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.

I think a perception, without any evidence, is known as a prejudice mayorquimby. So until someone comes up with a court case, or even a likely sounding story (not like the ones on here "I hate seeing gay people displaying their sexuality but nevertheless attempt to go to gay clubs") I'm going to assume that businesses are not turning away straight people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The fact that it could happen is neither here nor there. And certainly not grounds for getting het up about "double standards" that probably don't exist.

On a slightly different tack, several people have drawn a parallel with hotels that state they don't allow children, with the implication that if you're OK with that you should also be OK with rules like no gays, no unmarrieds etc.

Well personally, I'm not in the least OK with hotels that don't accept children. Last time I checked, under-18s were human beings too. Hell, I even used to be one. Nothing more miffing than looking for a bed for the night only to find out that you can't stay in the only hotel in town because you didn't have the foresight to book your kids in kennels.

Now if what you're saying is you don't want someone's screaming brats waking you up at 5am, that's a different question. What we're talking about is standards of behaviour, not about age. DS4, for example, wouldn't have disturbed anyone from about the age of 3 months onwards. He just didn't do unauthorised running round or screaming. On the other hand some over-30s have absolutely no consideration for other people, whilst some seem to take positive delight in being obnoxious (setting off fire alarms in the middle of the night, that was a fun one). I'd love to see a "no arseholes" hotel. Pity it's so hard to tell the blighters from normal human beings in advance.

If a gay hotelier turns away a straight guest then they should be prosecuted in exactly the same way. The law does apply to all.

If anyone who has read this thread has any 'perception' that this is not the case then there is something wrong with their comprehension.

I do love all the people getting at the gay couple for going to a Christian B&B and saying it must be a set-up.

There are gay Christians you know, as Violet said earlier in the thread. And plenty of Christian people who are not homophobic. Whatever the people who run this hotel would like you to think, it really doesn't follow that Christian equals horrid gay-basher. Or that gay equals secular or hostile to Christianity.

So many pigeon-holes, so little time...

I don't know if the notices shops put up saying they reserve the right not to serve anyone are legal or not. In practice though it is illegal for them to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of race, gender, disability, sexuality, etc.

I have never been to a gay pub or club that doesn't have straight people in there. You will probably not be allowed to go in if you look like a male stag party. But this will be because the venues don't want their customers to be hassled or for there to be any trouble.

Some gay hotels and B&B's may turn straight people away - I don't know. However they will be breaking the law and could be sued. If anyone here believes gay hotels do turn straight people away, then try and book a room and then sue if you are turned away. Simple.

"I don't know if the notices shops put up saying they reserve the right not to serve anyone are legal or not. In practice though it is illegal for them to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of race, gender, disability, sexuality, etc."

As far as I can recall
The signs are legal in that the proprietor retains freedom of contract and you can't force anyone to contract with another.However I'm pretty sure that these are subject to commercial laws and it is a reservation to refuse the right to contract with the individual rather than putting in place a system which discriminates based purely on sex/religion/race etc.
However the line is not an absolute because some businesses are seen as providing a service to the community and being of importance to a section of the community but will by their nature involve discriminating against other parts.

However this is a very sketchy memory I have so am happy to be corrected and apologies if I am misinformed and am leading anyone astray. It's not intentional

Not readd all these posts, sorry

It strikes me an lot of people are calling these Christian people who refused the gay couple a room in their hotel bigots for failing to accept their sexuality, yet they themselves are bigots for failing to accept the couples beliefs and Christianity

They write that it is the law that they accept them, but the law says a lot of things, is it always right? Are the increased university fees right for example, they are now the law!

Also if it wasn't for people standing up and breaking the laws homosexuality might still be illegal!

Finally I will nail my views to the mast. I find homosexuality uncomfortable and I would have been disappointed if any of my children turned out to be gay. But then I say live and let live and disagree it should be illegal.

However I hate seeing same sex people kissing and being romantic. I disagree with the civil partnership and allowing gay people to adopt. There you are now be bigots and criticize me, but can not help my feelings any more then people can help being gay I guess and feel it is just as unreasonable to hide them or to put them aside then ask a gay person to put aside theirs

I would not employ anyone in our business who was openly guy because it would make uncomfortable to be around them

We live in a society where heterosexuality is normal because the majority of people are heterosexual

Beastility and incest is illegal so it is possible to discriminate on the basics of sexuality?

OK finished my ramble

JHHJ you've illustrated to me why we need judges and lawyers in this country.
The fact is that the couple gave the reason for refusal is that the couple weren't married, the judge found that there is legally no difference between civil partnerships and marriage, so they were wrong to refuse the couple on these grounds.

