Tatchell says believers’ religious freedoms must be subordinated to others’ rights to buy things

Responding to the judgement against Christian guest-house owners’ conscientious right to refuse homosexuals from sleeping together in their home Peter Tatchell has stated that the religious freedom of believers must be subordinated to others’ rights to buy things.

‘If the court had ruled that the Bull’s were allowed to ban gay couples from sleeping together in the same room, it would have opened the floodgates to a deluge of similar religious-motivated claims for exemption from the equality laws.  We could have ended up with some Jewish supermarket workers demanding the right to not handle pork, Muslim restaurant staff refusing to serve alcohol and Christian solicitors declining to represent gay or cohabiting heterosexual couples.’

Peter Tatchell also believes that forcing religious believers to act against their consciences, such as making Jewish, and it follows, Muslim,  supermarket workers handle pork, will maintain social cohesion and will preserve harmonious community relations:

‘Businesses would grind to a halt, and social cohesion decline, as religious fundamentalists of all hues claimed the right to discriminate on faith grounds. Our equality laws would soon be in shreds. Discrimination would become rampant again. It would be hugely damaging to harmonious community relations.’

Protect the Pope comment: Here we see in the statements of this  ’Human rights’ activist that social cohesion and harmonious community relations mean riding rough shod over the beliefs and consciences of religious believers in order to uphold his right to buy services and things whenever he wants and from whoever he wants. According to Peter Tatchell’s vision of society the rights of consumers supersede the rights to religious believers.

Furthermore, what effect on social cohesion and harmonious community relations does he think forcing observant Jewish or Muslims supermarket workers to handle pork will have ?

Tatchell has a strange understanding of ‘harmonious community relations’ that entails alienating religious believers and trampling on their human right to act according to their consciences, as has happened over the suppression of Catholic adoption agencies.

In his concern to advance social cohesion and harmonious community relations will Peter Tatchell be encouraging his fellow gay activists to bring cases against Muslim guest house owners or does the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s crusade only target Christians? In Peter Tatchell’s world all people are equal but some people are more equal than others.


79 comments to Tatchell says believers’ religious freedoms must be subordinated to others’ rights to buy things

  • Tim H

    “does the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s crusade only target Christians? ”

    I think that he main reason that it is often Christians who end up in court on this kind of issue might have something to do with the well funded Christian Institute who chooses to fight these no-hoper cases in the belief that even if they loose the publicity will somehow be beneficial to them.

    There have of course been recent court cases were Muslims have lost out after trying to claim religious righst to not handle pork or alcohol ( see http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Muslim-worker-loses-Tesco-booze-bid/article-433978-detail/article.html and http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23989/muslim-police-chef-defeated-in-bacon-roll-tribunal-faces-75000-legal-bill for examples) so this sn issue which singles out Christians although it does seem that Christians get more excited about Gay people and Muslims get more worked up abot pork and booze)

    There may well be some activists who choose to target Christians out of a personal grude or prehaps fear of Islam, but Peter Tatchell has a long and noble history of standing up against descrimination whereever he see it. He is certainly not affaid to challenge Islam.

  • Tim H

    You should also note that Tatchell is basically a libertarian and whilst he thinks that if we have a law it needs to be applied to all (no exceptiosn for Christians) he does not favour criminalising non-violent expressions of religious belief.

    In his comment in the Pink News short he makes it clear that….

    “I never said we should “respect” Christian homophobes. I said protest against them, and other anti-gay bigots, but don’t criminalise them unless they incite violence.

    You may disagree with me. That’s your right. But it is perfectly reasonable to make a distinction between views that are merely intolerant (lamentable thought these views are) and views that incite violence. Many of the great moral philosophers throughout the ages have made the same distinction: Voltaire, John Stuart Mill etc.

    I repeat: all homophobia should be challenged, exposed and protested against (which is what I do). But criminal prosecutions should be reserved for those who incite violence.”

    I tend to agree with him.

  • Judith Kerr Steinhoff

    These secular progressives always complain that religious people try to force others to accept their beliefs and act according to them. They do exactly the same thing they criticise in others.

