Beverly Hills Hotel Boycotted by LGBT Group Over Sultan of Brunei Ownership

[gam197]

The executive director of the fund, Kirk Fordham, disclosed to the Blade that it was moving locations due to the government of Brunei’s new penal code. “In light of the horrific anti-gay policy approved by the Government of Brunei, Gill Action made the decision earlier today to relocate its conference from the Beverly Hills Hotel to another property,” Fordam told the paper.

hollywoodreporter.com/news/beverly-hills-hotel-boycotted-by-697712

Tim Gill is a mulmillionaire whose main activism is LGBT rights.

If gay activists want to boycott every business in the US owned by Muslims, they have a major task in front of them.

 

[Coatimundi]

If gay activists want to boycott every business in the US owned by Muslims, they have a major task in front of them.

I do not know what percentage of US businesses are owned by Muslims, but I am not sure it matters. The boycott is not because the hotel owner is Muslim, but because the owner is the ruler of a nation which is about to sentence the gays or lesbians to the death penalty. Perhaps this is a boycott which Catholics should support as well, given the grave injustice of the new law.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I do not know what percentage of US businesses are owned by Muslims, but I am not sure it matters. The boycott is not because the hotel owner is Muslim, but because the owner is the ruler of a nation which is about to sentence the gays or lesbians to the death penalty.

Yeah.

Perhaps this is a boycott which Catholics should support as well, given the grave injustice of the new law.

Yeah.

 

[paziego]

As monarch, it is the Sultan’s right to pass and enforce that law. Catholics have no business boycotting a hotel because it is owned by him. What we should be promoting is a culture of mercy, where religious courts in that country choose not to enforce such penalties for the offense. Beyond that we should limit ourselves to providing spiritual support for those who suffer because of this law, regardless of their life choices, and be always willing to share with them the truth we know about human sexuality. At a political level, offering them asylum and pleading with the Sultan to change his mind would also be a fitting way of responding to the situation.

Would we complain about abortion being made illegal? No. Yet others may perceive it as inhumane. We have to at least try to understand the Sultan’s position, who finds himself in a situation where we may find ourselves in other areas.

 

[Path_Finder]

Did people read the article?

If it is the Sultan personally seeing this law is in effect to stone homosexuals, that is pretty bad.

If laws exist where the owner rules to already stone say, adulterers, count me out as well as to ever giving any support to that hotel.

 

[Coatimundi]

As monarch, it is the Sultan’s right to pass and enforce that law. Catholics have no business boycotting a hotel because it is owned by him. What we should be promoting is a culture of mercy, where religious courts in that country choose not to enforce such penalties for the offense.

Your argument is, essentially, that laws should not be challenged because of their immorality. In your view, should laws which allow abortion be allowed to stand? Should we simply try to change attitudes so people will not choose to kill their babies?

 

[Rhubarb]

Didn’t Aquinas say, to the effect, an unjust law is no law at all?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Catholics should support the boycott.

 

[paziego]

Your argument is, essentially, that laws should not be challenged because of their immorality. In your view, should laws which allow abortion be allowed to stand? Should we simply try to change attitudes so people will not choose to kill their babies?

My argument is that we shouldn’t simply oppose force with force. As I suggested, I believe it is in greater conformity with our religion to seek to change the internal dispositions of people so that they turn away from those acts wilfully and in good spirit. Laws are a reflection of the society which produces them. Opposing the laws is opposing society, rather than trying to improve it. I do believe that unjust laws should be opposed, but to do so we must go to the source. The truth is that abortion or anti-lgbt laws are in effect because they are relevant to people’s desires and cultural standards. The only way to defeat pro-abortion and anti-rights of any sort is to make them irrelevant. And the only way to do so is by changing peoples attitudes towards these issues, which must come from within society. So as you see, I don’t support unjust laws, but I wish to cure the problem at its source, rather than worry about the symptoms.

 

[FollowChrist34]

My argument is that we shouldn’t simply oppose force with force. As I suggested, I believe it is in greater conformity with our religion to seek to change the internal dispositions of people so that they turn away from those acts wilfully and in good spirit. Laws are a reflection of the society which produces them. Opposing the laws is opposing society, rather than trying to improve it. I do believe that unjust laws should be opposed, but to do so we must go to the source. The truth is that abortion or anti-lgbt laws are in effect because they are relevant to people’s desires and cultural standards. The only way to defeat pro-abortion and anti-rights of any sort is to make them irrelevant. And the only way to do so is by changing peoples attitudes towards these issues, which must come from within society. So as you see, I don’t support unjust laws, but I wish to cure the problem at its source, rather than worry about the symptoms.

