New Catholic Church/ DUP coalition! Is this they way forward?

[muppet]

I don't,I don't want to compromise my views to accommodate those of others when it directly affects me,that's all

Will you go to hell if two people have sex in your B&B?

[T Fearon]

I don't know,but I shouldn't be compelled to facilitate practices which I believe to be sinful

[The Iceman]

What about bearing false witness Tony?
Delivery and content man. Sometimes your content is spot on - most times it's way off the mark and always your delivery is as smooth as a coral reef.....

[LCohen]

Totally true story.And what was wrong and immoral then is still wrong and immoral now.

Please define "sin" and "immoral"

[LCohen]

Here's a story, a true one.Just to show how times have changed,when the free state was generally God fearing or least respectful of religion.Way back in the 80s a friend of mine and his fiancé attended the Late Late show and Gay Byrne had been informed of their engagement,and he called them out and congratulated them live on air. They were pleasantly surprised as they were unaware of this,some of their friends had informed the programme editors beforehand,unbeknown to the couple.

Anyway they returned to their B&B (In Bray) after the show to find their bags packed and to be informed by the Woman of the house that there would be no carry on like that in her residence.Do you know what they did? They laughed about it, and dined out on it for years (and probably still do).They didn't dream of taking a case for discrimination,running to the media etc, and I suppose deep down they respected they woman's views as well.

Even if this story is to be believed it hardly provides a lesson to people who are discriminated against

[T Fearon]

Sin and immorality shouldn't need defining.They should be fairly obvious, even to the non religious

[LCohen]

Why are you so exercised about people who simply want to live by their beliefs?

Can't see any evidence of people not being able to live by their beliefs. Nobody is asking a fundamentalist christian to have sex with someone of the same gender.

What they are simply being asked to do is to not discriminate against someone based up a legal, adult, sexual practice.
What they are also been asked to do is to explain the grounds for their desire to enter such a discrimination - something they have failed to do.

[LCohen]

Sin and immorality shouldn't need defining.They should be fairly obvious, even to the non religious

Not at all. If you are going to deny equality you should set out the rules of the game. So let's have it.

[T Fearon]

I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money

[LCohen]

I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money

Its still hinging on this definition of sin - so let us hear it

[heganboy]

I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money

Tony, you are having a lot of fun with this one, and are showing the politician's knack of not answering any questions other than the ones you wished to be asked.

Christian people- as well as any other group of people are legally obliged not to discriminate whether they wish it or not.

[T Fearon]

I agree,but I contend they shouldn't be "legally" obliged to do so.

LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.I think you know fine well that the Bible (ie the Word of God as far as Christians are concerned) makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Why therefore should Christians reasonably be expected (never mind be obliged) to permit this under their roofs,and for pecuniary gain into the bargain

[muppet]

I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money

In your own data hypothetical scenario, you are selling rooms under your own roof. You are then pretending that you are 'affected' by everything that happens 'under your own roof' and therefore that you can discriminate, on religious grounds, however you wish.

Thus, while sticking firmly to the (unsaid) manta that surely a man can decide what goes on under his own roof, your B&B is actually place of business first. Refusing people in your place of business, on any of the grounds outlined below, is discrimination.

This is the scope of discrimination legislation in the wee 6: 'Our powers and duties derive from a number of statutes which have been enacted over the last decades, providing protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion and political opinion, sex and sexual orientation.' - See more at: http://www.equalityni.org/HeaderLinks/About-Us#sthash.cwwdT5UT.dpuf

Thus you would be breaking the law. Your hypothetical B&B would fail due to your inability to adhere to discrimination legislation almost as quickly as it would fail on your ability to punctually organise bookings.

[Maguire01]

LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.I think you know fine well that the Bible (ie the Word of God as far as Christians are concerned) makes it explicitly clear that homosexuality is sinful.Why therefore should Christians reasonably be expected (never mind be obliged) to permit this under their roofs,and for pecuniary gain into the bargain

The tablets of stone are the ten commandments, no?
If they define sin, then homosexuality is missing, is it not?

[Maguire01]

I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".