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.)

What the hell are "illegal thoughts!?

Segregation in the US was a government policy I never said it wasn't. I'm making the point that he/she believes the gay couple were being awkward and should have just gone somewhere else. You could say the same about Rose Parks.

If people simply accepted discrimination w/o challenging it, the world would be a very different place.

At the risk of becoming repetitive;
However, the recorder accepted that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed
Where does that say she was homophobic? she applied exactly the same criteria to unmarried hetero couples.

I don;t understand your argument about public service vs private business. UNless the govt is going to start providing hotels and shops with universal access a-la soviet russia then peoples only access to goods and services is private business and we as a society have decided (yay for us) that businesses (of any sort) have to abide by equality rules.

What is the relevance of segregation in the US being a govt policy in teh past? I was using the ban on segregation to demonstrate how it did have an effect on peoples attitudes over time.

Anyways, I have a midwife appointment - I'll enjoy reading through the thread when I get back.

Sorry, wishing to discriminate is not illegal.
Discriminating is illegal.

Same with most crimes.

I repeat, why are you more bothered about changing the way Peope think than the way they act? It would be fine for them to slap on a smile and pretend at being welcoming as long as they do not discriminate. If they still fundamentally disagre with homosexuality that's their problem and not the problem of anyone else.

How do you know it has had an effect on people's attitudes? You don't know unless you remove the legislation enforcing it. A country where equality is enforced by government legislation can never be truly equal.

Moogstera-because they did not ask this couple if they were married, and do not ask heterosexual couples for proof that they are married.
Not sure if she has answered what she would have said if they were-but as it has not been used afaik in their defence can only assume that a married homosexual couple would still not be welcome.

But Moogstera - also at the risk of becoming repetitive - she also admitted that she didn't always check marital status so clearly wasn't that bothered.

Did I just dream that I posted the quote from the rcorder which states they turned away hetero couples as well?

No. But the turning away of hetero couples was inconsistent.

moogstera1 she applied exactly the same criteria to unmarried hetero couples. personally I still think thats not acceptable as she has picked sex outside of marriage as the single aspect of christianity which was enforced at their hotel. She also admitted that they hadn't checked whether opposite sex couples were married or not. So unless a couple made a particular point of saying that they were unmarried then they didn't ask. Why didn't they discriminate aginst HIndu's or atheists or divorcees? It doesn't make sense, why just unmarried couples if they are such devout Christians?

Also there is no law against discriminating against young white unmarried couples so there was no legal point to be made.

So if she'd said she wouldn't let gay people share a bed because she didn't agree with that would that be ok Moogster? Because that's what she was saying - gay people can't get married. Is it different in your eyes because she cited religious belief rather than personal belief?

She might not have always checked marital status. Maybe just if they were a young couple with no wedding ring going by the name of "smith". But a gay couple can not be legally married so there was nothing for her to check.
She was happy to have them in her home.

"Cozy9 Fri 19-Oct-12 12:48:17
How do you know it has had an effect on people's attitudes?"

Was that to me??? I have said exactly the opposite. Can anyone see my posts?

No, no different. She does not want people who are not married sharing a bed under her roof. That applies to gay and non gay couples, as stated in the recorder's report. Nothing homophobic about that as far as I can see.

So what you are saying is that she applied an impossible standard which she knew they could not achieve?

"But I do think that people should have the right to do this." Yes you've made that clear. But they don't. Not in the UK. Perhaps they could move?

'She does not want people who are not married sharing a bed under her roof'

But gay people, as I said, can't get married.

You may as well say that they told a blind man that he was welcome as soon as he read the rules.

If she didn't check marital status though, that's hypocritical and a copout.

No, she applies the same standard to everyone. married, get to share a bed, unmarried, separate rooms. Simple.
if gay marriage was legal and condoned by the church I should imagine she would have had them in the same room.
She follows the teachings of her church, which rightly or wrongly will not allow gay marriage. that's equally not her fault.

so if the gay couple got married woudl that be OK?

I doubt it

It is (indirect) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, moogstera, as gay couples can't get married

well that's still discrimination because by her logic she will always refuse service to gay people because they are gay and therefore cannot be married.
Straight people are in with a chance.