It's not about the beliefs though is it. It's about how those beliefs manifest. Compelled speech with the cake - no, they shouldn't have to do that. Painting a gay man's house? Sorry where in any of these religious texts does it say you can't do that? That's just stupid bigotry, not a 'religious belief' worthy of respect.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The way I see it is a religious person has the right to hold and state their views, just as much as I have a right to hold my views on their views. If that makes sense. 
I know I'm biased, but I do think there's a bit of a difference between a gay person voicing that they want equal rights and to be treated with respect, compared to a religious person being anti gay people and using their religion as a justification.
Like I say, I'm not saying religious people should be silenced - they should be free to express their view - but I think saying "I don't approve of gay people's lifestyles and I don't think they should be able to get married" is negative and therefore different to a gay person saying: "I believe I was born gay and I don't think I should be subject to negativity or have less rights due to that part of me".
It sometimes feels as though some religious people almost want to be spiteful, otherwise why fall over yourself to state a view that you know is almost certainly going to offend or annoy gay people? I'm sure plenty of religious people share their view but keep it to themselves because they know most gay people don't really need or want to hear it. But some can't stop themselves and I do wonder why. But oh well, you'll always get people like that and I suppose the 'good' aspect of it is I know who to avoid!
I know I'm biased, but I do think there's a bit of a difference between a gay person voicing that they want equal rights and to be treated with respect, compared to a religious person being anti gay people and using their religion as a justification.
Like I say, I'm not saying religious people should be silenced - they should be free to express their view - but I think saying "I don't approve of gay people's lifestyles and I don't think they should be able to get married" is negative and therefore different to a gay person saying: "I believe I was born gay and I don't think I should be subject to negativity or have less rights due to that part of me".
It sometimes feels as though some religious people almost want to be spiteful, otherwise why fall over yourself to state a view that you know is almost certainly going to offend or annoy gay people? I'm sure plenty of religious people share their view but keep it to themselves because they know most gay people don't really need or want to hear it. But some can't stop themselves and I do wonder why. But oh well, you'll always get people like that and I suppose the 'good' aspect of it is I know who to avoid!
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they like but nobody has the right to behave in whatever way they want because of those views. In some cases, just expressing certain beliefs at work for example would constitute harassment. There are plenty of religious people who are quietly anti abortion, homosexuality, whatever, and don't feel the need to make other people feel like tit because of their views. Some people seem to think that saying they're homophobic 'because they're religious' is more legit than just being a straight up homophobe, at the end of the day the effect on the gay customer is still the same. If I were a religious person who didn't want to bake the cake or paint the house, personally I wouldn't want to make those people feel bad by telling them that I think they're 'wrong' - I'd find a nice way to say I can't take the job.
But arguably, and I’m not defending her beliefs as I don’t agree with them - it’s a private company. She’s not a surgeon refusing to do life saving surgery on a gay patient, nor is she the CEO of the banking industry blacklisting a gay person out of the possibility of owning a bank account and effectively locking them out of life. She’s a house painter. Like I said upthread im glad she’s remained anonymous but certainly those who know of her will most likely know who she is and if it’s making her feel a bit uncomfortable, I won’t lose sleep over it. 15 years ago this would have been:
“Babe, look at this weird text that house painter woman just sent to me, she said she’s not doing it anymore”
“What the duck? How weird. I’ll Google** someone else”
But now with the rise of social media, anything and everything can be a viral story.
**Cant remember if Google existed 15 years ago so substitute for Yellow Pages if necessary
I don't think it's particularly helpful though to categorise 'jobs where it's okay to discriminate' and 'jobs where it isn't'. That seems quite murky territory. I'm also not saying she should've been forced to do the job - just that there is a difference IMO in respecting the belief vs respecting how someone exercises that belief, and I do not respect someone who is so anti homosexuality that they won't paint a house.But arguably, and I’m not defending her beliefs as I don’t agree with them - it’s a private company. She’s not a surgeon refusing to do life saving surgery on a gay patient, nor is she the CEO of the banking industry blacklisting a gay person out of the possibility of owning a bank account and effectively locking them out of life. She’s a house painter. Like I said upthread im glad she’s remained anonymous but certainly those who know of her will most likely know who she is and if it’s making her feel a bit uncomfortable, I won’t lose sleep over it. 15 years ago this would have been:
“Babe, look at this weird text that house painter woman just sent to me, she said she’s not doing it anymore”
“What the duck? How weird. I’ll Google** someone else"
But now with the rise of social media, anything and everything can be a viral story.
**Cant remember if Google existed 15 years ago so substitute for Yellow Pages if necessary
Idk, in my job, I've been stuck in tiny rooms with people who society would consider the lowest of the low and I've managed not to treat them with disgust, so that's the perspective I'm coming at this from. The cake example, sure, that's compelled speech. The house woman it just seems like she's so disgusted by gay people that she thinks it's infectious or something and I can't respect that as a belief.
Yes it does make sense, that’s the “rights aren’t pie” analogy. People wrongly think rights are like pie and everyone gets the same sized slice but the point is the pie is whole and full for everyone to have at the same times.The way I see it is a religious person has the right to hold and state their views, just as much as I have a right to hold my views on their views. If that makes sense.
It is being biased, but at least you see it! Like I said, as long as it’s lawful and not illegal or discriminatory practices, people shouldn’t be silenced into anything. The police, normally, act appropriately for when this overspills into harassment, such as preach speakers in public towns going out of the bounds of law which could cause distress to the public.
---
Your last sentence is the entire point though IMO! You are well within your rights to not respect that about her, I feel the same! But equally she should have the right to express it. And it’s her business. She can (presumably) take on any jobs she wants. A more discreet and professional person would have just cited “double booked” or “unforeseen circumstances” and cancelled and refunded, but she clearly wanted to make a point (tbh, I am that wary of viral stories these days, I’m beginning to wonder whether this woman and her business actually exists!?)
At the end of the day, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would not want a gay house painter at risk of being sued and dragged through the press for cancelling a job when they found homophobic tweets and social media posts from the account of the person who booked them for a job.
Last edited:
That's not the same though. Being gay is a protected characteristic. Being homophobic is not. Being religious is - but then there are still limits to how you exercise that. And similarly, someone who is gay going into the house of a homophobe is arguably putting themselves at risk of danger. The same doesn't apply in the reverse
That is very arguable and of course the same can happen in reverse! I don’t think 80-year-old Christian church goers Peter and Ethel in Somerset poses much threat to 15 stone 25-year-old gay gym goer Alex if he decided to kick off in their home.
Regarding the first unbolded sentence, rights are pie. IMO Everyone should get to eat as long as they remain lawful. People are of course allowed to make their own judgments, as we have done in this thread, but I will fight for the right for everyone to speak up lawfully. Because I would want the same sort of laws on my side if I had to defend myself because of my sexuality.
I don't know if I'm just saying this really badly or something, but I'm taking on board that you wouldn't want it to be the case that a gay person couldn't refuse to work in the house of someone who had tweeted homophobic things etc, and I'm trying to explain to you that this wouldn't happen, because being gay is a protected characteristic and being homophobic is not. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. Being religious is also a protected characteristic, but being religious doesn't usually justify (legally) discriminatory behaviour. No court would force you to carry out work in the house of a religious homophobe because they're religious. There is a difference in simply expressing a view and behaving in a discriminatory/prohibited way (although as I mentioned earlier, sometimes expressing the view IS the discriminatory behaviour, e.g. if someone was making homophobic comments in a workplace).
Here's the text:
Obviously anyone can send a text, but it may help people decide if it's genuine or not.
Also, it looks like his Twitter account has now been made private, which he'd arguably not do if he was after attention. I get the impression he just took to Twitter to rant about it to friends, as he couldn't quite believe it (an article says he and his partner had never received discrimination of that nature before).
Obviously anyone can send a text, but it may help people decide if it's genuine or not.
Also, it looks like his Twitter account has now been made private, which he'd arguably not do if he was after attention. I get the impression he just took to Twitter to rant about it to friends, as he couldn't quite believe it (an article says he and his partner had never received discrimination of that nature before).
