B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

[RDM]

You know exactly what I mean.

You seem to be suggesting that it should be OK for people to discriminate (in limted circumstances only of course) due to sexual orientation.

If a group wish to socialise within their own group why should they not?

But "their own group" should only be based on sexuality? It shouldn't be colour? It shoudn't be religion?

Personally I couldn't care less whether there are gay clubs or straight hotels or not, but I think that each should have the choice.

Are you sure you shouldn't have started the whole thing with "I am not racist but..."

 

[Castiel]

You seem to be suggesting that it should be OK for people to discriminate (in limted circumstances only of course) due to sexual orientation.

Indeed, society and the law already allow exceptions, why not an expansion of 'Women Only' hotels to include 'straight only' or 'Gay Only'. We see the same with age resticted Hotels, Holidays etc and 'Couples only'. Discriminations happen everywhere in an acceptable way, why not here.

But "their own group" should only be based on sexuality? It shouldn't be colour? It shoudn't be religion?

Why? can you not be a black Christian, or a Hispanic homosexual?

Are you sure you shouldn't have started the whole thing with "I am not racist but..."

Why? I am advocating that the exception applies to everyone regardless of orientation, with regulation to ensure one 'group' is not advantaged over any other.

You may wish to call me racist or homophobic, that is your right, doesn't make it true though.

 

[hurfdurf]

Typical of poofs throwing a hissy fit

What a waste of time.

So you turn up to your next holiday destination after booking long in advance and the owners go "No French, blacks or gays allowed, sorry your not allowed to stay", and you would be fine with that? Give over.

Typical privileged heterosexual whites

What a waste..... etc etc

 

[gary996]

Their B&B, thier rules.

Law = FAIL

With you on that. It should be their rules as it is their property.

 

[Jono]

There's a lot of rubbish in the first 20 or so replied to this thread I've bothered to read. The situation is as simple as it gets, the B&B is a business and as such can't discriminate as it did.

Why not?

 

[Jono]

So you turn up to your next holiday destination after booking long in advance and the owners go "No French, blacks or gays allowed, sorry your not allowed to stay", and you would be fine with that? Give over.

Typical privileged heterosexual whites

What a waste..... etc etc

I'd be fine with that. I'm not gay, black or french.

And even if I were, then I wouldn't want to stay at that place... so I'd go somewhere else.

If it's in the T&C from the start... where's the problem?

I still say their business/b&b - they should be allowed to accept or refuse anyone they wish.

 

[hurfdurf]

I'd be fine with that. I'm not gay, black or french.

And even if I were, then I wouldn't want to stay at that place... so I'd go somewhere else.

If it's in the T&C from the start... where's the problem?

I still say their business/b&b - they should be allowed to accept or refuse anyone they wish.

The problem lies with the fact that without enforcing anti discrimination laws, homophobia, racism sexism etc etc runs riot because a lot of people are truly disgusting, or at least have disgusting illogical opinions from time to time. To stamp out such behaviour and thoughts we must as a society legislate against it for the protection of everyone.

 

[PiKe]

I wonder how many straight couples were asked if they were married, also what proof do they need so you can stay in a double? Wedding certificate?

 

[RDM]

Indeed, society and the law already allow exceptions, why not an expansion of 'Women Only' hotels to include 'straight only' or 'Gay Only'. We see the same with age resticted Hotels, Holidays etc and 'Couples only'. Discriminations happen everywhere in an acceptable way, why not here.

Because as a society we have decided that it is wrong to discriminate against certain groups? Exceptions should be kept to a minimum and saying "It is OK to discriminate against Gays" is frankly wrong.

Why? can you not be a black Christian, or a Hispanic homosexual?

Why restrict the discrimination allowed to only sexual orientation? Why not allow discrimination due to colour or race or religion? Should someone be allowed to say "I only want whites staying at my hotel." and if not, why not?

Why? I am advocating that the exception applies to everyone regardless of orientation, with regulation to ensure one 'group' is not advantaged over any other.