    • John

      Exactly. The secularists like to cling to the notion that their ideology is somehow “neutral”, when in reality nothing in this world is neutral. Everything is formed from ideas and principles.

      These so-called equality laws are anything but. They are a secularist’s vision of the world.

  • SpeSalvi23

    He’s really trying everything to become a certified nut, isn’t he?

  • Many years ago I wouldn’t have been able to go into pubs with my girlfriend cus she is black, innit?
    Similarly many “Christian” people had signs in their windows saying they didn’t want “no blacks” renting rooms.
    Peter Tatchell is right – discriminating in the provision of services creates ghettoisation which is bad for social cohesion.
    Ironically, of course, by ghettoising the gay community the Christians made it stronger by forcing it into creating lobbying political structure that are extremely organised.

    Many years ago the owners of the Fitzroy Tavern who were then Charles Allchild and his wife (who were Jewish) discovered that they could make money by selling beer to all the gay bohemians who were banned from all the other London pubs. Did those other businesses leave him alone?
    No, someone bribed the police to raid his pub on the grounds that there was “soddomy in the toilets” which was then illegal. Actually I think it’s still illegal to have gay sex in the Fitzroy Tavern toilets but it was more illegal in the 50s.
    The case was laughed out of court but as any publican will tell you fighting a Licence Revocation in court is hugely personally and financially expensive. Although he won his case and became a celebrity Mr Allchild decided he’d had enough and retired.
    So when there was discrimination in the provision of services it did not actually allow social freedom to business owners either.

    I’m afraid the social and political reality is and has always been that if people don’t use social and political freedoms responsibly politicians will take them away. Technically under Eurpoean Human Rights law I should have the right to flyer the whole of central London but in reality local authorities restrain these powers because they create other social problems.

    Who actually wants this “right” anyway except for Basil Fawlty?
    Anyway you love it. Martyrdom has always been good box office.

    • Tim H

      The sexual offenses act 2003 made it illegal to have any sex (gay or straight) in a public toilet (although in practice the police would only be concerned if there were complaints). It is an odd law as it doesn’t have specific offences for other public places (where the prosecution would need to use the indecency laws). But it is progress from a discriminatory law to a fair law.

  • Karla

    What is worse, Islam or secularism? Secularism. Secularism wants to silence religion completely. It is all in the name of tolerance and there is an agenda to it. No preference for any particular religion and we can end up silencing them all.

    This is what Peter Kreeft has said:

    He went on to say that “secular enlightenment,” which rejects God completely, “is far more dangerous to our souls than a world religion that is devoted to worshipping the same God as Christians and Jews, albeit in a partial, somewhat primitive and distorted manner.”


    The media is making this all about the couple being homosexual, but look what the owner says:



    • Tim H

      “What is worse, Islam or secularism? ”

      Which countries of the world are murdering Christians at the moment? Are they in the Islamic middle east or are they in secular Northern Europe? And which Islamic countries are the ones which are genrally more tolerant of Christians? Might it be those Islamic countries that are more westernised and more secularised?

      If you think that being denied the right to discriminate against gay people is worse than being shot on mass as you leave church on Christmas day, all I can say is that you have an unusual sense of proportion.

      • Karla

        The extremist factions of Islam are dangerous. But in China and North Korea there is secular terror reigning on Christians, their official atheist government executing Christians, putting Christians in labor camps.

        Christians have more things in common with a non extremist Muslims than with secularism.

        As has been established by the owners, they do not allow heterosexual or homosexual couples in their hotel unless they are married.

      • Anil Wang

        > Which countries of the world are murdering Christians at the moment?
        Since we’re on the topic of murder, which countries of the world are murdering their preborn babies at the moment?

        The number of murdered Christians in Muslim countries pale in comparison to the number of murdered preborn babies in secular countries.

        Islam and secularism are opposite errors. Islam rejects man in favour of God while secularism rejects God in favour of man. As such, in the extreme they both lead to our destruction. But I agree with most historians that more people have been murdered by secularists in this past century than all previous centuries combined when secularism was a minor force. This includes all previous Muslim Persecutions.

