B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

Delvis · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:33

How is it unlawful when it is the same for straight couples?

Although - As stated...they are 'civil artners'...and the website states unmarried couples

So technically they arent married

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:33

I think that the ruling was just. The argument that the proprietors should be able to admit anyone they want because it's their own home is redundant because it isn't their home - it is a business. Businesses, and discrimination law, should follow societal norms that are reinforced by a time period. In today's times, being gay isn't seen as a major issue (even for religious people) and as such the law should accept this and businesses should abide be these general principles.
If the two gays were 'practicising' their 'gayness' particularly 'vocally' then there would be cause of the owners to complain about their behaviour but it didn't sound like this was the case.

Gilly · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:33

Having seen that any unmarried couple would be dealt with in the same way my sympathies lie with the owners of the B&B.

Although I disagree with their views, they are free to have them and impose them on their business.

PinkPig · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:34

vonhelmet said:
As stated, their rules apply to unmarried straight couples as well. Fair play, I say.

But the gay couple can't get married. They were in a civil partnership, which is the closest they can get. Therefore accepting marriage but not civil partnerships is unlawful discrimination - that's what the judgement says.

Sp00n · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:35

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:36

Mr Jack said:
Nope. If no one stands up against discrimination it continues.

It's not discrimination to object to the private sexual practices of strangers in the place you live. If they refused Swingers or S&M nuts would that be discriminatory?

It's about time people just quit making a big deal out of everything. I suspect that this couple are activists who targeted this couple on purpose with the express reason to sue.

There are Gay only B&B's and Women only ones, is that not also discriminatory?

Besides they objected to unmarried couples of ANY sex.

Vonhelmet · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:38

PinkPig said:
But the gay couple can't get married. They were in a civil partnership, which is the closest they can get. Therefore accepting marriage but not civil partnerships is unlawful discrimination - that's what the judgement says.

Ah, OK, that makes more sense... If they were in a civil partnership then legally you can't treat that differently to a marriage. Hmmm.

Masterdog · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:38

Excellent result. A civil partnership is the only option available to gay couples, in law it's basically the same as marriage. It's fine to respect religious beliefs but if you want to run a B&B, you're going to have to abide by the law. If your religion has a problem with that, maybe you shouldn't turn your home into a B&B.
Also, if you can find a gay-only B&B that you want to stay in, then you should be able to. And I'm sure you'd win any similar case you bought against them.

Redman · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:38

martinbeaver said:
How would you feel about a sign in the B+B window that said "No blacks or dogs" ? If their beliefs are racist does that give them the right to act on those beliefs?

Racist beliefs are not protected or recognised under law, religious beliefs are, or at least the right to hold religious beliefs.

The gay couple have made a meal of this one in my opinion, when did offending someone's sensibilities become a crime? You don't have to like it, you just have to appreciate their viewpoint & act accordingly.

Sp00n · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:39

PinkPig said:
But the gay couple can't get married. They were in a civil partnership, which is the closest they can get. Therefore accepting marriage but not civil partnerships is unlawful discrimination - that's what the judgement says.

They didn't make that particularly obvious in the article o_O

/me steps out of thread.

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:41

Masterdog said:
Excellent result. A civil partnership is the only option available to gay couples, in law it's basically the same as marriage. It's fine to respect religious beliefs but if you want to run a B&B, you're going to have to abide by the law. If your religion has a problem with that, maybe you shouldn't turn your home into a B&B.

What about this place...

http://www.guyzhotel.com/

That one is doubly discriminatory, it only welcomes Gay MEN, what about the lezzers....

I have no objection to Gay Hotels, I simply stay somewhere else. The same should be true for Hetero ones. The judgement is discriminatory.

Jono8 · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:42

Castiel said:
What about this place...

http://www.guyzhotel.com/

I have no objection to Gay Hotels, I simply stay somewhere else. The same should be true for Hetero ones. The judgement is discriminatory.

Exactly.

This ruling is stupid and should surely mean that the above hotel is no longer deemed legal.

Masterdog · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:43

Jono8 said:
This ruling is stupid and should surely mean that the above hotel is no longer deemed legal.

Couldn't agree more. If that B&B refused entry to a straight couple, that should be against the law.

ringo747 · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:47

What a joke - it is their own property and they can make their own rules. Gay tbh.

Gilly · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:47

PinkPig said:
But the gay couple can't get married. They were in a civil partnership, which is the closest they can get. Therefore accepting marriage but not civil partnerships is unlawful discrimination - that's what the judgement says.

LOL, in which case my stance changes again. I missed that.

wildman · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:47

I blame the muslims............. it must be their fault ............... somehow ??? :confused:

on a serious note, their gaf, their rules.

Narj · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:49

Castiel said:
What about this place...

http://www.guyzhotel.com/

That one is doubly discriminatory, it only welcomes Gay MEN, what about the lezzers....

There's no way I'm visiting that link from work... But do they categorically state anywhere on their site that they will refuse heteros/lesbians?

If so, then someone needs to try to book there and take them to court if they get refused!

Castiel said:
I have no objection to Gay Hotels, I simply stay somewhere else. The same should be true for Hetero ones. The judgement is discriminatory.

Seriously, that's the way I feel about it... They can do what they like and have bumming parties & the lot, I'll just go somewhere else.

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:52

PianoBasher said:
There's no way I'm visiting that link from work... But do they categorically state anywhere on their site that they will refuse heteros/lesbians? If so, then someone needs to try to book there and take them to court if they get refused!

gayhotel said:
You may bring a guest back to the Hotel but YOU will be responsible for theirconduct and behaviour.

Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel.

That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people,
but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels
locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money,
and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even haveSTAG & HEN parties staying.!!!

If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively
gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment

so yes it is specifically for Gays only and not mixed or hetero's as stated.

AGD · 18 Jan 2011 at 11:52

The marriage issue was just a smokescreen for them to keep out gay people. In a business, they should not be able to discriminate and so the judgement was correct.

edit: if you want to moan about gay hotels then just try and book at one. I'm sure after this case that they won't refuse you, and if they do you can take them to court and easily win the case.