Yes, agreed. Why don’t we compromise - let’s work for both. Change the laws and the minds. Divide the tasks. We’ll be twice as effective and not fighting .

 

[paziego]

Agreed. The laws should eventually be changed too. But that is no reason to antagonise the Sultan or boycott his private enterprises. It will only make the employees suffer and reinforce the Sultan’s position by making him feel threatened. In any case, it is not a problem with the source of authority, but with the exercise of that authority, which can be changed relatively easily. Surely he is a reasonable man who is capable of turning away from injustice?

 

[GraceSofia]

hollywoodreporter.com/news/beverly-hills-hotel-boycotted-by-697712

If gay activists want to boycott every business in the US owned by Muslims, they have a major task in front of them.

Yes, I’m not sure why they just woke up now with Brunei. Homosexual acts are illegal in most Muslim countries, and in some, punishable by death, for example, Saudia Arabia and Iran.

From the UN article:

The United Nations human rights office today voiced deep concern about the revised penal code in Brunei Darussalam which stipulates the death penalty for numerous offences, including robbery, adultery, and insult or defamation of the Prophet Mohammed, and introduces stoning to death as the specific method of execution for crimes of a sexual nature.

Rape, adultery, sodomy, extramarital sexual relations for Muslims, insulting any verses of the Quran and Hadith, blasphemy, declaring oneself a prophet or non-Muslim, and murder are the other offences for which the death penalty could be applied under the revised code, which is due to come into force on 22 April.

The blasphemy laws have proven to be used to imprison and persecute Christians on usually trumped up charges in countries like Pakistan. Insulting any verse of the Quran? Sounds like a recipe for persecution of Christians.

Would that Christians were as organised as the homosexual activists and boycotted Saudi-owned hotels until they allowed churches and freedom of religion in Saudia Arabia. :idea:

 

[gam197]

I do not know what percentage of US businesses are owned by Muslims, but I am not sure it matters. The boycott is not because the hotel owner is Muslim, but because the owner is the ruler of a nation which is about to sentence the gays or lesbians to the death penalty. Perhaps this is a boycott which Catholics should support as well, given the grave injustice of the new law.

I don’t want to offend all Muslims, but most of these Muslim nations have very strict laws on homosexuality. They are way pass extreme.

originally posted by Grace Sofia
The blasphemy laws have proven to be used to imprison and persecute Christians on usually trumped up charges in countries like Pakistan. Insulting any verse of the Quran? Sounds like a recipe for persecution of Christians.

Would that Christians were as organised as the homosexual activists and boycotted Saudi-owned hotels until they allowed churches and freedom of religion in Saudia Arabia.

Agree, it does seem to spell disaster. We need to continually pray for those Christians living in these nations. As a female, I certainly would not want to live under the rule of a Muslim nation.

Yet, in the US, I don’t see how we can change this. As the population of people with the Islam faith increase in the US, we will see what happens. There are two standards.A pastor threatens to burn the Koran and deaths threats take place. A cross with Jesus is put in urine and we are suppose to be OK with that. Don’t wake waves Christians.Hide your reaction and just be jolly but that does not apply to Muslims, nor do I believe they will let it apply.

 

[EIF5A]

Yes, I’m not sure why they just woke up now with Brunei. Homosexual acts are illegal in most Muslim countries, and in some, punishable by death, for example, Saudia Arabia and Iran.

I don’t think the gay social/political “elite” care about LGBT matters outside of this country…

LGBT rights as fought for in the general LGBT population (I know it’s a broad stroke of the brush), IMHO, are about “my rights”, not about social justice for others.

Yes, there are however people and groups who do fight for such things, but they don’t seem to get the press or social media coverage and the popular support.

 

[Path_Finder]

I think in this case, protesting the ownership and boycotting might be the best thing to do because it appears there is a chance of executions of those of the convicted.

If we were talking about 20 year prison sentences being handed out, then, maybe “going to the source” and seeking to convince these people on this would be a proper choice.

It appears Brunei is undergoing a change into Sharia Law.

You know what else might happen? Baptisms may become forbidden.

Baptisms in Doubt as Brunei Readies for Sharia Law
**
A Catholic priest warns that Baptisms would have to cease under the new laws.**

Brunei intends to introduce in the near future sweeping changes to its legal system, adding a heavy dose of Islam and moving the country closer to Afghanistan, Pakistan and about a dozen other countries in the world where Sharia law is widely enforced.

