B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

RDM · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:22

Castiel said:
There is not a need to discriminate on grounds of colour,

So it is OK to say "I do not want to cater to gays" but it is not OK to say "I do not want to cater to black people"? Why is one acceptable and the other isn't?

Castiel said:
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.

I am not sure "hotel" is really a business that has a specific need to discriminate. Bearing in mind that by all accounts the hotel you linked to earlier is quite happy to take heterosexual bookings, they just market to gay men.

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

So for every Black Only hotel we have, we can have a balancing White Only hotel? Could get tricky though when you have discriminatory group with more than two sides, so religion could be tricky. Does one Jew Only, one Muslim Only and one Hindu Only hotel mean 3 Christian Only hotels?

MarcLister · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:25

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

Haha, nice one.

WrathOfAchilles · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:34

Removal old post

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:35

RDM said:
So it is OK to say "I do not want to cater to gays" but it is not OK to say "I do not want to cater to black people"? Why is one acceptable and the other isn't?

Because there is no case for discriminating against colour. a significant portion of Gay men for example like to live to a certain lifestyle, they can be any colour so it is irrelevant, however the ability to live to that lifestyle in peace is not. The same applies to heterosexuals.

RDM said:
I am not sure "hotel" is really a business that has a specific need to discriminate. Bearing in mind that by all accounts the hotel you linked to earlier is quite happy to take heterosexual bookings, they just market to gay men.

I have yet to confirm that they will accept non gay bookings, they have not replied to my email and the phone call I made to ask if they accept mixed sex party bookings was politely rebuffed with "Could you phone back later, and a reference to a website of other hotels".

Also it is quite clear that non gays are unwelcome with their claim of exclusivity.

RDM said:
So for every Black Only hotel we have, we can have a balancing White Only hotel? Could get tricky though when you have discriminatory group with more than two sides, so religion could be tricky. Does one Jew Only, one Muslim Only and one Hindu Only hotel mean 3 Christian Only hotels?

Who said anything about discriminating for colour, why would you need to do so?

Do black people need to express themselves any differently any White people?

Can you make a case for the exception?.

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:42

WrathOfAchilles said:
I'm not black and dont have a dog so wouldn't give a log entry.

Gay's should have asked if it was ok before hand.

Are you seriously advocating that gay people should ask for permission to use every service from now on?

stulid · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:43

I see nothing wrong with discriminating against gays, be wrong not too.

Nitefly · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:44

Good and sensible decision IMO.

RDM · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:44

Castiel said:
Because there is no case for discriminating against colour. Gay men for example like to live to a certain lifestyle, they can be any colour so it is irrelevant, however the ability to live to that lifestyle in peace is not. The same applies to heterosexuals.

Surely that is "some gay men like to live to a certain lifestyle"? It seems the "lifestyle" the gay couple in question were living was a quiet weekend break with their new dog near Penzance. Which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that needs discriminating against.

Castiel said:
I have yet to confirm that they will accept non gay bookings, they have not replied to my email and the phone call I made to ask if they accept mixed sex party bookings was politely rebuffed with "Could you phone back later, and a reference to a website of other hotels".

If they don't, take them to court, there is a precendent set after all.

Castiel said:
Who said anything about discriminating for colour, why would you need to do so?

Do black people need to express themselves any differently any White people?

Can you make a case for the exception?.

Well as you are allowing people to discriminate due to sexual orientation then why not race or religion? Gay people after all aren't all screaming queens. The exception for religion could be "I prefer not to cater to those of faiths I find disagreeable". For race the proprieter may well just be racist.

WrathOfAchilles · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:54

Removal old post

RDM · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:55

WrathOfAchilles said:
Not EVERY service. In the case of a private B&B sure why not.

Because the expectation should be that you aren't going to be discriminated against?

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 18:56

WrathOfAchilles said:
Not EVERY service. In the case of a private B&B sure why not.

Because it's discriminatory, against the law, inappropriate, creates a dangerous precedent and is frankly no ones business. You would apply this rule to hotels also? And perhaps airlines, afterall if the owner of a B&B can decide gays aren't welcome then so can the Hilton, or the person who has to sit next to them on an aeroplane.

