Homophobic BnB hypocrisy

[PMKeates]

Equality should be about equal provision....there are Gay Exclusive hotels (at least practically as they cater for a distinct and defined demographic), despite the legislation, so why not Hetero Exclusive ones? As long as everyone is catered for then there should be no problem..should there?

How do you ensure equal provision in a private market - state-supported minority hotels in every area? It will always be skewed in favour of the majority due to the simple fact they are the majority, and many minorities are not of a size large enough where it's possible to sustain provision of various exclusive services in every location. I'm not sure equal provision as a principle is the be-all-end-all.

 

[Castiel]

It's not frowned upon when its punching upwards against multiple bigger attackers. There are gay based hotels, but would they exclude hetero couples? (Not in my experience, I have stayed in them with partners as a heterosexual couple in Brighton a few times)

I think we went through this in another thread when this all kicked off...and if you recall We could not book a room for a heterosexual party at such a hotel as they said they were booked up, yet when we tried to book for a homosexual party just a few days later, the same dates were miraculously free....make of that what you will.

While not all would do this (neither do most hotels bar homosexuals) it is quite clear that some do.....people who live in glass houses and all that. Prejudice goes both ways.

Besides this is an old argument, which for the most part is redundant as homophobia in service providers is these days at least rather isolated....

 

[Castiel]

How do you ensure equal provision in a private market - state-supported minority hotels in every area? It will always be skewed in favour of the majority due to the simple fact they are the majority, and many minorities are not of a size large enough where it's possible to sustain provision of various exclusive services in every location. I'm not sure equal provision as a principle is the be-all-end-all.

The councils issue licences, planning authority, business allocations etc for pretty much every sector now, this would be no different. The city I live in is going through a contentious hotel planning decision right now in fact.

 

[PMKeates]

The councils issue licences, planning authority, business allocations etc for pretty much every sector now, this would be no different. The city I live in is going through a contentious hotel planning decision right now in fact.

How does that ensure that there is 'equal provision' if there aren't any people of a particular minority to run a minority-specific hotel, and all other hotels in the area ban said minority? I don't think we should leave your proposed equality of provision to chance.

 

[Castiel]

How does that ensure that there is 'equal provision' if there aren't any people of a particular minority to run a minority-specific hotel, and all other hotels in the area ban said minority? I don't think we should leave your proposed equality of provision to chance.

Equal provision..if there are no one to provide for, then you need not have the provision.

Besides...equal provision would not allow ALL other hotels to ban said minority...then it wouldn't be equal provision..would it?

I didn't say it was easy either...only ideal.

 

[PMKeates]

Equal provision..if there are no one to provide for, then you need not have the provision.

There can be a minority group to provide for without any group wanting to make the provision. At that point discrimination based on grounds that I think most people feel are not valid is having a genuine impact.

Besides...equal provision would not allow ALL other hotels to ban said minority...then it wouldn't be equal provision..would it?

I'm not sure, you didn't elaborate! It seems a little unworkable when taken to the extremes, and considering the large number of small/remote towns and villages, that's entirely possible.

I didn't say it was easy either...only ideal.

I think ideally people wouldn't feel the need to discriminate.

The 'gay only' hotels are only really a response. I don't think they would last very long in an accepting society. I don't like the idea of them at all. A hotel full of queening gays (check the Gallery for the one linked - it's an accurate description) would drive me bonkers.

 

[D.P.]

Equal provision..if there are no one to provide for, then you need not have the provision.

Besides...equal provision would not allow ALL other hotels to ban said minority...then it wouldn't be equal provision..would it?

I didn't say it was easy either...only ideal.

ideally people wouldn't be omniphobic.

Ideally no one would rape, murder or burgle therefore ideally there would be no police , no courts and no prisons.

In reality some people don't behave following the moral conduct prescribed by society.

 

[Castiel]

To be fair, I don't really care that much to repeat a discussion we have had before on this same subject. I simply think that sometimes people are a little too sensitive about how others act or think...if the little old couple in their B&B just want married separate sex couples and there is another B&B down the road, just go to that one...why intentionally target the one you know will not want you there, if it was every B&B then perhaps....I don't know, it all seems rather churlish to me sometimes.

