs like that. Thatchell talking bollox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Moving things along. In my local free sheet this week there is a half page advert for a 'no men' gym Is that discriminatory? Possibly, though I suppose they could be advertising that they have 'no men' and are after a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Then I heard he was raising his kids catholic because of his wife, and it made me not want to vote for him. Guy doesn't have the balls to stand up to his wife over his beliefs, so how can we expect him to stand up for anything he believes in? :notworthy: :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc89 Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 I really hope Cameron doesn't get in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 I really hope Cameron doesn't get in! It's Cameron or Brown, a shocking choice but there you have it. However the reasons for no more Brown are neatly summed up by a commentator on the timesonline: They have assailed centuries of legal tradition of the rule of law and liberties, have brought in the surveillance state, have created 3,000 new "crimes", have introduced countless new agencies representing beaurocratic fascism to oppress the citizen, have destroyed family life and the concept of Britishness, have squandered our gold reserves and made us a vassal province of the EU. They have robbed the taxpayer blind and blown the proceeds on creating a welfare client state, and finally, bankrupted the Nation, tripling the National Debt in 13 years. Obviously he forgot an illegal war, comprehensively lying to the British public and Parliament and the plan to change the face of Britain through a secret and unmandated policy of mass immigration. It still surprises me that they haven't all been dragged out into the street and shot like the vermin they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 24, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 24, 2010 How have they destroyed family life and the concept of Britishness, exactly? I can't argue/can't be arsed with the rest (i.e. the EU, been there, done that...), and I'm certainly no fan of how keen they chuck away civil liberties, but destroyers of family life and the concept of Britishness, well... that's as far as I'm concerned fear mongering rhetoric that doesn't really have any basis whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 How have they destroyed family life and the concept of Britishness, exactly? I can't argue/can't be arsed with the rest (i.e. the EU, been there, done that...), and I'm certainly no fan of how keen they chuck away civil liberties, but destroyers of family life and the concept of Britishness, well... that's as far as I'm concerned fear mongering rhetoric that doesn't really have any basis whatsoever.whatabout all this stuff, you seemed to passed over it They have assailed centuries of legal tradition of the rule of law and liberties, have brought in the surveillance state, have created 3,000 new "crimes", have introduced countless new agencies representing beaurocratic fascism to oppress the citizen....... Obviously he forgot an illegal war You happy with the ID card and the databases state Chindie? I seem to think most of these have a basis in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 24, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 24, 2010 I said I can't argue with the rest Gringo? And wasn't a fan of how keen they are on chucking away civil liberties? :? I just picked up on the point being made that was completely stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 I said I can't argue with the rest Gringo? And wasn't a fan of how keen they are on chucking away civil liberties? :? I just picked up on the point being made that was completely stupid.I know. Picking on the small things when you agree with the main points. Strange isn't it. It's not fear mongering if most of it is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 24, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted April 24, 2010 I said I can't argue with the rest Gringo? And wasn't a fan of how keen they are on chucking away civil liberties? :? I just picked up on the point being made that was completely stupid.I know. Picking on the small things when you agree with the main points. Strange isn't it. It's not fear-mongering if most of it is right No not really, the points made I roundly agree with but he listed everything for a reason, and part of that is patently ridiculous. He shouldn't have put it. It's used to further his point and it's absolutely absurd. Or do I just have to accept it line and sinker becuase the rest is roughly right? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts