B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

[Castiel]

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.

I was attempting to advocate choice of some establishments to cater for a specific clientèle rather than whole-scale discrimination against any specific group or stereotype. Much in the same way that Female only health farms work, if you see what I mean.

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

Like I said, choice rather than discrimination and applied equally within strict criteria.

 

[Energize]

B&B owners got what they deserved for wasting the couples time, they were married so clearly the whole excuse they gave was bs.

 

[Freefaller]

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

I'm not really prejudiced, I just can't stand gays that have to make a song and dance about being gay and/or being descriminated against. There are more important things to go to court about IMO.

 

[Narj]

I'm not really prejudiced, I just can't stand gays that have to make a song and dance about being gay and/or being descriminated against. There are more important things to go to court about IMO.

You mean like the really outrageous ones at the Pride marches? Hum... Is such a march still necessary, surely the large majority have already "dealt with it", and a march isn't going to persuade those that are deeply entrenched in their ways to reconsider their stance.

Sorry, going OT again, but I must say I'm quite chuffed at how civil this thread has stayed considering that it's in GD.

 

[Castiel]

You mean like the really outrageous ones at the Pride marches? Hum... Is such a march still necessary, surely the large majority have already "dealt with it", and a march isn't going to persuade those that are deeply entrenched in their ways to reconsider their stance.

Sorry, going OT again, but I must say I'm quite chuffed at how civil this thread has stayed considering that it's in GD.

That is down to the participants, many of whom are civil in any thread they participate in. We are lucky that many of the more vitriolic members seem to be absent for whatever reason.

 

[Danthus]

Did you get a reply to the email?

 

[rypt]

I'm not really prejudiced, I just can't stand gays that have to make a song and dance about being gay and/or being descriminated against. There are more important things to go to court about IMO.

That's pretty much my view

 

[Castiel]

Did you get a reply to the email?

No, but I did call and ask to book a mixed orientation and gender party, I was politely asked to either call back at a later time or call other establishments in the area and given a website for reference.

My wife was a little bemused when she asked me who I was talking to...

 

[Gilly]

Sorry, going OT again, but I must say I'm quite chuffed at how civil this thread has stayed considering that it's in GD.

Play on words?

 

[Freefaller]

You mean like the really outrageous ones at the Pride marches? Hum... Is such a march still necessary, surely the large majority have already "dealt with it", and a march isn't going to persuade those that are deeply entrenched in their ways to reconsider their stance.

Sorry, going OT again, but I must say I'm quite chuffed at how civil this thread has stayed considering that it's in GD.

OT is not a problem it's just an evolution of the topic.

I've made my view before that homosexuality is something I cannot fathom and find a little "odd", but as long as people are happy and behave well then it really isn't an issue.

I do take exception when everything that is homosexual is made into such a big deal. Certainly in a case like this where it's not really descriminatory at all - this could have been dealt with without the big fanfare which just bring the gays into the limelight again which is what they seem to like.

 

[pcoltrane]

OT is not a problem it's just an evolution of the topic.

I've made my view before that homosexuality is something I cannot fathom and find a little "odd", but as long as people are happy and behave well then it really isn't an issue.

I do take exception when everything that is homosexual is made into such a big deal. Certainly in a case like this where it's not really descriminatory at all - this could have been dealt with without the big fanfare which just bring the gays into the limelight again which is what they seem to like.

Perhaps they take exception to bodybuilder types making a big deal about how macho and straight they are
Or am I generalising a little too much

 

[PMKeates]

I'm not really prejudiced, I just can't stand gays that have to make a song and dance about being gay and/or being descriminated against. There are more important things to go to court about IMO.

That's pretty much my view

I do take exception when everything that is homosexual is made into such a big deal. Certainly in a case like this where it's not really descriminatory at all - this could have been dealt with without the big fanfare which just bring the gays into the limelight again which is what they seem to like.