Under Brunei’s Sharia law system, practices considered barbaric and illegal by some, like the stoning to death of adulterers and the amputation of limbs for theft, will be enshrined in the state’s legal system. Also banned is the propagation of religions other than Islam or atheism. The offense will carry a $20,000 fine and or a prison term of up to five years.

This has compromised the 30,000 Filipinos living in Brunei and prompted a warning from a Catholic priest in the tiny, oil-rich sultanate that there will be no baptisms.

thediplomat.com/2014/04/baptisms-in-doubt-as-brunei-readies-for-sharia-law/

 

[paziego]

These are worrying trends. Even in muslim in countries with formal religious equality the police simply turn a blind eye when religious minorities are abused. This attitude is not intrinsic to islam though, no matter what people may want us to think. There are plenty of historical examples where muslims and Christians have lived peacefully together and thrived. If minorities are being abused now it must be caused by something else. I personally believe it is some sort of post-colonial resentment towards the West, with which Christianity is sometimes associated. Also, most of those countries aren’t the most internally stable. Making scapegoats out minorities is an unfortunate but very common course of action for unstable regimes. Hopefully, this will only be a low point in muslim-christian relations and will eventually pass. The immediate future does not bode well, but we shouldn’t assume things will degenerate into a spiral of hate and persecution.

I don’t think it is right for people to desecrate others religious objects with the intention of causing offense. For that reason I would never contemplate being offensive about islam when visiting a muslim country. Regardless of whether there is a harsh law preventing it or not, it is simply wrong to do so. I am not happy when Christians are the victims of persecution, but I don’t think, as a Christian, that we should react in kind.

 

[paziego]

Sharia law does not ban Christian families from baptising their children or generally practicing their religion. It does, however, prevent proselytization and the presence of other religions in the public sphere. Agreed, banning the spread of Christianity is not good at all and it is deeply concerning news, but the priest is being a bit of an alarmist about this no baptism thing. To my knowledge there is no precedent of that in the history of islam, and no justification for it in the Koran (I could be completely wrong of course). As the article said “it is not clear what aspects of sharia law would apply to non-muslims”. Presumably it will be things like laws against blasphemy, theft, same-sex relations, perhaps banning the sale (but not consumption) of alcohol and pork … all the usuals.

 

[GraceSofia]

Sultanate of Brunei “postpones” introduction of Sharia

“Due to unavoidable circumstances” the Sultanate of Brunei has delayed its implementation of sharia, or Islamic law, originally timetabled to enter into force today. Strongly backed by the Sultan, the norm has been forcefully condemned by the United Nations and has raised fierce internal debates over the danger of a gradual " Islamization " of the state. So far, the government has not indicated exalt when it will be introduced by have promised it will happen “in the very near future”. … However, the “declaration ceremony” is going ahead as planned on April 30 to launch the first phase of the new penal code.

Open Doors lists Brunei as #24 in their list of 50 countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian.

“Christian book shops are not allowed and one person can carry only one Bible from outside the country for personal use. It is impossible to print Christian materials in the country and importing them is forbidden.”

opendoorsuk.org/persecution/worldwatch/brunei.php

 

[Path_Finder]

If it’s okay, I’m bumping this thread up. The stories of course, have been out in the last 2 days that the boycott is being very effective but with a Sultan so rich, I wonder if it will effect him?? He might be able to let that hotel run with practically no customers.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Sharia law does not ban Christian families from baptising their children or generally practicing their religion. It does, however, prevent proselytization and the presence of other religions in the public sphere. Agreed, banning the spread of Christianity is not good at all and it is deeply concerning news, but the priest is being a bit of an alarmist about this no baptism thing. To my knowledge there is no precedent of that in the history of islam, and no justification for it in the Koran (I could be completely wrong of course). As the article said “it is not clear what aspects of sharia law would apply to non-muslims”. Presumably it will be things like laws against blasphemy, theft, same-sex relations, perhaps banning the sale (but not consumption) of alcohol and pork … all the usuals.

While Sharia law may not ban Christian families from baptizing their children, there is a long history of non-Muslim faiths being unjustly discriminated against within Islamic cultures to the point that in some cultures non-Muslims are unable to actually practice their faith. The danger of Sharia law isn’t just what it is contained within the law, but the impact it has on the society/culture that uses it.