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.

Can I just point out that none of my best friends are black or gay. And since it's only bigots who use that sentence this is conclusive evidence of my non-bigot credientials.

(just wanted to round it up to 90)

do you have a point at all Harpy, or are you just roaming around criticising peoples language? You don't seem to making any tangible contribution to this thread.

And if we are nailing our colors to the mast JHHJ, you make me sick.

scooby, you can refuse or agree to provide the map to everyone, but you can't decide you want to provide it to some people and not others. poor analogy.

well no, i want it to apply to everyone.

Either everyone's religious beliefs are important and should be respected and therefore a B&B can refuse to let a room to an unmarried couple and a pharmacist can refuse to sell the morning after pill.

or.

The rights of the customer (in this instance) are the most important and a B&B must let a room to an unmarried couple and a pharmacist must sell a morning after pill.

why is it a poor analogy?

JHHJ could you read Hester and Lesley's posts on this thread and then tell us how you personally justify contributing to the genuine suffering of other decent human beings with the prejudices you describe? I honestly can't understand how that is possible :(

Because the analogy would be that they decide that they won't open a BandB after all.

its a poor analogy because a pharmacist can refuse to sell anyone the MAP because of sincere religious belief, the hotel can't refuse to serve some people due to theirs. One is discrimination, one is not.

they can not like it. They just can't discriminate against a sub-section of the population in a business.

I really don't see how this is a difficult argument to grasp.

WTF would anybody feel uncomfortable working with a gay person?

What the he'll have anybodys relationship preferences got do do with their colleagues and bosses?

I am truly stunned that in this day and age of social education people really think like this.

Gays are people too!

Well they refused to accommodate anyone who wasn't married.

And only some people would be attempting to buy the MAP.

FWIW, I don't agree with the B&B couple. But I can see that there are discrepancies that make people feel that the rules don't apply to everyone.

Whether you agree or disagree is down to your own position, your own experience, your own beliefs, etc. - after all there are as many sides to a story as there are people telling it.

My best friend, who is gay, and I were talking about this last night and she said she didn't see what the problem is. The couple don't represent the views of the majority of people, they are a couple running and minding their own business and maybe they should be able to run it as they see fit.

It is distasteful to a lot of people but until they are out protesting in the streets, their personal and privately held beliefs are theirs. They weren't rude to the couple, just told them that they did not permit unmarried couples to stay in their b&b.

unrulysun perhaps the pharmacists decision should be that they don't become a pharmacist at all because it will be against their beliefs to provide some medication then.

Then your best friend, who is gay, doesn't get it either.

or perhaps not everyone is so desperate to find a drum to bang.

I just wonder if this would have attracted the same attention if it had been an unmarried heterosexual couple who had been refused a room.

I don't know how long the B&B has been open but presumeably this couple aren't the first to ever fall foul of the owners requirements. Why has it not been challenged before? Perhaps because other would-be patrons said "oh, ok" and took their money elsewhere.

Yeah I'm not hugely bothered about the pharmacist tbh. To me it's just self evident that if you want to stay in a(n) hotel you shouldn't be turned away because of your sexuality and I haven't seen an argument that's even vaguely compelling against that on this thread.

but they weren't turned away because of their sexuality, but because they weren't married.

If someone has booked a stay at your hotel, and they turn up on the doorstep with their bags, it is "rude" (and worse) to turn them away from the door because you won't honour their booking. This couple were then in the difficult position of having to find other accomodation for their holiday, at a moment's notice. They may have then had to check many hotels to try to get a room, if it was high season particularly, when they thought they had everything booked and sorted.

I'd say that's at least "rude". It would have totally messed up my holiday if it had happened to me.

Then perhaps same sex marriage should be made legal instead of the fudged "civil partnerships" so that nobody can argue that they aren't married?

My mother is currently building a guest house, and as devout Christians, she also will not allow unmarried couples to share a room-regardless of sex.

However, that is why she is opening as a guest house and not a hotel...a hotel has different laws one being that you HAVE to give a bed to someone who demands it, if you have the space. A guest house-because it is in your home/attached to your home has different laws attached to it.

What is the difference between a marriage and civil partnership?

AMum well that would certainly ascertain the true intentions of said b&b!

Although I would have thought it would be obvious from the names that the couple were both male and would have thought the b&b would have said something then.

There is s difference between unmarried hetero couples and gay couples though. The former can go get married and then be welcome. The latter can not ever get married, because they are denied that and instead given civil partnership.
So they are in fact being discriminated against because of their sexuality.

Lets spell it out for those still not grasping the simple concept;
"NOT OK TO TURN PEOPLE AWAY BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY".
ok?

So if they can't get married...or be recognised as married and the hotel rules say;

"No unmarried couples"....and indeed they are not a married couple...then it isn't the hotel owners at fault, it's surely whoever it is who decided that civil partnerships were sufficient?