41 Comments on “Christian B&B: Gay historian David Starkey warns about a state imposed liberal morality”

  1. Absolute nonsense. If the gay couple don’t want gays to sleep in their
    house, fair enough. If they run a business however then they cannot
    discriminate against gays. If a manager of McDonalds doesn’t want gays to
    come into his house, fair enough, he cannot however stop gays from eating
    in McDonalds. There would be outrage if Tesco discriminated against
    homosexuals, so why not a B&B? The law is not oppressive, it is equal.
    You can believe what you want, but you cannot discriminate because of your
    beliefs. 

  2. First of all it was not a hotel but a B & B ran in their own home (like
    most B & Bs are) with a couple of spare bedrooms operated on a B & B.
    basis And second the Christian owners merely asked the gay couple to
    sleep in separate rooms, they did not turn them away. They would have
    asked a heterosexual couple who were not married to do the same. Running a
    B & B in your own home is a different kind of business than running
    McDonalds. And in any event, the whole thing was a set up to show supposed
    discrimination against gays. The gay couple went there specifically to
    create this controversy deliberately. 

  3. Doesn’t he realise that before it was still oppressive, just illiberally
    so? For as long as there is a society, there will be people trying to
    impose their beliefs on others. Of course, in a perfect society, there
    would be none of this, and we would all be free to make balanced, informed
    decisions on things. But, unfortunately, that kind of society doesn’t
    exist. There will always be a ‘norm’, and it is our responsibility to
    decide on what the norm should be. Do we want to encourage a society where
    people do discriminate and hate? Absolutely not. We want to encourage
    respect, acceptance and love. Free thought should also be encouraged, but
    within those fundamental boundaries of respect.

    I’d rather live in a society where respect and tolerance are ‘tyrannically’
    imposed, than a society where there is none at all.

  4. I think the free market should be allowed, I am an atheist and hate
    discrimination but if they do discriminate that is there choice and people
    don’t have to go to that place if they don’t want to.

  5. The hotel owners have the right to reject gays, just as those they reject
    have the right to kick up a fuss and expose them as bigots. On mans
    morality is another mans immorality

    

  6. The hotel owners never rejected them, they simply said they couldn’t share
    a double room. They have said the same to heterosexual couples as well.
    Therefore, it is a very strange one as the decision was more based on what
    the Christian couple ‘believe’ rather than their actions.

  7. Robin Amos – i THINK YOU MIS UNDERSTAND STARKYS MESSAGE.. HE IS AGREEING
    THAT TYRANNOUS PRESSURE FORM GOVERNMENT TO HETEROSEXUALS IS WRONG AND THAT
    IF PEOPLE WERE TO PUT A MESSAGE OUTSIDE THEIR HOTEL THEY SHOULD NOT BE
    PROSECUTED.

  8. However, Starky’s message is A GOOD ONE AND I RESPECT HIM FOR THIS
    UNBIASED VIEW ON GAY PRESSURE TOWARD HETEROSEXUAL LIFE

  9. That’s a bunch of bullshit. first of all, discriminating people at a hotel
    is against the law, i dont give a fuck if you are a christian or not,
    so…if you were racist you had the right to refuse a room to black people?
    Second, he says that hatred is what made him…alright, that might be his
    case, but i’m pretty sure most gay people do not want to go back to a time
    when they were frowned upon.

  10. Wind your neck in and try to understand what I’m saying. I too agree that
    the state has a big role to play in eliminating homophobia and other forms
    of discrimination. My point is that this should be achieved through
    education, not through sanction; otherwise you will just simply be forcing
    them to conform, rather than encouraging them to want to think that way.
    It’s better that people abandon homophobia because they think it’s the
    right thing to do, rather than because they’re being forced to.

  11. Wow, what a new and original point. The abuse of the word gay. Are there
    other words you lie awake at night worrying about because their meaning has
    changed?

  12. There is no evidence for the existence of God, but there is a mountain of
    evidence that morality is socially constructed. ‘Sodomy’ has a very
    complicated history in terms of the law, largely dependent on the
    prevailing social and cultural conditions. I see nothing wrong with drag
    queens. There is a vast amount of evidence that sexual contact with
    children causes harm to the child. The major systematic, instigator of
    child abuse in recent times has been the Catholic church.

  13. Starkey is wrong. The law IS imposed morality. Though shalt not kill, shalt
    not steal etc. Obviously it is necessary to impose certain moral values.
    Which values they are will change over time. I believe a person has a right
    to accept who they want into their own home. As soon as they open a
    business open to the public and make their home part of it, they lose the
    moral right to discriminate. The fact is, I believe (and many other people
    believe) they are morally in the wrong.

  14. Er, no. That’s not what he’s saying. Morality isn’t subjective, either. It
    is objective. The point is that the government should have no say in
    forcing such morality. I’m homosexual myself and I am completely fine with
    homophobes, and actually, many of them are fine with me. Scruton gives a
    splendid talk on moral relativism: /watch?v=poDpd565feo

  15. I really don’t know whar you are trying to say. What has buddhism to do
    with any thing? God’s compassion was domonstrated at calvary for every
    human that ever lived on earth. The gospel is so simple that even a child
    can under stand. John 3 v 16. Ye must be born again. God hates sin and God
    tells us what sin is. Sodomy is a sin.

