Nick Griffin is a fat silly racist and bigot whose own party don’t even care what he is saying anymore.

His attempts to get back in the news and stay relevant by publishing the home address of a couple and promote retribution through an idiotic ‘british justice team’ is laughable.

The response from one of the couple who were discriminated against pretty much completely pricked the pomposity of Griffin’s crusade to protect the right of bigots to be bigots, and treated it with the seriousness it deserves

"We've been told that Nick Griffin is threatening to come to our house and hand out leaflets outside," Mr Black added.
"But, we live in a village where it wouldn't be easy for him or many people to come and gather.
"There's nowhere to park for a start and very few people walk past apart from school children.
"If anything happens it would be a damp squib."

Whilst I disagree with the judgement (and eagerly await the Bulls' SC case), I think you've summed him up perfectly there.

You can't go about inciting vigilante action, and, in any case, the only people who will be outraged by the judgement are people like me, and I would never dream of doing such a thing.

Why don’t you agree with the decision, it seems eminently sensible. You cant go around discriminating against people, that much should be self-evident.

If you want the freedom to live out your life choice however nonsensical and offensive it is to me, why cant they do the same?

Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view: reasonable adjustments should be made so that everyone is happy.

In this case I admit there is a clash of rights. The rights of the gay couple to live openly and freely ought to be respected, but likewise the Christian couple should have the freedom to manifest their sincerely held beliefs, even in the workplace.

The law is quite clear that, in cases like this, the Christians lose. I accept that decision, and can understand why the judges reached such a conclusion. However it is my view that the law is wrong and favours sexual orientation over religion. If you have a look at the Bulls' judgement, even the judge could see that this is a delicate legal balancing exercise and that a higher court might want to offer some clarity on the matter. That is why the Bulls were given permission to appeal.

You could say that the B&B owners shouldn't be running a business if they want to act in this way. However when they started their B&B business the UK did not even have civil partnerships. Why should they be forced out of business because the law now views civil partnerships as equal to marriage (even though the concept was never sold as such when it was being introduced)?

I'm sure some compromise could be reached whereby both parties are satisfied.

But the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving gay complainants refuse to turn the other cheek. Instead, they want revenge. How tolerant.

You mean like the relentless, vindictive, hate filled christians?

indeed, how tolerant

remind me, doesn't one of the commandments say "do unto others", or did you miss that page in your comic?

Not a commandment, I don't think, but one of Jesus's statements. But hey, Christians can ignore Christ too.

Quote: kirkstaller "Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her

Quote: kirkstaller "Without getting into the same tired debates I've had over and over again on here, this is my view So, As I find the Christian religion, its intolerance of homosexuality, the general subjugation of women in the bible, some of the fairly sick, incestuous, stories written in the bible, and organised religion as a whole, pretty offensive. Would you support my right to have beliefs manifest themselves in my workplace, should that include not giving Christians a job, not allowing them in to my place of business, if I do allow them to work for me, not allowing them to outwardly display their offensive beliefs through things like wearing a cross? And we can criticise the relentless, vindictive and unforgiving Shirley Chaplin? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... klace.html How very Christian of her

Why should it? Does it have any affect on her job or her performance? She's got the wrong end of the stick if she thinks the "breaking strain" of her chain is an issue too

Why? Its my business.

My belief is that Christianity is offensive, I don’t like it, I think it is wrong, I think it is unnatural. Why should I be forced to not only employ someone whose beliefs I find offensive, but allow them to manifest them and publicly display them in what isn’t only my place of business but my place of work?

And I assume by your last sentence you would have no problem with business refusing service to Christian customers?

Because everyone has a right to work without fear of discrimination.



Exactly right.

Everyone has the right to live their life without fear of discrimination, its not just work.

But how can a gay man have the right to work without fear of discrimination if a Christian has the right to manifest and display their beliefs at work?

If Shirley Chaplin is compelled to manifest her beliefs in that way at work, and you want that right to be protected, would that extend to my right to manifest and display, at work, my belief that Christianity is a childs fairy tale, that it is unnatural, that parts of it are pretty sick, and that I find it a bigoted and offensive religion?

I'm not as clear on this case as i think i should be, yes i disagree with gay people being discriminated but at the same time even though it's a business, it is run from home and has that personal touch, the personal touch also being the values of the owners.

If they say on their brochures we don't allow non married people to share then i can respect that, forget religion for a moment, some people still believe that part of moral decency (rightly or wrongly) is not having sex without first committing to each other.

But the thing is this is a way of live for both parties, ok so one is a natural love the way they were born of two people of the same sex and one is a book about magic people YET they both believe strongly in what they are, i think.... I don't know what to think, i feel for both parties even though something inside says i should be on the side of the gay couple i really can't make my mind up.

Maybe people should be allowed to incorporate their own values in a b&b and clearly state what they are and then if someone else's view contradicts that then they know not to stay there.

I hate religion as much as the next atheist but these people are not evil people, they just chose a way of life that is incompatible with other peoples way of life and as long as they are not hurting or killing people then i'm kind of ok with that.

You're picking and choosing your viewpoint now though, its clearly a ridiculous standpoint to take to state that a business can discriminate against anyone or anything, except their own employees - and why would they want to ?

Fact of the matter is that as a business owner you abide by the current laws of the land and there are a myriad of them to comply with, there is no cop-out excuse that says you can ignore them if you were trading before they became law or for any special religious beliefs - your place of business is subject to all laws, its not a pick-and-mix situation.

The fact that their place of business is also their house is totally irrelevant.