To the first point, I can understand your point of view, but the song and dance is an expected behaviour, for a few reasons:

• There is an assumption and pressure in society that one is straight and many gay people have a reaction to this

• Most people who aren't straight go through a sexuality 'discovery' phase. It's a pretty weird experience and it does, or at least did in my case, come with a sense of liberty. People who have known me well since before that time attest to a change in my attitude to be generally more positive, happier, more laid back, more tolerant etc. I found it to be almost euphoric and there is an urge to share it that never really dies, hence the marches.

• It's just as annoying to hear about gays doing this, gays doing that, as it is to be discriminated against. Discrimination isn't a very pleasant experience, even if the 'victim' does their best to ignore it. You want to fight it and that often involves making a scene/court case/etc.

Admittedly this case of discrimination is under the guise of 'in someone's home' (that they allow people to stay in for a fee) and their 'religious beliefs' (which are half the reason substantial chunks of discrimination occur in the first place), but by not affording equal treatment to couples married by civil partnership as they do to those married by.. marriage, they are not treating straight and gay couples equally. There is not even a moral distinction, only a religiously devised one. The couple could have completely ignored it, but I think I'd be quite peeved if I'd potentially had a holiday ruined because of such a silly rule.

To say that gays like the limelight is to believe the stereotypes. Sure, some do, but then so do some straight people, some black people, some dogs etc. That's down to those particular individuals and not as a direct complete consequence of their sexuality or race. I'm sure it has an impact on their attitude and personality, but it isn't the sole defining factor. There are a lot of gay people who don't act at all like you describe, it's just that they are either completely hidden or they don't jump to the forefront of your mind exactly because of the way they are.

 

[Freefaller]

Perhaps they take exception to bodybuilder types making a big deal about how macho and straight they are
Or am I generalising a little too much

Yes you are generalising, but incorrectly with respect to me because I'm not a bodybuilder for a start... I train using weights. I don't make a point of how heterosexual I am - I don't brag about my conquests and if anything feel the standards of people in this forum is artificially high and very "keyboard warrior" like when it comes to stating whether a girl is attractive or not.

I'm not macho at all, as has been ascertained many times I'm actually quite a soft touch, and pretty passive and not aggressive at all.

Heck, even in the "how many x's do you send to female friends" I think I was one of the few that openly admitted I send loads. I like puppies and kittens - so not the epitome of machismo really. However I am very much not gay if that helps.

To the first point, I can understand your point of view, but the song and dance is an expected behaviour, for a few reasons:

• There is an assumption and pressure in society that one is straight and many gay people have a reaction to this

• Most people who aren't straight go through a sexuality 'discovery' phase. It's a pretty weird experience and it does, or at least did in my case, come with a sense of liberty. People who have known me well since before that time attest to a change in my attitude to be generally more positive, happier, more laid back, more tolerant etc. I found it to be almost euphoric and there is an urge to share it that never really dies, hence the marches.

• It's just as annoying to hear about gays doing this, gays doing that, as it is to be discriminated against. Discrimination isn't a very pleasant experience, even if the 'victim' does their best to ignore it. You want to fight it and that often involves making a scene/court case/etc.

Admittedly this case of discrimination is under the guise of 'in someone's home' (that they allow people to stay in for a fee) and their 'religious beliefs' (which are half the reason substantial chunks of discrimination occur in the first place), but by not affording equal treatment to couples married by civil partnership as they do to those married by.. marriage, they are not treating straight and gay couples equally. There is not even a moral distinction, only a religiously devised one. The couple could have completely ignored it, but I think I'd be quite peeved if I'd potentially had a holiday ruined because of such a silly rule.

To say that gays like the limelight is to believe the stereotypes. Sure, some do, but then so do some straight people, some black people, some dogs etc. That's down to those particular individuals and not as a direct complete consequence of their sexuality or race. I'm sure it has an impact on their attitude and personality, but it isn't the sole defining factor. There are a lot of gay people who don't act at all like you describe, it's just that they are either completely hidden or they don't jump to the forefront of your mind exactly because of the way they are.

