Bed & Breakfast Gay Bed Ban

[Terse]

Yes this has got STING written all over it. No doubt they'd heard about the place and purposefully booked a stay there to make a a point about equality.

 

I personally don't care what sexuality people are and I abhor all religions but in this case I have to agree with the couple running the B&B. It's also their home and they should not be forced to allow people to stay if it makes them feel uncomfortable. You can't legislate for personal feelings and things like this will just make traditional Christians like them even more homophobic.

 

I can't stand it when people go out of their way to be offended. It's like all the people who watch Frankie Boyle's show just so they can complain about it later. Why watch it?

I agree with what you say. I am sure you're right...

...but...

this is Manxforums!

And that means you're likely to be accused of being a homophobic, fascistic, Daily Mail-reader who is also a closet homosexual.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Good point

Just exploring this to see where it goes

If the sign said NO pedophiles, would that make any difference to human rights? (I should of read up first, but I'm off to bed and will catch up with the thread tomorrow - sorry)

What do you think?

[John Wright]

I saw the interviews and have read various reports including in legal journals.

 

The couple say that they did not choose deliberately to set the B&B keepers up. I beleive them

 

The web site said no unmarried couples allowed to share a double bed, the couple had the benefit of a Civil Partnership, which legally is equivalent for taxation, adoption, inheritance and divorce rights etc.

 

If the booking site had said no black couples, based on biblical belief, as in Apartheid, would the ban have been right? If the ban had been no one not married in a church, because we do not recognise civil, non religious ceremonies because only god can marry someone and it has to be in church, would the ban have been right?

 

Thankfully we live in a society that does not allow this type of discrimination. That may hurt some people, but not half as much as their persecution and intolerance has done in the past.

 

As for other non protected minority groupsd, the question does not arise, so it is pointless asking it. We have to live a in the society we live in, or vote to make it change. To use a biblical analogy "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" In other words you have to abide by the law of the state in your public and business life, but in your religious life you can abide by the teachings and law of God. This was a business.

[jimbms]

I have very mixed views on this,

1. If the B&B owners did not approve of this surely they could have done it disreatly by making people book in advance giving both names and type of room required, that way they could have said only a twin is available or sorry we are full that week and saved embarassment by both parties.

2. The B&B owners where wrong to discriminate, to me a civil parnership is a marraige, we did not get married in church and ensured all mention of any god like creature was out of the vows so we in effect have a civil partnership so would these peir of biggots refuse us because we had not been married in the eyes of some fictional entity, I think not.

3. I do think this is a bit biased and one sided, several weeks ago Blackpool council refused to bring the case against the owners of homosexual B&B because they refused accomodation to a hetrosexual couple on the grounds that the B&B catered for homosexuals only. Come on play fair it works both ways

 

 

[P.K.]

The web site said no unmarried couples allowed to share a double bed, the couple had the benefit of a Civil Partnership, which legally is equivalent for taxation, adoption, inheritance and divorce rights etc.

 

Which is why, of course, the ruling went against them. But their civil partnership is irrelevant because they are still "unmarried" as far as the B&B owners are concerned.

 

Simply because the owners definition of marriage is "joined together in holy matrimony" which is why they acted in the way they did.

 

I would like to think that religious views such as theirs can be tolerated in a modern society. But alas it would seem not...

[Silentbob]

I saw the interviews and have read various reports including in legal journals.

 

The couple say that they did not choose deliberately to set the B&B keepers up. I beleive them

 

The web site said no unmarried couples allowed to share a double bed, the couple had the benefit of a Civil Partnership, which legally is equivalent for taxation, adoption, inheritance and divorce rights etc.

 

If the booking site had said no black couples, based on biblical belief, as in Apartheid, would the ban have been right? If the ban had been no one not married in a church, because we do not recognise civil, non religious ceremonies because only god can marry someone and it has to be in church, would the ban have been right?

 

Thankfully we live in a society that does not allow this type of discrimination. That may hurt some people, but not half as much as their persecution and intolerance has done in the past.

 

As for other non protected minority groupsd, the question does not arise, so it is pointless asking it. We have to live a in the society we live in, or vote to make it change. To use a biblical analogy "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" In other words you have to abide by the law of the state in your public and business life, but in your religious life you can abide by the teachings and law of God. This was a business.

 

Would a sign saying "The management reserves the right to refuse service" have covered them??

 

Any business has the right to say "No, we are not serving you" as do most nightclubs reserve the right to refuse admission, they do not need to give any reason.

 

Personally I think regardless of their beliefs or who the customer was, it is - at the end of the day - a private business and they should be allowed to do what they want, especially considering it is also their home.

 

I was refused a room upon arrival at a hotel in Norwich (pre-booked) when I turned up on my bike with my 16 year old girlfriend on the back (this was 15 years ago mind) as the hotel had a similar policy, fair enough I booked elsewhere.

[Terse]

The couple say that they did not choose deliberately to set the B&B keepers up. I beleive them

 

 

I don't.

 

We went through this kind of shite a few years ago when 'gentlemen's clubs' were forced to admit females on the grounds of discrimination - only for females, having won that battle, to set up their own ladies only establishments.

We are now living in a 'cowering society;' one in which it is becoming impossible to complain about anything for fear of being decorated with one of the current fadish labels.

The judgement may be legally correct, but any sign of justice is absent.

[P.K.]

