Secularism and accommodation for gay/lesbian or
unmarried couples when the proprietor thinks giving them a bed is a grave sin
Secularism makes it illegal for owners of bed and breakfasts and hotels etc from
discriminating against say gay couples or secularist politicians to give two
examples. The Christians are seeking the right to ban gay couples who wish to
sleep together from their hotels and bed and breakfasts etc. The Bed and
Breakfasts and hotels etc provide a public service. As long as somebody will not
do serious harm on their premises, they have no right to ban them. If the state
allows them to ban gay people then the state should also allow Christian doctors
to refuse to treat Islamic missionaries on the grounds that the missionaries are
dragging people into eternal damnation by propounding the wrong religion to
them. Those Christians who believe that the Pope is the Antichrist cannot be
allowed to discriminate against Catholic priests and bishops looking for
accommodation.
Moreover, it is said that to force Christian hotel owners to admit gay couples
into their double rooms denies that Christians have rights. This view implies
that gay rights do not come before religious rights. But the Christians have
rights as people but that does not mean they have rights as religionists or
Christians! A religion cannot have rights as such. A religion is only made up of
people but it is not people. It's a system. And Christians are inconsistent.
They know fine well that they must not have the right to discriminate against
gay people.
Sexual freedom is more important than religious freedom. That is because the sex
instinct is part of our humanity. We are sexual beings. We have sexual needs.
They are intrinsic to our nature. A person may be happily irreligious. Being
religious is not intrinsic to our nature. Suppose it was. It does not follow
that any particular faith should get preferential treatment. Being religious is
one thing but being part of a religious faith is another.
The right of Bed and Breakfast owners to stop people doing things such as taking
a little drink or having sex without being married in ones home is superseded by
the fact that they opened their premises up to people for money - it's about
money not morals.
______________________________________
Should Christian Bed and Breakfast owners be sued for discrimination for
refusing a room to gay couples?
THE BIBLE SAYS: The Bible, which was written by God as much as man according to
the Church, says regarding those who alter the Christian faith:
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into
your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting
participates in his evil deeds - see 2 John verses 10,11
Christians say that the custom when the text was written was that teachers
stayed in the house where the Church was held. The house they are not to be
received into can be understood as house church. So the text is not banning
hospitality to a false teacher but banning anything that abets and encourages
his ministry. The term “greeting” is said by some to refer to welcoming the
false teacher into the congregation and encouraging him.
The scholar F.F. Bruce wrote: “The injunction not to receive any one who does
not bring ‘the teaching of Christ’ means that no such person must be accepted as
a Christian teacher or as one entitled to the fellowship of the church. It does
not mean that (say) one of Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be invited into the
house for a cup of tea in order to be shown the way of God more perfectly in the
sitting-room than would be convenient on the doorstep.”
So Christians cannot let gay couples stay in their houses unless staying will
somehow make them decide to split up and obey the gospel. But that would not be
letting a gay couple stay but a pair who have parted stay. Such a situation
would be so rare that it would be virtually impossible.
The Bible forbids greeting false teachers in the sense of implying, "I hope your
ministry goes well". Christians are forbidden to wish happiness to a gay couple.
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1756) says,
It is ... an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the
intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure,
duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in
and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always
gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder
and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
THE POPE SAYS:
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law... it is therefore never licit to
obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or
vote for it"
Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73
It is forbidden then to defend the discrimination suit.
THE REASONABLE PERSON SAYS:
The Christians are committing discrimination because if they refused to let
unmarried couples have a room they would have to close up. They presumably allow
straight couples to have a bed.
They have no business assuming the gay couple will have sex in the room.
They could have asked them not to have sex and left it up to them. Would be
better than turning them away.
It is their house but they offer it to the public. They have the right to decide
who enters their home but they have given it up to provide their home to all
those who are not coming into their homes to break the law or harm them.
It would be considered discrimination if they refused an inter-racial couple on
the grounds that they thought each race should stick to its own. If they are
given the right to discriminate against gay people, then there is nowhere to
draw the line. They are tacitly declaring that people who believe that other
races are inferior and who say their religion urges them to believe this should
have the right to discriminate.
If you run a bed and breakfast, it is part of your job to believe that if people
are doing wrong in your rooms up to a point, it is none of your affair. For
example, if somebody was caught having a vodka that would not justify asking
that person to leave.
Conclusion
Yes!
A thought: If Christians argue that they cannot be refused, the view that
same-sex sexual activity is acceptable is not to be considered a reason. They
let them in for separate reasons. They feel, "Its a pity that those other
reasons exist. Ideally we would exclude them."
A COMMENT I POSTED ON A WEBSITE
RE: Gay Couple refused accommodation in bed and breakfast by its Christian
owners on religious grounds
The owners are arguing that they had to refuse to let the gay couple stay for
they felt they would be facilitating sex that would be a sin according to
Christianity. But if they let the couple stay on the condition that they would
not have sex they could not feel they were facilitating sin. They didn't even
want to ask the couple to respect their wishes. Their refusal to let the couple
stay is simply bigotry. No getting away from that. Their conscience is not an
excuse. The court was right to fine them for discrimination. Think of Mormons
who do not believe that marriages are valid or binding when performed outside
the Mormon faith. If Mormon hotels discriminated against Christian married
couples what would we say then?
Christian bigots Peter and Hazelmary Bull’s have lost their Supreme Court appeal
in gay snub case
The Bulls say gay sex is a sin. We need to remember that the Christians believe
that God is king and has his own form of civil law. Sin is a crime against that
law. You cannot prove that sin exists. Or that wrong is sin. Incredibly,
Christians regard it as acceptable to accuse people of sin while they would say
that if somebody was accused of breaking the law of the land without proof that
person was the victim of sanctimonious slandering bigots. It is hate speech to
say that two men having an innocent harmless fumble are guilty of a sin so
terrible that it will put them in Hell forever.
The Bulls are using Christianity as an excuse. They could have asked the gay
couple to refrain from sex as it is a grave sin in their view but they did not.
If the Bulls had, they couldn't say that letting the couple stay would be a
violation of conscience. Yet they had the effrontery to go to the Supreme Court
on the grounds of freedom of conscience!
Re: Christian B & B owners going to European Court seeking the right to ban
unmarried couples from using their services.
They want to discriminate against people who love each other but who happen not
to be married. How low is that! And how can they be sure that sex will actually
take place anyway? They are wasting money on this issue instead of helping the
poor with it. They are no better than the Catholic Church which has made it a
commandment of the Church to give money to the pastors and has given no
commandment to help the poor. The poor are helped as an afterthought regardless
of the hypocritical performances of the current pope.