Bed & Breakfast Gay Bed Ban

[grant]

I'm thick, in comparison to you, ok you nutter, crikey, I have no problem at all. You do gay people no favours at all. You're a bit like spook and his religious views. You should get together. You are odd.

[Bananaman]

I'm thick, in comparison to you, ok you nutter, crikey, I have no problem at all. You do gay people no favours at all. You're a bit like spook and his religious views. You should get together. You are odd.

 

 

Go for a walk in the countryside looking for Kingfishers and Otters, then stumble upon this place with your then 4 year old

 

51.766747,0.590796

 

Google maps.

 

Eeeuuwww!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm thick, in comparison to you, ok you nutter, crikey, I have no problem at all.

Either thick or entirely clueless about the debate and the meaning of my posts. I am erring to the former because of this...

You do gay people no favours at all.

What? I am the representative of the gay community? I thought I was just giving my opinions on the topic as a gay person. Are you gracing these forums as part of some heterosexual organisation? Gay people are really going to get the wrong impression of straight people if you have appointed as some straight representative on here.

You're a bit like spook and his religious views. You should get together. You are odd.

Odd, probably. But not thick.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It strikes me as you being quite selfish Lala mate. Why can't you see other POVs ever?

Selfish? That doesn't make sense. In any case, I understand the views being put forth, I just don't disagree with them all. Other than Chinahand, Barrie Steven's and a few others.

 

Edited to add, there have been some quite 'truthful' if that's the correct word to use about how sexuality of every genre is now stuffed down our throats.

 

I certainly hope my son will not become a bigot in any way but I would like him to grow up and reach a certain age before I should need to explain how things work in the real world. Why can't we have a homosexual, dogging, gangbanging, just arghhhh!, free zone?

Sexuality has always been 'shoved down people's throats. (Though really it is quite a natural thing, given we are sexual creatures). And it has always been heterosexuality that has been shoved down people throats in almost exclusion of all others.

The problem, however, is so many straight people like yourself have this hypocrisy when it comes to understanding sexuality, it is evidenced in the list you provided for a free zone. You think talk of homosexuality is talk of something sexual, i.e. sex and therefore is shoving stuff in people's faces, even if that's about gay rights or politics. It's all about sex.

But talking about heterosexuality isn't the same at all supposedly. Why the double standard?

 

You start banging on about 'rights' it smacks of being selfish through and through. Block book Legoland and its ilk and have a jolly day. Just make sure it's only for the like minded.

I am talking about legal rights on equality. Nothing selfish about those.

 

And yes I know I sound like a bigoted twat saying that but you explain cottaging to a five year old. Ugghhh!

Why would you? And why not try explaining dogging or bondage with your wife to a five year old. That would be creepy.

[Bananaman]

The problem, however, is so many straight people like yourself have this hypocrisy when it comes to understanding sexuality, it is evidenced in the list you provided for a free zone. You think talk of homosexuality is talk of something sexual, i.e. sex and therefore is shoving stuff in people's faces, even if that's about gay rights or politics. It's all about sex.

 

Lala - the whole point of this thread was two irritating homosexual men took it upon them selves to throw their fucking irritating legal rights at a tiny B & B. If that's not stuffing it in my face I don't know what is.

 

Jebus!

[censorship]

Why do you feel the need to defend gays who have to flaunt the fact they're gay? I don't feel the need to defend people who flaunt the fact they're not gay. I'm not gay, but would never feel the need to let anyone else know that.

What do you mean by flaunting? Do you mean not hiding the fact they are gay by holding hands or kissing in public? Why is it if gay people do that they are flaunting their sexuality, but if straight people do no one cares?

Describing a gay person who chooses not to hide their sexuality as if it is a dirty secret as 'flaunting' just shows your prejudice.

would you describe a straight couple getting married as 'flaunting'? They dress up, drive around in big cars, have massive parties attended by hundreds of people and then insist on making me share it all by putting a picture in the paper.

Have you never held hands with a girlfriend in public or kissed in public? If you have, then that's flaunting your straightness.

