B&B Discrimination Case Ruling

Freefaller said:
I trust you won't be upset if I don't reply to you as I think we've cleared up the points in previous posts?
Click to expand...

Not upset at all, I wouldn't normally bother posting but you seem like a really decent guy compared to most of the other homophobes on here who have terrible opinions on pretty much everything.
 
I wouldn't say I'm a homophobe, well, at least I hope I don't come across as one, and I apologise if I do. Yes I admit I do find homosexuality makes me feel uncomfortable, but at the same time I don't feel people should be unduly battered no matter what their beliefs or sexual orientation. People are people and should be treated as a fellow human being (except if they nick my last rolo).

My opinion, is that I felt that this was genuinely a sensationalised article and a bit of an over reaction - ok, I do admit I did use a bit of a sweeping statement - and well, what are stereotypes for! ;) (I kid!) However, sometimes to make a point a little more poignant one has to use extreme measures to be noticed. I'm not saying my opinion is correct, not at all - and I would hope people would stand up and disagree with me (as people have).

I do have lesbian and homosexual friends, but I guess being as they are friends of mine my opinion is skewed, but also their behavioural traits are that of people I tend to be friendly with, furthermore they are not overtly and excessively explicit about their sexual orientation.

I'd be a bit of a dichotomy (which I don't believe I am) if I was vehemently against homosexuals as I abhor racism and general unfair treatment of people, that point notwithstanding I'm sure I have let slip many times, either through inappropriate jokes or comments or general lack of compassion/empathy at the time of posting. I don't feel that conflicted - but I guess homosexuality becoming mainstream and generalised is still something I'm getting used to - then again I find it shocking that the social morality towards sex in general is at such an all time low.

I guess I badly worded my comments, and apologise if I did cause offence. :)
 
I havent read the whole thread but my view on it is that its down to the owners discretion for who they want to accomodate in their establishment. At the end of the day the B&B has lost out on the potential business due to their ridiculous views. I mean if you knew the owners didn't want you there would you like to stay there? no, because the service and whole experience wouldnt be there.

It seems that each day that goes by for company owners they have less and less control and we are becoming to much like our allies across the water with regards to the sueing that occurs.
 
A spokesman for Hampshire Constabulary said police had 'spoken with the hotel's management about the issues'.
Click to expand...

Translation: A spokesperson for Hampshire Constabulary said 'we couldn't give a ####, really' :p
 
Mr Jack said:
There is no law protected heterosexual people from discrimination by such businesses. Privileged groups are not in need of protection.
Click to expand...

Groups that are denied equal protection under the law are not privileged.

Group advocacy is always discriminatory and almost always hypocritical. Homosexual group advocacy is no exception.
 
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%.
Click to expand...

Anyone who is 100% sure is making a statement of pure faith rather than a statement of the meaning of that verse. The oldest extant copies of that verse (two copies of the same verse, actually, both in Leviticus) are in ancient Hebrew and the meaning is unclear. For example, it's possible that the verse forbids men from having sex in a woman's bed. That might sound very silly, but it's very silly from our cultural perspective. That doesn't mean it was very silly from the cultural perspective of early bronze age Jews. It's also possible that the verse forbids men from having sex if one of them is adopting the gendered roles of early bronze age Jewish women. There are quite a few possible interpretations of that verse. Without a time machine we can't really know what the author meant.

Besides, hardly any Christians pay any attention to most of the other 612 rules in Mosaic law. So why should they pay such attention to that one? It's not an internally consistent point of view. How many Christians strictly seperate meat and dairy products? How many Christians strictly wear clothing only if it is all made of only one type of cloth? How many Christians stick to a strict kosher diet? All those things, and many more, are covered by the same rules that might (or might not) forbid men from having sex with each other. Many of them are described as being wrong in exactly the same way - to'ebah.

To top it off, the passages that might (or might not) forbid men from having sex with each other are all sex-specific. There's nothing at all in there that might (or might not) forbid women from having sex with each other.

I can do chapter and verse on all the bits that might (or might not) indicate that Christians should disapprove of homosexuality. None of them are definite and some of them are simply made up. Seriously. The most obvious example would be in 1 Corinthians. Chapter 6 verse 12 if I recall correctly off the top of my head. The verse where Paul is listing people who won't be allowed into heaven. Most translations include "homosexuals", but the original word was arsenokoitai (transliterated Greek) and it means...something, but nobody knows what it means. They stuck "homosexuals" in there just because they didn't like homosexuals, simple as that.

