Good News For Gays

But not so good for Christian pensioners running a hotel.

Not good for property rights either.

First things first: what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of my business. Moreover, I just don't care. I have more to worry about than who is humping who.

In a landmark ruling, a judge has decided that Peter and Hazelmary Bull broke the law when they denied the blokes in this report a room for the night.

The judge said this:

"In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said: "We live today in a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are made by the Queen in Parliament. It is inevitable that such laws will from time to time cut across deeply held beliefs of individuals and sections of society for they reflect the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time that they are made."

I am reasonably certain that the queen has never read the legislation. The MPs who vote it in don't bother so why should she? Besides which, if judgy had read the Parliament Act of 1911, he would know that Royal Assent is a given. The argument being that no monarch had refused Assent in centuries. (This is a lie, but we'll let that slide for now). Our laws, judgy, are made by idiots in parliament. They have no idea what they are doing and neither do we. Case in point: Caroline Flint famously said, when asked if she had read the Lisbon Treaty, "I've glanced at it". Her job at the time? Minister for Europe. Marvellous. Even I read it twice.

Moving on:

"In the last 50 years there have been many such instances - the abolition of capital punishment; the abolition of corporal punishment in schools; the decriminalisation of homosexuality and of suicide; and on a more mundane level the ban on hunting and on smoking in public places."

Millions of people firmly believe that capital punishment should be an option for the sadistic killers that roam freely amongst us, usually after a derisory gaol sentence. The abolition of corporal punishment in our schools has led to unprecedented levels of attacks on teachers by students. The decriminalisation of homosexuality is no bad thing, in my opinion. Suicide is a decision entirely for the individual and should never have had anything to do with the state but, of course, a cash-cow taking themselves out of the game isn't really on, is it?  The ban on hunting was debated for over four hundred hours and they carried on anyway. The smoking ban was debated for four hours and we rolled over, like the spineless fucks that we are, despite the fact that there was no science to support the ban, despite the fact that no-one-for three years running, when asked by ONS-wanted a full ban, and despite the fact that it criminalised and denormalised 15 million people.

And:

"All of these - and they are only examples - have offended sections of the population and in some cases cut across traditional religious beliefs. These laws have come into being because of changes in social attitudes."

The smoking ban, fella, continues to offend me. It was childish, puerile and vindictive. I am denied somewhere warm, dry and safe to smoke tobacco, which, if you believe the propaganda (and I don't), will, at worst, harm me, and only me. That pathetic law legislated against an odour. No more and no less. And please, let's not pretend that the legislation had anything at all to do with "changing social attitude". There was an awful lot of money behind that ban. The pharmaceutical companies and freakish outfits, fake charities, like ASH, stood to gain a great deal from the change in the law. Which was a violation of property rights. Again. But FFS, don't pretend this was something the proles were concerned about. They weren't. Not in the least. We know for sure that over 7,000 previously employed, previously housed, and previously happy landlords, landladies and their families would disagree with you.

Finally, this:

"It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around."

The Bulls made a decision. It was based on their Christianity, and their own, strongly-held morals. They denied the lads a room not because they were gay, at least, not entirely, but because they firmly believe in the institution of marriage. They own their hotel. You don't. The state, and by direct extension, the courts, should have absolutely no right to say who gets to stay in their hotel.

The Bulls made a mistake. The mistake they made was to tell the lads why they couldn't have a room.

Everyone lost here: the lads didn't get their room, the Bulls paid the price for their beliefs, and the law now wields a club that every business offering hotel or B&B rooms has to be beaten with. Comply or suffer the consequences.

This directive is lifted straight from the Frankfurt School of Insanity. Divide and conquer. Split the Christians and the Muslims, the Muslims and the Jews, the straights and the GLBT's, the Christians and the gays, the halals and the koshers, the blacks and the whites, the Asians and the Europeans, and pretty soon you have more entertainment than you can handle.

They just sit back and watch us tear each other apart. And they piss themselves laughing at us. At our stupidity and our ignorance.

But mostly, they love it when we concentrate on what divides, rather than unites us. If we could only get together, put our differences aside for even a short while we could work a miracle.

We could call it Tunisia II: The Day The Brits Got Mad.

CR.

PS-The Daily Mash agrees with me (eventually) on property rights...