|from Tom Forrest
I was interested in Michael Milligan's views regarding a "free society" and standing up for one's rights (Turning away gay couples", Letters, April 6).
In my experience, the only people in this alleged “free society" with rights would appear to be the homosexual community, who have, incidentally, to gain credibility, aligned themselves with the disabled. Being a cripple myself, I do not wish to be used as a pawn to further their cause.
Perhaps Mr Milligan should consider whether or not I have similar rights of "freedom of speech and freedom of choice"? As to the comments by Mr and Mr Martin (Letters, April 6), I do not consider myself to be a religious fundamentalist, rather a normal Christian who lives a normal life and maintains certain moral standards. I have never stated that I do not want homosexuals in my establishment; what I have said is that I will not allow them to share a double bedroom.
I do accommodate the more sensible and less radical members of the homosexual community who respect my principles.
As for my being bigoted, surely this relates to an intolerant person who blindly supports a particular view. The Martins have, inadvertently I am sure, put themselves in this frame.
Having spent a lifetime travelling worldwide, and being a time-served and now, due to defending our rights to free speech and choice, a crippled former member of our armed forces, I consider myself to be worldly wise and broad-minded.
See report in the STV Today
from David Robertson
St. Peter's Free Church
Your correspondents Michael Milligan and Mr and Mr Martin (Letters, April 6) claim the moral high ground on the ques¬tion of bed-and-breakfast establishments being forced to accept homosexual couples.
However, their views are fundamentally illiberal in that they are seeking to im¬pose them on those who do not share them.
If I used my home for a B&B, I would not allow un-married couples to share one of my beds. Likewise for homosexual couples. Unmarried couples of whatever sexuality would be welcome to stay in my home, in separate rooms.
Surely I am entitled to have my own standards of sexual morality in my own home? Why should the state think it has the right to enforce adultery, or what I would consider immoral sexual behaviour, in my house?
It is a sign of the illogicality and spinelessness of modern politicians that so few have either the sense to see, or the guts to oppose, state-enforced sexual immorality.
Footnote: Any responses to the above can be made by scrolling to the foot of the page and clicking on the 'Add Your Comment' box and/or writing to the Press and Journal.
no e-mail address