that you shouldn't open a hotel if you only want straight married couples to stay in it?

[JoanofArgos]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/christian-couple-barred-gay-couple-shut-hotel

Horrid old bigots, say I.

unhappy I have been refused entry to clubs in London because I was with my husband, and we were not "gay".

Is it absolutely, definitely, not because you're a pair of twats?

I'm a bit surprised that someone who dislikes public displays of affection between gay couples, sorry, gay people flaunting their sexuality, would actually try to go to a gay club.

In fact, I'm rather dubious as to whether it actually happened.

I once went on holiday with two male friends (gay, but not a couple) and a female friend.

We unexpectedly had to spend a night in a B&B (Wales it was) and the B&B owners had two double rooms and they automatically assumed we were two heterosexual couples and allocated the rooms accordingly.

Because it was more than 20 years ago and we were all very young ourselves, we complied and pretended that we slept in the double beds as M/F and M/F but actually we were happier to be with our same sex friends, as it was all non-sexual and platonic, so I slept with my mate and gayman1 slept with gayman2.

We did some funny pretending-to-be-heterosexual-couples at the breakfast table next morning with the B&B owners asking how we'd slept. I wonder if they thought there was anything slightly odd about us as a party.

Anyways, this was the blardy dark ages years and years ago and of course its absolutely right that things have moved on (mainly) since then.

LOL Lenin!

ok, haven't bothered to read the thread, but i stayed in that hotel on my honeymoon (18 years ago)

the couple were VERY clear about their religious beliefs & when we booked (before we were married) it was on all their advertising leaflets, mentioned at time of taking the booking, confirming it & when we checked in. they did, in fact, pre-warn us that they would want to see our marriage cert. as we were booking as miss & mr, then getting married. i cannot believe that someone would be able to turn up there without knowing their policy - they were in the process of changing the name to 'private' when we stayed there & they had a sign by the entrance clearly stating their policy as you got to the desk.

so, i would say that they are carrying out their religious beliefs, not discriminating against same-sex couples.

as someone said earlier (i did read a little) there are all sorts of restrictions at certain hotels/travel companies, so i'm not sure why this one shouldn't be allowed, if others are?

it doesn't matter if they are religious beliefs, they are discriminating against same sex couples/ Its not opinion. Its the law and they have been found guilty of discrimination in a court.

kickassangel - there are no laws that say you can't discriminate against children or pets. But in the UK it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their sexuality. Which is what this couple were doing then and are still doing.

Lenin :o

look, i'm not arguing about the law, just trying to explain how clear they are about the whole thing. they have the same rule for hetero couples & DO check id, so they're discriminating against unmarried people.

i have NO idea how a couple called Martyn & Steven would even have a booking accepted there. We had to produce our wedding cert. because we'd just got married.

fwiw, we stayed there cos it was the cheapest place in town, and we were poor & love-sick newly-weds.

unhappy "I have been refused entry to clubs in London because I was with my husband, and we were not "gay"."

What on earth were you doing trying to get into a gay club in the first place. And describing your low opinion of a pride March - and all the brazen nakedness that goes on in 1 - because youve been on 1!

Are you 1 of these people who enjoys being outraged??

But they are married - they are in a civil partnership :)

They said they rang and asked if they could bring their dog and presumably the hotel owners thought they were mates, rather than a couple.

Even if it is clear on their website, they're still not allowed to do it (although I take your point that they make it bloody obvious). Sounds like a horrible place to stay - did you have a nice honeymoon? :o

If you look at that website, you can ring or book online.
If you ring first, to find out if dogs are welcome, you might not see that page with the deep regard for mariage bla bla..

And anyway, its moot now...

Yeah just because you make something clear on your website doesn't make it ok ffs!

I know to my cost, after being sued when I put on my shop's website WE DON'T SERVE PAKIS, and then somehow being in trouble when I wouldn't let some pakistanis in my shop! Tsk, political correctness! I don't mind if you're a paki, just don't shove it in my horrible bigoted stupid face, ok?