WrathOfAchilles · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:01

Removal old post

Castiel · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:03

RDM said:
Surely that is "some gay men like to live to a certain lifestyle"? It seems the "lifestyle" the gay couple in question were living was a quiet weekend break with their new dog near Penzance. Which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that needs discriminating against.

(I edited for clarification some time ago

)

I agree, and I wasn't specifically citing this case. I would expect any B&B/Hotel to state the kind of clientèle they cater for, like the Guyz Hotel do, you then make your choice. I am not advocating that we have a whole town of Hetero or Gay establishments either, it should be done on a case by case basis on need within any given community.

The hotel in question discriminated against them not being married and they clearly are as 'married' as they can be given current laws. Laws that are discriminatory in themselves I might add.

RDM said:
If they don't, take them to court, there is a precendent set after all.

, I bet the furore against me will be enormous from a certain section of society at least.

RDM said:
Well as you are allowing people to discriminate due to sexual orientation then why not race or religion? Gay people after all aren't all screaming queens. The exception for religion could be "I prefer not to cater to those of faiths I find disagreeable". For race the proprieter may well just be racist.

I understand the quandary, and the line we draw is contentious. However, we have single sex private members clubs which offer accommodation, we have Women only hotels so catering for another orientation is not as contentious as apartheid or racism.

I think we need to ask is there a need for establishments to discriminate at all, and if there is, where is the line and why?

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:10

WrathOfAchilles said:
The reason for not allowing them to share a room was part of the owners religious beleifs. It was their business. Hotels.... if the owner wanted that policy then fine but na i wouldnt say this would apply to a large hotel chain. Airlines - no? Hardly the same thing is it. But wouldnt want them gaying out.

So, a corner shop can decide not to serve gays because of their sexuality? A small bus company can refuse to let them on also? You seem to be basing your views on the size of the business at hand which is most bizarre. We're going rapidly back to the days of segregation here.
How can you justify your position?
You last point is odd, as I personally (nor would anyone, I imagine) wouldn't want a heterosexual couple 'straighting' out beside me on an aeroplane.

RDM · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:17

Castiel said:
(I edited for clarification some time ago)

It took me a while to finish the post, bed time for a five year old.

Castiel said:
I agree, and I wasn't specifically citing this case. I would expect any B&B/Hotel to state the kind of clientèle they cater for, like the Guyz Hotel do, you then make your choice. I am not advocating that we have a whole town of Hetero or Gay establishments either, it should be done on a case by case basis on need within any given community.

The hotel in question discriminated against them not being married and they clearly are as 'married' as they can be given current laws. Laws that are discriminatory in themselves I might add.

The law is indeed discriminatory, seperate but equal is frankly wrong, but it is at least better than the previous situation. However the two are related in that it was religious pressure that meant the law was brought in as it was. Personally I think we should have seperated the religious aspect from marriage and made all marriages civil (as in fact they are) and let the churchs do as they will.

Castiel said:
, I bet the furore against me will be enormous from a certain section of society at least.

Tough luck to them, if you want protection by the law then you should live under it yourself.

Castiel said:
I understand the quandary, and the line we draw is contentious. However, we have single sex private members clubs which offer accommodation, we have Women only hotels so catering for another orientation is not as contentious as apartheid or racism.

Actually I would say that it is just as contentious. I would go so far as to say it is more contentious than religious discrimination. What you are doing is discriminating on a stereotype of a gay man, just as racial discrimination is done on stereotypes of races.

Castiel said:
I think we need to ask is there a need for establishments to discriminate at all, and if there is, where is the line and why?

I agree, which is why I was suprised to see you taking the opposite tack and arguing for discrimination rather than agianst it.

WrathOfAchilles · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:23

Ahleckz said:
So, a corner shop can decide not to serve gays because of their sexuality? A small bus company can refuse to let them on also? You seem to be basing your views on the size of the business at hand which is most bizarre. We're going rapidly back to the days of segregation here.
How can you justify your position?
You last point is odd, as I personally (nor would anyone, I imagine) wouldn't want a heterosexual couple 'straighting' out beside me on an aeroplane.

