'Christianity under attack' in UK!

[Recusant]

Whether it's legal or not, I don't think the way to fight bigotry is to legislate bigots from acting like bigots. I'd argue the same point if this couple didn't want to serve Jews or Atheists or Circus clowns. They're assholes, sure, but I just don't think preventing that kind of assholery should be the domain of the courts.

Of course, I know a lot of people feel very differently.

Government is a fact of life and it's going to have an effect on the society of which it is a part. Bigotry creates harm within society and if there are no laws addressing that harm, then essentially the government is condoning it. It's not just hurt feelings we're talking about here, either. People have been killed for being gay; the bigotry which motivated those killings is the same bigotry that motivates many homophobes. I support laws which attempt to address the overt expression of bigotry when it results in harm, and as far as I'm concerned, discrimination in the management of public accommodations is harmful, even though clearly not on the same level as physical gay-bashing.

Say we wanted to open up our own little HAF-Inn. Should we not be allowed to do that because it discriminates based on religion?

If you're attempting to make a direct analogy to this forum, it fails. People of any religion are welcome to join and participate, as long as they abide by the house rules.

Part of the reason we like HAF so much is because we're able to make our own community, based on our own rules, and we fully acknowledge that we discriminate (we don't allow preaching).

HAF is not providing a public accommodation; it's not making a profit by being open to the public. Because of this, the rules here are more akin to those of a private club.

If one of us owned a business that was a known "Atheist-hang out", should we legally, HAVE to allow people that we would ban on the forum as trolls into our business? Even if it completely destroyed the ethos of the place? I'm not convinced that we should.

Again, there is a difference between a private club and a public accommodation. It is legal (in the US) to establish a private club which does not allow behavior on its premises which is otherwise legal, and in fact a private club can discriminate in ways that are not legal for public accommodations to do.

I mean, these are Inn keepers. Their business is probably, literally, run out of their home. It's not Walmart or a fortune 500 that employs 15,000 people, should we really treat them exactly the same because they're both "businesses"?

Here, I think you have a point. There is a similar suit taking place in Hawaii. It will be interesting to see how that is judged, since as far as I know, small B&Bs do not qualify as public accommodations according to federal law. I'm not as familiar with UK law, and it may be that B&Bs are considered public accommodations (or whatever equivalent term is used).  

I think that what this is about is whether a business owner who caters to the public should have the power to decide that some people do not qualify as members of the public based on their sexual orientation.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I understand the issue of causing harm, but it's still a balance of rights. You have to agree that bigotry, on some level, has to be allowed in a free society. Bigotry causes harm, but how do we measure it? How do we measure the harm in policing morality - because I think there's a real, legitimate concern there, too. So where do we draw the line?

It seems that you're proposing the line be drawn at all businesses. But I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that governments get to decide who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are for us, or that the decision be made for emotional reasons. Where is the line between the "business" and "personal" sphere anyway? It might seem black and white, but in some cases, like a small business owner, I think it's grayer.

And don't get me wrong, I hate, homophobia. The "god" father of my child is gay. I've donated to the Matthew Sheppard foundation. One of my good friends got a black eye from some guy on the street who called him a "fag" and punched him for absolutely no reason. I get it, I really do.

But I worry about a society legislating morality for emotional reasons. I don't think saying "it causes harm" is enough. If these kind of bigoted owners actually cause real, measurable harm that out-weighs any reasonable appeal they have to liberty,then fine, I'd be all on board. But you can't say that stamping out bigotry is more than just "hurt feelings" but totally dismiss the implications of telling people how they have to live in their own house because they run a business and because we don't like the fact that they're assholes. 

Anyhoo. I understand your points, and I know I'll be the minority on this, but I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a bit.

[Sweetdeath]

Oh, those christians... I don't get why they are so upset about such a silly thing.  It's about respecting other people's beliefs and non beliefs.
They pull that persecution card a lot, when ironically they are constantly doing the persecuting.

[Firebird]

Surprised to see this happening in the UK, I must say. Though I guess my perception is colored by the idea that Europe is a more secular continent. Even the US doesn't have an official church.

[OldGit]

Yes, we're in the strange situation of having an established church which has no power and very little influence.  Like so many things here, it exists because it's been around for a long time.

I'm not 100% against it, myself, because the day may come when we need to use it as a bulwark against Islam.

