Gay discrimination legislation in NI, and eventually UK wide

[Denny Crane!]

Lords defeat attempt to overturn gay rights law
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Published: 10 January 2007
Peers voted down attempts to quash groundbreaking new rules giving homosexual people rights against discrimination.

They backed the Northern Ireland Sexual Orientation Regulation by 199 votes to 68 last night, a majority of 131, despite vocal opposition from religious organisations.

But Christian groups declared that legal action against new laws extending gay rights would go ahead, regardless of the vote.

The Christian Institute and a group of Christian denominations in Northern Ireland are challenging the sexual orientation regulations which outlaw discrimination against same-sex couples.

The vote came after an impassioned debate lasting more than two hours. Critics said the regulations would undermine religious freedoms, and leave the faithful at risk of legal action if they quoted biblical teaching on homosexuality or if Christian guesthouse owners refused to allow same-sex couples to share a bedroom.

Hundreds of people staged a torchlit protest outside Parliament against the rules last night as peers debated an attempt to quash the rules, which came into force in Northern Ireland at the start of the year. Regulations covering the rest of the UK are expected to come into force in April.

The regulations have been delayed in the rest of the UK amid claims by religious groups that they will promote gay rights contrary to their beliefs and penalise those who have moral objections to homosexuality. But gay rights activists insist the campaign against the regulations is being orchestrated by "fringe groups", and have warned against any attempt to water down the rules when they are introduced across Britain.

Opening last night's debate, Lord Morrow, the Democratic Unionist peer, said: "Regulations are supposed to be non controversial. These regulations could not be more controversial.

"It cannot be often that a set of regulations can be accused of attacking fundamental religious freedoms, yet that is just what has happened. They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."

Lord Tebbit said: "These regulations would leave perfectly innocent people in fear of legal action from the fanatical wings of the lesbian, homosexual, gay pressure groups. Whatever the intention of those who drafted the regulations, they are bound to create not only a shadow, or umbra of prohibition, but a vastly-wider penumbra of the fear of prosecution."

Lord Eames, the former Archbishop of Armagh, attacked the Government for failing to consult the people of Northern Ireland about the rules.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern said the rules would leave bed and breakfast owners open to legal action if they do not allow same-sex couples to share a room.

The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, warned: "They run the risk of facing a significant number of people with a choice between complying with the law and their religious convictions."

But Lord Smith, the former Labour culture secretary, launched an impassioned defence of the protections offered by the rules. He attacked critics of the regulations, telling peers: "What they are arguing for is quite simply the right to discriminate and the right to harass. These arguments are being made in the name of Christianity. I find that very difficult to understand.

"People have the right to believe that homosexuality is somehow wrong. I believe very strongly that people have a right to hold views that may be bigoted or discriminatory, but I do not believe they have the right to put their beliefs into action."

Independant





So you can't hang a sign outside your door saying no blacks allowed but our crazy christian hardcore think it is perfectly acceptable to say no gays. Well glad to see the government will not be lobbied into aqueiscense on this one by the catholic pamphleteers.

Peter

[hsimoorb]

Yeah, Christians aren't realy free to practice thier religion untill they can do whatever they want to anybody for any reason it seems. What chodes, who the heck do they think they are? "They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."---> What non-sense, I can't beleive anyone is going along with this fanatical propaganda.

[Shaun]

So you can't hang a sign outside your door saying no blacks allowed but our crazy christian hardcore think it is perfectly acceptable to say no gays. Well glad to see the government will not be lobbied into aqueiscense on this one by the catholic pamphleteers.

Agreed.

The Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, warned: "They run the risk of facing a significant number of people with a choice between complying with the law and their religious convictions."

Obviously the law should always come above religion.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern said the rules would leave bed and breakfast owners open to legal action if they do not allow same-sex couples to share a room.

As Seneca says, they cant hang a sign saying no blacks, so why can they hang a sign saying no gays?

Lord Tebbit said: "These regulations would leave perfectly innocent people in fear of legal action from the fanatical wings of the lesbian, homosexual, gay pressure groups.

Innocent of what? Homophobia? If you are preaching against gays then that will be a crime, so you wont be innocent regardless of what 'god' and the 'bible' say.

The Christian Institute and a group of Christian denominations in Northern Ireland are challenging the sexual orientation regulations which outlaw discrimination against same-sex couples.

I bet they would also challenge a law which legalisese religious discrimination against them.