The old signs used to be clear:

No black, no irish, no dogs.

Should that be legal?

They don't describe it as a B&B on their website, they describe it as a hotel.

Ladybiscuit I thought the same thing but then I came on here and was put right - in no uncertain terms. A civil partnership is not the same as a marraige in many ways apparently.

Sexuality is a "protected characteristic" in law, and I can't believe that in the 21st century it still takes a court case to give a same-sex couple the right to not be discriminated against by service-providers with extreme religious views.

To those saying "it's a private hotel, their own home" so that makes it okay for them to only let straight married couples stay in the same bed - what if they were childminders? Would it be okay for them to refuse to care for the demon-spawn child of a same sex couple? If they were taxi drivers could they refuse to give a lift to a male couple coming out a gay club? If they ran a newsagent, could they ask about the sexuality of customers who come in for a packet of wine gums before they decide if they're happy to serve them?

Why the hell does someone's sexuality matter that much to them? And stopping double-bed sleeping won't prevent hanky panky by the even moderately dedicated - in single beds or separate rooms, if an unmarried couple or same sex couple wanted to soil their sheets with filthy, unholy sex then I'm sure they would have managed somehow.

ok, i'm not defending their decision at all, or saying it's right, but there are some points i just don't understand, so i'm genuinely asking, not trying to argue.

1. How on earth the confusion happened, they check with everyone who books in, several times. I can't imagine that they would even take a booking without saying that it would be 2 single rooms.

1. why some hotels/tour operators are allowed to stipulate age ranges, with/without kids dogs etc. i get that sexuality is protected, but age isn't - but WHY is the law like that?

1. why 'mens clubs' which often have rooms etc are therefore able to continue - they are, after all, discriminating on grounds of sex, which is also against the law. (have these changed?)

it just seems to me that the law is very 'made up as we go along' on this.

so, whilst i wouldn't support the views of the couple running the hotel, i can also feel some sympathy as there are a lot of other service providers who also discriminate. wouldn't it just be better to say, if you run a hotel that members of the public can rent rooms in, then you have to allow anyone, whatever their age, sex, sexuality etc?

and why doesn't the law say this?

I'm not sure whether it's worth the effort of posting, since the posters I'm trying to engage with are probably out of reach, but here goes:

I'm fascinated by people who say glibly that lesbians and gays should just keep quiet about what they do in bed, and then no-one would get offended and everything would be ok. That if we just smilingly pretended to be heterosexual all the time, that would be an easy solution.

Just THINK what life is like when you know that you are only acceptable to society if you deny who you are. I've been an out lesbian for about a zillion years, and during that time society (at least in London) has changed a lot and become more accepting than I would ever have believed possible (as proved by the overwhelming majority of the posts on this thread). But for gay people my age - 40 something - and certainly for those who are older, who remember when homosexuality was actually illegal, we are EXPERTS in denying who we are, flying under the radar in order to avoid punishment. Most of us have been forced to lie about ourselves constantly: in order to get jobs, to keep safe from abuse, to be loved by our families. Some of us are, finally, beginning to relax. It is NOT a small thing to tell us that we 'just' have to keep our traps shut about ourselves and we will be tolerated. And it is beyond insensitive to pretend that the issue is about gay people talking about what they do in bed: what you mean is that when lesbian or gay people make what for you would be normal conversation (e.g. referring to a partner) seems to you the same as saying, "I take it up the arse with a dildo". That is your shit, not ours.

Finally, please reflect that most of the lesbians who post on here are also mothers. Being a lesbian mother forces you out of the closet like nothing else. Pre-children, I often chose to 'pass' in order to avoid hassle. Now that I have two children, I cannot and will not teach them to treat their family as a dirty little secret. I will not introduce them to shame by asking them not to mention that they have two mothers, just so we can get a poxy hotel room! Please think more deeply about what you are asking when you make these 'helpful' suggestions.