You are right, ideally we would have no need of such a discussion in the first place.

 

[sports_brah]

You were the one in the other thread slamming the idea of monogamy and how stupid it was.

So essentially this is just another herpderp thread showing how intolerant he is of things HE doesn't like.

*yawn*

 

[holymonk]

Is it so bad that people have religious beliefs about things like this?

I mean comon, surely you can decide who you welcome into your own home?

 

[RDM]

Is it so bad that people have religious beliefs about things like this?

It can be argued either way. Should discriminatory behaviour be acceptable if there is a religious reasoning for it? Personally, I would say no, but you may have different views.

I mean comon, surely you can decide who you welcome into your own home?

You can indeed choose who to welcome into your own home. Unless of course you are running a business out of that home, when you have to comply with the legislation around running a business.

 

[McBain]

They should be free to turn away who they want.

Especially when they're gay.

p)

 

[D.P.]

To be fair, I don't really care that much to repeat a discussion we have had before on this same subject. I simply think that sometimes people are a little too sensitive about how others act or think...if the little old couple in their B&B just want married separate sex couples and there is another B&B down the road, just go to that one...why intentionally target the one you know will not want you there, if it was every B&B then perhaps....I don't know, it all seems rather churlish to me sometimes.

You are right, ideally we would have no need of such a discussion in the first place.

Who says anything about intentionally targeting homophobic establishments?

All gay couples I know just want to go about their lives like any other hetro couple without suffering discrimination, just like most black people want to have the freedom to ride the bus just like any white person.

Or are you OK with meaningless discrimination? What do want next, black people not allowed in supermarkets, women can't vote?

 

[Angilion]

Who says anything about intentionally targeting homophobic establishments?

Who says these particular people have an extreme fear of homosexuals? You're using an extremist buzzword for political reasons.

Some people do talk about intentionally targeting establishments that are doing something they disagree with, either to generate publicity for campaigning, to force the establishment of a legal precedent or to assert dominance, or some combination of those things.

All gay couples I know just want to go about their lives like any other hetro couple without suffering discrimination, just like most black people want to have the freedom to ride the bus just like any white person.

Or are you OK with meaningless discrimination? What do want next, black people not allowed in supermarkets, women can't vote?

B and B's and hotels for homosexual people only, gyms for women only, men can't be elected to parliament in some constituencies? Although those aren't "next" - they already happen.

There's plenty of discrimination which is routine and which passes without comment because it's normal and a fair bit more which is praised because it's seen as a good thing. Meaningless discrimination is always allowed. What changes is which groups it's allowed against and sometimes the extent to which it is allowed. Discrimination about discrimination is also normal and unending - the idea that discrimination against one group is wrong and discrimination (even identical discrimination) against another group isn't wrong or is wrong to a very different extent.

So, for example, you liken considering allowing a few odd people to allow only married heterosexual couples in their home/B&B to stopping all women voting in any elections (a slippery slope argument that the Daily Mail would be proud of), but you don't react in the same way to B&Bs or even hotels that exist specifically for homosexual customers only, or the various other forms of discrimination which are socially acceptable.

I'm in two minds about whether or not this particular form of irrational discrimination should be illegal, but I'm quite sure that allowing irrational discrimination against some groups while forbidding the same irrational discrimination against other groups should be illegal.

 

[Angilion]

How do you ensure equal provision in a private market - state-supported minority hotels in every area? It will always be skewed in favour of the majority due to the simple fact they are the majority, and many minorities are not of a size large enough where it's possible to sustain provision of various exclusive services in every location. I'm not sure equal provision as a principle is the be-all-end-all.

You could licence it on a pro rata basis, although you'd have to pick a figure for the ratio and that's far from clear because reality isn't as simple as a discrete binary split. But I'll pick a ballpark figure to illustrate - 7.5% of the population can count as homosexual. You assign discrimination licences on that basis, e.g. if there are 20 nightly rental (i.e. B&B, hotel, etc) rooms in town for homosexual people only, then licences are allowed for 266 heterosexual only rooms. If no licenses are issued for discrimination one way, none are allowed for the same discrimination the other way.