Surely this is really easy to understand?

What IF the judge had found in hoteliers' favour?
THAT would be wrong because it would mean that marriage could be something that could subjectively decided by individuals.
That is not acceptable in a civilised society; there HAS to be a set of clearly laid out rules which define marriage, and while I respect people's Christian faith and how they view marriage, it cannot be allowed to be the accepted definition of legal marriage- else there would be anarchy. One member claiming they were married and the other disagreeing with the decisionn.

IF a person is happy to have clearly laid out legal definitions of marriage, there is no way the judge's decision can be disagreed with.

JHHJ - everyone is entitled to their feelings and opinions, and if the couple don't like the idea of same-sex relationships then they're entitled to think that way. The law does not tell people that they can't be uncomfortable about things.

But what it does do is tell people running businesses that they have to put their personal feelings aside and treat everyone the same, because it is important for civilisation in general that people should be allowed to make (legal) choices for themselves and not be discriminated against.

If you turn down an applicant for a job simply because of sexuality, you risk legal action. As you say, people can't help being gay, and they need jobs the same as anyone else. So society cannot allow employers to decide that they would be "uncomfortable" to employ a gay person, or a black person, or a Jewish person, or any other category. You can ask your employees not to talk too openly about their sex lives, but that has to apply to the straight ones just as much as the gay ones.

I am really shocked at how many people seem really quite proud of their homophobia. 'I can't help it'.

We've had homosexuality compared to drug addiction, prostitution and now bestiality and incest.

Homophobia is no better than racism. Would any of you stand up to say that you can't help not liking black people? No you bloody wouldn't.

Vile bunch of bigots

Oh for goodness sake, here we go again.

Treating people differently on the grounds of their sexuality/race/sex etc is bigoted.

People who do this are bigots.

People who do not wish to be considered bigots should stop discriminating against others on the above grounds.

People who pull up others on their bigotry are not bigots they are people who speak out against discrimination.

If you feel uncomfortable with homosexuality then keep it to yourself. It is unacceptable to compare homosexuality to bestiality and incest - indeed most people find this sort of gaff hugely offensive.

As for 'I can't help it'.

Yes you bloody well can - keep your bigotry to yourself and do not act on it (i.e. exploring what makes you a bigot on internet forums).

There are people on this forum who are homosexual or whose family members are - what makes you think you have the right to impose your ignorant hate speech on us?

JHHJ, if you had bothered to read the replies, you'd know how strikingly unoriginal your argument is - though all credit to you, you do seem even more unpleasant than most of those who have also spouted it.

Sorry if I am now be bigot (??) to criticize you, but you are a bigot.

HTH.

Just the reaction I expected

How dare I air my views

"what makes you think you have the right to impose your ignorant hate speech on us?"

I guess the same right as you have on imposing yours

The difference between have race/sex discrimination is that you can tell if someone is black, you can not tell if someone is gay

Hang on a moment JHHJ - you said you wouldn't employ an 'openly gay' person because it would make you feel uncomfortable. So presumably you think you would be able to 'tell' that they were gay.

So, to take your argument about race discrimination to its logical conclusion, you can't want to discriminate against openly gay people, because you can 'tell' if they're gay, same as you can 'tell' if a black person is black. So does that mean that you only want to discriminate against those who are still in the closet. But then you wouldn't know they were gay would you?

Oh dear, I think your argument just went 'pouf'

I'm certainly not bigoted or prejudiced in any way. "some of my best friends are gay". I'm not really fussed about what other consenting adults do. so long as they are decent folk, that's all I ask for.

However, I am aware of the apparent hypocrisy and understand some of the frustration some people are feeling about this. The b&b couple are not permitted to 'discriminate' on who stays in their b&b yet if you are a pharmacist and the morning after pill is against your religion, you are permitted to refuse to provide it. Either a persons religious beliefs are important to them and should be respected or they are not.

and i'm sorry that the only example that came to mind refers to recentish news coverage of Muslim pharmacists and that Islamophobia is another hot topic. I'm not scared of Muslims either. Some of them I like and some of them I don't. See para 1. it's just that it's the only other 'religious beliefs' argument I could think of off hand.

scooby x

Nothing to add, but I can report that at the tiime of witing the word 'bigot' has beeen used 88 times in this thread.

you've counted them all?!

Gawd no....I'm avoiding housework, but not to such desperate ends. ctrl-F!