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.

Witch, did you ever think that maybe we are only where we are because of the "shove it in your face types"? Since when did a quiet "hello, we're human too" get you anywhere?

And what does that mean anyway? Can you give a definition of what "shove it in peoples faces" means? It seems to me that its just being visible.......

Or maybe that's all you notice about them? You can't manage to see beyond the fact they're gay?

"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."

LyingWitch: you sound so reasonable, but you're actually putting up a straw man. Who here - or anywhere - says that it is socially acceptable to broadcast what you do in bed? Why, when we start talking about lesbian and gay rights, do we instantly get told we must stop talking about our sex lives? Has any lesbian on this thread, or any other, told you anything about her sexual activity?

It IS distasteful to hear people broadcasting a sexuality in lieu of a personality. Some gay people do that. Loads of heterosexual people do it too - especially young ones. It doesn't invalidate me any more than it invalidates you.

The vast majority of gay people do just get on with our lives. I'm a middle-aged mother; I'm about as likely to wrap myself in pink clingfilm and dance in a parade as you are. But this thread wasn't about Pride (which is only the equivalent of Notting Hill Carnival, after all - plenty of heterosexuals 'flaunting their sexuality' there, though I've never heard it criticised). It was about a respectable gay couple and their dog booking into a B&B! And yet lesbian posters end up keep preached at, as ever, that we shouldn't be ramming or flaunting or doing other things that make you shudder. Don't you recognise that that is basically telling us to shut up complaining, or you'll label us as shrill Pride queens, prancing around in chaps and probably cottaging on Hampstead Heath as well?

Just look at what you've written: "I'd never dislike someone for their sexuality BUT...", "Some people don't appear to have any identity, character or personality...". Is there ANY equivalent sentence I could come up with heterosexuals that wouldn't sound ridiculous, hating or chippy?

YOU don't think it's necessary to get militant, but you haven't exactly walked a mile in our shoes, have you? Oh, and I'm perfectly aware that sexuality is not the only barrier to feeling part of the world: my family is made up of black people, Jews, people with mental health problems, all-round social misfits... I'm not claiming a monopoly on social exclusion, for christs sake, just asserting that this one certainly exists, just as surely in your polite message as in some of the ugly homophobia on this thread. I'm sorry if that sounds aggressive, but I'm just naming it for what it is.

BoF: good point, I expect (and think) you're right. MN is not the natural home of the homophobe, so there must be a temporary invasion going on. Hopefully they'll pass like ships in the night.

Great posts hester.

hester firstly you posted while I was composing my two pence worth, but you miss my point

What right have you to dictate to them or me their beliefs and values, why can someone not be uncomfortable or offended by homosexuality, why are your rights greater then theirs

You might say it is their problem

But do you not have any prejudices (Have I spelt it right)?

I am often naked around my house but will cover up when people call round - unless I know them really well - it so I do not make them uncorrectable or offend them

Should I have the right to walk naked down the street? I am a minority!

Well, they have been successfully sued for not allowing these men to stay, therefore they were fucking stupid to do it in the first place. Suckers, I say. The law is the law, suck it up or move somewhere else

Okaren, there are two critical distinctions here: between public and private, and between beliefs and behaviours. The law allows you to have as many prejudiced beliefs as you want; it does not allow you to act on them in a public space. Similarly, it makes a distinction between what you do in your own home (private) and what you do when offering a service to the public.

You do not have to invite me to stay in your home. But if you are running a hotel, you cannot discriminate. Seems a sensible distinction to me.

As a private individual, rather than the law, it makes sense for me to go beyond that and try to influence people's values and beliefs. Of course they are entitled to them, but I am equally entitled to try to make this world a kinder and more comfortable place for me and my family. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela didn't just ask for equal rights in the provision of public services, did they? They went after hearts and minds too. That is what I am doing, and that is why I am engaged in reasoned debate with you rather than, say, demanding that people with you be arrested.

Of course I have prejudices. I'm not going to name them, though; I'm not proud of them.

I should clarify my point in my last post: the law does of course allow you to be homophobic in public, just not to incite hatred, deny public services or offer less preferential treatment or whatever. We do actually have pretty good freedom of speech, despite the assertions of some posters who seem to think we live in a homosexual dictatorship.

But we are not arguing what the law is, we are arguing is the law right and if you are arguing that it should be illegal to have prejudices

What if someone turned up at their hotel with a prostitute, should they have a right to say no, of course they should

Yet one can argue that is equally prejudicial

If they advertised as just a religious hotel i.e. religious guests only then they would be catering to a minority. If they accept money of anyone but stipulate room conditions then the argument of a niche market doesn't apply.

kickass just because they were that clear X no. of years ago, doesn't mean they are now.

FWIW I think the owners were clearly in the wrong and find the whole rather naive. As someone else, it's not their place to police peoples relationship with god. Although I'm m not religious so shouldn't really comment on such matters.

I've been on plenty of threads with some of the posters on here talking about their experiences as lesbians, without knowing their sexual orientation - I'm not that old so deafness can't account for me missing their constant cries of "GAY G-G-G-G-GAY! I LIKE LADIES! HOORAH!".

In answer to those whinging "it's not faaaiiir", can I point out that it's not discrimination to refuse to allow people to practise discrimination? It's discrimination to refuse to allow people to go about their normal business, because of their race/sex/orientation etc. For obvious reasons the law doesn't recognise an illegal act (discrimination) as part of people's normal business. What next? The Ku Klux Klan sobbing into their hankies because they're being "discriminated against" for not being allowed to burn crosses in black people's gardens?

Am laughing somewhat at the poster who claims that people (actors in their example) no longer hide their sexuality! Don't they? Then I suppose it's just coincidence that NO mainstream Hollywood actors, and NO current premiership/championship footballers are gay then?

true, penguin, and we did find it all very amusing at the time. they were just so very clear and specific that i find it hard to believe they've changed that much. dh also remembers how adamant they were, and them checking the marriage cert. (which we lost soon after, due to having carried it around)

i told dh about the news headline, and he immediately said 'it's not that one is it?' and yes it is.

having stayed in a 'hotel' that is now notorious is perhaps the most famous thing that i've ever done.

There are loads of other nice places to stay in Marazion, btw. :) Hopefully some of them will be putting up big rainbow flags and laying out the welcome mats and buying in extra bees ready for the beehives.

It's truly splutterworthy to claim that gay people shove their sexuality in people's faces. When I think of the number of couples I have seen snogging at parties, or in pubs or clubs, or in the street, they have ALL been straight. The truth is, outside of specifically gay pubs/clubs, or central London, most of my gay friends would shy away from even holding hands :(

Your analogy doesn't work, Okaren, because if a hotel accepted money to facilitate prostitution on its premises it would in effect be running a brothel. Which is illegal.

And there are so many other reasons why homosexuality is not analogous to prostitution. But I'm tired, and certainly tired of trying to argue that I am a normal human being and not a flamboyant performance or a bizarre sexual practice. So I'm going to bed. With or without my troupe of dancing girls, giant dildo and special throat-ramming equipment.

Oh no hester, you do know how to spoil a good illusion :o

okaren - i just read your last post.

prostitution is illegal, being gay isn't. i think hotels should be banning people from carrying out illegal acts in their bedrooms, after all, it's pretty unlikely that a prostitute is there cos she feels a bit tired & this nice man is lending her his bed for a quick lie down.

also, i think you should be very careful about drawing comparisons between prostitutes and gay people - it could be quite offensive.

Does Jordan count as 'flaunting heterosexuality', I wonder? Or Calum Best? Do heterosexuals worry that they reflect badly on the rest of them? Do they stand outside nightclubs at closing time and think, "Ooh, all these young people shoving their sexuality in our faces, they'll give the rest of us a bad name"?

Nope, thought not.

Night, Elephants

kickassangel prostitution isn't illegal

But the argument is about prejudices and discrimination and it still illustrates my point - in my opinion at least.

Just for the record I am know most gay people are very normal, really nice, successful, in fact I know they are as I used to spend a time in the Manchester gay area

But that is not what the debate is about, the debate is about the rights of one set of people over the rights of others whetever the law says

@unhappy shopper. my OH used to work as a bouncer at various gay clubs. they did not refuse entry because people were straight. tbh how would they know unless you were snogging at the door? they would warn people it was a gay club if they weren't regulars and looked like they weren't dressed for the correct night (more pitcher and piano next / suit brigade than cool electro). this was to stop people taking offence or starting fights....funnily a lot of straight guys can get aggro at being eyed up by blokes in gay clubs. as it was my OH's job to stop fights if they happened you can see why preventative measures were preferable. plenty of straight people used to go to the gay clubs i went to and everyone got on well.

@unhappy shopper....in fact i met my OH at his job and we had our wedding reception in the gay club he worked free of charge. i don't see how much more accepting of heterosexuality than that you can be :)

here here Hester. The heterosexualisation of society is much much more rampant than the homosexualisation of society.

As I said before - it was the B&B owners who were obsessed with the sexuality of their guests - not the visitors.

Unless I've been reading another post, or was pissed last night (nope - currently alcohol-free), who on earth was here shoving their homosexuality in anyone else's face?

There have been an awful lot of (different?) posters shoving their homophobia into our faces, however.

And MASSIVE applause to Hester and her posts.

Fantastic posts Hester.