We went through this kind of shite a few years ago when 'gentlemen's clubs' were forced to admit females on the grounds of discrimination - only for females, having won that battle, to set up their own ladies only establishments.

We are now living in a 'cowering society;' one in which it is becoming impossible to complain about anything for fear of being decorated with one of the current fadish labels.

The judgement may be legally correct, but any sign of justice is absent.

 

IMHO that's an excellent post.

 

I can see this one going all the way to the HOL where they will have to define such things as "the sanctity of marriage" as opposed to CP's.

 

But maybe it needs doing...

[foxdaleliberationfront]

Is this thread still banging on?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I have very mixed views on this,

1. If the B&B owners did not approve of this surely they could have done it disreatly by making people book in advance giving both names and type of room required, that way they could have said only a twin is available or sorry we are full that week and saved embarassment by both parties.

They could do this, but the question is whether they should! Think of the example of the clubs, hotels, bars stopping people of another race going in by lying to them?

 

2. The B&B owners where wrong to discriminate, to me a civil parnership is a marraige, we did not get married in church and ensured all mention of any god like creature was out of the vows so we in effect have a civil partnership so would these peir of biggots refuse us because we had not been married in the eyes of some fictional entity, I think not.

Is this about marriage though, or just an excuse to prevent two gay men from sharing a bed?

 

3. I do think this is a bit biased and one sided, several weeks ago Blackpool council refused to bring the case against the owners of homosexual B&B because they refused accomodation to a hetrosexual couple on the grounds that the B&B catered for homosexuals only. Come on play fair it works both ways

Yeah, this is a tricky one. Because heterosexuals are not oppressed or marginalised. There aren't the same consequences to barring heterosexuals than barring homosexuals. But the same rule ought to apply nonetheless. You can't discriminate one and not the other UNLESS someone is at pains to explain the basis for it, which most would not understand given that they hardly recognise why homophobia exists and understand its effects.

With respect, you seem not understand why gay people, non-whites, and ethnic minorities have special or particular treatment in many instances and feel this is unfair - do you know not? If discrimination of heterosexual discrimination was be maintained for pubs and clubs then it would require explanation and it makes things difficult.

[jimbms]

LDV rather than keep bloating posts I will just answereach one:

1. I was not arguing the rights and wrongs I was just stating that if they felt so strongly they could have used a less offensive means of refusing the accomodation.

2. You can only go on what the said and the policy on the website and that is non married couples. I was stating the fact that in my view the couple was not married and in the B&B owners eyes I am also not married but in effect in a civil partnership because they see it as in the eyes of their fictional being, I was not even debating the fact hey was homosexual just the status of the partnership ONLY.

3. No excuses either way either all are equal or they are not positive discrimination is still discrimination and to me is wrong, education is the way not forced acceptance. I cannot see why an hetrosexual couple cannot be admitted into a homosexual pub or club unless there is something happening that they want to hide it is just another place to drink or dance, take Manchester village for example everyone seems to mix well and is a success because of the atmosphere and usualy lack of agro. I could also mention in the area some of the fetish clubs most allow hetrosexuals homosexuals and transexuals in the TV clubs also allow all but it is only the homosexual ones that don't allow hetrosexuals in and in one of them they don't even allow TV's or TS's, I for one cannot see a reason for this discrimination can you. Also no I cannot sea reason for special treatment you are no differnet than anyone else so why demand you are treated such an in doing so increase the contempt and animosity towards you, better to live life without a fucking great chip on your shoulder and enjoy it.

[Cambon]

Is this about marriage though, or just an excuse to prevent two gay men from sharing a bed?

 

It could be. Although I heard on Sky News in an interview that the gay couple were offered separate rooms but refused them. I mean, they could have accepted them and only used one, or something. But they preferred to make a song and dance about it which makes me think that this was not a STING that was planned, but it was a STING in retrospect.

 

As for the compensation, I think it is a daft amount, but they pair will probably need it as it is likely that the publicity of this will do their personal lives no good at all.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Which is why, of course, the ruling went against them. But their civil partnership is irrelevant because they are still "unmarried" as far as the B&B owners are concerned.

 

Simply because the owners definition of marriage is "joined together in holy matrimony" which is why they acted in the way they did.

I seem to missing the point you are making unless you think the hoteliers should be able to discriminate as they please.

I mean, this isn't really about marriage. I don't know how much I believe that they would stop a non-marriage couple sharing a bed. Would they ask the couple if they are married?

I doubt that!

Rather I think that they saw two men and thought of something snappy or had it already in mind that this excuse would be used.

 

I would like to think that religious views such as theirs can be tolerated in a modern society. But alas it would seem not...[/font]

In modern society these VIEWS can be tolerated, as awful as they all are. That's fine. But this isn't just about views. It is about ACTING on their views and making decisions as a result of such views or using the views as an excuse. It's very different to somebody just having a view.

[Terse]

I seem to missing the point you are making unless you think the hoteliers should be able to discriminate as they please.

They own the premises. They own all the fittings and fixtures. They probably work very hard to keep the place presentable and to make a living from it.

No one should have any right whatsoever to tell them who they can, or cannot, accept as paying customers.

[ballaughbiker]

Unless they use blatant discrimination.

 

Of course none of us knows exactly what was said or precisely what context it was said in. However nobody made the hotel owners set up in business but if they chose to do that, then they are then not allowed to discriminate on the usual grounds.

 

The chances are that both sides were on a mission here and whilst the 'guests' have won I think it will turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.