public school boy
Banned
- Thread starter
- #41
I drive a taxi and have various Gay clients but if they were to indulge in sexual acts in the back of my car I would invite them to leave, in other words kick them out.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Well said Chris Grayling
- Thread starter public school boy
- Start date
cjd
Well-known member
I presume you'd do the same regardless of whether it was two men or two women?
public school boy
Banned
- Thread starter
- #45
Well as the saying goes, the law's an ass. I fully support anyone who runs a B&B and turns away anyone who they feel might indulge in activities that they do not aprove of.
Does that include poor speling (sic)?
Goldstone Rapper
Rediffusion PlayerofYear
So you'd want to do away with the law even though it could be used to protect an 'unmarried heterosexual' couple from being turned away by a B&B for being heterosexual?
public school boy
Banned
- Thread starter
- #48
Two men, two women or a hetro couple.
Chicken Runner61
We stand where we want!
- May 20, 2007
- 4,609
What if they were two young fit lesbians? would you still turn them away?
I might offer reduced rates!
I might offer reduced rates!
Fair enough then.
You mean that if you saw this...
....taking place in the back of your cab you would kick them out?
Surely you would at least crack one off first?
public school boy
Banned
- Thread starter
- #52
If those are the rules of the house so be it. There are other places to stay but the chances of an unmarried hetrosexual couple being turned away are slim as most people consider sex between men and women as being normal where as sex between same sex couples as abmormal.
What about if there is a heterosexual couple, he is doing her up the chuff, and she is a screamer?
User removed 4
New member
You're such a wrong'un!!!
public school boy
Banned
- Thread starter
- #56
Funny you should mention that as my inlaws ran a B&B and one morning whilst I was staying there( not as a paying Guest) a certain young lady became very vocal. ONE HAS TO LISTEN.
I hate being serious on NSC, but I can only quote what I have read:
Religious opt out in pharmacies to continue under new body
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), which will replace the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPS) as the regulator, has given pharmacists the go ahead to refuse to provide services that clash with their religious views.
The pledge came as the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) adopt the existing RPS code of ethics, despite heavy criticism of the inclusion in it of a conscience clause. The conscience clause — which allows pharmacists to opt out of services such as providing the morning after pill and other emergency contraception — will continue to form part of the code, the GPhC said.
However, exercising the powers could become subject to conditions such as displaying notices telling patients about pharmacy services that could be refused on religious grounds and clear guidelines on where it is acceptable for pharmacists to signpost patients to another provider when refusing supply.
GPhC Chair Bob Nicholls said: "The steer for the Council is to include the clause with guidance and draw attention to that guidance."
The comments follow intense media criticism of the conscience clause earlier this month when an employee at a Lloyds pharmacy in Sheffield refused to fulfil a prescription for contraception on religious grounds.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "As so often happens with self-regulation, the new GPhC have protected their own, but failed their customers. This was a perfect opportunity to severely restrict the exercise of this supposed conscience clause which has caused a great deal of embarrassment and inconvenience to people recently. It is simply unacceptable for pharmacists to be able to arbitrarily refuse to provide medication that has been prescribed by a doctor, or that is legally available without prescription. Although they should, pharmacists do not always direct customers to the nearest suitable pharmacy, and even if they do, the customer may have difficulty in going there, especially in rural areas. The longer the delay in taking emergency contraception, the less effective it is likely to be, so the results of the existing and proposed policy could be catastrophic. We are finding an increasing incidence of refusals and this problem is growing alarmingly. We call on the NHS to step in and deal with this problem on a contractual basis."
Mr Sanderson added that the display of a notice saying that prescription fulfilment will be restricted due to religious considerations (something we had suggested in the consultation) would — if properly enforced — give people the opportunity to boycott such premises and find another chemist that won't try to control customers' choices by imposing their religion on others.
Last edited:
What's that got to do with anything? !
Anyway, the discussion about Chris Grayling has taken place here
Well said Chris Grayling - North Stand Chat
Fixtures, it you will.
Hold on, that's this thread - can you cry "fixtures" for that? Ok, FIXTURES
