This was written by someone on the Express' comments board in relation to a judge whose judgement was strongly at odds with Theresa May's wish to deport foreign criminals. Could apply to so many of the threads on here and the muddled thinking in modern Britain:

Perhaps this judge could learn something of the law of England from one of his predecessors .In an address Lord Denning gave to The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship in November 1954 he asked; "Why do people obey the law?" And gave the following answer: "The people of England do not obey the law because they are commanded to do so; nor because they are afraid of sanctions or being punished. They obey the law because they know it is the thing they ought to do ..... For this reason it is most important that the law should be just. People will respect rules which are intrinsically right and just, and will expect their neighbours to obey them, as well as obeying them themselves: but they will not feel the same about rules which are unrighteous or unjust. If people are to feel a sense of obligation to the law, then the law must correspond, as near as may be, to justice."

But then again - perhaps the past really is another country?

In the context of this particular thread, there are millions of citizens (of which Kirkstaller would appear one), including alot of solid older people who genuinely believe same sex marraige to be unrighteous. All these vociferous campaigns by minorities (of all types) do is to undermine confidence in the law and with that we should all worry.

And those "millions of citizens" are entitled to hold onto whatever bigoted beliefs they choose. However they are not allowed to discriminate against gay people based on those beliefs, just like a racist is entitled to hold nto his racist beliefs but cannot discriminate against people of a certain race.



What these "vociferous campaigns" do achieve is that they protect the rights of such minorities from backwards and intolerant bigots. The only reason people have their confidence in the laws undermined is because they consider their beliefs to be above the law.

I notice for instance how many people who oppose laws protecting gay people from discrimination often have no trouble supporting anti discrimination laws against other groups.

that's what Dally and kirkstaller put on their passport application as "profession"

Homophobia.


Even after repeated in-person confirmation that they wanted a double?
Give over.


No idea.
Sounds to me like an admin or overbooking error compounded by a duff receptionist who was dim enough not to realise that two blokes, who had booked a double and repeatedly confirmed in person that they wanted a double, actually did want a double.
The receptionist seems to have gone on and on with "Wouldn't you prefer singles?" where a simple "I'm terribly sorry, it's our fault, but we've overbooked the doubles, would you be OK with singles and a couple of free drinks at the bar?" would have avoided all the fuss.
If it had been me, I'd have demanded an upgrade.

rlCould this be relevant to Dally and kirkstaller?rl

rlIt certainly seems to be the case for Cardinal O'Brien.rl

He who protests loudest...

they'll both be busy watching Bargain Hunt, best give them haf an hour.

Hasn't it struck you that in our much praised "multi-cultural" society and in London in particular there's more than a fair chance that the hotel receptionist was born outside the UK or maybe born here into a non-native culture. Isn't it then reasonably likely that the receptionist may not have even considered their homoexuality as a possiblity? Could it be that the receptionist repeated as he / she was worried their command of English was not up to scrtach and dod not want to cause embarrassment? Could it even be that the two had think Manchester accents and the receptionist was struggling to understand them (especially if they'd had a few), bearing in mind native Londoners struggle to understand Northerns. I am afraid there are just too manty reasonable explanations of a possible innocent mistake for this that it begs the question of why everyone jumps rabidly on the "homophobic bigot" bandwagon? If the reception kills themselves due the press coverage (as the nurse who took the KM prank call did) what will you think then?

By the justifications for fairness and non-discrimination on here perhaps your proposed clause should say all the things you list are OK provided that the marriage participants also indulge in vaginal intercourse?

It has been drawn to my attention that Dally is trying harder than ever to whip up a storm with his trolling efforts, by using some 'dubious' language about one of his pet groups to hate.

To an extent, I've let this go because, as a member of the LGBT community, I have no interest in appearing to censor.

Now I'm not going to edit out the posts in question: let them stand as an indicator of those attitudes.

But from now on, let's not be using derogatory terms, eh?

And while we're at it, we've been doing really rather well of late in being a lot of veritable luvvies on here, and not snapping each other's heads off as much (and yes, I know: I'm as guilty of doing that as anyone).

So in the interests of equality, let's all try to be a little calmer when exploring issues like this. In the interests of clarity, calling someone a 'bigot' or a 'homophobe' is not, of itself, abuse.

But perhaps we could use this thread to explore a little what those things mean and how best and most productively to tackle them?

Just a thought.

Yeah, all those things are possible ... but were not mentioned.
Extrapolate all you like.

I've told you what I think and TBH I think it was incompetence rather than homophobic.

We agree.