[Crow]

This is kind of related so I thought it doesn't really deserve its own thread. Did anybody catch what Baroness Warsi said about militant secularism in the UK. Here is the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831 she is seriously one of the worst politicians the conservatives have, with her constantly ill conceived statements and that's not mentioning what she said about homosexuality and the BNP or the fact that she hasn't won a general election yet is on the torry cabinet.

[Too Few Lions]

This is kind of related so I thought it doesn't really deserve its own thread. Did anybody catch what Baroness Warsi said about militant secularism in the UK. Here is the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831 she is seriously one of the worst politicians the conservatives have, with her constantly ill conceived statements and that's not mentioning what she said about homosexuality and the BNP or the fact that she hasn't won a general election yet is on the torry cabinet.

she's a horrible woman, and one of the many reasons why I could never vote Tory. I do like Richard Dawkins' comment at the end of the article though.

[Recusant]

Heh, here's a strange piece (more or less on topic) from The Independent.

"No secularism please, we're British" by Peter Popham

I say strange, because the first few paragraphs are fairly reasonable (I disagree with some of the points, but overall Popham is making a kind of sense), then the thing wobbles and weaves for a bit before veering sharply into gagaland when Popham comes out with the following astoundingly ignorant and prejudiced regurgitation of a canard favored by the worst sort of soldier for Christ:

What is staggering about the secularists is their arrogance and the shortness of their memories. The materialist utopianism of the Communists and Nazis is to blame for all the worst atrocities of the past century. Dawkins may appear to make sense, but it is incredible that we should be ready to pay serious attention to a prophet whose message is the same as those whose schemes led straight to the hells of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge.

I 'd. Also, Popham needs to learn that secularism ≠ atheism. There are Christians who support a secular society. P.P. gets a big fat purple FAIL from me.

[The Magic Pudding]

But, stripped of fanaticism and self-righteousness, religious faith can do what secularism cannot: open doors on to areas of human experience – compassion, altruism, serenity, even enlightenment – which have no meaning for the secularists. The statement "there are no atheists in foxholes" may be a canard, but genuinely non-egoistical behaviour is much more likely from those for whom the ego and its grasping needs do not define ultimate reality.

That's from the same article Recusant quoted, same old can't be good without god crap.

[En_Route]

I understand the issue of causing harm, but it's still a balance of rights. You have to agree that bigotry, on some level, has to be allowed in a free society. Bigotry causes harm, but how do we measure it? How do we measure the harm in policing morality - because I think there's a real, legitimate concern there, too. So where do we draw the line?

It seems that you're proposing the line be drawn at all businesses. But I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that governments get to decide who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are for us, or that the decision be made for emotional reasons. Where is the line between the "business" and "personal" sphere anyway? It might seem black and white, but in some cases, like a small business owner, I think it's grayer.

And don't get me wrong, I hate, homophobia. The "god" father of my child is gay. I've donated to the Matthew Sheppard foundation. One of my good friends got a black eye from some guy on the street who called him a "fag" and punched him for absolutely no reason. I get it, I really do.

But I worry about a society legislating morality for emotional reasons. I don't think saying "it causes harm" is enough. If these kind of bigoted owners actually cause real, measurable harm that out-weighs any reasonable appeal they have to liberty,then fine, I'd be all on board. But you can't say that stamping out bigotry is more than just "hurt feelings" but totally dismiss the implications of telling people how they have to live in their own house because they run a business and because we don't like the fact that they're assholes. 

Anyhoo. I understand your points, and I know I'll be the minority on this, but I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a bit.

The"own house" point seems weak to me.Once you decide to open up where you live to the paying public for profit then you can't complain if different rules apply. You will be subject a whole raft of legislation and regulation,including a prohibition on discrimination against people on grounds of their sexuality.A society that permits such discrimination in the supply of goods and services is legitimising the treatment of people as inferior in terms of the rights they enjoy on the grounds of their sexuality.That is unwarranted in itself and is conducive to a zeitgeist where emotional and physical violence against such people can flourish.

[Recusant]

Well said, En_Route (and I'm not saying that just because I agree with you). 

* * *

The chairman of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission gives his view on the subject:

Religious rules should end "at the door of the temple" and give way to the "public law" laid down by Parliament, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said.

He argued that Roman Catholic adoption agencies and other faith groups providing public services must choose between their religion and obeying the law when their beliefs conflict with the will of the state.