        • Deacon Nick

          I agree with you Anil about the importance of highlighting the murder of preborn babies in secular countries, particularly when these countries are so smug about their promotion of human rights. 114 children are murdered by abortion every minute throughout the world.

          • Pedro

            I have a feeling that if there were a thread about cabbage being good for you, within a few comments someone could turn it round to the subject of abortion.

            I don’t wish to trivialise the issue, but Catholics do seem to be obsessed with this and a few other issues.

          • Deacon Nick

            Pedro, you’re right I am obsessed with abortion. It haunts me that over 5 million children have been killed in this country since David Steel’s abortion act was made law. I don’t do enough to campaign against this ‘silent holocaust’ that is taking place the length and breadth of this land. It makes me weep. It makes me rage. I feel so impotent before this terrible evil.

          • sam

            is it really a terrible evil to give a women a chocie if she has been raped? Is it a terrible choice if the mother could die? Is it a terrible choice if the child could ahve some serious difficulties? Is it a terrible choice if that child wasn’t going to brought up in a living home?

            For me abortion along those lines along with the mother not being able to cope is perfectly acceptable, the moral debate for when it is alive is ongoing but researches can use material from I believe 14 weeks onwards, might be wrong.

          • SpeSalvi23

            SAM!! A HUGE majority of abortions are requested due to the ‘inconvenience’ factor!!!
            That is utterly, immoral and plain unacceptable!!

          • John

            @ Sam

            Don’t be a flat-earther and deny the science. Human life clearly begins at conception. Try reading this book on embryology:


            Furthermore, why should be unborn child be punished with death if that child was created via rape? What did the child do to deserve being burnt to death with acid or have their brain sucked out of their skull? Rape is a poor excuse for murder.

            As for “Is it a terrible choice if the child could have some serious difficulties?” I’m speechless… Let us hope disabled people never have to be near you. They deserve to be near people who will treat them as human beings of equal value.

            Perhaps this video of Gianna Jessen – a woman who survived an abortion – might help you develop a better conscience:

        • Karla

          Well said Anil. North Korea is currently number one on the Open Doors list for Christian persecution. This is a communist atheist state. It is an example of when secularism goes too far. When all religious are silenced



          The Communist states do their own persecuting.

          • Pedro


            Do you really not understand the distinction between communism, atheism and secularism? It’s been explained to you many times.

          • Karla

            Pedro of Foreign Relations says that China has an official atheist government, so maybe you need to work out the distinctions.

            The CCP is officially atheist, in accordance with its Marxist roots. According to the U.S. State Department, the party has issued circulars ordering party members not to hold religious beliefs, and it has demanded the expulsion of party members who belong to religious organizations. CCP officials have said that party membership and religious beliefs are incompatible, and they discourage the family of CCP members from publicly participating in religious ceremonies.


            Are China Communist? Yes. Do they have an atheist government? yes. That means they are a communist atheist state.

          • Karla

            * Pedro, the Council of Foreign relations , wrong spelling

    • louella

      Karla….I would say both Islam and Secularism have the same aim. The overthrow of Christianity and Christian civilisation. The mainly Christian South Sudanese had a 50 year long Civil war at a cost of 2 million plus lives….to finally gain independance from the Islamic North. I doubt they would agree that Islam is better!

      We have our own system of governance that we must support and revive if we have any self respect….and that is the Catholic State…Social Kingship of Christ!

      • Tim H

        Tell me more about your fantasy Catholic state. What would the position of people like me be in it? Would I be able to vote, to be an MP, to affirm (rather than swear) in court, to school my children away from religion, to critice the church, to mock the church, to get divorced, to buy contraception, to have gay sex, to live my life ignoring without interference from the Church or to start my own religion?

        • louella

          But why would you want to live in a Catholic State?! No…you stick with your secular state….and see how long that lasts!

          • sam

            I imagine a secular state which preaches respect, no discrimination would last longer than the sexual fanatics at the catholic church. Sex is a lot like food, it can be fun and exciting but there are bolemics and obesity, this is what the catholic church is in sexual terms you are obsessed by who does what to whom and how they do it.