You may wish to call me racist or homophobic, that is your right, doesn't make it true though.

It was a joke, I had thought the smiley might have given it away, but obviously not. It just seemed to me that you were basically saying "I am not homophobic, but I think people should be allowed to turn away gays if they want." Which was somewhat suprising considering your stance on multiculturalism.

 

[RDM]

If it's in the T&C from the start... where's the problem?

It wasn't really in their T&Cs though. Their statement was "No unmarried couples" and for most people civil unions are considered marriage. It was only really due to lobbying from the religious groups that ended us up in this silly "Civil union" business in the first place.

I still say their business/b&b - they should be allowed to accept or refuse anyone they wish.

The law seems to say otherwise.

 

[Gackt]

Pah. Religious beliefs should not be allowed as a cloak to hide and enforce backwards, discriminatory views. If their views said that there should be "no blacks" or "no muslims" or whatever, there'd be outrage. But of course, they're only fags, so why should they experience the same rights or consideration as the rest of us?

 

[dbmzk1]

Live there or not it's a company and they should have to stick to the same rules as everyone else. Don't like it? Don't choose to run a B&B.

 

[Castiel]

Because as a society we have decided that it is wrong to discriminate against certain groups? Exceptions should be kept to a minimum and saying "It is OK to discriminate against Gays" is frankly wrong.

As are women's only fitness clubs or women's only hotels, or age restricted cruise liners, 19-30 holiday packages, and so on.

I'm not advocating discriminating against Gays, but allowing them to set up Gay only environments in which they can enjoy themselves if they so wish and in the interest of equality allowing Heterosexuals to do the same, with regulation to ensure that no one group is unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged.

Why restrict the discrimination allowed to only sexual orientation? Why not allow discrimination due to colour or race or religion? Should someone be allowed to say "I only want whites staying at my hotel." and if not, why not?

Therein lies the contention. The thing is that you can be Religious, Black, White, Asian or whatever and still live either by choice or genetics a lifestyle that others may find uncomfortable. The same thing applies to Churches where they limit their membership to their specific belief structure.

If we, as a society are to manage the equal rights of the individual with that of specific groups then we must also acknowledge that people are not the same, and allow a certain level of freedom regarding how one chooses to live their life according to their beliefs and lifestyles.

If this means allowing certain business to discriminate accordingly then I think, with regulation and careful monitoring it may well foster more understanding and not less.

If not, that ALL kinds of discrimination, like those I mentioned above should also be outlawed under their respective legislations. I could do with enjoying the discounted packages available for the over 50's for example.

It was a joke, I had thought the smiley might have given it away, but obviously not. It just seemed to me that you were basically saying "I am not homophobic, but I think people should be allowed to turn away gays if they want." Which was somewhat suprising considering your stance on multiculturalism.

Ok.

I am saying that "I am not homophobic, I think they should be allowed to enjoy the same benefits as Women and the Elderly when it comes to limited membership clubs, hotels and other leisure activities, as should we all"


Equality, my good man, means just that, being equal no exceptions.

 

[Tefal]

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.

iirc that was the whole point of it wasn't it?

So they could get the same tax breaks etc from the government and leagal protection in case of breakups.

 

[Castiel]

iirc that was the whole point of it wasn't it?

So they could get the same tax breaks etc from the government and leagal protection in case of breakups.

But without being married. It should be available to all, otherwise it is state sponsored discrimination and either should be open to all, or cases like the couple with their B&B should be given the same consideration.

 

[Jono]

What did the other residents in the B&B think of it. Have they been asked?

springs to mind.

 

[Vonhelmet]

But without being married. It should be available to all, otherwise it is state sponsored discrimination and either should be open to all, or cases like the couple with their B&B should be given the same consideration.