  16. I heard news a few years ago of a Christian Cafe that showed passages from
    the bible, some that were homophobic, and I believe it was sued. None the
    less, whilst I am atheist and disagree with what those passages, they have
    a right to own a cafe in the name of their lord, and they have a right to
    put those passages up. Why? Because their right gives you the right to make
    an Anti-Theist Cafe that shows passages saying bad things about Christians.
    In order to stop hate speech, requires more SPEECH

  17. I could use this legitimation for these cases as well: “Oh, blacks can’t
    get into my shop. I’m a racist, and this is what I believe.” “No, Jews
    can’t get work here. I’m an antisemit, and this is what I believe.” “Women
    are not alowed to use this toilet. I’m a misogynist, and this is what I
    believe” What a shame that this new tyrannic sort of liberal morality won’t
    tolerate these believes. :'(

  18. It’s amazing that you see these examples as parallel. Yet more straw men
    from the left. The B and B owners were not forbidding the couple from
    coming into and staying in their establishment. If you see this as being
    similar to your examples then you are simple

  19. So, let me get your position clear. For the gay couple have been treated
    equally they would need to be married, something which currently is not
    possible under the law. A hetrosexual couple, however, would at least have
    the opportunity to have the double room, by being married, So, for all
    practical purposes, what you suggest is impossible. Unless you are
    advocating a rapid change in the law to allow the gay couple to have
    wedding rings?

  20. Oh, you’re one of those cowards who calls someone an idiot when they don’t
    like the facts being put forth. Yes, I remember you from the Nimrod video.
    You were dealt with then, and you’ll be dealt with now. 🙂

  21. You’re being to clever for your own good. —a lot of what you say is
    correct –a lot of things have changed since God gave us his inspired word
    in 1611.– However God has not changed and his word will never repeat never
    change.—It’s so simple a child can understand it. Please don’t use silly
    arguments to contradict God’s word. You must be born again John 3 . Be
    honest—What do you care about Leviticus — if you’re not saved? The devil
    is more subtle than any beast of the field. It’s not to

  22. I’ve not claimed you’ve said anything you haven’t. Neither have I made
    strawman arguments – you claim a purely education-based approach is better
    than legislation and education (which is the case right now). I’ve pointed
    out that there’s no evidence to back this up, and evidence for the
    opposite. Generally speaking, whenever education-only is tried instead of
    strict laws it doesn’t work.

  23. Of course the theory of evolution invalidates God’s word. Christianity
    God’s word informs us that God made us approx 6000yrs ago. Man doesn’t need
    any help to understand himself –It’s all in God’s word. Are you calling
    everybody who believes the word of God,- a lunatic? Let me assure you the
    pope has never saved anybody in his lifetime. Wise up.

  24. I am not concerned of the restrictive, misogynist, racist, and homophobic
    demands from your alleged deity. And John. The disciple that Jesus loved
    most. The term ‘born again’ is a unified goal of every monotheistic
    dialogue, and with polytheistic religions. With Hindus it is the rebirth to
    the level of a Brahman. Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana, to become Buddha,
    “awake, and released from all suffering.” That, too, is a manner of being
    ‘born again’. “There is no god but me” was No 1 Commandment.

  25. Oh look, another insane leftist. But then, when has there ever been a
    mentally stable leftist? lol

  26. source for you claim? i looked online and couldnt find anything to support
    that, looked into major newspapers and a christian news thing. Don’t be
    ridiculous, discriminating gays is NOT the same as not bringing a girl when
    you enter a club. Discrimination isnt inherently bad, we age discriminate
    for being able to drive for a good reason. Discriminating gays is mostly
    bigottry and sometimes ignorance.

  27. I find mister Starkey’s argument utterly disgusting. Being gay is not a
    choice as I have personally experienced, it is something I have had to come
    to accept. Instead of banning gays from your hotel, how would this
    gentlemen or other people would like it if people would be banned for other
    characteristics they did not choose? Should hotel keepers be able to ban
    blacks, jews (you know, the ones uncle Adolf called Untermenschen) or the
    handicapped?

  28. If we accept that being alive is generally a good thing, and that people
    generally ought not to take things which they have not earned through
    honest endeavour and exchange, then not killing and stealing are natural
    extensions of that, not imposed morality. Tell me of the human culture
    where their morals permit wanton theft and killing without punishment. I
    despise cultural relativism when taken to such stupid extremes.

  29. Ok. There is no point in arguing with Christians. You probably believe (I’m
    sure quite sincerely) that practicing homosexuals will burn in hell thanks
    to the judgment of your “loving” god. But, of course, it’s not just gays
    who will have eternal torment – ANYONE who does not accept Jesus as saviour
    is doomed. Well, that’s me eternally fucked for a start. But if that’s the
    sort of asshole god you and other believers worship, then you are welcome
    to him.

  30. I don’t want to sit on the fence! To me, sitting on the fence is saying
    that I am an agnostic. I don’t believe there is a god, so hence I am an
    atheist. Of course, I fully accept that your faith gives you great comfort,
    support, hope and a strong reason for living. You serve one master – Jesus.
    But I serve no masters. To each his own.

  31. I wish more Homosexual Atheists could be as intelligent & eloquentlas
    Starkey! No chips on shoulder, no axes to grind – he just speaks his mind.
    Good on him!

  32. Isn’t that what I said – that the government should not sanction morality
    or enforce a moral code? Also, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for
    morality being an objective concept! Claims that morality is objective tend
    to come from religious positions, which talk in absolutes. If you are
    homosexual and are fine with homophobes, does that not indicate that you
    accept that morality is subjective (ie that others see things differently
    to you and neither side is absolutely right or wrong)?

Comments are closed.