          • SpeSalvi23

            Frankly, I don’t give th slightest da** about who does what with whom, where, why and how often.
            I simply do not want people to tell me that their obsession with meaningless or unnatural sex is normal. Because it’s NOT!

            The purpose of sex is procreation. It was made to be enjoyable to encourage procreation.

            Sex without consequence leads to:

            -> women being used as sex objects

            -> meaningless relationships

            -> unfaithfulness

            -> more and more porn

            -> more and more sexual active children /young teenagers

            -> a general obsession with sex in society

            Really…. are you happy with the way our society obsesses about sex?? You think the Church has a problem with sex!!? The Church has clear, moral teachings, but those teachings can’t be accepted, because modern man is mutating into a regressed form of hormone guided, brainless sex-maniac who’s thirst for sex must be instantly quenched.
            Do you think such behaviour makes people truly happy?? Long term happy!?

            Open the newspaper!! How many pages do you need to flip before the first silicone monster appears?? How many minutes of TV do you get to watch until you’re exposed to nudity?
            Is that normal, or healthy, or does it encourage to treasure sexuality as the gift it actually is??
            No. Way. !!

            Life is NOT about sex! Get over it!

          • Tim H

            I am not saying that I would want to live in your Catholic state. I’d just like to know what your proposals would be. You can’t continually slag off the secular(ish) state we have at the moment without offering some kind of alternative.

        • Toby


          The Catholic Church does not seek to create a Catholic state, I would suggest you read the following for Pope Benedict’s well-thought out opinions on the ideal for interaction between faith and the state. The link below is his Westminster Hall address last year:


          On another note, I’d be interested to hear a response from you on the other discussion on the purpose of the law.

          • louella

            Toby…you are right…the Church does not seek to create a Catholic State. But some Catholics do. In fact there is already a Catholic Town in Florida established by a self-made millionaire. It’s called Ave Maria and is centered upon a Cathedral and University.

          • Tim H

            Ave Maria is a college town currently being built by the Domminos Pizza millionaire who is a Catholic. It will centre around a Catholic University (which opened in 2007 and will have 5000 stuidents eventually) and church, and some secular schools and like many planned communities for the whealthy in the USA it will have an excellent sports and recreation facilities, and will, I assume, have a high proportion of Catholic businesses and residents (although anyone who can afford a house is allowed to buy one there. In fact a look at the Q&A’s on the developer’s website produced this:

            “Q I’ve heard that Ave Maria is a Catholic town. Is this true?
            A: Absolutely not. Ave Maria is open to every religion, ethnicity and age. In fact, we believe that the intermingling of people of different backgrounds, interests and life stages will be important to making Ave Maria a true community.”

            And it isn’t a proto-Catholic state (or a Catholic proto-state) It isn’t ruled according to Catholicism. It still is subject to the same laws as the rest of florida and the secular constitution of the USA. It is morely a predominantly Catholic area of Florida in such the same way as Goulders Green is a Jewish area of London.

  • It almost sounds as though they ran a B&B purely so they could sit in judgement on other people’s sexual lifestyles.
    Which is not exactly very Christian, is it?
    Indeed I would say it is pushing the logic of their own theology to the very limits of hypocrisy.
    Still good advert for Premier Inn?

    Perhaps they are going for niche Christian fundamentalist market?

    • louella

      Anthony…we Christians discriminate against sinful behaviour…but not against people. Get it right. Secularists don’t discriminate against sinful behaviour…but put it on a par with virtuous behaviour. That will be their downfall.

