B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:40

Ahleckz said:
An openly heterosexual bar, would be classed as discriminatory? What a load of rubbish. What about all the singles nights advertised, or the speed dating events and so on that explicity state are for straight couples.

Can't say I have ever seen one that is specifically hetero or singles nights that ban gays either. (at least not openly)

Masterdog · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:42

Ahleckz said:
An openly heterosexual bar, would be classed as discriminatory? What a load of rubbish. What about all the singles nights advertised, or the speed dating events and so on that explicity state are for straight couples.

They don't ban entry to people who don't fit the criteria though. Gays are allowed to go to heterosexual speed dating nights. They just probably won't get much out of it.

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:43

Tunney said:
For being straight? Where?

The Shadow Lounge. They were told that they were not the type of clientèle they wanted. (considering who they were, is probably correct frankly)

And that is not really what I was getting at, but the obvious bias toward a specific clientèle. Many Gay bars make straight patrons unwelcome, if a hetero bar did that then they would be up in front of a licensing judge quicker than you could say "fancy a bum", the same is not true of gay bars.

Vonhelmet · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:47

Ahleckz said:
Surely that would depend on the words of the Bible, and the version that they were using? IIRC, it states something along the lines that it forbids 'lying with' as oppose to explicity stating sex with the same gender is forbidding. But, I'm not 100%.

It says you are not to lie with a man as you lie with a woman. It's pretty clear cut that it refers to sex.

Stewy · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:48

vonhelmet said:
It says you are not to lie with a man as you lie with a woman. It's pretty clear cut that it refers to sex.

The bible? Clear?

Danthus · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:50

vonhelmet said:
It says you are not to lie with a man as you lie with a woman. It's pretty clear cut that it refers to sex.

And the Bible says God took Sunday off and creating the world. I rest my case.

[TW]Fox · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:51

Burnsy2023 said:
Would you support hotels for only black or white people?

Not really the same thing - presumably gay people are allowed there just not in a double bed. I think this issue has been twisted somewhat - it's a 'non married' thing not a gay thing. I suspect had I turned up with my girlfriend we'd have received exactly the same treatment?

And I'd have laughed at them and stayed somewhere else. But no, lets all sue and make a fuss! That'll be grand.

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:52

OldCoals said:
And the Bible says God took Sunday off and creating the world. I rest my case.

The bible also says "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you"

so there you go, interpret that how you will

asakura797 · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:52

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

So technically they arent married

He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.

If this was seen by the couple they must have assumed that they'd be OK as they consider themselves and are seen to be by the law as having the same rights as marriage.

To each is their own.

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:53

[TW]Fox;18256117 said:
Not really the same thing - presumably gay people are allowed there just not in a double bed. I think this issue has been twisted somewhat - it's a 'non married' thing not a gay thing. I suspect had I turned up with my girlfriend we'd have received exactly the same treatment?

And I'd have laughed at them and stayed somewhere else. But no, lets all sue and make a fuss! That'll be grand.

Exactly my thinking.

MarcLister · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:53

Well I guess this verdict is a bit of a bummer for religious owners of Bed and Breakfast businesses.

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:53

asakura797 said:
He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.

If this was seen by the couple they must have assumed that they'd be OK as they consider themselves and are seen to be by the law as having the same rights as marriage.

To each is their own.

Peter Tatchell doesn't seem to think Marriage and civil partnerships are the same thing.....

Narj · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:53

MarcLister said:
Well I guess this verdict is a bit of a bummer for religious owners of Bed and Breakfast businesses.

They don't like it up 'em!

footman · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:55

PianoBasher said:
They don't like it up 'em!

surprised it's taken four pages.

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:56

Castiel said:
Can't say I have ever seen one that is specifically hetero or singles nights that ban gays either. (at least not openly)

Fair enough, I've seen advertisements that explicity target heterosexuals. I've never seen gay bars banning straights and I've been in a few. Everyones experiences and areas are different I suppose.

Stewy · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:56

Any pictures of them limping away from court?

Abraham · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:57

Castiel said:
The Shadow Lounge. They were told that they were not the type of clientèle they wanted. (considering who they were, is probably correct frankly)

And that is not really what I was getting at, but the obvious bias toward a specific clientèle. Many Gay bars make straight patrons unwelcome, if a hetero bar did that then they would be up in front of a licensing judge quicker than you could say "fancy a bum", the same is not true of gay bars.

Nonsense, the majority of bars are as straight targetted as gay bars are gay targetted. I've never reliably heard of a gay bar refusing entry to someone for being straight, for being the type of person they might think would be trying to cause trouble in a gay bar is entirely fair enough. The closest I can think is Vanilla in Manchester which has a men can only come in if accompanied by a woman (being a lesbian bar), but I'm not sure that's vastly different from the various free entry/drinks promotions to try and get women into straight bars/clubs.

JBuk · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:58

The judge would've had to be quite anal about the specifics of the law

Gilly · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:58

[TW]Fox;18256117 said:
Not really the same thing - presumably gay people are allowed there just not in a double bed. I think this issue has been twisted somewhat - it's a 'non married' thing not a gay thing. I suspect had I turned up with my girlfriend we'd have received exactly the same treatment?

And I'd have laughed at them and stayed somewhere else. But no, lets all sue and make a fuss! That'll be grand.

I held that opinion until I realised that they were already in a civil partnership. Which, for bummers, is the closest they get to marriage. That is what makes this specific case discriminatory.

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 12:58

vonhelmet said:
It says you are not to lie with a man as you lie with a woman. It's pretty clear cut that it refers to sex.

No doubt, but I was just arguing with the bloke I quoted about why the couple forbabe the gay couple. I was going down the line the bible forbabe lying with a member of the same sex for any reason at all. Yes, a weak argument but as was his re. the burden of proof.
Cheers for clarifying what the Book says. Really don't want this to turn into a scripture semantics conversation.