Christian B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal: forced to sell business after gay couple complains


#1

lifesitenews.com/news/christian-bb-owners-lose-supreme-court-appeal-forced-to-sell-business-after


#2

To quote a song I utterly abhor, "Welcome to the new age."

I agree with many of the comments left on the article: a fund should be started to help this poor couple.

This is just absolutely disgusting.


#3

[quote="prodigalson2011, post:2, topic:346589"]
To quote a song I utterly abhor, "Welcome to the new age."

I agree with many of the comments left on the article: a fund should be started to help this poor couple.

This is just absolutely disgusting.

[/quote]

:thumbsup:

Welcome to the new age and coming up to a country near you. And then they say that two gays getting married don't affect anybody else. Yeah right.

Definitely the church must establish a charitable fund for them. We should all make donations to these couple.


#4

This is what the Catholic Church teaches! :thumbsup: Is the Catholic Church standing up and helping this couple? This couple is “talking the talk and walking the walk”. Whether the couple is Catholic or not should not matter. Many times I help organizations that are not Catholic because of their “walk”. The Catholic Church does openly teach (the talk) on this. The Catholic Church should openly support (the walk) this couple.

Other than prayers (which I do know are very powerful), what else can we do to help this couple? :thumbsup:


#5

This is what the Catholic Church teaches! :thumbsup: Is the Catholic Church standing up and helping this couple? This couple is "talking the talk and walking the walk". Whether the couple is Catholic or not should not matter. Many times I help organizations that are not Catholic because of their "walk". The Catholic Church does openly teach (the talk) on this. The Catholic Church should openly support (the walk) this couple.

Other than prayers (which I do know are very powerful), what else can we do to help this couple? :thumbsup:

[quote="marymary1975, post:3, topic:346589"]
:thumbsup:

[Snip]

Definitely the church must establish a charitable fund for them. We should all make donations to these couple.

[/quote]

Is this allowed by CAF? How do we obtain permission from the CAF "Board" to do this? Could The Administrator, someone else chime in? [Sorry, forgot titles and could not find any information while writing this!]

I go for that! :thumbsup: It does not have to be the Catholic Church "authorities" who establishes the fund. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce014.gif How do we find out its whereabouts and if the "charitable fund" is legit? I would make contribution/s to a fund in which 90%, minimum, of the donations go to the couple. The other 10% only (tops) for administration. I hope this is already set up for it has been a year! In this case, would inform that I am Roman Catholic in support of . . . so that the support of the Church (that is each one of us) may be seen and others would stand up in the future knowing they are backed up! :thumbsup:

Any CAF Member from the Couple's area who might have an idea of any existing charitable fund for the Couple?


#6

Yikes; yeah, the UK has a pretty anti-religion culture. I would absolutely not want to live over there. At least we've got the First Amendment.


#7

[quote="SMGS127, post:6, topic:346589"]
Yikes; yeah, the UK has a pretty anti-religion culture. I would absolutely not want to live over there. At least we've got the First Amendment.

[/quote]

I don't believe it is unreasonable for people to be expected to abide by the same laws as every other business owner. I also take issue with the article, which is biased and factually incorrect as usual with this source. They did not prove to the court that they discriminated against unmarried heterosexuals as they did homosexuals; which is why they lost. It was only AFTER they lost, and shortly before they appealed to the UK Supreme Court, that they changed their policy to discriminate against all unmarried couples and became a non-profit.


#8

[quote="SMGS127, post:6, topic:346589"]
Yikes; yeah, the UK has a pretty anti-religion culture. I would absolutely not want to live over there. At least we've got the First Amendment.

[/quote]

Your joking...right? LOL

I could see the same thing happening here.If they want to prosecute or otherwise force someone to do something that person will not do willingly, good lawyers can always find loopholes in and around the law of the land.


