religion not good reason to deny lesbian couple b&b room

[Guest]

Who on Earth is qualified to set a moral foundation for all mankind?

Definitely not the liars that continue to deceive people about the dangers and risks of homosexuality. They've already discredited themselves.

Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit are qualified and have and are doing so through Word, action and Scripture.

[Guest]

I have read that this article before. A bed and breakfast is not the best place for rejecting homosexuals now a marriage venue is a different...

But the owner does have rights and it is her property. Court cases like this are going to cause a equalling of religious convictions to discrimination in regards to homosexuality so that anyone who opposes will just be automatically discriminating rather than following sound religious doctrines.

This does give a bad reputation for christians but honestly when have christians not been given a bad reputation.

My response was not questioning the owners rights but whether the question itself was appropriate to the situation. They didn't volunteer their sexuality, so what business is it of the owners? This is not a question of opposing homosexuality but of invasion of one's right to privacy.

I actually was not responding to you. Those were my own thoughts in now way thinking about your response. If I was trying to respond to you I would have quoted you. I even said the b&b did a bad move in openly rejecting the couple. But since you decided to respond: since the owner has a problem of housing homosexuals due to religious reasons it is about opposing homosexuality and if and when a line should be drawn in opposition. If there is a line then what of the florist who doesn't want to provide flowers for a gay marriage? Should they be sued due to their religious convictions on the basis of discrimination? The owner could have just lied and said "Sorry all the rooms are full", to after asking them or immediately said "Whoops they are homosexuals", instead of asking them and turned them away immediately.

Private owners do have right to ask questions and assess what groups they want on their property. The owner could also reject those who are drunk, high, with multiple children, pets and various other things that might not even have a connection to religious reasons. It is one's own privacy if they decide to be a raging drunk, coke user, or have 5 kids but it does not guarantee service to privately owned businesses.

Sorry, I wasn't being critical of your response. Just having a conversation I thought. Again, sorry if you thought otherwise.

[revolutionist90]

I have read that this article before. A bed and breakfast is not the best place for rejecting homosexuals now a marriage venue is a different...

But the owner does have rights and it is her property. Court cases like this are going to cause a equalling of religious convictions to discrimination in regards to homosexuality so that anyone who opposes will just be automatically discriminating rather than following sound religious doctrines.

This does give a bad reputation for christians but honestly when have christians not been given a bad reputation.

My response was not questioning the owners rights but whether the question itself was appropriate to the situation. They didn't volunteer their sexuality, so what business is it of the owners? This is not a question of opposing homosexuality but of invasion of one's right to privacy.

I actually was not responding to you. Those were my own thoughts in now way thinking about your response. If I was trying to respond to you I would have quoted you. I even said the b&b did a bad move in openly rejecting the couple. But since you decided to respond: since the owner has a problem of housing homosexuals due to religious reasons it is about opposing homosexuality and if and when a line should be drawn in opposition. If there is a line then what of the florist who doesn't want to provide flowers for a gay marriage? Should they be sued due to their religious convictions on the basis of discrimination? The owner could have just lied and said "Sorry all the rooms are full", to after asking them or immediately said "Whoops they are homosexuals", instead of asking them and turned them away immediately.

Private owners do have right to ask questions and assess what groups they want on their property. The owner could also reject those who are drunk, high, with multiple children, pets and various other things that might not even have a connection to religious reasons. It is one's own privacy if they decide to be a raging drunk, coke user, or have 5 kids but it does not guarantee service to privately owned businesses.

Sorry, I wasn't being critical of your response. Just having a conversation I thought. Again, sorry if you thought otherwise.

Oh okay well we can have a conversation. I wasn't sure of the intention of your response

[JustinM]

Who on Earth is qualified to set a moral foundation for all mankind?

Definitely not the liars that continue to deceive people about the dangers and risks of homosexuality. They've already discredited themselves.

Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit are qualified and have and are doing so through Word, action and Scripture.

What point are you trying to make? I already addressed it, But, you left that part out.

"I for one, as a Christian, would much rather live by God's principles. He hasn't changed them in thousands of years, and has proven to be just and fair. Who on Earth is qualified to set a moral foundation for all mankind?

Definitely not the liars that continue to deceive people about the dangers and risks of homosexuality. They've already discredited themselves."

[JustinM]

We want the government to stay out of our own bedrooms, so what right did the B&B owner have to ask these 2 people if they were lesbians? Did they walk in and announce "we are 2 lesbians and we want a room with only one bed"? I doubt that. So, what business is it of anyone to question their intentions. It is obvious that this owner had already judged these 2 women before asking the question. No wonder people loath most Christians. Andy Stanley says that christians, which is a label given to followers of Christ first at Antioch by Jews and Greek non-believers, are considered to be "judgmental and disputatious" by society. This doesn't help. We must be "disciples" of Christ, not Christians. "Love one another, as I have loved you."

They have the right to privacy in their own bedroom in their own residence. The Bed and Breakfast owner has a right to decide what customers they want to serve, as it is their property, their business and their right. Haven't you ever seen the message "This establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose."? With exception to racial descrimination of course.

Our right to privacy extends way beyond the bedroom. The owner serves whomever they decide to. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether it is appropriate to ask a person their sexuality whenever it is not apparent or volunteered. You think that's ok to do? After all, as stated above, they weren't asking to be married there or for any other kind of endorsement of their lifestyle.

If the hotel owner wants to ask about your sexuality, it's their right, just like you have the right to leave and choose another place to do business with. As far as we know, they have the same opinion about unmarried couples staying at their B&B also.

[Guest]

You are right. I just gave my opinion as to the OP.

[OneLight]

I can remember one summer when my wife and i were taking a road trip, nowhere special. We decided on day to just head out and see where we go. I was driving my old '71 Chevy truck with no AC on one of the hottest days of the year. We had been driving until we decided to stop and rent a room, usually from one of the less expensive motels where there is always room. We pulled up into this one motel that had only one car in the parking lot. When I went inside, looking pretty grubby from the days activities, I was told that they were full. I knew that was not the case, but accepted their decision and moved on.

The point is, they did not want to rent to me and I was fine with that. It was their right.