Thanks for your post mate - coming from you certainly it says a lot. I do appreciate my comments were a little sweeping and of course (as you may know) I'm not really like that. And perhaps it's an issue with my mindset or something I just seem to pick up more on that I feel it's fairly wide spread and regular this attention seeking. Clearly I have not experienced and will never experience this discovery stage, but thanks for being so honest and describing it - sounds as though it is quite a big deal. There is still a stigma attached with being homosexual, whether rightly or wrongly that's not for me to say - but I can understand why it is still there.

As you say it is unfair, and uncalled for, for people to be discriminated against for whatever reason, be it religion, skin cancer, sexual orientation etc... and really things shouldn't be kept "in the closet".

However, 2 things strike me in this case. The focus on Christianity - what has religion got to do with this case? IT's not fair to tar other Christians with the same brush, it was their own personal beliefs about bed sharing not their religious beliefs, and why concentrate so much on the fact that they were gay? They should have just stated unmarried couple disallowed to share room - and why not just stay in a different hotel rather than make such a big song and dance about it? Heck even the judge had difficulty in denying the logic of the hotel owners.

I'm just saying that too many people are quick to call the "discrimination" card these days. I get a lot of teasing about my multinationalism, my culture, and my slightly fortunate upbringing of having done a lot and seen a lot and having an opinion of maybe a slightly snobby nature. However, I don't make a song and dance about it, I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

I just feel this was blown out of proportion.


However, thanks for your post it's rather enlightening.

 

[Jono8]

OT is not a problem it's just an evolution of the topic.

I've made my view before that homosexuality is something I cannot fathom and find a little "odd", but as long as people are happy and behave well then it really isn't an issue.

I do take exception when everything that is homosexual is made into such a big deal. Certainly in a case like this where it's not really descriminatory at all - this could have been dealt with without the big fanfare which just bring the gays into the limelight again which is what they seem to like.

aaannnd JAZZ HANDS!

 

[pcoltrane]

Yes you are generalising, but incorrectly with respect to me because I'm not a bodybuilder for a start... I train using weights. I don't make a point of how heterosexual I am - I don't brag about my conquests and if anything feel the standards of people in this forum is artificially high and very "keyboard warrior" like when it comes to stating whether a girl is attractive or not.

I'm not macho at all, as has been ascertained many times I'm actually quite a soft touch, and pretty passive and not aggressive at all.

Heck, even in the "how many x's do you send to female friends" I think I was one of the few that openly admitted I send loads. I like puppies and kittens - so not the epitome of machismo really. However I am very much not gay if that helps.

The only point I was trying to make is that it's just as daft to generalise that all bodybuilders are overly macho straight guys as it is that all "the gays" like to be in the limelight.

I only chose it as an example because I assumed from your sig that you may know a lot of bodybuilders. I wasn't implying that you were one of the sterotypes yourself.

PMKeates summed everything up for more eloquantly that I did anyhow!

 

[PMKeates]

However, 2 things strike me in this case. The focus on Christianity - what has religion got to do with this case? IT's not fair to tar other Christians with the same brush, it was their own personal beliefs about bed sharing not their religious beliefs, and why concentrate so much on the fact that they were gay? They should have just stated unmarried couple disallowed to share room - and why not just stay in a different hotel rather than make such a big song and dance about it? Heck even the judge had difficulty in denying the logic of the hotel owners.

I'm just saying that too many people are quick to call the "discrimination" card these days. I get a lot of teasing about my multinationalism, my culture, and my slightly fortunate upbringing of having done a lot and seen a lot and having an opinion of maybe a slightly snobby nature. However, I don't make a song and dance about it, I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

Religion's only real involvement in this case is in the original prescription of the rules that unmarried couples cannot sleep together (I think? I'm no Bible expect), but the B&B couple have been quoted as saying why they established the rule in their B&B:

"We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow it as far as are able."

