The difference between the B&B owners and the woman with the burqa is clear: the Christian couple's actions affected the gay couple directly and was therefore discriminatory. A child growing up gay would be adversely affected by a couple telling him he was destined for hell.

A woman wearing a veil does not affect anyone's ability to do anything.

'Nevermodern' wrote:

Except make eye contact with them or recognize their faces. But I agree - although Brian and 'poolsneighbour' may not - that this is not be important enough to justify overriding their right to follow what they take to be their religious duty.

I assume you are referring to the Eunice and Owen Johns case, where the courts decided that a Christian couple who thought homosexual practice was wrong could not be allowed to continue to be foster-parents. Another example where the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation was held to trump the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of religion. I personally don't feel happy about that decision. The hypothesis that, in this day and age, loving Christian foster-parents would tell their gay foster-child that 'he was destined for hell' strikes me as so unlikely that it could in practice be discounted.

So the b&b owners can't practice what they believe - because it impinges on somebody else. So we don't have freedom of religion in this country. So we're the same as France. I'm not completely up to speed on UN conventions, but the last I knew, but I'm pretty sure we don't have a 'right' to stay in a particular bed and breakfast.

I agree with Jon
I am not religious but seems that Christians get a bad deal compared with the others.

No, no, no. You can believe what you want, but you can't inflict your beliefs on others or use your beliefs to discriminate who you provide goods and services to. Quite simple. And that child who grows up gay will be taught that he is not Part of god's plan and is abnormal. I love to see Christians bleeting about being hard done by. One if the most interesting aspects of cultural shifts over the last five years is the extent to which privileged majorities have appropriated the language of victimhood to defend their privileges.

O dear, here we go again. I blame Jon, who I think was the one responsible for enticing us off topic!

I don't know about 'privileged majorities', 'nevermodern' (incidentally, wouldn't 'alltoomodern' be a better pseudonym?) But I agree that it is inappropriate for religious groups, at any rate in this country, to play the 'victim' card too often (although I guess it is reasonable for them to protest if they think injustices are being done in particular cases). I would prefer them to concentrate more on persuading people that they have something positive to offer to individuals and to our society.

In my view, that is a travesty of the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality. I think that the majority of Christians would say that everyone is 'part of God's plan' but that most of us are 'abnormal', in the sexual sphere as in any other, in the sense that we do not live up to the model of being a human being which God intends for us.

That only makes sense if you consider homosexualilty a choice, which it patently is not.

Not sure where the 'here we go again' thing has come from. Don't recall a discussion on homosexuality on this forum before.

Anyone want to post the link?

I think it was the connection with the full face mask and B and B owners that
is confusing.

Not really sure where and how they are connected.

'Here we go again' was intended merely as a rueful comment on the fact that so many discussions on this forum, and the SE26 forum, which I also post on, seem to morph into an attack on Christianity or religion in general, and that Christian view which is attacked is so often a parody of the view held by many thoughtful Christians. (Dawkins and co play the same trick - 'you can't be a proper Christian if you don't believe all homosexuals will go to hell' etc.)

I myself have difficulties with the Christian 'party line' on homosexuality, for the reasons 'nevermodern' gives, that is, that the modern scientific understanding of homosexuality (and I understand this dates only from the nineteenth century) sees it as a matter of more or less pre-determined biological orientation rather than one of moral choice. A Christian response to that might be to try to distinguish between a homosexual orientation and homosexual practice, and to draw an analogy with, for example, a desire to commit adultery (inevitable in our fallen world) and actually committing it (a matter of moral choice.) But you won't need me to point out the objections which can be levelled against that view!

The link is clear - the discussion was about how intolerant France are to religious practice by banning burqas, and how wonderful we are in letting people have freedom of expression.

The link with the B&B is clear - this country doesn't let people practice their religion as they want. Why? Because it impinges on the 'rights' of somebody else.

And Nevermodern is wrong again. You can't believe what you like. The foster parents aren't allowed to express their view that homosexuality is wrong.

Or what about this - do the social services ask homosexual foster couples what they would do if their foster child asked to be taken to a church that teaches homosexuality is wrong? Course they don't.

There are millions of children who live with their biological parents who hold these views - are they unsuitable parents?

Or are we as intolerant as France?

How do you know that?

What's this with putting the word rights in commas as if it's a bad thing to have rights?

Some people's interpretation of their religion state that that killing people ("an eye for an eye") is acceptable. I'm glad that our 'rights' to live protect us from them.

jon14 - Foster parents are also not asked what they would do if the child demanded to be taken to a planetarium that insisted that the moon was made of cheese, or what they would do if the child demanded that the fairy inspectors be called in to examine the bottom of their garden.
Your example is similarly pointless.

Just out of interest, would posters on this topic be prepared to take part in a quick straw poll?

I would / would not like to live in a society in which the elected government enforced on its citizens a dress code which was based on asssumptions about their best interests.

Delete as appropriate.

Cellar Door - it's just an example - but they would have to ask an awful lot of questions to ensure nobody's rights were infringed.

But before I get told off for going off topic - my original point was about what happens when rights clash. The bes and breakfast was an example. In England, a right to sexual liberty has been considered more important than Christian liberty. In France, something (not sure what) has been considered more important than allowing muslim women to dress as they please.

Easy to say it's pointless but less easy to give a good reason why. Many Chirstians/Muslims/Atheists would teach their children homosexual practice is wrong. Many homosexual couples would teach children in thir care that Christianity is wrong.

Why are Christians not allowed to adopt on the basis of their views about homosexuality, but homosexual couples are not banned from adopting children on the basis of their views of Christianity?

Jon although going of on a tangent you have a point.
I am not a believer but it would appear Christians do not get a good press in The UK.
Would for instance someone be arrested for burning bible. I doubt it and many Christians I would think would agree that they should be tolerated. But mention the Koran.....
I read today that Christians imprisoned in Dubai for improper behaviour. I have no problem with that , it is a Muslim country who should dictate the morals required.
I still maintain that France correct to ban the face mask and we should follow suit.

Because homosexuality is innate and can't be changed whereas Christian doctrine is simply a view.

No-ones discriminating against a view. Just when the view impinges on people who have no choice but to be who they are.

Substitute homosexual for black and the argument is absolutely clear.

Still intrigues how a discussion about French face masks becomes a post about homosexuality

jon14's last question did have me temporarily lost in this moral maze.

So, thank you nevermodern for your thoughtful response as that certainly gives me better bearings. I particularly got clarity on the issue with your final sentence.