Critics said the regulations would undermine religious freedoms

Where as before regulations would undermine sexual freedom.

[Denny Crane!]

I bet they would also challenge a law which legalisese religious discrimination against them.

Thats a really good point Shaun. I wonder if the Christians would protest if I opened a guesthouse and said, "No Christians allowed"

I am guessing I would be condemned universally though probably mostly by the Daily Mail

Peter

[Erik]

They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."

Why don't the Brits simply create a new church with religious views that are better in line with the views of the state, and then force all citizens to join this new church instead.

Oh, wait...that already did

[MasterOfNone]

If we lived under a free government then you would be able to turn Christians aways from *your* guest house. It is your property and the government should not be telling you who you can or cannot take in - no more than your own home. And, yes, another owner may decide not to allow homosexuals into their guesthouse.

It's called liberty but governments do not seem to understand that concept anymore and too many people do no realise that there is always a power that underlies laws and in allowing governments the power to (say) stop property owners saying no to homosexuals they also have allowed them (the government) the power to dictate who you may have in your home/business at any time...it's just a matter of how "benevolently" the government chooses to enforce and extend the law.

We never learn from history. Tyrannies are often set up under some pretext of helping some group or another and people do not give away their liberties but under some deception.

[Da Skinna]

If we lived under a free government then you would be able to turn Christians aways from *your* guest house. It is your property and the government should not be telling you who you can or cannot take in - no more than your own home. And, yes, another owner may decide not to allow homosexuals into their guesthouse.

While I agree that owners should be able to have the freedom to choose whoever they want in their places, I think that simply saying no to a certain minority isn't right. And it should stay against the law. Those minorities, are not causing a problem to allow a pretense for keeping them out, and saying no to them for simply because of religious convictions isn't good enough.

It's called liberty but governments do not seem to understand that concept anymore and too many people do no realise that there is always a power that underlies laws and in allowing governments the power to (say) stop property owners saying no to homosexuals they also have allowed them (the government) the power to dictate who you may have in your home/business at any time...it's just a matter of how "benevolently" the government chooses to enforce and extend the law.

We never learn from history. Tyrannies are often set up under some pretext of helping some group or another and people do not give away their liberties but under some deception.

It's also the start of tyranny if governments impose laws dictating what certain groups of its citizens can and cannot do. Now, the Patriot Act can be interepreted as a deceptive capture of freedoms, but keeping laws that promote equality is not something that is taking away the power from the poor, impoverished people... namely those religious freaks that take everything in the Bible for literal meaning, and the only reason they don't outright scream in a gay couple's faces is because of the legal implications.

Those Christian shop and inn owners shouldn't be in a freakin' people business if they don't want to deal with some people...

[Aristophanes]

I'm gay, and I'm not sure that it is right to force people to accomodate gays if they don't want to, nor do I think it's right to imprison people for saying they don't like gays. There are laws already in place, which, if properly administered and adhered to, are more than adequate protections for all homosexuals. New laws seem somewhat like band-aids or, worse, an attempt to enforce an intellectual orthodoxy and crush dissent: band-aids if/when the laws currently in place are not properly being enforced-what else would necessitate or occasion new laws; or attempts to influence and change the public psyche through legislation and the police force.

It is fine to say "no man in his right mind should oppose equal rights and protections for homosexuals", but I don't believe the corollary is the prosecution or persecution of those who differ in their opinions. That sets a precedent we shouldn't accept of a free and democratic society: the state does not exist to set the minds of its polity and shape our views as it sees fit. How long before that precedent, suppression of some beliefs on the grounds that they "shouldn't be had", is used to justify further encroachment upon the minds/expressions of the citizenry? What else "shouldn't" we think/say? What else does the elite consider "irrational"?

[Denny Crane!]

If we lived under a free government then you would be able to turn Christians aways from *your* guest house. It is your property and the government should not be telling you who you can or cannot take in - no more than your own home. And, yes, another owner may decide not to allow homosexuals into their guesthouse.

Smaller guest houses and hotels that might be considered the owners domestic house as well will be exempt from this. Other than that this is business related not relative to private dwellings.

Again I quote the example, if this is the case you obviously support the right for a hotel to stipulate whether or not it allows blacks or jews in.

Their's a word for that kind of government.