[Too Few Lions]

But, stripped of fanaticism and self-righteousness, religious faith can do what secularism cannot: open doors on to areas of human experience – compassion, altruism, serenity, even enlightenment – which have no meaning for the secularists. The statement "there are no atheists in foxholes" may be a canard, but genuinely non-egoistical behaviour is much more likely from those for whom the ego and its grasping needs do not define ultimate reality.

That's from the same article Recusant quoted, same old can't be good without god crap.

yeah, that article was full of crap. Why are newspapers so full of bullshit? This bit got my goat too;

"To deny the existence of God is to accept the categories of monotheism... Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians' God is still a Christian world.

Only a Christian would be stupid enough to try and define atheism as a rejection of the Christian god. Atheism is older than Christianity and a non-belief in all gods, not just their one. What a moron.

[Crow]

I 'd. Also, Popham needs to learn that secularism ≠ atheism. There are Christians who support a secular society. P.P. gets a big fat purple FAIL from me.

What makes that article a failure for me is that it doesn't successfully argue why Britain should go back to Christianity, Britain has been secular for a long time already and the church of England is operating in a primarily secular fashion and is part of their mandate to become more inclusive rather than exclusive (it may as well loose the religious element and become a humanist organisation imo). The only arguments the article makes is that Christianity has history in Britain; which is a pointless and a stupid argument that gives it no authority over how the future of the country develops as it will always remain part of our history regardless, just as the old religions have remained part of our cultural identity. With the other argument being that secularism creates totalitarian regimes that create more harm than good; which is a total fallacy as the examples he gave were anything but secular and have never represented the idea of secularism. The article could be a poe as it is conceived using the generalised arguments that have no foundations or are just plain wrong assertions whilst using quotes that strengthen the case for secularism.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I understand the issue of causing harm, but it's still a balance of rights. You have to agree that bigotry, on some level, has to be allowed in a free society. Bigotry causes harm, but how do we measure it? How do we measure the harm in policing morality - because I think there's a real, legitimate concern there, too. So where do we draw the line?

It seems that you're proposing the line be drawn at all businesses. But I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that governments get to decide who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are for us, or that the decision be made for emotional reasons. Where is the line between the "business" and "personal" sphere anyway? It might seem black and white, but in some cases, like a small business owner, I think it's grayer.

And don't get me wrong, I hate, homophobia. The "god" father of my child is gay. I've donated to the Matthew Sheppard foundation. One of my good friends got a black eye from some guy on the street who called him a "fag" and punched him for absolutely no reason. I get it, I really do.

But I worry about a society legislating morality for emotional reasons. I don't think saying "it causes harm" is enough. If these kind of bigoted owners actually cause real, measurable harm that out-weighs any reasonable appeal they have to liberty,then fine, I'd be all on board. But you can't say that stamping out bigotry is more than just "hurt feelings" but totally dismiss the implications of telling people how they have to live in their own house because they run a business and because we don't like the fact that they're assholes. 

Anyhoo. I understand your points, and I know I'll be the minority on this, but I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a bit.

The"own house" point seems weak to me.Once you decide to open up where you live to the paying public for profit then you can't complain if different rules apply. You will be subject a whole raft of legislation and regulation,including a prohibition on discrimination against people on grounds of their sexuality.A society that permits such discrimination in the supply of goods and services is legitimising the treatment of people as inferior in terms of the rights they enjoy on the grounds of their sexuality.That is unwarranted in itself and is conducive to a zeitgeist where emotional and physical violence against such people can flourish.

I get what you're saying, but, again, in a free society, we have to let people behave like assholes to a certain extent. Even if it legitimizes issues we find problematic.  How about a paperboy? He's conducting a business, should he be allowed to wear a racist t-shirt? Should an Avon-lady be allowed to have a homophobic bumper sticker? It's all varying degrees and my only point was really that "business" and "personal" are not as black and white as we'd like to think when dealing with people we don't like.

Beyond that, with regards to the article Recusant posted, when I think of religious societies, I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't crack the top 20 for me. In a good way!

[Davin]

How about a paperboy? He's conducting a business, should he be allowed to wear a racist t-shirt? Should an Avon-lady be allowed to have a homophobic bumper sticker? It's all varying degrees and my only point was really that "business" and "personal" are not as black and white as we'd like to think when dealing with people we don't like.

Wearing something and/or expressing your opinion is far different than not providing a public service to everyone but a certain group. I think there are far too many differences between the two things to make a tenable conflation.

You would have to say that the paper boy is delivering to everyone but LGBT. Or the Avon lady would sell to everyone but LGBT.