[Chinahand]

I have to say I was disappointed by Max Power's post, and Grant's support of it. Usually both posters provide a different and nuanced insight into things, but in this case I felt they were being over simplistic and relying too much on cliches such as flaunting etc.

 

I'm fascinated why people are convinced it was a deliberate sting on the hotel by gay activists.

 

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. A letter had been sent months previously by Stonewall and one of the staff from the Hotel tried to link this with the couples arrival, but he admitted he had no reason to do this. The judge dismissed his conjecture out of hand, his own defence barrister ignored it (and lets not pretend it would have massively helped the case if this was the case) and the evidence the couple presented about how they booked the hotel, who they spoke to while booking it etc are consistent with a simple story of people wanting a weekend away and picking the nearest hotel to where they wanted to go to. It is also consistent with what the hotel owners say - they acknowledge talking to them on the phone and not telling them prior to the booking that only married couples would be given a double room.

 

The second issue is this idea of flaunting it. The couple just wanted a double room for the night. How is that flaunting?

 

Max Power at the end of his contribution makes a plea to live and let live. I support that very much, but find it totally at odds with his earlier statment that gays shouldn't flaunt it, when all they were doing was trying to get a room for the night.

 

Surely being given equal access to public accomodation is a really basic part of normal life. Something any straight couple would never ever have to wonder about getting. Up unitl recently gays knew this was something they could almost never assume would be generally available to them. Discrimination banned them from huge swathes of the country - something which is economically damaging - the pink pound is worth hundreds of millions and away from Cosmopolitan areas resturants, shops etc were unable to benefit from Pink spending because overnight accomodation was made unavailable due to prejudice.

 

People should behave in public with due decorum - and there is no evidence whatsoever that this gay couple did anything other than that - they quite definitely weren't flaunting anything. But they were discriminated against when trying to do something any straight couple would never consider unusual - booking a double room at a hotel.

 

I definitely agree with live and let live. And that isn't what happened in this case.

 

The Hotel owners knew they couldn't stop people sharing beds - they'd agree to give anyone a twin room - and I bet everyone has had a cramped and close night with their beloved in a single bed when that was all that was available.

 

By turing a blind eye to this massive loop hole in their strict-Christian morality the hotel owners publically attempted to claim some high moral ground, but that high moral ground is entirely based on sand.

 

If you run a business offering rooms to the public then you should live and let live and let people of whatever sexuality have a room. Religious marriage is not recognized by the state - only civil marriage, and civil unions. The are equivilent. For a religious person to claim some special right to discriminate because they believe their God doesn't recognize the union of the couple is really going too far in my mind. The state does recognize the gay couple's union, and as with all the other rules of the state people should live and let live and get on with their lives rather than trying to stop people going about their normal business.

 

That is all the couple were doing - doing something any straight couple would never consider unusual or odd. Booking a hotel room for a night is not flaunting it, and should not be something to discriminate against.

[Terse]

I have to say I was disappointed by Max Power's post, and Grant's support of it. Usually both posters provide a different and nuanced insight into things, but in this case I felt they were being over simplistic and relying too much on cliches such as flaunting etc.

 

You may well feel that way, but I'm willing to bet that Max Power's post represents the majority opinion.

[censorship]

I'm willing to bet that Max Power's post represents the majority opinion.

Thta's okay then - as long as it the opinion of the majority, prejudice is fine....

[Max Power]

I'm a bit hurt that LDV, Chinahand and Censorship think that my post was predjudiced and bigoted!

I was trying to offer a balanced view of things, however they seem to have cherry picked the negative aspects of the gay argument while ignoring the positives and the B&B owners side.

 

When I used the word "flaunt" it was probably for want of a better word, there is no escaping however, that the majority of people have been brought up to despise homosexuality as was I! I have through my life, formed different opinions over time and as I stated, I have NO problem with gay people at all in any way what so ever!

What I was trying to get across is that jumping up and down, waving a huge gay flag and crying foul at the slightest provocation, sets back the ultimate aim of universal acceptance of gay people. And I do not mean acceptance of gay rights, I mean acceptance of them as part of normal society which they really are!