Complex and somewhat arbritrary, but it's a fairer way of being unfair than simply allowing discrimination only against whatever groups it's socially and legally acceptable to discriminate against in any particular time and place.

 

[D.P.]

Who says these particular people have an extreme fear of homosexuals? You're using an extremist buzzword for political reasons.

Some people do talk about intentionally targeting establishments that are doing something they disagree with, either to generate publicity for campaigning, to force the establishment of a legal precedent or to assert dominance, or some combination of those things.



B and B's and hotels for homosexual people only, gyms for women only, men can't be elected to parliament in some constituencies? Although those aren't "next" - they already happen.

There's plenty of discrimination which is routine and which passes without comment because it's normal and a fair bit more which is praised because it's seen as a good thing. Meaningless discrimination is always allowed. What changes is which groups it's allowed against and sometimes the extent to which it is allowed. Discrimination about discrimination is also normal and unending - the idea that discrimination against one group is wrong and discrimination (even identical discrimination) against another group isn't wrong or is wrong to a very different extent.

So, for example, you liken considering allowing a few odd people to allow only married heterosexual couples in their home/B&B to stopping all women voting in any elections (a slippery slope argument that the Daily Mail would be proud of), but you don't react in the same way to B&Bs or even hotels that exist specifically for homosexual customers only, or the various other forms of discrimination which are socially acceptable.

I'm in two minds about whether or not this particular form of irrational discrimination should be illegal, but I'm quite sure that allowing irrational discrimination against some groups while forbidding the same irrational discrimination against other groups should be illegal.

Where on earth did I say that gay hotels were not discrimination or were a good thing?

Again, all gay couples I know would never consider any kind of gay hotel because they simply want to be treated equally. As for a hotel exclusively only allowed gay couples then it would also be illegal.

 

[Frightful Boar]

What makes me laugh about all this is how outraged people are about hypocrisy. Oh no, someone's a hypocrite, help!!!

Or even a homophobe. Big deal. It's only a trend. 30 years ago it was fine to dislike gays.

The bigger evil to me is legislating who you can and can't dislike, having one's feelings hurt shouldn't enter into the statute books. Same sex marriage fair enough, liking gays and being nice to them, optional.

 

[RDM]

The bigger evil to me is legislating who you can and can't dislike, having one's feelings hurt shouldn't enter into the statute books. Same sex marriage fair enough, liking gays and being nice to them, optional.

No one is legislating who you can and cannot dislike. You can dislike gays as much as you want to. However if you run a business you cannot discriminate against them.

 

[Frightful Boar]

No one is legislating who you can and cannot dislike. You can dislike gays as much as you want to. However if you run a business you cannot discriminate against them.

Yeah, that amounts to the same thing if you ask me. I own a B&B, I don't like gays, I don't want them in my B&B. Seems like a personal choice based on who you like or not, especially in light of the fact that this fella doesn't care about his religion's rules.

What has running a business got to do with it? Business owners have to like gays? Nonsense.

And there is legislation about how I treat people. I can't just walk past some minorities and shout some descriptors of them at the top of my voice, I might be arrested for "hate" crimes. Let's be clear that I don't have the urge to do this, but I should be allowed to as a free man should I so desire.

 

[placeholder]

Yeah, that amounts to the same thing if you ask me. I own a B&B, I don't like gays, I don't want them in my B&B. Seems like a personal choice based on who you like or not, especially in light of the fact that this fella doesn't care about his religion's rules.

What has running a business got to do with it? Business owners have to like gays? Nonsense.

And there is legislation about how I treat people. I can't just walk past some minorities and shout some descriptors of them at the top of my voice, I might be arrested for "hate" crimes. Let's be clear that I don't have the urge to do this, but I should be allowed to as a free man should I so desire.

Business owners dont have to "like" gays they just have to treat them equally. The whole B&B element muddies the waters but if you extrapolate it out into other businesses you see the point far more clearly. If, in the eyes of the law its ok to turn away gays from a B&B on the basis of them being gay then logic dictates that its ok to turn any minority away from any business on the basis of them being a minority. Its then not THAT much of a leap to segregation in almost any walk of life and that cant be a good thing. Would you want a cafe banning black people or white-only shops? That cannot be condoned by law.