to think you shouldn't have to accommodate gay / unmarried couples?

[moogstera1]

Re. the b and b owners who have been fined for refusing to allow a gay couple to share a room.
From what I can gather, they are committed Christians who do not allow hetero or homosexual unmarried couples to share a room.
The gay couple deliberatly chose this B and B as they knew they would be refused a shared room and wanted to make a legal point.
They were offered 2 seperate rooms but refused.
So, despite personally not being at all religious and not caring if someone wants to share their bed with whoever they choose, AIBU to think that in their own home, they can choose to uphold their values ( which seem to be consistent as regards no unmarried couples.)

Gay-only hotels should be legal. So should straight-only hotels. So should transgender only hotels. So should black only hotels. Or white only hotels. Or Jewish only hotels. Or Muslim only hotels. Or hotels where you aren't allowed to take pets. Or hotels where you have to take pets. Or hotels only for blind people. Or any other prerequisite that the owner of a private business can come up with that they think could exploit a gap in the market.

There could be a special hotel for trolls.

I'm not a troll. I just don't think it's the governments job to stipulate who private individuals have to do business with.

All those hotels are fine. Other than the ones that break the law by discriminating.

i don't know where I read this, possible on the BBC points of view after a George Gently episode but the thing about the no blacks, no Irish etc in England was a piece of propaganda by the IRA or whatever was the equivalent in the 50's, 60's against the English because of the issues with self rule in Ireland. The notices may not have actually existed. Maybe the attitude.

I think some people are uncomfortable with sex in general. The not under my roof thing.

Yes Rosa could have sat at the back but things were horrendous for black people in America and there was violence towards them and perhaps on that day she felt defiant.

I don't think this is the same kind of thing. the gay couple were not being persecuted by anyone. There were no horrible notices about them. I think they were out to make trouble and money and a point.

It's one of the basic tenets of freedom.

No it isn't - you might like it to be, but its not.

The equality act of 2010 defined 9 protected characteristics which you are not allowed to use to unfairly treat people differently when you are providing goods and services.

They dont! Businesses can refuse to trade with any individual but not a group based on a common protected characteristic.

Luckily the rest of us do.

Set up a business. Refuse to trade with anyone you like. Just don't break the sodding law. It's that simple.

'the thing about the no blacks, no Irish etc in England was a piece of propaganda by the IRA or whatever was the equivalent in the 50's, 60's against the English because of the issues with self rule in Ireland.'

Bollocks.

Cozy, that's fine if you're a straight, non-disabled, employed white adult with no kids, but the more boxes you tick outside that demographic the more problems you're going to have.

But what good does it do? Does it make people less prejudiced when the government forces them to do business with people they don't want to do business with? I would say the opposite.

It's like North Korea saying their people are all happy and love living there. It's utter bollocks because they are forced to look happy and hard-working by the government. You can't change people's minds through legislation. It'd be much better to do it through letting businesses discriminate and watching the bad ones go to the wall.

I just don't think it's the governments job to stipulate who private individuals have to do business with

They aren't individuals they are a business.

People can choose to have pets or not, they can't choose not to be black and in this country we have decided to not allow businesses to discriminate against people for things which they have no choice about.

Individually its legal for you to be as discriminatory and bigotted as you like and only have friends who are white, middle class, able bodied straight etc as long as you don't voice your offensive opinions publically in a way which is offensive.

I don't think this is the same kind of thing. the gay couple were not being persecuted by anyone.

You can think that, but you're wrong.

*per·se·cu·tion (pûrs-kyshn)
n.

1. The act or practice of persecuting on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs that differ from those of the persecutor.*

They were denied a room together because they were unmarried and gay, they were persecuted.

*I think they were out to make trouble and money and a point.)

Again Rosa Parks was out to make a point too, obviously she should have just shut up and sat at the back.

Maybe it forces people to deal with people they might otherwise choose to avoid and see that actually they're human too?

Look at it from the other side. The millions of gay couples who don't actually give a shit what goes on in other people's minds they just want somewhere to stay and don't see why they should have to go somewhere else. Why are you more worried about people's thoughts than their actions and the impact of those actions on othwrs?

Cozy-a govt has to lead, it is that simple. You may as well say that you can't stop people stealing by making a law against it. I would always respect a country on how it deals with it's minorities-funnily enough I find that a fairly Christian attitude!

I've just listened to the phone in discussion on this issue on Jeremy Vine, and am incredibly sad at the some of the things that people have said, particularly the gay man who said he thought the couple refused a room at the B&B were unreasonable because "he always phoned ahead to check it would be OK for him and his boyfriend to stay" when they went away.

"Does it make people less prejudiced" well not the people who are trying to be discriminatory and failing, no, probably makes them worse. But wider society - yes, I believe that America is less bigoted as a result of the ban on black segregation. Because young people grow up sitting next to black people, and sharing hotel space with them, and when they don't catch something terminal from them then nopefully they eventually grasp that being black, gay, asian, old, disabled etc doesn't make you a person not worthy of equal access to goods and services as every other person in our country.

B&Bs aren't a public service. Nor is any other private business.

Please answer tht btw, feel like I'm shouting into the void today

Segregation in the US was a government policy, not private business policy.

But what good does it do? Does it make people less prejudiced when the government forces them to do business with people they don't want to do business with?

Anti-discrimination laws don't exist to stop people from being prejudiced, do they? They exist to prevent people from discriminating -which they do - and they allow people who have been discriminated against to challenge those who have discriminated against them and punish them for doing it, which they also do quite successfully.

Why should people be disadvantaged because of the illegal thoughts of others. Their attitude may well be "i don't care what you think of me or my sexual orientation, I just want a room for the night"

And can I point out if I owned a B&B, I would not discriminate against people on the grounds of them being gay. But I do think that people should have the right to do this.