Me and a few mates (about 5/6) in previous years have really struggled to find anywhere to accept our bookings for our jolly boys outing as many refuse on the grounds of no same-sex groups.

With the recent ruling against the b&b owners refusing to accept the gay couple (which I think was a set up) can I somehow challenge a company that refuses our booking in future.

Mate said if they refuse, to say "are you seriously refusing a booklng by a group of gay men after the b&b case" even though we're not, and see what they say.

This post has been edited by Roverboy: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 - 11:49

To not be discriminated against.

It's not all about the legal rights - plenty of people get married with absolutely no interest, whatsoever, in the legal implications.

I'll repeat - what's the convincing argument for why people shouldn't be able to? Because inferences and opinions of the bigoted don't count as convincing.

This post has been edited by Wongsky: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 19:25

In what way can same-sex couples in a civil partnership be discriminated against, that same-sex couples who are married can't?

What is the convincing argument for why same-sex couples should be able to get married? The only argument I've heard for it is that the arguments against it aren't particularly compelling.

(sigh) That they can't get married.

Is this thing on?



The convincing argument for why same-sex couples should be able to get married IS because there's no convincing, persuasive arguments for why they shouldn't.

Which - rather ironically - is precisely why it's most likely the law will be changed in favour of it.

Keep going Wongsky.. You'll hit the target soon.. You're doing well lol
( I'm on your side btw)

What legal rights does marriage convey that civil partnership does not? Or is the only real difference that civil partnership is not called marriage? If it does not convey any further legal rights or obligations, what is the point of passing a law which does not create any further legal rights or obligations?

If the only difference is the name, then the only real issue is of social acceptance which is a matter for individuals, not the law. When the law gets involved in matters of social acceptance, it is invariably an exercise in 'political correctness', which is perhaps the most insidious form of fascism.



So, the lack of a compelling argument against change is the only compelling argument for change?

maybe not being exposed to your acidic wit has dulled sense of irony ?

but anyway your statement that lads (out on the lash) are ''not a protected group'' is untrue, they are, as you later clarified, only protected against some discrimination, but that doesnt stop them from being a protected group in the same way any group fits that title

This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:05

Imagine my greengrocer having a sign up:

Courgettes - £1/kg - only sold to those over 65 years old
Zucchinis - £1/kg - only sold to those under 65 years old

Is he discriminating? Against who? How?

The Equality Act defines discrimination as:

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

This is an issue purely of nomenclature. Same-sex couples can have Civil Partnerships, opposite-sex couples can have Marriages. Exactly the same legal relationship and the same status under law.

Different nomenclature does not mean anyone is being treated less favourably.

I agree that the current situation is weird, but I can't agree that it's discriminatory as I can't see how anyone is being treated less favourably. They get the same thing whether its called a Marriage or a Civil Partnership, a courgette or a zucchini.

your sort of undermining your own point ? if they are both exactly the same then there is no point having two separate legal states/processess of ''marriage'' you may as well rationalize and only have one

This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:22

Try considering the word " EQUALITY" .. Man/Woman CAN get married .Man/Man -Woman/Woman cannot get married . That =INEQUALITY .
This legislation will right that wrong and create equality . Job Done .
Like Wongsky I really can't understand the objection to it . Objectors ( mainly people of religion) are not being forced to marry someone of the same sex ..it affects them in absolutely no way . Even ( well in Scotland at least ) Churches have a getout clause ..only Registrars are compelled to carry out ceremonies cos that's their job .

I don't think the current situation is sensible.
I don't think the current situation is discriminatory.

Why do you think these are mutually exclusive positions?

This post has been edited by psimmons200: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:31

But if one is called MARRIAGE and the other is called CIVIL PARTNERSHIP then they are NOT the same ..They are unequal . See my reply to andy_foster

are you suggesting i suggested they were ?

they are NOt mutual exclusive, something can be not sensible and discriminatory at the same time. in fact I would argue all unfair discrimination isnt sensible. that why they made it illegal

This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:37

Show me a civil partnership that confers different legal status and different rights to a marriage, and I'll agree.

Someone must be treated less favourably for there to be discrimination. Show me someone.

Willie Shakespeare had it right 400 years ago - "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"



Yes. I don't see how I was 'undermining my own point' when my two points were in fact entirely consistent and not mutually exclusive.

1. I think gay and straight couples should both have free access to either a Marriage or a Civil Partnership

2. I think the current system is perverse in that the State arbitrarily names one legal relationship "Marriage" and another legal relationship "Civil Partnership" based solely on the sex of the participants

3. I do not think the current system is discriminatory, as I have yet to be shown how someone is treated less favourably purely by different names applied to identical arrangements.


Please show me how someone is treated less favourably, show me how a gay man in a Civil Partnership is denied some legal right or privilege extended to a straight man in a Marriage, and I am more than happy to change my opinion on (3).

This post has been edited by psimmons200: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:46

Ok with civil partnerships you didnt get the official title of husband and or wife

now all married person do( as appropriate)

I DID NOT mention discrimination . I said INEQUALITY . What exactly is your problem with this legislation?.



There is a body of opinion ,even among those in favour of Equal Marriage ,that would support that idea and I have a leaning towards it myself ,However the powers that be have chosen not to go down that road . .

ok lets analyse

there are two stated position that could be so

1)not allowing gay marriage is discrimination
2) civil partnerships and marriage are exactly the same (so no discrimination)

both of these are a good reason to only have one sort of marriage

if every one accepts that is a either a) fairer or b) a sensible rationalization. then we are only differing one why we think its a good idea

does anyone here think its a bad idea ?

This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 20:56

Discrimination is about being treated differently. So, please tell me what treatment a 'husband' or 'wife' receives that a man/woman in a civil partnership doesn't.

Also what source do you have on 'husband' being an official title? I've never seen a marital partner referred to as anything but 'spouse' on tax returns, census questions, etc. And 'spouse' and 'civil partner' are, of course, synonyms.

It does create a further legal, not sure I'm comfortable with the term "right" but we'll go with it, that which to be married. Which in itself is a legal status.



It's nothing to do with facism - that's the most ridiculous notion I've heard of.

Whenever I see these debates, there's always somebody who plays that damned stupid card of how this impinges on the freedom and rights of others.

It's a complete and utter crock.



Yes - and quite right too.

If there's no convincing argument for why people shouldn't be able to do something, then they should be free to do so.

The default should be that people are free to do whatever it is they choose, unless there's some convincing argument as to why they shouldn't - not the other way around.

you asked for a legal status civil partners didnt have and i gave you one

dont go moving the goal posts

nb if you want to see its legal status try getting divorved or read the ''gay''marrage act where these terms are clearly defined

This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 - 21:09

So if there's no difference, then - why not standardise it all, and let them have marriage?

Whom does it truly harm?

And if it doesn't harm anybody, then why the hell shouldn't they be able to?