Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

407 replies

moogstera1 · 19/10/2012 09:18

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.)

OP posts:
StanleyLambchop · 19/10/2012 20:03

I thought Mary & Joseph were in the stable as a last resort, because all the lodgings were full, due to the volume of people in Bethlehem for the census. Not because they were shunned. I doubt anyone in Bethlehem would have known if they were married or not just from them asking for shelter for the night.

TiggyD · 19/10/2012 21:03

I doubt Jesus would go into the B&B business. He'd start producing his own wine. No vineyard needed.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 20/10/2012 00:06

Well he'd probably let you stay and then not charge you. Aaaahhhh.

Zinkies · 20/10/2012 00:33

I don't want to weigh in on this issue particularly, but I do find it quite funny that this debate is considered so settled in this country (or at least on mumsnet) that when Cozy9 posted a quite conventional libertarian defence of property rights, Narked thought Cozy9 was trolling.

SlanketySlank · 20/10/2012 07:06

YABVU! I'm a christian but I accept that not everyone shares my beliefs. Homosexuality is legal, it would be very wrong to turn them away from a b and b. I cannot understand why some people claim to be christians and yet act in such an unchristian manner.

trockodile · 20/10/2012 07:06

Unfortunately I think there is still a long way to go. Twitter friend-gay, in CP, Christian was just saying that he has to phone ahead every time they stay somewhere to make sure they are welcome. You only have to read the DM comments to see how many people think that homophobia is right and normal. Just because things in UK are better than in many other countries should not make us feel complacent, or that it is 'good enough' or 'they' should be thankful for what they have -not saying you said that Zinkies.

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 20/10/2012 07:10

Zinkies, cozy still has not answered the question I asked her a few times. That is sthe sort of thng a troll would do. I'm sure she isn't, but just pointing out its nit just which side of the debate she's on

MummysHappyPills · 20/10/2012 07:17

If it's a business and advertising itself as a business then it is no longer "their own home".

Just think about this for a second. What if you were discriminated against for some reason every time you tried to do something as simple as booking a holiday. Whose side would you be on then? Or do you still think women shouldn't be allowed to vote?

This ruling is challenging bigotry and homophobia. If this couple just chose not to invite gay couples to their private dinner parties that is different. But they chose to exclude gay people specifically when pretty much anyone else could stay at their b&b that was open to the public as a business.

merrymouse · 20/10/2012 07:18

I think the couple were very brave to stand up for their rights.

They might not like it, but hopefully people will now understand the law on this point a little better.

searching4serenity · 20/10/2012 07:23

YABVVU.

merrymouse · 20/10/2012 07:32

Looking back a few pages, I'm a bit confused by this idea that the only problem somebody would have with a gay couple in a civil partnership was that they weren't 'married'.

Presumably, somebody with this point of view would also think anybody married by a registrar was also living in sin? From a legal point of view I really can't see the difference between a civil wedding and the ceremony for a civil partnership - as far as I can see they confer the same rights.

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 20/10/2012 07:47

I was wondering that merrymouse but I think the difference is that heterosexul couples can get 'married', gay couples can have a 'civil partnership'.
I think...seems a bit nitpicky to me.

merrymouse · 20/10/2012 07:53

Aha!

I think I have found the actual difference between a civil marriage and a civil partnership.

Civil partners of male peers or knights do not receive a courtesy title to which the spouse of a peer or knight would be entitled.

musicalendorphins · 20/10/2012 07:53

They are consenting adults, it is none of the B&B peoples business.

merrymouse · 20/10/2012 07:57

(But I don't think male partners of female peers or knights get a courtesy title either).

pigletmania · 20/10/2012 08:05

If you have a business op you do have to include, though it's their home they are also a business subject to discrimination laws. It's funny how people use religion as a cloak for their bigoted beliefs

mayorquimby · 20/10/2012 09:43

The "it's their home..." line of argument is such a red herring and absolute bull-shit. It's just leading to moronic lines of argument along the lines of "so what. now I have to let gay people into my home or else I can be sued?"
well yes, if you choose to live in a place of business.

KennethParcell · 20/10/2012 10:20

those people will eb reassued that at least they can kill gay people if they break in. Wink

edam · 20/10/2012 10:23

I hadn't thought of it that way, Kenneth but you are right! (Only if it's not 'grossly disproportionate' though.) I'm not sure what proportion of burglars are gay but they'd better make sure they don't mention it to homeowners just in case...

TandB · 20/10/2012 11:24

I have been really, really taken aback by the fact that there are people out there who think that there was any justification whatsoever for this act of outright discrimination.

And as for the argument that the gay couple were discriminating against the B&B owners because of their religion, Rosa, well words fail me. Do you actually understand what "discriminate" means? It is to treat someone less favourably because of their membership of a particular ethnic group or because of their gender or disability or sexual orientation. The groups protected in law haven't just been plucked out of thin air. They are groups of people who have historically been subjected to persecution, ill-treatment or abuse by another, more powerful or larger group.

The whole thing about discrimination is that, by default, the people doing the discriminating do not share the characteristics or beliefs of the people being discriminated against. They believe something different, or they have a different skin colour or they are a different gender. That does not, in any way, shape or form, act as a justification for their actions and discrimination is not a two-way street.

If a white person decides not to employ black people, it is not racism for a black person who is refused a job, to object to the white person's beliefs. If a disabled person is refused access to a restaurant because they will be a nuisance with their wheelchair, it is not ablism for that person to complain about the restaurant. If you are discriminated against it then you have the right in law to seek restitution. Doing so does not equal discrimination against the racist/homophobic/sexist individual.

The B&B owners haven't been treated less favourably than everyone else - they have simply been told, in no uncertain terms, that their religion does not entitle them to opt out of this country's laws. It does not entitle them to more favourable treatment than any other B&B owner. If they don't want their beliefs challenged in any way, then they need to close their B&B and get on with their lives - they can believe anything they want, or hate anyone they want, as long as they don't seek to inflict those beliefs on anyone else. If they can't do that then they shouldn't be running a business of any sort.

And as for Nick Griffin, how such an unprincipled twat is permitted to have any say in the running of this country in any way, is entirely beyond me. Even if he didn't commit a criminal offence with that tweet, an elected representative has absolutely no business disclosing people's private information on the internet just because he doesn't like them.

CelineMcBean · 20/10/2012 12:20
Dawndonna · 20/10/2012 12:23

Well said, Kungfu

Bonsoir · 20/10/2012 12:24

The fact that a business is run within your own home doesn't make you above the law that would prevail if you ran it in separate premises.

Cahoots · 20/10/2012 12:30

Great post kungfu

NotGeoffVader · 20/10/2012 12:48

Spot on, kungfu