Again I was trying to point out that people are brought up with beliefs, it is not easy to just discard them wholesale because a section of the community is making a fuss! People are threatened by that kind of thing and gay people have got to realise that. Any change will not happen overnight and big tantrums only serve to stiffen the opinions of those who may otherwise be accepting! Therefore all you can wish for is tolerance, and that is a long way from acceptance as far as I can see!

[ManxTaxPayer]

What do gays have for breakfast anyway? I bet it's the continental, and I bet they put fresh fruit on their cereal as well the bloody queers.

[Chinahand]

@Max Power - but this couple didn't jump up and down and flaunt their sexuality. They quietly booked a hotel for the weekend and when they arrived they were told they could not stay as they weren't allowed a double room and "there were no other rooms in the Inn"!

 

Are you saying the court case is them waving flags and making a fuss?

 

I just saw two middle age blokes saying that they thought it was wrong that they were discriminated against and they were glad the judge agreed with them. They didn't want mass publicity - I don't think they've given press interviews, or sold their stories - just a statement on the court steps and then they want to get on with their lives - live and let live.

 

Do you really think they had no right to take this to court? Do you really think that was crying foul at the slightest provokation? I don't know what to think - I haven't said you were bigoted or prejudiced, I said your normal nuance has been replaced by simplisities.

 

Imagine living in a world where you weren't able to even plan a weekend away with your partner, because of the likelihood that you'd be refused a room. I don't think you would think having your life so restricted would be a minor issue. [Quiet alot of my philosophy on this comes from learning about what the restrictions of petite apartheid was like in South Africa].

 

Do you really think it is trivial? - and that gays should ignore the laws passed to ensure they aren't discriminated against because people will view it as "waving a huge gay flag and crying foul at the slightest provocation"? I find that a real simplification of what happened - something anyone else would consider trivial, booking a hotel room for the night, is seen as legitimate grounds for discrimination, and the couple went to court to prove it was discrimination and the court agreed - is that really flaunting it and flag waving?

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not gay, and so don't have to live under such restrictions!

[Max Power]

@Max Power - but this couple didn't jump up and down and flaunt their sexuality. They quietly booked a hotel for the weekend and when they arrived they were told they could not stay as they weren't allowed a double room and "there were no other rooms in the Inn"!

 

Are you saying the court case is them waving flags and making a fuss?

 

I just say two middle age blokes saying that they thought it was wrong that they were discriminated against and they were glad the judge agreed with them. They didn't want mass publicity - I don't think they've given press interviews, or sold their stories - just a statement on the court steps and then they want to get on with their lives - live and let live.

 

Do you really think they had no right to take this to court? Do you really think that was crying foul at the slightest provokation? I don't know what to think - I haven't said you were bigoted or prejudiced, I said your normal nuance has been replaced by simplisities.

 

Imagine living in a world where you weren't able to even plan a weekend away with your partner, because of the likelihood that you'd be refused a room. I don't think you would think having your life so restricted would be a minor issue. [Quiet alot of my philosophy on this comes from learning about what the restrictions of petite apartheid was like in South Africa].

 

Do you really think it is trivial? - and that gays should ignore the laws passed to ensure they aren't discriminated against because people will view it as "waving a huge gay flag and crying foul at the slightest provocation"? I find that a real simplification of what happened - something anyone else would consider trivial, booking a hotel room for the night, is seen as legitimate grounds for discrimination, and the couple went to court to prove it was discrimination and the court agreed - is that really flaunting it and flag waving?

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not gay, and so don't have to live under such restrictions!

I am not saying that at all, I agree that they were wronged under the law and stated that, but I asked the question as to were they put up to this? That would be provoking a situation to raise awareness. Whatever their intention it has raised the question and the press have jumped on it. This has in my opinion, brought predjudices to the surface and firmed up entrenched beliefs even if that was not the intention.

Opinions are only changed slowly, particularly when your parents have indoctrinated you with theirs and school life reinforces them. That is all I am trying to say, the law can not change the way people think, homosexuality was legalised nearly fifty years ago but that doesn't stop some people from thinking it shouldn't have been! Luckily those people are a darn sight less than a few years ago!

