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.)

x post FSG, exactly what I was trying to say
Like pregnancy comeing under sex discrimination

Its more than gay people can't get married - their website states that (in their opinion) marriage (being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others)

But they didn't check/ask if anyone else was divorced or married they only refused outright on the ground that they were men and therefore.

You can say you think its OK all you like - but it illegal.

Narked how do you know that. Have you got proof about the notices existing or is it just heresay. I don't know either.

I still don't think this scenario compares with Rosa Parks.

so if the gay couple got married woudl that be OK?
possibly, we don't know. her beef seems to be about being unmarried, so I assume a marriage acondoned by her religion would be Ok.

But she's admitting herself that if a middle-aged straight couple walked in, she wouldn't expect them to verify that they were married.

(Joins Kew in head banging!)

She follows the teachings of her church - no she didn't - just that one tiny bit.

No problems with people worshipping graven images, working on the sabbath, adultery, etc. But woe betide you if you are in a legal partnership with a person of the same sex.

Sticking to strict biblical teachings would still be discriminatory for a business but at least it would have afforded them the moral high ground. Picking one aspect of christianity and enforcing it doesn't.

All the adult only hotels , Sandals , couples resorts etc must be obliged to accept children ... Nope I would prefer to chosse a hotel that is suitable to my needs and if children are 'frowned ' uopn on not welcome then I would choose elsewhere. They were wronng to try to prove this they could ahve easily enough chosen somewhere where they would be made welcome...
We have a hotel here that is run to jewish religion, everybody is welcome but you have to abide by the jewish faith , in the sense of the customs, if you don't fancy it then choose another ......

sorry for typos on phone....

Their religious beliefs are incompatible with the business they have chosen to run. They should therefore start another business.

I have mixed feelings on this. If they are running a business then they are running a business and cannot discriminate. But on the other hand if they didn't believe in drinking then they could say no drink on the premises. Or any other thing they didn't approve of. But of course feelings run high on this issue. And they were not refused accommodation as far as I understood, only refused a double room.

Thats your right to choose to go where you like Rosa. Doesn't change a thing. The law is that you can't discriminate on the basis on one of the 9 protected characteristics.

Children are not a protected characteristic - they are a choice.

Good point Rosa, Would aJewish run hotel check me in whilst I'm muching on a sausage roll?
I might think their dietary rules are bonkers, but I wouldn't press for the right to eat pork in their hotel. I'd go somewhere else.

It's like, if you are a vegan, don't work as a waiter in a steakhouse or open a butcherery shop.

Duh.

YABVvvvvvvvvvvvU,

the nasty couple who refused to accommodate a gay couple are abhorrent.

It's interesting how many vile people use religion as a way to be abusive to others.

The teachings of her church are irrelevant. We all have to follow the law of the land. The law is that this sort of discrimination is wrong. So she was wrong. If you want to break the law to follow some item of teaching - fine, but expect to take whatever penalty applies.

actually marriage/civil partnership is a protected characteristic so maybe if an unmarried straight couple sued - they might have won too.

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but how do hotels/bars which refuse to admit stag parties not get sued under this law? Surely are they discriminating on the basis of the gender of the group wishing to make the booking? Seems to be quite a common stance but is it actually legal? Just curious!

no i don't think so, though I see your point. They are discriminating on behaviour. They tend to say something like "no large single sex group bookings" so they are not discriminating against any single group.
Does make you wonder whether they'd allow a nun convention :o

Stanley - I think they generally refuse to admit large single-sex groups (i.e. stags AND hens) so not discriminating on gender.

But isn't religion or belief a protected characteristic as well and she was protecting hers ??
From the Equality act Act 2010
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick ? BTW I am not saying what she did was right , but I am one of those who go where I would like to feel welcome and comfortable ...

Alemci, funnily enough my father, grandparents and mother didn't take photos of them. They all saw them. But that probably doesn't count against your half remembered possibly POV

If you mean,don't have to accommodate gay couples in your own private residence,if you have a problem with it then YANBU I suppose.

If you mean,don't have to accommodate gay couples in your place of business,open to the public,because you have a problem with it then YABVU.

It doesn't really matter if the couple in question were sent by Stonewall (as I believe was reported nearer when the incident occurred),they were still discriminated against.

I do think the monetary compensation cheapens the end verdict however.

"sa Fri 19-Oct-12 13:14:38
But isn't religion or belief a protected characteristic as well and she was protecting hers ?? "

Yes, it is. Anyone providing goods or services to her would not be allowed to discriminate against her because of her Christian beliefs.

AFAIK there are no religions which have racist views as a part of their values

The Dutch Reformed Church in pre-democratic South Africa? Fortunately they have moved on and apologised.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/despatches/africa/33032.stm