Robin Ince wrote a response to Odone’s sinister bullshit. I saw his response first, and probably wouldn’t have known about her sinister bullshit if I hadn’t seen his response, so THANKS A LOT ROBIN. But seriously – he is much more concise and much more reasonable. Makes ya think, don’t it.
So, what is this dystopian vision of the future? A world where if you run a bed and breakfast, you cannot discriminate against gay couples, and you have to abide by the rules of the job you are contracted to do. That’s it, really.
Quite. Oh the horror – if you decide to open a bed and breakfast, you can’t play “I don’t like you so you can’t come in.” GOD IS SOBBING IN HEAVEN AT THIS MOMENT.
We can all play the victim game if we fancy it. Just as some men bleat that they are the oppressed because of feminism, Odone confuses a loss of advantage with an act of oppression. This is the shock of those who are losing their divine right to dominate.
Except pets. I refuse to give up my right to dominate the dog. If I did he would eat all the food and then explode. It wouldn’t do at all.
Later in her piece, Odone writes: “I believe that religious liberty is meaningless if religious subcultures do not have the right to practise and preach according to their beliefs.” But she has not lost the right to preach her beliefs or practise them. She regularly gets to preach her beliefs in the Daily Telegraph and – like many rabbis, imams and pastors – on television and radio, too. Religious leaders frequently appear on the BBC, that broadcasting network of the state oppressor.
As for practising her beliefs, Odone can do that, too. Same-sex marriage is not compulsory; it is very much an opt-in scenario. Cristina Odone will not be forced into a lesbian coupling, nor will she be forced to have an abortion – nor, should it become law, will she be made to embrace assisted dying, even if her death is agonising and the pain impossible to relieve.
But she will be forced to put up with a world in which other people can choose same-sex marriage and abortion and (eventually, I hope) assisted dying, and by god she does not want to.
As an atheist, I do not have any extra rights. I cannot run a bed and breakfast that refuses Catholic couples, nor can Richard Dawkins run a carvery that bans Mormons.
Oh, now I wish he could.
Cristina Odone still has the right to live her personal life openly by her own rules, and more people than ever have the legal right to live their personal lives openly, too. That is progress, not oppression.
To reasonable people, yes, but to the kind who want to force everyone to bend the knee to their god, no.
…but presumably you can play “I don’t like you but you can come in and
I can tell you you’re wicked and evil and going to hell.” It may be better if we know about peoples’ prejudices before we face them. There are times when I enjoy a full and frank exchange of views with goddites. There are other times when I just want a place to eat and sleep for the night. I prefer to know which I’m going to get before I get them.
Denying religionists the right to oppress is like only allowing sadists a right to self-flagellation.
And, as per the original case, you would be guilty of direct discrimnation and liable to pay damages. (Possibly greater damages than merely for discrimination by refusing to provide a service, since the damages awarded for injury to feelings may be greater.)
I ♥ you, Ophelia.
😀
Well I guess that means I’ll never get a chance to eat at The Blind ‘Wichmaker
🙁
I don’t think so, Bernard. I was thinking of a case where Christians admit a gay couple and make no restrictions on their behaviour but explain in enormous detail why they are wicked and immoral and bound for hell. No discrimination; just tedious sermonising. It needn’t even be a gay couple. I’d just rather stay away from such a place on principal. In fact, if hotel and guest-house owners aren’t allowed to discriminate, are potential clients?
This case http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-christian-hoteliers-cleared-muslim-3436129 suggests that once you’re in you’re a legitimate target.