Racial issues have advanced a long way from the days not long ago when we believed other races to be inferior and subhuman, it's a long road and there are no real ways of instant successes for current generations. That is not to say that the work that has been done over the years has been a waste of time but I believe the war has been won, it's a case of allowing people time to accept it!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Max Power - Ignorance is a good excuse! I would say that you outlook is bigoted on this issue for a number of reasons, which come from understanding your outlook. Your outlook on these issues is completely intelligible but it is completely heterosexist. You have a particular view of the sexualities that creates double standards for how you judge them both and judge those who are either one. This is not uncommon, but unless you recognise it you will continue to be hypocritical in your understanding.

 

What you thought were balanced views were not understood to be. There was no cherry picking, as the following comments do not lend themselves to looking at your views as balanced:

 

(1) The couple were clearly setting up this couple and were vindictive (a very oppositional, them and us, outlook)

(2) The couple were flaunting their sexuality in an unnecessary way through the process of booking a room

(3) Gay people should flaunt their sexuality in this way or in any way. (Although we don't know what else falls under the umbrella of 'flaunting' yet. If booking a room at a hotel is anything to go by then it could be any day-to-day behaviour, in which case heterosexuals are the flauntiest of beings.

(4)Expressions of GAY sexuality cause trouble and are therefore unproductive in the supposed goal of gay people to convince straights that we are just nice people

When I used the word "flaunt" it was probably for want of a better word, there is no escaping however, that the majority of people have been brought up to despise homosexuality as was I! I have through my life, formed different opinions over time and as I stated, I have NO problem with gay people at all in any way what so ever!

You probably don't have a problem, but you don't have a good understanding of it.

And you do seem to say that you do take issue when gay people ARE gay. That's what was understood from your post. It's ok for them to know they are gay, but its unreasonable if they express it.

What I was trying to get across is that jumping up and down, waving a huge gay flag

Are you talking about Pride?

and crying foul at the slightest provocation

I would love to have some examples here. It's quite funny, as it is telling that you recognise there is provocation here. What is the provocation?

 

In talking about the 'Ultimate Aim' of gay people, You are very mistaken. First off, MY ultimate aim and other gay persons is to live our lives. We're not part of some hive mind (like the Borg). It's quite insulting and I think you flatter yourself to an amazing degree when you think gay people have this purpose of gaining acceptance.

 

But if you are talking about the gay community and movements as a whole then the ultimate aim is not to gain acceptance from straight people! People can accept or reject. But the aim has been about equality and liberation. Equality has been fought for and has almost been won, regardless of the criticism and outrage from straight people. Of course, we will criticise the bigoted voices and objections to equality, but it is not our job to convince straight people to accept us. They are on their own.

 

Again I was trying to point out that people are brought up with beliefs, it is not easy to just discard them wholesale because a section of the community is making a fuss! People are threatened by that kind of thing and gay people have got to realise that.

People were brought up with very nasty racist beliefs that were hard to shake off and people were threatened by black people who began to live in their community in the early 60s, working in their factory/office, or being near them? Did black need to be especially sensitive to their irrational behaviour? What are you saying?

Any change will not happen overnight and big tantrums only serve to stiffen the opinions of those who may otherwise be accepting! Therefore all you can wish for is tolerance, and that is a long way from acceptance as far as I can see!

Maybe in being treated as equals it pisses of straight people so much that gay people can only be tolerated. Do you think gay people ought to opt for acceptance then and be treated as second-class citizens?

Interestingly, you have mentioned a few times how things will change eventually. What is this mechanism of change?

[Chinahand]

Lala - the whole point of this thread was two irritating homosexual men took it upon them selves to throw their fucking irritating legal rights at a tiny B & B. If that's not stuffing it in my face I don't know what is.

 

Jebus!

Bananaman, I often have difficulty getting the tenor of your posts, but I don't think a 7 room hotel which serves breakfast, afternoon tea and an evening meal, and has a separate private wing where the owners live, is a tiny B&B.

 

Clearly you are very irritated by all this ... honestly why? Your f'ing and stuffing are very emotive ... is it for effect to wind up LDV, or are you really so exercised by the hotel owners' rights to insist any hanky panky is done in a single bed?