Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

One side of this 'argument' want to impose their views on other people; the other side want to impose it on themselves. And those for it are the fascists?

And just when it looked like you were making progress too...

Nooooo I just don't think it is right to keep giving everybody what they want because they shout the loudest or brand everyone that does not share their viewpoint biggots!

If we go down this route one day some pretty nasty groups will be insisting on 'their rights' (I'm thinking recent revelations about PIE and civil liberties here), you know where will it end?

On Gay marriage, why should anyone have to put themselves at risk of leechy lawyers suing just because they don't agree to marrying Gays because its against their belief or even having them in their hotel?
Mind Police alert!!!

Ps forgot to add, on a personal note I really don't give two hoots what folk get upto in their own space, Gay or Hetro.

[Prufrock]

One side of this 'argument' want to impose their views on other people; the other side want to impose it on themselves. And those for it are the fascists?

And just when it looked like you were making progress too...

Nooooo I just don't think it is right to keep giving everybody what they want because they shout the loudest or brand everyone that does not share their viewpoint biggots!

If we go down this route one day some pretty nasty groups will be insisting on 'their rights' (I'm thinking recent revelations about PIE and civil liberties here), you know where will it end?

On Gay marriage, why should anyone have to put themselves at risk of leechy lawyers suing just because they don't agree to marrying Gays because its against their belief or even having them in their hotel?
Mind Police alert!!!

Well that's a bit fecking rich !

It doesn't end with allowing paedophilia if that's what you are insinuating?! Two gay people getting married doesn't harm anyone else. Giving paedophiles free reign quite clearly does. So no, that's bollocks.

No-one is at risk of leechy lawyers. It's been deliberately written so no-one can be forced to marry two gay people if they don't want to. That's why the C if E can't do gay marriage, because they are legally required to marry anyone who asks, whereas anyone else can just say no. Whether or not you think that's a good thing (I think it's another spineless cop-out to organised religion, but hey ho) no-one can be forced to marrying gay people.

The hotel thing is a separate point altogether. Unlike gay marriage - which affects no-one else at all - I don't dispute that there is at least an argument to be had there. Not a very strong one mind - if you don't want to let gay people share a room in your house, don't open it as a hotel and so become subject to anti-discrimination law; it's a no brainer - but it's a different issue entirely.

[Worthy4England]

I spotted from the pic on the beeb, they both have beards too. That's two strikes.

[Worthy4England]

Interflora.

Bag of shysters.

Mothers Day. 'nuff said.

[danhorwich]

The only thing worse than mothers day is being told that it's mothers day constantly by the t.v.

[TANGODANCER]

Interflora. Bag of shysters. Mothers Day. 'nuff said.

Always have been. Okay for abroad stuff if you must. Morrisons, Asda, even our local One-Stop all do decent bunches of flowers at much lower prices.

[Lord Kangana]

The only thing worse than mothers day is being told that it's mothers day constantly by the t.v.

Don't watch so much TV maybe?

[danhorwich]

The only thing worse than mothers day is being told that it's mothers day constantly by the t.v.

Don't watch so much TV maybe?

That is the exact action I took. I.E I turned of the t.v and haven't watched since after being reminded for the 5th time in the space of 2 hours today.

[Beefheart]

One side of this 'argument' want to impose their views on other people; the other side want to impose it on themselves. And those for it are the fascists?

And just when it looked like you were making progress too...

Nooooo I just don't think it is right to keep giving everybody what they want because they shout the loudest or brand everyone that does not share their viewpoint biggots!

If we go down this route one day some pretty nasty groups will be insisting on 'their rights' (I'm thinking recent revelations about PIE and civil liberties here), you know where will it end?

On Gay marriage, why should anyone have to put themselves at risk of leechy lawyers suing just because they don't agree to marrying Gays because its against their belief or even having them in their hotel?
Mind Police alert!!!

Ps forgot to add, on a personal note I really don't give two hoots what folk get upto in their own space, Gay or Hetro.

Would you say it's ok for a hotel own to refuse a hotel room to a black person?

Personally, I think the choice is either to allow gay couples to stay in rooms at your hotel or don't run a hotel. I don't see anything in the bible about who should be allowed to stay in hotel rooms. I bet Jesus would give them a room.

[Hoboh]

One side of this 'argument' want to impose their views on other people; the other side want to impose it on themselves. And those for it are the fascists?

And just when it looked like you were making progress too...

Nooooo I just don't think it is right to keep giving everybody what they want because they shout the loudest or brand everyone that does not share their viewpoint biggots!

If we go down this route one day some pretty nasty groups will be insisting on 'their rights' (I'm thinking recent revelations about PIE and civil liberties here), you know where will it end?

On Gay marriage, why should anyone have to put themselves at risk of leechy lawyers suing just because they don't agree to marrying Gays because its against their belief or even having them in their hotel?
Mind Police alert!!!

Ps forgot to add, on a personal note I really don't give two hoots what folk get upto in their own space, Gay or Hetro.

Would you say it's ok for a hotel own to refuse a hotel room to a black person?

Personally, I think the choice is either to allow gay couples to stay in rooms at your hotel or don't run a hotel. I don't see anything in the bible about who should be allowed to stay in hotel rooms. I bet Jesus would give them a room.

Personal choice.

I wouldn't rent land to Roma so?
Personal choice.

What is your right or anybody elses right to tell me or anyone else how they should think or feel?
Personal choice

Why do you think that society and being apart of the great club is the be all and end all? Some don't like large parts of it
Personal choice

It is not your or anyones elses buisness to tell anybody how they should think or feel!
Harriet

[Prufrock]

You're allowed to think or feel whatever you goddam like. That's enshrined in UK law (and you'll like this) by the HRA. What you're not allowed to do is take that private freedom and make it policy as a business. You make it a business, you make it public.

I can't really do better than Beefheart's initial sentence.

[Hoboh]

You're allowed to think or feel whatever you goddam like. That's enshrined in UK law (and you'll like this) by the HRA. What you're not allowed to do is take that private freedom and make it policy as a business. You make it a business, you make it public.

I can't really do better than Beefheart's initial sentence.

I think you harbour hopes of a job in Brussels, well even you wouldn't stoop so low as to be under Harriet

Tell me why if I don't like a person, say as a pub landlord, should I be worried about not serving them just because he was gay/black/east european/orany other fashionable cause?
I might just not feckin' like them and wish them not to be in my boozer.

[Bruce Rioja]

Tell me why if I don't like a person, say as a pub landlord, should I be worried about not serving them just because he was gay/black/east european/orany other fashionable cause?

So, let me get this right. You might not like a person, or persons, for no other reason than that they fall into one or more of those categories? Is that right?

[Hoboh]

Tell me why if I don't like a person, say as a pub landlord, should I be worried about not serving them just because he was gay/black/east european/orany other fashionable cause?

So, let me get this right. You might not like a person, or persons, for no other reason than that they fall into one or more of those categories? Is that right?

No, I'm saying that if they were in any of those categories I would be worried about refusing to serve them.
So it's hardly a fair ideal world being created.

[Beefheart]

You're allowed to think or feel whatever you goddam like. That's enshrined in UK law (and you'll like this) by the HRA. What you're not allowed to do is take that private freedom and make it policy as a business. You make it a business, you make it public.

I can't really do better than Beefheart's initial sentence.

I think you harbour hopes of a job in Brussels, well even you wouldn't stoop so low as to be under Harriet

Tell me why if I don't like a person, say as a pub landlord, should I be worried about not serving them just because he was gay/black/east european/orany other fashionable cause?
I might just not feckin' like them and wish them not to be in my boozer.

Because we live in a fecking society! You talk about freedom, and that's fine unless in exercising that freedom you impinge on somebody elses.