      • Yes, you do discriminate against people. Even now Benedict XVI is on a mission to stop gay people becoming priests. Not because they are homosexual in activity but because their sexual nature is homsexual. This has never been the doctrinal position in the past. Homosexuals were free to join the priesthood so long as they didn’t act out their homosexual desires. The trouble was that even though they weren’t sexually active they thought and had empathy with homosexual people so Benedict XVI has decided and said as much in his latest books that they cannot properly fulfill the role of priests and be homosexual. A witch hunt is on at this moment to remove homosexuals from the priesthood, not for how they act but for how they think and feel. This is a policy change, a dogmatic change and it’s also pure homophobia based on the fact that having spent years encouraging homosexual men to join the priesthood to fill up the shortfall of heterosexual men willing to give up sex for God it discovered that a minority decided to act out their homosexual urges against the vows of their priestly vocation.
        This is discrimination against people not for their behaviour but for who they are.
        And I’m sure that if their weren’t secular laws stopping the laughable priest-gayness-tests from being made compulsary they would be.

        • louella

          I don’t know if what you have said is true or not….but the Pope must act for the benefit of all Catholics….not just the homosexual lobbyists. So we must trust that the Pope knows what he is doing.

          And there is a witch hunt on for Christianity to be removed from the public square and confined to the home. Christians must stop advocating the secular system….and instead work and pray for a Catholic State for the future.

        • Karla

          Even with the best intentions, it is just not a good position to be in for someone who will be tempted. After all the Nuns and Sisters must live chaste, but they are not allowed to live and serve in close quarters with men. Why put people in a position where they would be tempted regardless of their ideals. Above all, it is the church’s stance and that is something that should garner our respect in itself, the Holy Father is only enforcing something that has been around, in that fact it is safe to say that he has good reasons simply because as the Holy See, he knows what he is doing, and knows (IMO) the will of God. Honestly, I think the priesthood’s principles of chaste men, regardless of sexual orientation, would justify having homosexual priests. It sounds good on paper, but how well would it work out? Better yet, how has it worked out thus far?

          • I dont see why any of these gay priests are in any more a situation of temptation than the local Parish priest with his secretary.
            As an alter server I was always aware of certain women trying to flutter their eyes at the priests.
            They didn’t get anwhere, of course, but it’s just human nature.
            We’re not talking about people in enclosed communities but out in the world.
            If you remove all temptation what is the point in spirituality anyway?

            Even the Pope is not infallible in every sphere and to be fair has never said he was.
            These are not magisterial or papal pronouncements we are discussing they are just guidelines and public speculations … at the moment.
            It is because everyone just “trusted” the Pope and the Church that it’s been mired in sexual abuse allegations for the last few years.
            A lot of pain could have been avoided if some people hadn’t been so scared to be mildly critical.
            Even the Pope admits he gets it wrong sometimes – for instance when the SSPX were asked to rejoin and Bishop Williamson denied the holocaust the very next day because “no one had thought to do an internet search on him”.
            Critcal thought isn’t heretical disloyalty in its self.

          • SpeSalvi23

            The Priesthood is not a job. Every Priest is consecrated as an alter-Christ. Considering the clarity of the bible on homosexuality, it’s not possible to knowingly accept gay men to the Priesthood.

        • Karla

          It seems to me that allowing a homosexual male to enter the seminary, where he would live in close quarters with other men that he could/would be attracted to, would be akin to allowing a heterosexual seminarian/priest to live in a convent. Even for celibate men, either situation just seems to be asking for trouble.

          The secretory at the end of the day goes home. And I do not think that secretary’s are around Priests for that long either.

        • James H

          Here we go again.

          The new guidelines on excluding men with ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ from seminaries has nothing to do with a Gay Witch Hunt, and everything to do with reducing the number of abuse cases. Something like 80% of all priestly abuse cases involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. It was only paedophilia legally speaking, because the victims were under 16.

  • SpeSalvi23

    Please don’t mix up Christianity with Christians who are notliving according to it.
    Racism of any kind has NOTHING

    • “Considering the clarity of the bible on homosexuality, it’s not possible to knowingly accept gay men to the Priesthood.”

      Why? You’ve been doing it for hundreds of years.
      The Bible is specific on the condemnation of homosexual physical acts, but there is no prohibition anywhere on simply being of a homosexual nature. There never has been. And to suddenly invent one 1983 years after Christ’s death is very dodgy. I’m sorry but if you’ve read the Gospel of John and you can’t find any homosexual inferences at all you’re not reading it as piece of literature.
      There’s a direct passage in Matthew where Jesus says that some men dont marry because they “are born that way” and seems to think nothing of it.