But, the law states (ish) if the couple were treated unfairly because of their sexual orientation then the law has been breached.
Click to expand...

True, but the law is not necessarily right or implemented fairly. If establishments exclusively for homosexual men are allowed to exist, then so should establishments exclusively for heterosexual people. What's sauce for the goose and all that - equality must be equal or it isn't equality.
 
PMKeates said:
I personally think marriage ceased to be a religious institution when we afforded special rights and benefits to those who are married. It became a societal institution, and we are, in effect, not a religious society (we 'technically' are, but we are technically a monarchy even though we aren't in effect).

It raises the question of whether religion should be allowed to have a monopoly on marriage. In my view it should not. I think that in law we should either have marriage for everyone or partnerships for everyone - there should be no distinction based upon religion (which the current system is derived from) because as Castiel says, having a two-tier parnership system is discriminatory in itself.
Click to expand...

Religion was only required in marriage in this country for about a hundred years. Something like 1700-1800, ish. I could look it up, but the precise dating isn't relevant to the main point - religion having a monopoly on marriage in this country was a temporary state of affairs. Marriage is not a religious institution now and wasn't for almost all of recorded history.
 
PMKeates said:
The trouble comes when one particular group has significantly more power, influence or sheer numbers than another. Effectively, anything other than minority groups.
Click to expand...

Numbers do not necessarily confer power. It's very common for a minority to hold power and influence wildly disproportionate to their numbers.

Besides, everyone is in numerous minority groups.

When people use the "minority groups" argument, what they always mean is "groups officially approved for special treatment", with everyone not in those groups being "people it is OK to discriminate against".

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.
Click to expand...

There are far more women-only clubs than men-only clubs in this country.

Are there any men-only clubs nowadays?
 
I always thought that a Hotel or shop could refuse to serve anyone they liked without having to give a reason?

The mistake the B&B owners made is probably saying "we dont want to give you pair of homogays a room because man love is evil".

When they should have just said, "we dont want to serve you today, because we dont feel like it, now please leave".
 
Ahleckz said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what?

I mean come on, lets just be frank about this, so what if I am a B&B owner and I dont want to serve anybody else other than white straight married people called James and Linda?
Its not difficult to live with, its not hurting anyone, if you are not white, you are not marrired, and you dont have first names of james and linda, I am not offering to let you rent my room.

Now, if you fall outside of those categories, how exactly am I hurting you?
You simply have to look elsewhere, If EVERY SINGLE B&B in the country offered these same terms, how is it hurting anyone or impacting on their quality of life?
My wife and I dont have those first names, so we wouldnt be able to stay at B&B's big deal, we simply strike them off our things to do list.

If things that actually mattered, like Doctors, the emergency services, supermarkets, national chain shops and public transport were doing it , thats different.

But if its MY shop, or my B&B I'll put what ever serving restrictions I like on it.
 
Last edited:
Erm, just about everysingle gay hotel / bar / whatever kind of place still allow you to book or enter if you are straight. Just because the place describes itself as openly gay for gay people to go to, doesnt mean that they refuse services to straight people.

Go ahead and book a room at any gay hotel if you think otherwise. Chances are that you wouldnt have the guts do to so anyway.
 
PaulStat said:
I'm curious whether or not in the eyes of the law it would also be discriminatory for them to turn away straight unmarried couples.

Surely it's the same thing?
Click to expand...

Not the same thing, under British law, a Civil Partnership entitles a gay couple to identical rights that any straight married couple have. That includes being considered a married couple in this case.

Homophobic beliefs based on any religion dont have a place in the UK anymeore, as they shouldnt have in any modern society.
 
Last edited:
thread update:



Gay hotels investigated for breaching equality laws
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...investigated-for-breaching-equality-laws.html

"Hoteliers who run same-sex guesthouses fear they could be put out of business if they are forced to open their doors to heterosexual couples as it will make their core market feel more self-conscious."

I'm sure Christians (some of whom are uncomfortable with gay marriage), would also feel uncomfortable sharing their hotel with gay couples kissing over breakfast?

I get the feeling that anti-discriminatory rules are just there to make us all think the same and penalise us if we don't. Clearly we are all going to feel uncomfortable around unfamiliar groups of people, so why not cater for that fact?
I'm sure Christians have a right to their "culture", just as much as gays have a right to theirs.

I'd hate to see gays lose their own B&B's, but I'd also hate to see Christians lose out on the right to say who sleeps under their roof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom