to think that if B&B's can state 'no kids' then why not 'no gay people'...?

[guiltyandfedup]

I think BOTH are wrong by the way.....BUT as far as I know children are citizens and should be entitled to 'human rights' the same as the rest of society. But often DP and I have found that they will not 'accept' children- what grounds have they to discriminate against them?

The reasons given are 'the comfort of other guests etc etc'. Well in that case why shouldn't B and B owners be able to argue that having gay people in the establishment could cause 'discomfort' to other guests or the oners themselves if it is a total taboo within their cultural or religious beliefs.

Juast wanted to guage others opinions as its been in the news a lot today but no-one seems to have noticed the paralel!

ChippingIn - you can cater to whoever you want to, but you cannot discriminate. It's a very simple distinction. It is against the law, since our (civilised) society does not see certain members as better than others.

By all means cater for vegetarian families - but you can't ban meat eaters - you just wouldn't cook meat for them (and for that reason, by their own choice, they would be likely to stay away, anyway.

Are you really advocating a return to the days of 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish'?

If you're so uncomfortable with certain types of people being in your house, then clearly running a B&B is not for you.

And anyway - to my mind, the types of people who choose to run B&B would be friendly, welcoming, open type people. It's not really the right business for reclusive, intolerant bigots, is it?

amidaiwish - they are not in the UK though are they? I think it's probably perfectly legal to discriminate in a lot of places in the Caribbean - isn't homosexuality illegal in Jamaica?

Having children is a lifestyle choice, and there are SO many places that cater for families with children - is it so unreasonable for families without children to expect places to go to, too?
DH and I spent 7 years going through IVF and adoption, because we wanted that choice. However, we deliberately stayed away from places that catered for children when booking breaks, treats etc, as it's hard enough in every day life coping with seeing other people having everything that you want. Going on holiday, and being confronted with lots of lovely families doing lovely family things was actually really bloody hard for us, so places that cater only for families of adults was a nice choice for us. Not everything and everyone revolves around children - there are plenty of other places that you can go.

Yuk.

ChippingIn we stopped referring to black people as "coloured" at about the same time as Enoch Powell was sent off out of harms' way.

ah, yes that is probably it LadyBiscuit - they are resorts in the Caribbean.

but surprised UK law allows it on TV then.

i am proud to be in a "no discrimination tolerated" society. we are very lucky. like it or not, you never know if you are going to be the next discriminated against group.

Good point sterryerryoh. DH & I always went away for a few days after a miscarriage on a child-free break, and we always pointed out the advantages of not having kids to make ourselves feel better. Would have been much, much harder if there'd been kids allowed in the B&B's we used!

at 'coloured people'

(Ddog is both a dog and Irish. He isn't black, he is sable. Which is a posh way of saying ginger. He has friends of all colours, sizes, breeds, some neutered, some sexually active and some who still try it on even if neutered. Sometimes I think his outlook is more sensible than a lot of humans! He behaves well in a bandb because he knows that good dogs get a nice sausage for breakfast)

stleger, what's that about? I don't get it

What about gay children?

(my gay sil fancied Mary Poppins when she was 5)

Gay dogs, even

black, gay dogs with children

frightening

I have children and love them dearly. However, if I was having a romantic night away with DH, I would pick somewhere that didn't take children. Not because I think that they would spoil things by being badly behaved, but because I would be having a child free break.
If I'm taking my children away, I'd look for somewhere that advertises as child friendly.

As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't be reminded of, and miss, my absent gay friends if there were gay couples staying at the same B&B as me (in the same way I would my children).

In that respect, I think the two issues are completely different.

Surely we are all coloured people
I, for eg, am pinkish
actually a bit yellow on the arms
maybe I have jaundice

Referring to black people as coloured instantly earmarks someone as a bit of a Daily Mailer IMO. Sorry if this makes me judgemental.

People are well within their rights to ban anyone they like from their own homes. People are not within their rights to open a business and deny goods and services to people based on race, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? I understand there are issues re wheelchair access/disabled toilets that become tricky with people's homes that may not be able to be made accessible, the law cannot force people to remodel their homes AFAIK. However, that is a matter of practicalities and expense.

However denying services to people based on the fact that you have a prejudice against them is illegal and unacceptable. Nobody forces anyone to run a B&B, if they don't like the law, they should not be running a business from their home.

{headdesk}

The bigoted old witch should have asked "what would Jesus do?" and I certainly don't think that Jesus would have turned them away.

When I was about 6 (in 1972), our headmaster announced in assembly that a "coloured family" were joining our school and we were all to make them feel welcome.
It was very unfortunate terminlogy... we were all expecting rainbow children, they must have wondered why we all looked so disappointed when they arrived.

"coloured people, white people" surely if you are going to stick with that antiquated phrase it should be coloured people and colourless people, no?

and amidaiwish I think they say "couple equals one man and one woman" to stop friends going together. It's for couples not for a big girly holiday (or boisterous) stag/hen type holidays where people may go together. I don't think it is meant to stop homosexual couples.

Also at all those "it's in the caribbean and that's what they're like over there" posters. That is prejudice. Actually homosexuality is not illegal in Jamaica or elsewhere in the caribbean but their are islands where the act of sodomy is illegal (possibly swings and roundabouts) but heterosexual couples can also be punished for the crime.

I think the problem in some areas of the caribbean is the relgious zeal and determination that homosexuality is a "white man's act" etc is common and so you are more likely to be harrassed by the general public rather than the law if you are an out of the closet homosexual.

....terminology...

pesky keyboard!

I do feel slightly sorry for people who say coloured (sometimes) as they say it because they don't know the pc word to use.

which for the record is black

"and amidaiwish I think they say "couple equals one man and one woman" to stop friends going together. It's for couples not for a big girly holiday (or boisterous) stag/hen type holidays where people may go together. I don't think it is meant to stop homosexual couples."

You're being extremely charitable there!!

If that were really the case, they'd simply say 'No Groups'. Or 'Couples Only'.

'Couple = one man and one woman' clearly means no gay couples. There is no other way to interpret it.

maybe 5dollar I just can't imagine them discriminating so bluntly and openly??? That's nuts I'm going to check out their website