      • SpeSalvi23

        Invented? Might be your opinion; but it had to be clarified once and for all, for many reasons.
        It was certainly not done without meticulous, extensive theological study by more than just one person of the concerend congregation, and prior consent of the Pope.
        I do assume that those theologians are familiar with scripture.
        If you don’t agree with that decision. Fine.

  • SpeSalvi23

    .. strange.. got cut off… sorry…

    Racism has nothing to do with Christianity, more with nationalism and possibly ignorance.
    To put homosexuality on the same level as racism is ludicrous.

    It’s really obvious how ignorant non-believers are in terms of what faith actually is.
    It’s not some type of a device which can be switched on and off upon demand or situation!
    Forcing people to ‘forget’ about, or act against their religious believes is, in my opinion, a human rights violation!
    Because it’s not possible!! Because it’s part of your life! You simply can’t do it. If you do, you cheat yourself.
    And of you have no problem doing it, you might want to investigate your commitment and take the appropriate consequences.

    • sam

      racism and homophobia are very similar in nature, they are both having prejudice on someone based on a characteristic in which they did not choose and can’t help, they are the same thing.

      It is a violation of this countries law to discriminate upon sexual orientation and ethnicity as well as religion, however because the owners discriminated against these two men and denied them access then that is against the law thus they were punished.

      • louella

        But what we are telling you Sam is…..Christians do not discriminate against people….but against sinful behaviours….(heterosexual or homosexual sin…it doesn’t matter). So stop playing the victim card!!

        • sam

          actually those people didn’t know if they were engaging in that behaviour, maybe they were a loving couple who didn’t have sex? In the modern world we have a healthy appetite, we aren’t obsessed at all.

          • louella

            In the modern world Sam…..secularists are totally obsessed with sexuality…they can’t imagine life without it….which is a strange obsession for a people who pride themselves on their ‘progressiveness’ ‘education’ and ‘sophistication’.

            Sadly though….they have nothing to show for it…not even a healthy birthrate. In fact their obsession with sexuality has proven thoroughly counterproductive. Secular nations won’t make it into the next century.

      • SpeSalvi23

        Sam – homosexuals have been known to be ‘cured’ – don’t know if this is the word.

        It DOES happen!! NOT because we’re all closet bi-sexuals, but because some people have imagined something, or have been pushed into a certain corner by their immediate or not so immediate surroundings.

        Skin color, or other aspects of a certain race, are not changeable!
        Sure, you can have plastic surgery, dye your hair and attempt to change the color of your skin, but it’s all not really convincing.

        I personally know that black people are extremely offended by attempts of treating homosexual ‘liberation and equality’ equal to the civil rights movement.
        And they are also offended by the attmpts to take the black equality movement hostage for their agenda.
        From what I understand, Dr. Martin Luther King had strong, non-negotiable values on family and sexuality. As a true protestant, he was firmly adhering to srcipture.

        • sam

          well your opinion differs from every major psychological institute in the known world, they categorically say that any attempt made to “cure” is dangerous and will be unsuccessful, not many people are 100% staright or 100% gay and if black people are offended by that then that is their ignorance. It isn’t changeable and almost every institute i have heard of who claims to have cured gay people when it comes to peer review it has been discredited.

          • James H

            Right – and the current political climate has nothing to do with that at all, either? And the peer-review process is completely immune to that, too?

            There are homosexual support groups within the church who beg to differ, e.g. Encourage. Homosexuality is a disorder that needs long-term work, like alcoholism or depression. According to your logic, there’s no point in psychotherapy, either, because depressives sometimes have bad days; nor alcoholics, because they may fall off the wagon.

  • When services were denied on the basis of race and when the slave trade was making lots of money where were the Christian leaders? Some spoke out and some were complict – it was ever so.

    The United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel was not a great help.
    But there was also the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade which was.

    It took Christianity a long time to culturally reject slavery – it was endemic in early Roman society.
    But I’m afraid there are and will always be extreme right wing elements who seek to cloak themselves in the respectability of the Christianity because it has power and that attracts them.