Depending on your beliefs that either is or isn't a 'Christian' thing. I am not religious, and as such I do not see it as a Christian belief, as much as a reflection of the mind-sets of most people at the time. The problem I have with Christianity is that it enforces (or at least has enforced) and encourages those mind-sets in modern day. I think whether you say couples should sleep together before or after marriage is aside from this case - the rule that the B&B owners were imposing means that gay couples can never sleep together (Well, except those that are married, of which there are many all around the world. I wonder what would have happened if it were a married gay couple from California who wanted a double room?). Essentially, it's the couple’s personal choice to believe in the words of the Christian Bible that is in effect creating the discrimination.

However, I certainly agree it isn't fair to tar all Christians with the same brush, and I don't think it's all that much of a brush even if we were to. I have gay couple friends who consider themselves good Christians and I'm pretty sure they've slept together! This couple have only been found to be discriminating on a legal technicality in conflict with just one of the many teachings in the Bible that they probably follow. I also suspect that the B&B owners are really, genuinely nice people who did not intend harm, even if they have potentially caused it.

I think the reason for the headline mentioning 'gay' is that discrimination based on the decision to get married/partnered is deeply entrenched in law, especially so with regards to finances. I think similarly the headline "Unmarried couple not allowed married couple's tax allowance" is a lot less extraordinary than "Gay couple in civil partnership not allowed married couple's tax allowance". The former is (whether right or wrong) 'accepted' prejudice, whereas the latter isn't. In the case of the hotel bed it's slightly trickier, and they would have probably been able to discriminate based solely on marriage OR partnership, but evidently not just on marriage.

I definitely agree that people are too quick to play the discrimination card. I get teased (about my sexuality), and in return I tease those people about their notable deviations from the norm, or play to the stereotype a bit for fun. But that is banter. That’s fine and I think anyone who cries discrimination after a funny joke or similar is a bit of a lamer. The problem is when it isn’t banter and where things are said with deeply hateful and malicious intent. At that point it almost doesn’t matter what the subject is, it just isn’t right to abuse people like that. When it happens it’s sometimes the case that the person on the receiving end has some legal protection to get back at the aggressor with.

In this case, as I said, I am certain that the couple didn’t mean any harm, but they have caused some. If a friend was to make a gay joke at my expense and it genuinely upset me (unlikely, but could happen), I’m sure they’d apologise and withdraw the comment. Conversely, while the B&B owners have apologised for the offence, they are unwilling to change their view - by doing that they have openly stated “A straight couple are welcome to sleep together in our hotel, but a gay couple are not”. The gay couple were as close as possible to being married under English law, and the law says they should be afforded the same rights as straight married couples. It’s the discrimination based on marriage vs. civil partnership that is at the crux of this entire case. As marriages are exclusively for straight people and civil partnerships are exclusively for gay people, it drags sexuality in to the debate with it.

Anyway, I'll stop now, as I feel like I've really rambled on there as I don't really know how to conclude my post

 

[guyfawkes5]

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

They are free to have their views certainly, but not impose them on their business.

This doesn't mean they can't apply any of their personal assertions in their business, just that this has to pass through the prism of modern laws on just and unjust discrimination.

 

[Freefaller]

Religion's only real involvement in this case is in the original prescription of the rules that unmarried couples cannot sleep together (I think? I'm no Bible expect), but the B&B couple have been quoted as saying why they established the rule in their B&B:

"We accept that the Bible is the holy living word of God and we endeavour to follow it as far as are able."

Depending on your beliefs that either is or isn't a 'Christian' thing. I am not religious, and as such I do not see it as a Christian belief, as much as a reflection of the mind-sets of most people at the time. The problem I have with Christianity is that it enforces (or at least has enforced) and encourages those mind-sets in modern day. I think whether you say couples should sleep together before or after marriage is aside from this case - the rule that the B&B owners were imposing means that gay couples can never sleep together (Well, except those that are married, of which there are many all around the world. I wonder what would have happened if it were a married gay couple from California who wanted a double room?). Essentially, it's the couple’s personal choice to believe in the words of the Christian Bible that is in effect creating the discrimination.

However, I certainly agree it isn't fair to tar all Christians with the same brush, and I don't think it's all that much of a brush even if we were to. I have gay couple friends who consider themselves good Christians and I'm pretty sure they've slept together! This couple have only been found to be discriminating on a legal technicality in conflict with just one of the many teachings in the Bible that they probably follow. I also suspect that the B&B owners are really, genuinely nice people who did not intend harm, even if they have potentially caused it.