A private run B&B where owners live should be run as the owners see fit. Their religion specifies "Do Not Lie With a Man as One Lies With a Woman" so they wouldn't let them do so. I think this is fine. I see a hotel being run by a set of policies which is a different situation to a private b&b.

You dont lie on a bus. You dont lie on a plane. So not valid.

I wouldnt want a straight couple "straighting out" (like the term!) so as i said, id let gays on but havea policy of no PDA regardless of gayness.

Narj · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:24

RDM said:
I agree, which is why I was suprised to see you taking the opposite tack and arguing for discrimination rather than agianst it.

Slightly OT: Maybe I'm just a bit blinkered, but the example of private members' clubs that cater to one sex seems fine to me as long as women can have their own too. If a load of guys want an old boy's club, let them have one... Yes there are laws, but I just don't see the problem as long as all groups are afforded the same opportunity. :confused:

Westyfield2 · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:25

Have to say I'm firmly in the "Their business; their rules" camp.

If you like it up the bum and don't like the B&B's policy: That's nice. You can chose who you give your custom too.

Also, forgive my ignorance, but two things seem to jump out at this story...

Gay blokes thinking they're the same as a married couple aren't very common. B&B's with this policy aren't very common. The odds of an uncommon person going to an uncommon place by chance? I'd put money that they read the website and, knowing the policy, went there to troll.
The sensationalist headline is that the gay blokes were turned away. I thought the B&B's policy was that anyone was welcome to stay, but only a married couple could have a double room?

Sp00n said:
Seems a pretty unfair ruling if you ask me, it's their belief and as Delvis has stated, it's on their website.

The couple should have just gone somewhere else tbh.

'kinell, and you're from Brighton!

Ahleckz · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:29

WrathOfAchilles said:
A private run B&B where owners live should be run as the owners see fit. Their religion specifies "Do Not Lie With a Man as One Lies With a Woman" so they wouldn't let them do so. I think this is fine. I see a hotel being run by a set of policies which is a different situation to a private b&b.

You dont lie on a bus. You dont lie on a plane. So not valid.

I wouldnt want a straight couple "straighting out" (like the term!) so as i said, id let gays on but havea policy of no PDA regardless of gayness.

So you're basing this purely on a religious ideology? That's the same arguments that some muslims use to justify bringing in sharia law into this country and the punishments that go with it (there must be a muslim equiv. of Godwin's Law...). I just think that your view is far to simplistic and final. We shouldn't base what is right or wrong and what is permitted or not permitted (within a business) on religious views but rather on the law of the land.
My main concern with your justification is the precedent that it can set for other businesses and society as a whole and believe it could quite easily begin the process towards segregation.

I don't agree that a 'private' B&B (does this mean, there is a 'public' B&B?) should be ran any differently to that of a hotel/guesthouse/any other place providing lodgings with respect as to who it allows to stay.

I reckon Castiel and RDM have addressed both our points though, so not sure if there is any point arguing any further...

PMKeates · 18 Jan 2011 at 19:29

PianoBasher said:
Slightly OT: Maybe I'm just a bit blinkered, but the example of private members' clubs that cater to one sex seems fine to me as long as women can have their own too. If a load of guys want an old boy's club, let them have one... Yes there are laws, but I just don't see the problem as long as all groups are afforded the same opportunity.

The trouble comes when one particular group has significantly more power, influence or sheer numbers than another. Effectively, anything other than minority groups.

The reason it's a problem is because if you were to allow, for example, sexual discrimination clubs, you may find that the number of people in those clubs is great enough that they can be very effective at convincing other people to join and adopting similarly negative views. It is then not long before those negative views are so commonplace that very harmful discrimination occurs. As I described in my first post in this thread, it's human nature and all that jazz. Until such irrational tendencies are mostly extinguished it's almost unsafe to open the floodgates to total fairness and equality in such a fashion.