The hotelier debate has brought forth some interesting responses. One of which was the gentleman on Radio Five who made the point that the hoteliers action was merely homophobic, for he new many 'good' Christians who had no problem with homosexuality and had chosen to ignore all that 'Leviticus stuff'.
The person supporting the hoteliera tried to explain that, for the majority of Christians, ignoring bits of the Bible wasn't an option for Gods Word stands for ever. But of course he was talked over and effectively ignored!
If I am a vegetarian and choose to eat some meat products I apparently cease to be vegetarian. If a Christian chooses to discount (traditional or orthodox) biblical content, those outside the Christian body (and those within who want to be told they are right) endorse this act and pronounce them, and their attitudes, as being 'Christian'!
Interesting how some people assume they can decide what is right for those members of a group which they neither belong to nor understand. Self-serving or what? Is this not doing exactly what the hoteliers are considered to have done? Can it be wrong for them and yet fair game for those who wish to oppose them? I don't think so!
5 comments:
If you really want to parallel this issue with vegetarianism then you would have to say that for vegetarians the issue of eating meat or not eating meat is a question of interpretation - which it isn't. And a vegetarian who goes even further and refuses other foods as well, thereby becoming a Vegan is not a vegetarian.
Christians who support the action of the hoteliers are just as much of the faith as those who don't, and vice versa.
Thanks for the vegan info', hadn't realised they weren't veggies!
As for second half of my post, I'm saying that those who take a stance against the traditionalist andmake decisions about Christianity are doing exactly what they attack the hoteliers and Christians for doing.
Don't think we are disagreeing.
Thanks for post and info,
V
Actually Saintly Ramblings, Vic's analogy was in reference to those who ignore what the Bible says on the subject, not to those who misinterpret what it says, so your point isn't valid.
Also, isn't it a mere truism that Christians on both sides are just as much of the faith? Because if they weren't then they wouldn't be Christians :-)
Blessings.
"Interesting how some people assume they can decide what is right for those members of a group which they neither belong to nor understand."
Are you talking about the B&B owners here? Or their non-Christian opponents? Or many Christians’ attitude to homosexuality when it is not something they have to worry about in their personal lives? You have to admit that the argument does go both ways when you make a statement like this!:)
My own bit of fun with it, particularly the argument that the B&B is the couple's home and therefore they should be able to decide what goes on under their roof. Is, would you stay at a B&B that didn't bother following food hygiene or fire regulations - few of us follow these in our own home do we? But the law says the B&B has to have colour coded chopping boards and record fridge temperatures – not to mention littering the building with fire extinguishers, installing a fire alarm and a smoke detector system, exit light, a fire escape etc. Is this an infringement of the couples’ rights in their own home? I don’t ask the question to be facetious, I think it is a valid question, when the ‘own home’ argument is given.
I was fairly sympathetic to the couple to begin with, because they didn't allow unmarried couples to stay in double rooms - but you are really getting into Matt 7: 1-6 territory here. According to the couples’ ‘rules’ Fred & Rosemary West could have happily had a double room, as a ‘sinless’ couple while the gays (who were in a civil partnership) get lumbered with a twin. As the judge pointed out, this is not going to stop either a str8 or gay couple having sex and so the reality is that a same-sex couple are made to feel like second-class citizens so the B&B owners can feel better about themselves. At the end of the day, if you are offering (and charging!) a service to the general public, just get on and do it and don’t set yourself up as judge and jury over the morality of others.
I was referring to the learned gentleman on R4 who had decided what being Christian demanded, even though he had said he wasn't one. He had friends who had chosen to ignore the bits that were problematic and this was the way forward.
As a secondary point, I was also speaking of both sides of the argument, hoteliers and thos who make their stands in areas which for them are moral or intellectual but at the end of the day actually focus on an individual and their chosen lifestyle, attitudes and beliefs whether they be Christian or otherwise.
It has to be said that for someone providing a service, it is illegal to withhold or restrict that service because the would be customer is in possession of a different creed, gender or colour, has a disability or has made lifestyle choices which are protected by the various legislations.
That said, legislation should also permit people to exercise their rights to hold beliefs and attitudes, the problem is that it is not possible to uphold the rights of both partie and this is where the problems come to a head.
It is wrong to legislate such that integrity is removed and this is the starting point for some balance and some kindness.
Mind you, the hotelier case ended up as being more about what constitutes marriage rather than the accommodation issue.
Thanks for post,
V
Post a Comment