I think the reason for the headline mentioning 'gay' is that discrimination based on the decision to get married/partnered is deeply entrenched in law, especially so with regards to finances. I think similarly the headline "Unmarried couple not allowed married couple's tax allowance" is a lot less extraordinary than "Gay couple in civil partnership not allowed married couple's tax allowance". The former is (whether right or wrong) 'accepted' prejudice, whereas the latter isn't. In the case of the hotel bed it's slightly trickier, and they would have probably been able to discriminate based solely on marriage OR partnership, but evidently not just on marriage.

I definitely agree that people are too quick to play the discrimination card. I get teased (about my sexuality), and in return I tease those people about their notable deviations from the norm, or play to the stereotype a bit for fun. But that is banter. That’s fine and I think anyone who cries discrimination after a funny joke or similar is a bit of a lamer. The problem is when it isn’t banter and where things are said with deeply hateful and malicious intent. At that point it almost doesn’t matter what the subject is, it just isn’t right to abuse people like that. When it happens it’s sometimes the case that the person on the receiving end has some legal protection to get back at the aggressor with.

In this case, as I said, I am certain that the couple didn’t mean any harm, but they have caused some. If a friend was to make a gay joke at my expense and it genuinely upset me (unlikely, but could happen), I’m sure they’d apologise and withdraw the comment. Conversely, while the B&B owners have apologised for the offence, they are unwilling to change their view - by doing that they have openly stated “A straight couple are welcome to sleep together in our hotel, but a gay couple are not”. The gay couple were as close as possible to being married under English law, and the law says they should be afforded the same rights as straight married couples. It’s the discrimination based on marriage vs. civil partnership that is at the crux of this entire case. As marriages are exclusively for straight people and civil partnerships are exclusively for gay people, it drags sexuality in to the debate with it.

Anyway, I'll stop now, as I feel like I've really rambled on there as I don't really know how to conclude my post

Can't fault what you've said

I think the press have a lot to answer for in terms of sensationalising too - which doesn't help both of these couples, Christians or homosexuals. To me it just seems like a mountain out of a molehill for a tiny indiscretion - like you have been on the others side of receiving very non PC jokes and actually potentially hugely offensive comments - I don't cry at every occasion and throw my toys out of the pram.

 

[Freefaller]

The only point I was trying to make is that it's just as daft to generalise that all bodybuilders are overly macho straight guys as it is that all "the gays" like to be in the limelight.

I only chose it as an example because I assumed from your sig that you may know a lot of bodybuilders. I wasn't implying that you were one of the sterotypes yourself.

PMKeates summed everything up for more eloquantly that I did anyhow!

Yes of course, but as you see I was pulled up on it and it was more a reaction at my utter incredulity of this whole event.

 

[hurfdurf]

I'm not really prejudiced, I just can't stand gays that have to make a song and dance about being gay and/or being descriminated against. There are more important things to go to court about IMO.

So if you got mugged or were spat at, you would be perfectly understanding of the opinion that "there are more important things to go to court about" such as murder and rape? Seems a bizarre opinion to get wound up about what with there being some very very trivial matters having to be sorted out in court due to the nature of how society works and that being the reason for some courts existing in the first place...

I do take exception when everything that is homosexual is made into such a big deal. Certainly in a case like this where it's not really descriminatory at all - this could have been dealt with without the big fanfare which just bring the gays into the limelight again which is what they seem to like.

Part of your problem is quite obviously seeing "gays" as one entity, they are not a hive mind and the actions of a few of them standing up for themselves does not a whole picture make. (unless I'm reading to much into that statement)

You probably lift with quite a few gay men but don't realise it through no fault of your own. I too cannot fathom the idea of a man wanting to kiss another man as a straight male, but that same conundrum exists when I think of what girls are thinking, doesn't mean that I find girls odd for finding men attractive.