But where's the fun in that when we can use outlier examples to suggest that whole groups of people should consider living apart from everyone else? .

Historically Mormonism has had issues with black people. Would people here be jumping to someones defense if they refused to serve a black person because it was 'against their beliefs'? If you think it's fine to go back to 'No Blacks' signs in hotel windows and the like then by all means have a problem with this too. If you don't then accept that businesses are there to provide services to the whole community.

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 5.26pm)

Unfortunately as this pertains to the rights of businesses rather than individuals that is exactly what we are discussing. It's no different to the guesthouse rejecting the gay couple. If a person's interpretation of their religion meant that they didn't want to host or serve black customers, or felt the need to limit the expression of racial equality statements, according to your logic that is acceptable.

By that token you're saying that while businesses discriminate it's fine until they don't then it isn't, which of course makes no sense. You used a theoretical example yourself of people being potentially refused accommodation due to sexuality. This has actually happened with race too in the past of course.

Did you agree with the couple the other year being refused accommodation in the guesthouse due to their sexuality?

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.12pm)

It means that you're saying 'why even think about that racial example, because it's in the past', when clearly not so long ago it wasn't and it acts in part as a framework for how we approach this. Due to the way you've reasoned this issue it seems a bit cloudy where you'd have fallen on the matter.

Do you think a guesthouse should be able to openly refuse people on any criteria they like? After all what would be the point of people turning up if they're not welcome. You're not really dissuading me from the view that you have a problem with 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', no whatever signs. Personally I think businesses best function when they cater to the entire community. If you don't own a business, then let who you want stay who cares. That's the difference.

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.34pm)

Discrimination occurs along many lines, based on the fact that this thread was originally about gypsies and has covered just about everything since. There is a lot of overlap. Since you apparently don't see any link I will present a more straight forward example for you.

Let's take your stance again: [Link]

According to your logic, you would be fine with this Muslim taxi driver kicking a blind man out of his cab, because dogs are deemed 'unclean' in his religion. In line with the example here, you would seemingly have this blind man crawling around on the taxi floor on account that he wasn't specifically refused service but his dog cannot set foot in the vehicle.

Again since this is a business, I would prefer that this gentleman was allowed to use it. Though maybe you'd rather he and other blind people move to "a designated disabled town".

Edited by imbored (21 May 2015 6.56pm)

All I was discussing was the gay cake fiasco. You keep trying to change the subject; which is not surprising given the clear injustice of the case.

As for Muslim taxi drivers, I know nothing about the religion and it beliefs. I do know that the Christian Bible regards it as a false religion, along with all other non-Christian religions.