I'm sorry for the long, humourless rant. Just sometimes my sense of humour fails me. Love the idea that I'm asking for more than equality: I'm just asking for the opportunity to get on with my life without having to constantly worry about what everyone else thinks about my life partner and our children. Those of you who have always been able to take for granted your place in this world, and who think it is fair enough to deny this to others: shame on you.

I do not see why one side should have rights and the other not.

I once checked into a hotel with my father (single beds) and the elderly owner demanded to know our relationship, on hearing we were daughter and dad he refused use the room. Why I still not figure out. Did we have any rights, no.

I agree friedtoacrisp just shut the door people do not have to parade their sexuality

And as strict Christians they are also in a minority

Kickass, because some things are reasonable and some are not. It is reasonable to stipulate no children, because they are not discriminated against. It is reasonable to have holidays specially over 55's or under 30's, because they are bases on what people want and are about providing for all.

This is completely different because it is a hotel stating that their religious beliefs can allow them to make a section of the population persona no grata for no reason other than they don't like them, or the "lifestyles" they imagine them to have. Its pure and simple bigotry and discrimination, and luckily the law can see that and does not allow it.

These people decided the open a hotel, they have to follow the laws that govern it, and thats the end of it. And when you see a post like hesters above, how could anyone possibly deny that the law is correct?

We've come a long way, but there is a lot further to go yet. This is a victory for common sense and decency, in the 21st century sense of it. We should be proud.

jesus christ. only read page 1 and have seen enough of the ignorant homophobic shite already. nasty nasty people.

Okaren, was my post one long waste of breath? Did NOTHING in it give you any compassion or understanding for me or my family? What does 'parade their sexuality' mean anyway? Acknowledge a partner? Wear a T shirt? Hold hands? Have sex in public? Is there anything you have seen gay people 'parade' that you have never seen heterosexuals do? Is there anything that you object to gay people doing in public that you yourself would do?

Hester... I'm one of the posters who thinks that what ANYBODY does in bed, regardless of gender, is nobody else's business. No pretence required, just a little discretion about something that's supposed to be private between two people (of whatever sex).

When I first heard the news today, I thought that the hoteliers were very wrong, the couple were discriminated against and the result was good, a clear triumph over a civil wrong. Then I read this thread and I started feeling that the whole point of 'right versus wrong' was lost, it seemed to be nothing more than 'point scoring' and a sense of unbearable smugness.

I don't have sympathy with the militant, 'shove it in everybody's faces' types because I just don't see that it's necessary. I also think that it does a great disservice to the millions of people who just get on with their lives their way. There's no need for anybody to feel that they have to 'fly under the radar', and perhaps some people will only ever tolerate what's perceived to be 'different', but others will just accept that that's the way it is and really not give it much (if any) thought on a daily basis.... that is until the next 'shove it in your face' crusade starts up.

I'm glad that things have changed in law, there is a need to make things equal. I believe that times have changed and there is no need to consider sexuality as deviant. I watched some recent films and recollect that some of the great actors - Dirk Bogarde, Rock Hudson, etc. had to hide away for fear of public rejection. That is intolerable and fortunately no longer the case.

I'm a strong advocate of the 'two parent family'... but I don't necessarily believe that it must be one of either sex, two parents (of either gender) create better stability in my view and strong, happy children are the results of that.

I'd never dislike somebody for their sexuality but I shudder at the attitudes of what I perceive to be complete self-absorbtion and single-mindedness that I've seen here with posters being abused for their views. Some gay people don't appear to have any identity, character or personality other than being 'gay'; wearing it as some kind of badge with everything relating to it. What is that about?

One last point... I don't think that there are so many people who feel they have an automatic place in this world. Sexuality is not the only perceived 'barrier'.

I think that a few of them are the same person who is name-changing, so there are not quite so many bigots on the site that this thread would suggest. Either that, or a few lurkers have been given confidence to post by the vocal homophobes. Which implies they don't usually find Mumsnet a safe haven for these nasty attitudes. Why this thread in particular had them crawling out of the woodwork, I'm not quite sure.