#9

[quote="mikekle, post:8, topic:346589"]
Your joking...right? LOL

I could see the same thing happening here.If they want to prosecute or otherwise force someone to do something that person will not do willingly, good lawyers can always find loopholes in and around the law of the land.

[/quote]

I doubt it; the New Mexico Supreme Court case was a freak incident and probably will be overturned by the Supreme Court. That's been literally the only case in the country so far that has been ruled against religious owners.

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:7, topic:346589"]
I don't believe it is unreasonable for people to be expected to abide by the same laws as every other business owner.

[/quote]

When a law is in complete disagreement with moral law, it is unjust and must be ignored via religious duty. Unfortunately, the UK provides no protection of religious expression, unlike the United States.


#10

[quote="SMGS127, post:9, topic:346589"]
I doubt it; the New Mexico Supreme Court case was a freak incident and probably will be overturned by the Supreme Court. That's been literally the only case in the country so far that has been ruled against religious owners.

When a law is in complete disagreement with moral law, it is unjust and must be ignored via religious duty. Unfortunately, the UK provides no protection of religious expression, unlike the United States.

[/quote]

I don't understand how a law against refusing service based on an innate quality is "in complete disagreement with moral law."


#11

[quote="EmperorNapoleon, post:7, topic:346589"]
I don't believe it is unreasonable for people to be expected to abide by the same laws as every other business owner. I also take issue with the article, which is biased and factually incorrect as usual with this source. They did not prove to the court that they discriminated against unmarried heterosexuals as they did homosexuals; which is why they lost. It was only AFTER they lost, and shortly before they appealed to the UK Supreme Court, that they changed their policy to discriminate against all unmarried couples and became a non-profit.

[/quote]

I have a couple issues here. While I am not familiar with the British judicial system, it doesn't seem the onus should be on the couple to prove their innocence, but on the prosecution to prove their guilt. Them not proving they didn't serve unmarried heterosexuals is not equivalent to the court proving their guilt, so unless the British courts take a broadly guilty until proven innocent view, this ought not to have been the reason they lost the court case. Furthermore, the comment of it being "indirect" discrimination despite them supposedly doing the same with heterosexual couples doesn't seem to lend credence to this view. Why not just point out they haven't established their claim? Lastly, what is your source for this and why is it less biased/more factually correct than the one given here?


#12

[quote="ccmnxc, post:11, topic:346589"]
I have a couple issues here. While I am not familiar with the British judicial system, it doesn't seem the onus should be on the couple to prove their innocence, but on the prosecution to prove their guilt. Them not proving they didn't serve unmarried heterosexuals is not equivalent to the court proving their guilt, so unless the British courts take a broadly guilty until proven innocent view, this ought not to have been the reason they lost the court case. Furthermore, the comment of it being "indirect" discrimination despite them supposedly doing the same with heterosexual couples doesn't seem to lend credence to this view. Why not just point out they haven't established their claim? Lastly, what is your source for this and why is it less biased/more factually correct than the one given here?

[/quote]

According to Reuters, the couple's policy even in 2008 when this incident occured, was to let to married heterosexual couples.*The hotel's online booking form stated at the time that the owners were devout Christians who preferred to let double rooms to "heterosexual married couples only".*At any rate, what it appears we have here is one of a plethora of examples of the state imposing its own religious dogmas onto the citizenry.


#13

A Christian has to be beheaded for their faith before people will consider it persecution whereas getting offended is considered persecution for everyone else.


#14

[quote="SeannyM, post:10, topic:346589"]
I don't understand how a law against refusing service based on an innate quality is "in complete disagreement with moral law."

[/quote]

Well in this specific case, it isn't refusing service. They could have stayed at the hotel together if they agreed to have a room with 2 single beds. Forcing them to ENSURE the couple were in the same bed, as opposed to making it a choice of the couple's that they could make against the owner's wishes sleeping in a twin bed in a room with two beds, is ridiculous. Back in my immoral days, I spent the night many a night at my boyfriend's with him on a twin; it's really not that hard...at all. All the couple was trying to sue about was that the hotel refused to serve them a one-bed room when the hotel would have been fine renting them a two-twin-bed room. And at virtually every hotel I've ever stayed at, they're the same price.


