Tuesday, July 27, 2010

U.K. Christian Hotel Owners Sued For Upholding Marriage Standard

"Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others). Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples – Thank you."  -- Peter and Hazelmary Bull, owners of The Chymorvah Private Hotel, Marazion, Cornwall, England.


They apparently had little or no problems with respect to their moral standards from 1986 on.

Until last August....

A clash of values:

'Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people are able to hold a religious belief and manifest it in the way they act.'

A spokesman for Stonewall said: 'We look forward to the hotel changing its policy to reflect equality, the 21st Century and the law.'

In PEI, Christian owners were hauled before the PEI human rights board for declining to accommodate two men in the same bed.  They were fined and ordered to submit to a state-sponsored, state-mandated re-education program. I called it the velvet glove of Canadian totalitarianism.

They declined. They paid their fine and closed their business.  Like Eleanor Rigby, nobody cared.

Also, this.

11 comments:

The_Iceman said...

They should be sued.

SDC said...

Sounds like they're in the wrong line of work, just like a Muslim cab driver who doesn't want to pick up passengers with seeing-eye dogs.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

What you do in your own home is your own affair. What you do in a place of business is subject to considerably more government regulation.

I would further point out that it would have only been a generation or two back that many hotels in the South of the US would have rejected a black and/or interracial couple, with some of them claiming Biblical grounds for this.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

"Also, this."

Rather than trusting World Net Daily (all the news too delusional for any reputable news source to publish, and/or to pass basic fact-checking), see http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/28/counseling for a less carpet-chewing take.

At least the latter should not be retitled "Lose HATEFUL GAY-BASHING BIGOTRY or face expulsion"

No, not all Christians hate teh gay, just like not all Christians hate teh polycotton.

Those that do belong to churches like the 'God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church (who recently had the stupidity to picket a ComicCon -- a word of advice, never picket people who're prepared to be crazier than you are http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/ ).

Just like the Westboro nuts, Julea Ward has the right to be a gay-hating bigot. That does not mean that society should want such bigots as a councillor. As the Eastern Michigan professor states in the IHE article, "counselors regularly work with clients who make decisions about such matters as birth control, sex, drug use, abortion and many other choices that a counselor may or may not support."

RkBall said...

"I would further point out..."

A valid point. The problem with using race as an analogy is that race is both an immutable and biological construct; if homosexuals want to argue on equality based on human biology, I'm afraid they don't have the facts on their side. There is a fundamental biological reason why men are equipped the way they are, and women women.

RkBall said...

"On Tuesday, a federal judge upheld the right of a counseling program at Eastern Michigan University to kick out a master's student who declined to counsel gay clients in an affirming way -- as required by the university program and counseling associations."

I ask you this: would you agree to counsel pederasts -- persons whose orientation is surely just as unchosen and just as immutable or not as anyone else's, in an affirming way?

RkBall said...

I believe the point is too that she was told she must not only change her behavior but change her beliefs.

RkBall said...

The vast majority of Christians who oppose homosexuality do not hate homosexual persons. They love them enough to risk social ostracization and worse -- fines, imprisonment -- to speak out.

Just like you oppose me and I oppose you -- but we do not hate each other.

And remember my point which distinguishes between the person with homosexual desires vs. the ideology which accompanies homosexuality today. Surely it is possible to disagree with the ideology, on factual and moral grounds, without being accused of hate?

Otherwise, we have simply thrown reason out the window and are told we must celebrate the practice of homosexuality -- "or else".

xn--hrfn-woa said...

"A valid point. The problem with using race as an analogy is that race is both an immutable and biological construct; if homosexuals want to argue on equality based on human biology, I'm afraid they don't have the facts on their side. There is a fundamental biological reason why men are equipped the way they are, and women women."

No Rick-the-delusional-bigot Ball, they most emphatically " have the facts on their side".

There is no scientific evidence that homosexual preferences are any less "immutable and biological" than race.

You fictitious "fundamental biological reason" does not controvert the fact that homosexuality is widely observed in nature, and that 'Adam and Steve' in all probability existed for millions of years before the development of the Bronze Age 'Adam and Eve' creation myth.

"I ask you this: would you agree to counsel pederasts -- persons whose orientation is surely just as unchosen and just as immutable or not as anyone else's, in an affirming way?"

I answer this: only a raving bigot would equate a consenting act between adults and child abuse!

I would further point out that your Bible condones polygamy and slavery, so consider any claim of the moral highground by a Biblical-bigotry-believing Christian to be ludicrous.

"The vast majority of Christians who oppose homosexuality do not hate homosexual persons. They love them enough to risk social ostracization and worse -- fines, imprisonment -- to speak out."

Balderdash! There words may be of "hate the sin, love the sinner", but their ACTIONS are those of people filled with hate, doing everything humanly possible possible to maginalise, ostracise and criminalise them.

Julea Ward could not even bring hereself to talk to a gay person, what clearer indication do you want that she hates gays?

There is no "ideology which accompanies homosexuality". There is simply the biological fact of homosexual preference, and the reasonable demand for equal rights for those members of humanity who have this preference.

"Otherwise, we have simply thrown reason out the window and are told we must celebrate the practice of homosexuality -- 'or else'."

STRAWMAN!

1) NOBODY is telling anybody that they "must celebrate the practice of homosexuality".

2) This is a blatant 'false dichotomy' between open anti-gay bigotry and 'celebration', when there is an obvious and vast middle-ground between the two positions.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

"A valid point. The problem with using race as an analogy is that race is both an immutable and biological construct; if homosexuals want to argue on equality based on human biology, I'm afraid they don't have the facts on their side. There is a fundamental biological reason why men are equipped the way they are, and women women."

No Rick-the-delusional-bigot Ball, they most emphatically " have the facts on their side".

There is no scientific evidence that homosexual preferences are any less "immutable and biological" than race.

You fictitious "fundamental biological reason" does not controvert the fact that homosexuality is widely observed in nature, and that 'Adam and Steve' in all probability existed for millions of years before the development of the Bronze Age 'Adam and Eve' creation myth.

[contd]

xn--hrfn-woa said...

([mutter] -- I got a 'too big' error message, so started to cut my post up -- only to find that in fact it had gotten through.)

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"