Somebody being gay doesn't comprimise anybody elses freedom, refusing to let a gay couple stay in your B&B does.

Do you think the american south was right in being segregated because some white people didn't want black people in their restaurants/bars/hotels/schools etc?

[Hoboh]

You're allowed to think or feel whatever you goddam like. That's enshrined in UK law (and you'll like this) by the HRA. What you're not allowed to do is take that private freedom and make it policy as a business. You make it a business, you make it public.

I can't really do better than Beefheart's initial sentence.

I think you harbour hopes of a job in Brussels, well even you wouldn't stoop so low as to be under Harriet

Tell me why if I don't like a person, say as a pub landlord, should I be worried about not serving them just because he was gay/black/east european/orany other fashionable cause?
I might just not feckin' like them and wish them not to be in my boozer.

Because we live in a fecking society! You talk about freedom, and that's fine unless in exercising that freedom you impinge on somebody elses.

Somebody being gay doesn't comprimise anybody elses freedom, refusing to let a gay couple stay in your B&B does.

Do you think the american south was right in being segregated because some white people didn't want black people in their restaurants/bars/hotels/schools etc?

And who decides that?
You? Pru? what gives you the fecking right to decide how I think , feel etc?
Just saying like!

[bobo the clown]

Now people are deliberately"not understanding" what Hobo said ... and meant. I'm surprised at you Pru, given how upset you got about me (genuinely) not understanding some of a1's stuff.

He's big enough and certainly ugly enough to stand up for himself, but really guys.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm glad that the vast majority of our society has managed to evolve their thoughts well beyond the simplistic, bigoted prejudice that Hoboh spouts. I mean lets be fair he tries to be clever and hide those thoughts behind a gibbering mess of "my choice, my freedom" bilge, but it isn't subtle and nor is it even close to mitigating the very obvious underlying issue.

I'm glad that we have evolved as a society to see through these ridiculous arguments.

There are plenty of people I don't like, but my not liking them is not reason for me to discriminate against them. Nor is it justification. It really is that simple and cannot be twisted any other way.

[Prufrock]

You're allowed to think or feel whatever you goddam like. That's enshrined in UK law (and you'll like this) by the HRA. What you're not allowed to do is take that private freedom and make it policy as a business. You make it a business, you make it public.

I can't really do better than Beefheart's initial sentence.

I think you harbour hopes of a job in Brussels, well even you wouldn't stoop so low as to be under Harriet

Tell me why if I don't like a person, say as a pub landlord, should I be worried about not serving them just because he was gay/black/east european/orany other fashionable cause?
I might just not feckin' like them and wish them not to be in my boozer.

Because we live in a fecking society! You talk about freedom, and that's fine unless in exercising that freedom you impinge on somebody elses.

Somebody being gay doesn't comprimise anybody elses freedom, refusing to let a gay couple stay in your B&B does.

Do you think the american south was right in being segregated because some white people didn't want black people in their restaurants/bars/hotels/schools etc?

And who decides that?
You? Pru? what gives you the fecking right to decide how I think , feel etc?
Just saying like!

No-one Hobes. How you think and feel is absolutely protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Freedom of thought is not the same as freedom of action though. If you own a hotel, you're allowed to *think* that homosexuality is wrong, evil, icky whatever. You're not allowed to act on that by not letting gay couples stay.

If you'd feel uncomfortable barring a black guy from your pub, despite good reason, just because you think it might *look* bad, well that's your problem, and you've been reading too much Daily Mail! I'm not sure how letting people bar people *because* they're black would fix that though.

[Prufrock]

Now people are deliberately"not understanding" what Hobo said ... and meant. I'm surprised at you Pru, given how upset you got about me (genuinely) not understanding some of a1's stuff.

He's big enough and certainly ugly enough to stand up for himself, but really guys.

What have I deliberately misunderstood?