I would love to see these guidelines.
Indeed! I suspect it's a more orthodox church, as most C of E priests probably wouldn't advise a painter decorator to refuse services to gay people. I'm not even sure a Catholic priest would.
I was raised Catholic and the main message was always that we should love our fellow neighbour. I suspect most priests would say that doing a job for gay person doesn't mean you automatically approve of their "lifestyle" and therefore there's no reason not to take the job on.
After all, she was being asked to paint a room one colour - there were no rainbows or political messages!
i don’t know if i’m reading it the wrong way but it’s coming across like it couldn’t or shouldn’t happen (even though it could). Also, not sure any judge would be seen as reasonable if the shoe was on the other foot and they forced a religious person to do work for someone who treated their entire lifestyle as disgust.
I have kept insisting that my POV in regards to this is always in line with the law, so obviously someone ranting loudly in the workplace or a hate-speech street speaker would get, hopefully, dealt with swiftly and accordingly.
And I agree homophobia is not a protected characteristic but this is where the pie analogy comes in again. If you were a gay air steward, you could not legally refuse to fly a British Airway flight to Middle Eastern countries because you were in considerable danger whenever you stopped for a layover there. Do you think BA would accept this and keep that person employed? No.
---
As I said, a decade or two beforehand this would have been kept as text rants to his friends. People seem to mistake public Twitter for their personal friends, these days…
@HockyRorror I think I do see your overall point, that it’s about having the same principles for either situation, and not being hypocritical. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!)
Thats completely right and @Ensay summed it up earlier with: The way I see it is a religious person has the right to hold and state their views, just as much as I have a right to hold my views on their views. If that makes sense.
Rights aren’t pie! All get to eat! Lol.
That’s how I see it too. And to be fair, I don’t disagree with with anything @Ensay or @judgejohndeed have been saying. On one hand, it’s pretty straightforward, but there are also nuances to look at, it’s a really interesting discussion.Thats completely right and @Ensay summed it up earlier with: The way I see it is a religious person has the right to hold and state their views, just as much as I have a right to hold my views on their views. If that makes sense.
Rights aren’t pie! All get to eat! Lol.
I agree .
And, oh FFS, I wondered why I kept being drawn to this thread in particular today and being a bit spiky with other users: (I swear, I’m not timing this appropriately each time, it gives more argument to the fact that LGBs and lycanthropy are linked lol)
@HockyRorror you're not spiky, I like hearing different/opposing views, if we thought the same thing the world would be very different 
Thank you@HockyRorror you're not spiky, I like hearing different/opposing views, if we thought the same thing the world would be very different
It’s just that I’m really passionate and defensive about all things LGB, and it probably comes across as erratic or nonsensical or aggressive at times, but it all comes from peace and hope it doesn’t upset anyone as not my intention 
But to equally apply values to LGB (IMO) it needs to be at the same set of standards as non-LGB. So to me, saying “one thing going this sort of way is unacceptable because it’s religion discriminating against homosexuality” and “this thing going this sort of way is acceptable because it’s homosexuality discriminating [defending] against religion”. It causes resentment, that we are seeing being outplayed in the current TQ+ climate where a set of certain people have special rights over others which is harming us LGBs day by dayRegarding the British Airways query, I suspect it would put them in a quandary! If someone says they feel unsafe, it would be hard for them to outright dismiss that concern - especially if redeployment was an option. I think, ultimately, they would explore if they could put that employee on a different route and if that wasn't possible they'd likely find an aspect of the T&Cs that says employees have to respond to the business' needs.
Also, regarding your last paragraph it sounds a bit like you think the couple shouldn't have made this public - as you seem to have implied they should have just text their friends. Apologies if that's not what you're saying. However, I was reading another interview with them where they said they think it's important to raise awareness of homophobia and I do agree with that, because so often we're told that the UK is mostly liberal and homophobia is a rarity. While that's true, there are still pockets of homophobia and they should be made public if only to make others aware that the struggle does still continue today.
---
I don't think you're spiky either - you're just trying to be fair to both sides which I think is a good thing! Discussions here today have been respectful, even though there's some disagreement.
- Status