Time for a non-funny post

Occasionally on this blog I want to deal with issues of the day. This one is about the compensation paid to two gay men for discrimination by a Christian couple who ran a hotel. In brief the facts seem to be that the couple refused to allow any un-married couple (Gay or straight) to share a room with a double bed. The gay couple were registered civil partners and felt that this gave them the same status as a married couple and so sued successfully on grounds of discrimination. It is an issue which has been much debated this week in the media and privately. My observations are these - first it appears to be a case to establish the rights of this gay couple to share a bed in someone else's property.  Second that the gay men were sufficiently outraged at their treatment that they felt compelled to sue the hotel owners. Ignoring the legal and spiritual issues for the moment my observations are

1. If a hotel upset me ( and many have ) I would stay somewhere else
2. This was a devoutly Christian couple who acted in their minds according to their religious beliefs and applied their rules to gay and straight equally
3. The gay couple chose to go to court rather than simply find somewhere else to stay which implies an outrage far beyond what one would expect
4. The judgement has clearly put the legal rights of gays above the rights of the couple to practice their religion within their trade

Bringing in one key spritiual argument also puts a huge slant on the debate - marriage is of two types - state and religious. As a Catholic I recognise marriages which are conducted according to Catholic beliefs - which means I do not care if the couple are married by state law. Similarly the marriage of  a couple by state law is not recognised fully as a Catholic marriage. If this seems a theoretical point - it is not - I was married twice (to the same woman) as a direct consequence of the foregoing. What this means is that the definition of marriage in my head and the definition of marriage by the state are distinctly different. However following this case the law implies that I cannot hold my view any longer.

I am not alone in my beliefs and I know many others who are avoiding any open debate for fear of being branded homophobic.