#15

[quote="MarcoPolo, post:12, topic:346589"]
According to Reuters, the couple's policy even in 2008 when this incident occured, was to let to married heterosexual couples.*The hotel's online booking form stated at the time that the owners were devout Christians who preferred to let double rooms to "heterosexual married couples only".*At any rate, what it appears we have here is one of a plethora of examples of the state imposing its own religious dogmas onto the citizenry.

[/quote]

And the article you posted made it clear that the court's decision hinged on the basis that a marries couple is a married couple, whether they are of the same sex or opposite sex. It appears that the owners could keep their shared bed for married couples policy but had to recognize that same sex couples are indeed married. That couple does not get to decide who is and is not married.


#16

[quote="livingwordunity, post:13, topic:346589"]
A Christian has to be beheaded for their faith before people will consider it persecution whereas getting offended is considered persecution for everyone else.

[/quote]

How true.


#17

[quote="Luz_Maria, post:5, topic:346589"]
This is what the Catholic Church teaches! :thumbsup: Is the Catholic Church standing up and helping this couple? This couple is "talking the talk and walking the walk". Whether the couple is Catholic or not should not matter. Many times I help organizations that are not Catholic because of their "walk". The Catholic Church does openly teach (the talk) on this. The Catholic Church should openly support (the walk) this couple.

Other than prayers (which I do know are very powerful), what else can we do to help this couple?

Is this allowed by CAF? How do we obtain permission from the CAF "Board" to do this? Could The Administrator, someone else chime in? [Sorry, forgot titles and could not find any information while writing this!]

I go for that! :thumbsup: It does not have to be the Catholic Church "authorities" who establishes the fund. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce014.gif How do we find out its whereabouts and if the "charitable fund" is legit? I would make contribution/s to a fund in which 90%, minimum, of the donations go to the couple. The other 10% only (tops) for administration. I hope this is already set up for it has been a year! In this case, would inform that I am Roman Catholic in support of . . . so that the support of the Church (that is each one of us) may be seen and others would stand up in the future knowing they are backed up! :thumbsup:

Any CAF Member from the Couple's area who might have an idea of any existing charitable fund for the Couple?

[/quote]

freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-music002.giffreesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused009.gif
So . . . how may and can we Catholics support and back the owners of the B&B up? :D How can we talk the talk and walk the walk? freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy106.gif

Is there an existing charitable fund (Catholic or not) to help the Couple?


#18

[quote="SMGS127, post:14, topic:346589"]
Well in this specific case, it isn't refusing service.

[/quote]

Yes it is. A particular service - a double room - is only on offer to heterosexual married couples.

Under UK law this is permissible in a private home, or in a not-for-profit organisation such as a christian retreat, but not in a business or state organisation. Add to this the fact that the hotel had accepted both a reservation and a deposit only to turn them away at the last moment, and I don't see that they have a moral or legal case.

[quote="SMGS127, post:14, topic:346589"]
They could have stayed at the hotel together if they agreed to have a room with 2 single beds.

[/quote]

No - the Bulls explicitly refused to let them share a room, even with twin beds.

Would those defending the Bulls also have defended them if they wanted the right to turn away mixed race couples?


#19

I hope no homosexuals take pleasure from the destruction of these people's livelihoods.
This seems to be a goal of the homosexualist agenda, though, to deprive of their livelihood anybody who does not approve of it.

Would those defending the Bulls also have defended them if they wanted the right to turn away mixed race couples?

Apples and oranges. There is no sin involved in mixed-race marriage.


#20

Maybe not according to your beliefs. Or are your beliefs the only ones deserving of protection under the law?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.