The irony is that they did deny a room to a heterosexual, but unmarried, couple, and were told that it was perfectly fine to do so, but not for homosexuals. Truly I think we’ve reached the stage where the lunatics are running the asylum.
Years ago, the (also devout Christian) mother of a friend told me that the West will follow the Romans (and other dominant races) down the path to decadence, followed by oblivion, and, so far, I’ve seen little sign that she got it wrong.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. Your sexuality is what you are born with – gay people don’t choose to be gay, just like heterosexual people don’t choose to be straight..

And there are just as many “experts,” who say that it’s a nonsense; it would give the paedophile the get-out of “I was born this way.”

The B&B owners, however, chose to break the law. So they can’t complain when they get punished for doing so

I live in the area, where this happened; the aggrieved pair were so “humiliated,” they went straight to the press, with their story, and it was only days later that they made an official complaint, fuelling the dark suspicion that someone had told them that there was a possibility of money to be made. The address of the B&B was then published, leading to a torrent of hate mail from the homosexual lobby. Unsurprisingly, the couple’s address has now been published (and, no, I don’t condone it for a moment – two wrongs do not make a right,) so this sad episode has yet more mileage to come.
I always remember Malcolm Muggeridge, 50-odd years ago, saying, “The trouble with the British is they have sex on the brain, and it’s the wrong place for it.” In a time of rampant inflation, corrupt self-serving politicians, and death-dealing weather, this is a tiresome irrelevance, being stoked by the rabble-rousing media.

So does that mean its OK from old spooky or not?

No, it means, as with so much religion, it’s written by men, often for their own aggrandisement; if you’re going to believe (and quote) every word of the bible, we live in a world which was fashioned in 6 days.

And don’t forget, the business owners have a choice over their religion. The victims of their bigotry don’t have a choice over their sexuality

.
Sorry, but they do; Kenneth Williams decided he was homosexual, but never went the whole distance. Those two did not have to share a bed, just for that night, but chose to make a song and dance about it.

As far as Christians are concerned nobody is “made” any particular way; they are free to make choices, and it’s those choices which this is all about. As far as practising Christians (especially Catholic) are concerned, homosexuality is a sin, in fact it’s a major sin, so not to be encouraged, especially in your own home.
So far, the vociferous “Hang them” brigade have never answered my question:- would you force a Muslim to eat and drink during daylight hours in the fasting month of Ramadan? Would you force a Hindu to eat the meat of the cow? Would you force a Cus-h-i-tic speaker to eat fish? Would you force someone from Islam or Juda, to eat pork?
If you would not force those people to go against their religion, why are you so set on forcing Christians to go against theirs?
Sorry about the odd spelling above, but the Spelling Police won’t allow four certain letters to appear in the middle of a word, now.

With the prediliction he had and the locations he favoured the intelligence agencies are hardly likely to have known, are they? No one has suggested he was a security risk of any sort, have they?

Everyone, who spends time with politicians, is viewed as a possible security risk, until they’ve been vetted, and passed. Do you seriously think that, if the security services knew Savile was a sex offender, against adults and children, they would have told Blair that he was perfectly safe to be in company with the PM’s children?

Just so everyone knows…..and does not accuse me of hiding. I have made a formal complaint to Key about Moggys post……..

Pity, really, since (albeit probably unwittingly) Moggy has raised an interesting point, with that photo. The topography, and buildings in the background, look remarkably like Chequers, which is the Prime Minister’s official residence when not at No.10.
If I’m right, it means that Savile had access to government circles (and Blair’s family.) That leaves us with two intriguing possibilities; first (and unlikely) that the authorities knew about Savile’s predilection, and turned a blind eye, but, second (and likeliest as far as I’m concerned) that even the government’s security advisers were totally unaware of what was going on. If MI5, MI6, and all of the other agencies didn’t know, how can anyone honestly expect medical authorities to know?
As for MPs not jumping on this particular bandwagon, the MP for Reading (25 miles away) has written to Stoke Mandeville, demanding an enquiry; of Broadmoor (about 10 miles from Reading,) he says not a word.
One other thing, Moggy was perfectly entitled to remove “Sir” from this thread, since a knighthood becomes defunct on the death of the recipient, so the title becomes a courtesy, nothing more.

The fact that you have attempted to divert this debate by making some sort of pious anti-swearing comment leads me to my own conclusion.

Pious??? You really don’t get it, do you? A straight-from-the-heart accusation would have grabbed my attention, and made me listen; add in the unnecessary (that’s twice I’ve had to say it) obscenities, and it dilutes the message, because they’re only there for dramatic effect.
I repeat (for the last time) I have nothing against swearing, in its place, and, as far as I’m concerned, that does not include a place of entertainment.
You say that the record was withdrawn, for fear of legal action; to me, that sounds as if they didn’t believe that the accusation was genuine, either, otherwise it could have been “See you in court, then.”

Why do you feel it necessary to resort to insult?

And you don’t feel that your inference, that I care more about an unfunny entertainer’s language than Savile’s behaviour, is an insult?

Children have been abused by a serial paedophile and you’re having a problem with the language used by a comedian? You need to have a serious realignment of priorities, not mention the fact that you’ve completely and utterly missed the point about Jerry Sadowitz was saying

.
Don’t you dare tell me what my priorites need to be; you have absolutely no idea of how much disgust I feel for Savile, especially as I, too, have worked (in a small way) to raise money for Stoke Mandeville, and now find that some are trying to wrap all of us with the same filthy cloth as him. Yes, it’s true that I missed the point, of that “act,” largely because the only words that came across clearly were the obscenities

Also, you were warned about the language but you clicked anyway and now you’re complaining?

I am complaining about the words being irrelevant to the message; if all I hear is them, the message that he is trying to pass on, has failed to get through. I couldn’t care less about swear words, but preferably in a context that means something, like a thumb struck by a hammer, or a suitable reply to a foul-mouthed Works Manager.

By the way, the best comedians on the planet use swear words. Fact.

The vast majority of the best comedians have left this planet, and had no need to pepper their acts with swear words. Fact.