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!

Why should a guest house get special dispensation?

Why not pubs and hotels? The owners often live there too. Actually, the same can be said of residential schools and carehomes - should owner occupiers of those services be able to discriminate on the grounds of orientation, race or religion? Afterall, it's their home too... Same argument used to justify allowing BnB's to discriminate.

"Coming soon to a town near you - white-only schools and care homes.."

5DollarShake - I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinions - but I do have a problem with people mis-quoting me and twisting what I say.

You are still not 'listening' to what I am saying, it has been perfectly clear from all of my posts that I do not want to go back to 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish'.

It is my opinion that if a Muslim couple want to run a Muslim only B&B, or a Gay couple a Gays only B&B, or a Irish couple an Irish only B&B or a B&B for Accountants only - whatever - they should be able to.

Why is a 'Ladies Only' gym acceptable, but a 'Ladies only B&B' not acceptable? There are loads of things that 'target' a certain group of people - why are B&B's not allowed to do that?

The ladies only gym is a different machine. They are excluding all groups from these gyms except women. This is because these companies believe that a lot of women shy away from gyms where men are present. True enough. But was a gym to say "anyone can join except gays/blacks/jews" this would be classed as discrimination.

thanks damnedchillblains - that would have been bothering me! must have changed their policy/forced to change! it has been a while since i have even been remotely interested in such holidays. sadly.

regarding the Sandals thing - bit of a side issue, sorry - I don't think their policy was to discriminate against same sex couples, but to try and ensure that no big same sex groups of women or men were going to use the resort in an 18-30 holiday type way. Maybe I'm giving Sandals credit where it's not due, but that's always what I assumed they meant.

Chippingin, I think your last post seems to be contradicting itself.

You say you don't want a return to no blacks, no Irish etc yet you say someone wanting to runs a (say) English only B&B should be allowed yet thats as good as saying no Irish.

I'm no lover of the nanny state but theres a good reason why my 'White Middle-Class Married Mummies Motel' would be against the law.

I think we also need to look at the bigger picture. When it comes down to it, there are very reasonable, practical reasons why an establishment can and should be allowed to advertise as no children or no pets. None of these apply to someone's sexuality.

The law cannot see any reason other than bigotry why a gay couple could not access the services therefore it is unreasonable for them to be denied it.

There are laws protecting disabled people but a small establishment in a 400 year old house would legally be able to say that their attc room was not suitable for disabled guest. (Though not deny access for that reason) The law understands that this decision is not based on ignorance but rather practicalities.

Reasonable people can see the difference which is why comparing No Gays to No Children doesn't work.

ChippingIn I think you've missed a rather large point. You say;

I don't just SAY I have no problem with gays, black people etc I DON'T - I have an issue with a law that dictates that if you choose to run a B&B/Guest House then you must take anyone who wants to stay there - irrespective of your own beliefs/preferences (no matter how mad those beliefs/preferences are)... as I said earlier if you only want to admit guests who are blonde, one armed, dentists - then you should be able to.>

And the thing is, you can have plenty of restrictions. You can have only dentists, or vegetarians, or no children, or whatever. Because these are reasonable choices to make. You can run a women only guesthost, I've been to one. The law recognises that to discriminate against someone on the basis of colour or sexuality is different, its unacceptable .
There is a difference between saying I only want vegetarians or no dogs, and saying I'm not having gays in my house. Laws reflect current moral thinking, and thankfully we have reached a point where it is not okay to say that you are not welcome because you are gay and black. Not when you are running a business. You can do it in your own home, but then you would be a twat.

Is there a difference between saying "I only want heterosexual people in my house" and saying "No gay people in my house"??

no.