UK Gay Marriage vs Multiculturalism

[Yokel]

For those of you not aware, homosexual marriage, as distinct from a civil partnership, is now legal and England and Wales, though not in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland and particularly in Northern Ireland the Catholic and Presbyterian churches have a higher degree of influence so there may be a degree of opposition that was lacking amongst the godless heathen English.

However, England and to a lesser degree Wales and Scotland do have vociferous ethnic / religious minority groups who object to homosexuality per se, never mind homosexuals getting married. What happens when someone from these minority groups refuses to recognise homosexual marriage, eg if a hotel run by Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus or Jews refused to allow a gay couple to stay?

 

[Second Summer]

For people of certain illiberal political tendencies, I'm sure that would be like a dream come true. The presumed hypocracy of liberal media and the justice system could finally be exposed etc. since, presumably, the hotel owners would get a lighter treatment than would a white Brit in the same situation. There is also the horrors-of-immigration angle, in which liberals would finally see the errors of their ways for allowing all these people from non-western cultural spheres into the country.

Well, I like to think that they would be horribly disappointed. But I guess it remains to be seen until we actually have a case like this in reality.

 

[Yokel]

For those of us who spent several years reading the Guardian and came to understand the inherent illiberal hypocrisy of the PC brigade, it will be interesting to watch from the sidelines as one vociferous 'politically correct' minority group clashes with another. It's one for the Guardianumpties to work out as their beloved rag will have to make up its mind which side of the fence it sits on. In true Guardian style I'm sure that each minority interest group will label anyone who even slightly disagrees with it or its methods as 'phobes'.

In one way the precedent has been set by Peter Tatchell, the militant gay rights campaigner (ex-Labour candidate, ex-Green candidate, whatever he stands for now) accosting the Archbishop of Canterbury, whilst a Christian couple who owned a guest house were prosecuted for refusing to let a room to a gay couple. Will legal exemptions be set for minority religions? Will Tatchell and his merry men picket a mosque, a synagogue, a temple? The irony of all this is that most secular heterosexual Britons who are not of Guardianumpty tendencies are tolerant of gays.

 

[Blobbenstein]

what will the Daily Mail do?

 

[SummerRain]

Well, I think most people would support anybody against discrimination for their sexuality no matter what the ethnicity or religion of the perpetrator. Certainly, most people I know (whether they are of a left-wing persuasion or not) would. I have friends who disagree with homosexuality on religious grounds (including Christians, Catholics, Muslims), but would never discriminate against an individual based on their sexuality, and would disagree with anybody who did so. So I think it would be a pretty rare occurrence. Like you said, a Christian couple were prosecuted for refusing to let a room to a gay couple, I think it's unlikely that would be different if the couple were Muslim (or any other religion).

Since it's an entirely hypothetical situation, I guess we'll have to see if it ever happens, and if it does, what happens.

 

[Yokel]

Well, I think most people would support anybody against discrimination for their sexuality no matter what the ethnicity or religion of the perpetrator.

Agreed, most people would because we live in a predominantly secular liberal inclusive society, one which is under threat from the segregationist apartheid ideology of multiculturalism, supported by people who misleadingly regard themselves as 'liberals'. Having said that, the militant methods of Peter Tatchell and his ilk get a lot of people's backs up and create so-called 'homophobia' where none existed before.

 

[FortyTwo]

There are queer people participating in their communities, too.

Exclusive straight clubs shouldn't be a thing.

Intersectionality is important.

That's it, basically.

 

[Clueless Git]

... and create so-called 'homophobia' where none existed before.

Yokel, are you having a laugh?

I ask simply because I have a suspicion that homophobia existed long before Peter Tatchel and his ilk appeared on the scene.

 

[das_nut]

What happens when someone from these minority groups refuses to recognise homosexual marriage, eg if a hotel run by Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus or Jews refused to allow a gay couple to stay?

A person may have a religion, a business does not.

Therefore, a person behind the counter is free to think anything they want, but in their capacity as an agent of a business, they are legally obligated to not discriminate against lawfully wedded couples.

 

[FortyTwo]

And for the love of Choice Deity, can we stop calling it "gay marriage" like that's the only important part of this movement? It doesn't even encompass the entirety of marriage equality itself, let alone plenty of other concerns that are nine billion times more important.

 

[SummerRain]

Mod Post: Please keep this thread on topic (and if you feel the thread veers off topic, please report the offending post), i.e. about gay marriage/LGBT rights and multiculturalism.

I have moved the rest of the posts to a split-off thread of their own to keep the discussions separate.

Thanks.

 

[SummerRain]

Updated Mod Post: After much deliberation and discussion within the mod forum, we have decided that the split-off thread is unsuitable for the forum and I have therefore deleted it. VV doesn't want to encourage debate that opens up a space for arguments in defense of illegal and immoral acts, such as abuse and sexual offenses. Apologies for the delay in the decision. Please continue to keep this topic on-topic.

 

[ledboots]

Thankyouverymuch.

 

[Mischief]

Than you.

 

[FortyTwo]

Thank you.

I'm personally glad it's gone because despite my attempts to ignore the thread, I probably would have kept going back to it because, like a train wreck, I can't look away from debates and things.

So... does anyone have anything meaningful to say about the topic at hand?

 

[Mischief]

Well, it's the OP is based on assumptions that the "liberal" "PC" crowd will react in a certain way if the hypothetical situation comes to pass.

Speaking as one who is both liberal and PC, I don't care whether bigotry is based on one's religion/ethnicity/traditions; it's simply not acceptable.

 

[FortyTwo]

I also stand by the fact that "politically correct" isn't a "politically correct" term.

It makes everything seem objective and entirely about politics and debate when the focus should be on the people who are suffering from injustice, and how to help them.

 

[Envy]

"Politically correct" wouldn't be the same everywhere though.

 

[Mischief]

Well, the "politically correct" descriptor is a way of minimizing the concern for others' feelings evidenced by careful, non-derogatory language.

It's the same sort of thing as characterizing veg*ns as overly emotional about animals.

 

[Clueless Git]

"Politically correct" wouldn't be the same everywhere though.

Daft is daft is daft, Envy.

Same thing everywhere, basicaly. Just unlimited manifestations.

Correctness in itself isn't daft, mind ..

The clue comes in when the word 'political' needs to be attached to it.