Indeed. I get in trouble with my more evangelical Christian friends for this, but I really believe that there should be a state "marriage" of some kind and a religious "marriage" of some kind. The church need not respect any marriage it doesn't believe in, and the state need not respect and religious marriage that doesn't meet the criteria laid down in statute. If you want to acknowledge your union before God and your church family (mosque family, whatever) you get a religious marriage. If you want the legal perks (tax, power of attorney, next of kin, whatever) get a legal marriage.

If the two are at odds, the legal definition takes precedence and the religious people have to live with it or bear the punishment the law lays down.

 

[AGD]

Typical of poofs throwing a hissy fit

What a waste of time.

I'm not sure whether this is a serious post or if you are actually that prejudiced?

 

[RDM]

As are women's only fitness clubs or women's only hotels, or age restricted cruise liners, 19-30 holiday packages, and so on.

I'm not advocating discriminating against Gays, but allowing them to set up Gay only environments in which they can enjoy themselves if they so wish and in the interest of equality allowing Heterosexuals to do the same, with regulation to ensure that no one group is unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged.

Surely the argument there then should be about removing restrictions rather the imposing more? Change the word "Gays" to "Blacks" and is the above still OK? Or even "Muslims" if we want to be topical.

Therein lies the contention. The thing is that you can be Religious, Black, White, Asian or whatever and still live either by choice or genetics a lifestyle that others may find uncomfortable. The same thing applies to Churches where they limit their membership to their specific belief structure.

If we, as a society are to manage the equal rights of the individual with that of specific groups then we must also acknowledge that people are not the same, and allow a certain level of freedom regarding how one chooses to live their life according to their beliefs and lifestyles.

If this means allowing certain business to discriminate accordingly then I think, with regulation and careful monitoring it may well foster more understanding and not less.

To be honest, you still haven't really answered my question. Or at least you have answered it in political speak rather than english. Should businesses also be allowed to discriminate on race and religious grounds?

If not, that ALL kinds of discrimination, like those I mentioned above should also be outlawed under their respective legislations. I could do with enjoying the discounted packages available for the over 50's for example.

Unforuantely the age one tends to be for insurance, that was challanged and upheld unfortunately due to the whole thing that old people do on the whole tend to have either less accidents or less costly accidents. On the plus side students are cheaper to insure than the unemployed so my bike insurance has gone down.

Equality, my good man, means just that, being equal no exceptions.

The problem with allowing any and all discrimination (on the grounds of equality of course) is that it will then automatically favour the majority. Simpley because they are the majority more things will be provided solely for them.

 

[Castiel]

Surely the argument there then should be about removing restrictions rather the imposing more? Change the word "Gays" to "Blacks" and is the above still OK? Or even "Muslims" if we want to be topical.

We already have African-Caribbean centres, Muslim groups, Christian Groups and so on. And it is removing restrictions, it is removing restrictions on the ability of people to socialize with like minded people.

To be honest, you still haven't really answered my question. Or at least you have answered it in political speak rather than english. Should businesses also be allowed to discriminate on race and religious grounds?

There is not a need to discriminate on grounds of colour, businesses with a specific need can discriminate on religion, all I am advocating is that specific cases can be found for discrimination against either group as long as neither is unfairly disadvantaged overall, so if we allow exclusive gay hotels in the high street, then we should allow an equal level of hetero exclusive hotels.

Unforuantely the age one tends to be for insurance, that was challanged and upheld unfortunately due to the whole thing that old people do on the whole tend to have either less accidents or less costly accidents. On the plus side students are cheaper to insure than the unemployed so my bike insurance has gone down.

18-30 holidays?, whether it is cheaper or not should not be a valid consideration. It is against the legislation, yet we allow exceptions, what is wrong with allowing exclusive gay hotels under the same exceptions that women have them, and likewise the same for heterosexuals.

The problem with allowing any and all discrimination (on the grounds of equality of course) is that it will then automatically favour the majority. Simpley because they are the majority more things will be provided solely for them.

Which is why regulation would only allow an equal number of exclusive hotels/bars/clubs to be opened.


On a personal level, gay bar or straight bar means little to me, but it does to some and from both sides, so why not allow them a level of discretion.