  • sam

    One cannot and should not bar people because of sexual orientation or ethnic background from an establishment. I consider homophobia the same as racism, you are persecuting people for who they are and what they are unable to change.

    I am sorry but you act like you are living in a holocaust some of you, you aren’t repressed at all but you aren’t allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Just like there would be outrage if a shop said “I am not serving you, you are catholic” how would that make you feel? would there be outrage from you? would you feel discriminated against for something which you are?

    You can’t have your cake and eat it, you can disapprove of homosexuality etc but you can’t stop people buying a product or stop offering services on the grounds they are homosexual. If there wasn’t secularism you WOULD be persecuted, you criticize the very idea that protects your right to say we don’t approve of this.

    • louella

      Funny that Sam…cos Mother Nature discriminates against homosexuality. She certainly won’t be told its equal to heterosexuality. Can you guess why?!!!

      • Tim H

        Mother nature discriminates against innocent children with cancer and people born blind or handicaped. I think we can manage to aim a little higher with our human system of morality than reinforcing something as capricious and unfair as mother nature. Mother nature is not a good role model.

        • louella

          Tim….we Catholics never oppose natural law (Mother Nature if you like)….but improve upon it! While secularists oppose and try to rearrange natural law (an impossiblity)….thereby undermining themselves! Mother Nature is not a good ie complete role model….but she must NEVER be contradicted….just improved!

          Because Natural Law is from God too….and God’s laws do not contradict each other.

  • Karla

    Pedro, if that is your classification of an obsession then wanting to protect innocent human life is a good obsession to have.

  • Karla

    Sam, Any women who has been raped would feel hurt, violated, I can not imagine what you would feel after going through something like that but why would you want to exact wrath on that child? I agree chances are you are not going to be in a condition to raise that child, as horrible as that situation is it can still be redeemed. Take that horror and turn it in to a blessing. Someone took your power, but you have the opportunity to reclaim it. But how do you want to use that power, to exact wrath on that child or do you want to take that power and make that child a blessing on another family or make a family a blessing to that child. And I did consider what if that where my life, I would hate who did it, I would hate the situation but I could not hate the child, the child did not do anything.

  • Karla

    Sam, you should read ‘Theology of the Body,’ regarding your comments on sex.

    • sam

      my comments on sex? please amplify.

      • Karla


        You do not seem to understand the Catholic Perspective on sex. ‘Theology of the Body,’ would be a good read for you.

  • Andrzej

    While being homosexual is not a sin (homosexual sex is), homosexuals should not be allowed to become priests as they aren’t able to fulfill the sacrifice which celibacy demands of them. Celibacy, which is a total devotion to the Lord and one’s flock, requires that one give up having a sexual relationship (marriage) with a woman, and this is something that gay men cannot give up, because they don’t desire it in the fists place.

    Also, is someone has deeply seated troubled desires (erotic same-sex attraction) then one should question whether such a person will be able to cope with and deal with the challenged that come with the office. As the recent homosexual scandal in Church has shows, gay priest were the main perpetrators of the crimes committed against the youths placed in their care.

  • Lisa

    I do not allow non married couples to sleep in the same bed in my house (this applies to same sex couples). It is for their own good.

    • louella

      Exactly Lisa….Catholics discriminate against all sin….not just homosexual sin! It is sin we disciminate against….not people.

    • Tim H

      ” It is for their own good.”

      I prefer to treat adults as adults and part of that is letting them make their own mistakes. If they wano to do something that I think is harmful to them then I have absolutely no right to stop them doing it. I only have a right to stop them harming others.

      I wouldn’t try and stop someone being religious although I sincerely believe that it would be for their own good.

      • Andrzej

        See Tim, allowing for sin to take place is to also to commit a sin. Not to react to evil is a sin. That’s one of the reasons Christians have always been in the forefront of defending human rights.

        Your legalistic approach reduces human conscience to the wills of the State and hence molds us for totalitarian rule.

        Non possumus! That’s what we Catholic say to such attempts to destroy humanity.