It's called liberty but governments do not seem to understand that concept anymore and too many people do no realise that there is always a power that underlies laws and in allowing governments the power to (say) stop property owners saying no to homosexuals they also have allowed them (the government) the power to dictate who you may have in your home/business at any time...it's just a matter of how "benevolently" the government chooses to enforce and extend the law.

Business not home. And I refer you to the above examples. Should liberty extend all the way to being allowed to loot and pillage, rape and violate where you wish? If not then you must accept legislation and regulation. If so and you disagree with racism then you must not protest laws against racism?

If so then you should not protest laws against discrimination of homosexuals.

We never learn from history. Tyrannies are often set up under some pretext of helping some group or another and people do not give away their liberties but under some deception.

Uhuh thats what this is

I'm gay, and I'm not sure that it is right to force people to accomodate gays if they don't want to, nor do I think it's right to imprison people for saying they don't like gays. There are laws already in place, which, if properly administered and adhered to, are more than adequate protections for all homosexuals. New laws seem somewhat like band-aids or, worse, an attempt to enforce an intellectual orthodoxy and crush dissent: band-aids if/when the laws currently in place are not properly being enforced-what else would necessitate or occasion new laws; or attempts to influence and change the public psyche through legislation and the police force.

In the same way that racist attitudes were changed or at best brushed under the carpet it would be fallacious to suggest that the enforced change of attitudes or the veneer of it has been beneficial to society.

It is fine to say "no man in his right mind should oppose equal rights and protections for homosexuals", but I don't believe the corollary is the prosecution or persecution of those who differ in their opinions. That sets a precedent we shouldn't accept of a free and democratic society: the state does not exist to set the minds of its polity and shape our views as it sees fit. How long before that precedent, suppression of some beliefs on the grounds that they "shouldn't be had", is used to justify further encroachment upon the minds/expressions of the citizenry? What else "shouldn't" we think/say? What else does the elite consider "irrational"?

That is another reductio absurdem. One that could have been used in all manner of laws that have been introduced in the past thirty to fifty years that have achieved similar things in the west. The alternatives? Well the alternative is that if not forced nothing changes. If one thing is clear sociological change always follows mass movement and support or political pressure. If it is a worthwhile thing to pursue then either will suffice equally.

The proof of which is self evident in the progression of sexual equality, racism legislation, human rights legislation and protection of the labour market.

Peter

[SickBoy13]

While I would place my religion 100 times over the law, these people don't get it. Christianity doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.
Has gay bashing become the last bastion of fundamentalists, who disregared 95% of the laws Christ left behind because that would not serve their far flung cause?

[Lord Rahl]

^^^

Agreed. Christianity doesn't bash gays. It just says it is wrong. Is that bad? No. Some gays would say that Christianity is wrong. Is that bad? Well, not really.

Jesus would and does love homosexuals but he would say that their sexuality is not right. That is what Christianity teaches.

[Erik]

Agreed. Christianity doesn't bash gays. It just says it is wrong.

Christianity also includes the old testament, and it clearly states that gays should be killed.
But then not many Christians follow the Bible (or even the teachings of Jesus) to the letter anyways, so all you can say is that some Christians bash gays and some don't.

[KaerMorhen]

for me it seems another way to have more votes in further elections nothing new in politics.

[Lord Rahl]

Must I say this again?

Without making this a huge debate on what the Bible means I will just say this,

Christianity is about what Jesus did and to follow his teachings. The Old Testament is about God and the Jews before Jesus. So, Jesus would say to love homosexuals but also that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore...no killing of homosexuals. Thank you.

[Syron]

I'd say the law is good in the sense that it fills a loophole but i still have to agree with Aristophanes that I don't like the idea of business regulation interfering too much in what is still private property.

[Chocolatemouse]

Business as state have nothing to do with what and who or how many we have in our bed . Sadly more and more business see it it self as the new political and holly power.More and more we are going to Business being the new feudalist power as described in cyberpunk litteracy.

[the Black Prince]

i'm quite surprised it took this long to make a topic on this...

i've been talking about it for weeks on other forums, and my topic in Ethos What unites Christians Muslims and Jews is about this issue.

@MasterofNone if we lived in the truely free society you describe, would the state be allowed to intervene in cases of domestic violence, would the state be able to force people under a certain age to go to school, would the state be able to enforce a minimum wage etc
if not, i'm glad i'm not living in a totally free society. anarchy benefits no one (except Lord Kal).

The regulations apply to people operating as a business, so for example
a person renting out a room in their house to a lodger is exempt, a person running a Bed and Breakfast, or a guesthouse is not. These people are not allowed to say No Blacks, No Christians, No Jews, now they're also not allowed to say No Gays.

It also applies to the commercial activities of Churches and Church groups, but not (despite what church leaders have been saying) to a Churchs religious activities. So regardless of what the Archbishop of Birmingham would have us believe, these regulations will not force religious leaders to bless civil unions. Nor, as it currently stands, would it affect youth groups that have charitable status, unless the Charities Commission decides to apply it so. Commercial youth groups would be affected.

Nor do these regulations require the promotion of homosexuality (despite the claims of the Bishop of Southwark). The Equality Act on which these regulations derive statutory power states that any business is prohibited from refusing to provide its goods or render its services to anyone on the basis of Gender, Race and Ethnic Origin, Religion of Belief, Age, Disability and Sexual Orientation (as derived from Article 13 of the Treaty of Rome (Treaty of the European Community) as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam)

as for enforcing discrimination laws, they were enforced through the law of Tort long before there were discrimination laws (Scala Ballroom v Ratcliffe 1958 involving a colour bar) but are readily enforced by the courts today for example
Karner v Austria 2004 (ECHR) (gay marriage)
Ghaidan v Mendoza 2005 (UKHL) (housing benefits)
Dudgeon v UK 1981 (ECHR) legality of gay sex
Netherlands v Reed 1986 (ECJ) recognition of gay partners
P v S and Cornwall County Council 1996 (ECJ) gender reassignment
Grant v South West Trains 1998 (ECJ) discrimination at work
Defrenne v Sabena II 1976 (ECJ) Equal Pay for Equal Work or Work of Equal Value
T v UK 2001 (ECHR) gays in the military

just a handfull of examples off the top of my head of discrimination laws being upheld.
When there's clear precedent for an issue being upheld by a court, and someone brings a claim against a company under the laws, any half decent company lawyer would advise to go for a settlement out of court for several reasons
1/ a settlement is almost always going to be less than what a court would award
2/ it avoids bad publicity for the company.

discrimination laws aren't hard to enforce at all, so long as the people who suffer discrimination are willing to come forward and do so. with lobby groups like Stonewall and Liberty happy to give advice and aid to people, there's no shortage of support for people who do come forward.


as to the christian idea that being gay is ok, its just doing gay stuff thats wrong... well, i'll just refer you to a highly relevant quote from Bob Smith

I was raised Roman Catholic, and according to the Catholic Church it's okay to be homosexual, as long as you don't practice homosexuality. Which is interesting, because I think it's okay to be Catholic, so long as you don't practice Catholicism.

[MasterOfNone]

Aristophanes,

It's good to see you have such a good understanding of liberty and the role of government, and agree with your comments.

It is clear that some on this board feel a business is not a private property (which it is) or that actions based on religious convictions are somehow different or inferior to actions based on secular or other philosophical beliefs (which they are not). Until that is seen, there is little hope for any agreement.

Here's a UK article I found most refeshing when I came across it a year or so ago and thoroughly recommend it to all who value liberty:

Preference and Prejudice: The Argument Against Anti-Discrimination Legislation (by Andrew Lomas)
LINK: (html) http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan044.htm
LINK (pdf): http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan044.pdf

[the Black Prince]

my house is private property.

that doesn't prevent the police coming in, searching my house and taking my computer if they suspect i've been downloading child porn.
it doesn't the bailiffs coming and taking my property if so required.
etc

State law doesn't stop at the doorstep. if it did, all kinds of things like domestic violence and marrital rape would carry on and be legal with no recourse to the state. It would mean the law has failed in its duty to protect its citizens. It means its failed in its duty to uphold the Rule of Law.

And incidentally, since when has religious views been supreme over everything else? last time i checked, i lived in a constitutional monarchy, not a theocracy. Not to mention that my religion fully endorses and supports these regulations. The jewish leadership in britain has also more cuatiously endorsed the regulations. its only certain elements of the christian and jewish communities that have protested them.

[Syron]

my house is private property.

that doesn't prevent the police coming in, searching my house and taking my computer if they suspect i've been downloading child porn.
it doesn't the bailiffs coming and taking my property if so required.
etc

but this is an incredibly poor analogy (in fact a totally incorrect one), the only reason they have those laws is becuase you are suspected of commiting a crime. that is not what this and similar laws are about, it's about criminalising you for choosing who can use YOUR property.