  • Dermont Clark

    Oh dear, homosexuals in guest houses, abortion and new cities to be catholic utopias, Where does one start? I think the owners of the guest house handled things poorly, perhaps a twin bedded room would have solved the issue as no-one could be sure that sexual activity would take place. The double bed seems to have been the knub of the issue.

    Abortion horrifies me. Wikipedia estimates that 42 Million abortions are carried out worldwide each year. Of these 22 million are “legal” the rest carried out by back street abortionists. 42 million is equivalent to 7 Nazi holocausts each and every year. It can’t be right. I’d rather women have a “legal” abortion than a back street abortion, as I’d rather limit the death to one human being (the unborn baby) than include the mother as a casualty as well.

    When the abortion act was debated in the British parliament it was believed that back street abortions totalled around 20,000 a year (later this was revised to about half that figure.) In 2009 in England and Wales there were 189,100 abortions of which 94% were funded by the NHS, with 60% carried out under contract in private clinics. That’s a huge increase and there is no shortage of information on contraception, whether “natural” as recognised by the Church or artificial (such as condoms.)Abortion has become a very profitable bloody industry, with little counselling to these unfortunate women about alternative outcomes and the actual dangers (both mental and physical) of the medical procedure.

    What I am sure of is that if on the News it was announced that (say) Boots the Chemists killed 4,000 furry kittens or fluffy puppies every week in pursuance of curing cancer, the public would be enraged. Stores would be firebombed, staff physically attacked. However, we’re only destroying unborn human babies, so it doesn’t count in our sick society’s eyes.

    Finally, a Catholic Utopia with Pizza parlours , yeh let’s go for it !

    • Tim H

      “The double bed seems to have been the knub of the issue.”

      I don’t see the disctintion between the size of the beds as an issue at all. You can have sex in a single bed and you can sleep in a double bed and not have sex. I do not expect that the size of the bed correlate with likihood to have sex at all.

      Refusing a double bed doesn’t prevent a “sin” or even make it more difficult. This is all about making the owners feeling pious and good about themselves rather than condoning or discoutaging “sin”.

  • louella

    Yes Tim….Ave Maria is subject to the same secular laws as the rest of Florida…precisely because the secular authorities threw a hissy fit and demanded that contraception and porn cable TV be allowed. LOL….just shows you their backward morals…..be sexually active certainly but be careful not to procreate!

    Still it is predominantly a Catholic Town….and one where I guess sooner or later Catholic attitudes will form the dominant ethos and athmosphere of the place. Sounds great to me.

    • Tim H

      “the secular authorities threw a hissy fit and demanded that contraception and porn cable TV be allowed” The secular authorities didn’t impose those things. Certain citizens wanted to buy them and businesses wanted to sell them. If it was a “proper” Catholic state those things would be denied to those who wanted them.

      • louella

        The secular authorities actually did demand that porn TV and contraception be made available….LOL! The Citizens did not ask for them. And yes in a proper Catholic State we wouldn’t have these things….they corrupt the individual, destroy the family and society. And if you don’t believe me….look up the research done on them. Sin always destroys.

  • Lisa

    If I think something is bad for people, I would not allow them to do it in my house, even if they are 80 years old. I do not allow friends to smoke in my house, or do drugs, or sleep together if they are not married. Of course anyone is entitled to do any of these things in their own homes or wherever they wish, but my house is my house right? :)

  • Lisa

    By the way the owners of the guesthouse had offered two single rooms to the same sex couple but the offer was declined.

  • sam

    Tim H since those introductions were made in the American psychological institute and others in 1963 then it wasn’t down to political pressure, because many people at that time were negative, indeed even in the 80′s and 90′s even though I’m 17 more people found it immoral, wrong etc than natural and OK.

    The peer review is by definition someone essentially looking at the thesis and then reproducing there experiments to see if it works, if not then the peer review would essentially say we came out with different results over and over again.

    Homosexuality is different to alcoholics etc because alcoholism and depression is a behavior that with time and treated correctly can be improved upon and cleared. Homosexuality isn’t an action someone can be gay and celibate their whole life.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags
