Gay hotels investigated for breaching equality laws

[cub]

Gay hotels investigated for breaching equality laws

Hotels that only accept homosexuals are being investigated by a government-funded watchdog for discriminating against heterosexual couples.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8335716/Gay-hotels-investigated-for-breaching-equality-laws.html

[Stu]

Because heterosexual couples are just lining up to get in the doors, right?

Why stop here? Let's get the black musicians awards next!

[arista]

'objective balance'.


They better let normal couples in
or they will be in trouble

[cub]

'objective balance'.


They better let normal couples in
or they will be in trouble


... because gays aren't 'normal'? :nono:

[MTVN]

Only fair I suppose. If the Christian couple were prosecuted for not allowing a Gay couple then the same rule has to apply when the situation is reversed

[Niamh.]

Only fair I suppose. If the Christian couple were prosecuted for not allowing a Gay couple then the same rule has to apply when the situation is reversed

yep, very true

[arista]

... because gays aren't 'normal'? :nono:


No Gays are Fine

As are normal non gay couples

[Jords]

Because heterosexual couples are just lining up to get in the doors, right?

Why stop here? Let's get the black musicians awards next!

:joker:

First gays arnt supposedly given the same treatment as straight people, and now they get too much, lmao.

[joeysteele]

Only fair I suppose. If the Christian couple were prosecuted for not allowing a Gay couple then the same rule has to apply when the situation is reversed

Absolutely, you are 100% right.

[cub]

No Gays are Fine

As are normal non gay couples

I don't like your use of the word 'normal', but I shall leave it there.

[Vicky.]

So they should be. Equality goes both ways :/

[arista]

I don't like your use of the word 'normal', but I shall leave it there.



Spiffing

[arista]

So they should be. Equality goes both ways :/


Yes and
Anal Sex for woman that Dig it
is also Equality both ways.




Feel The Force

[Marsh.]

Yes and
Anal Sex for woman that Dig it
is also Equality both ways.




Feel The Force


http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/tanuki-kage/Emoticons/spittake.gif

[Stu]

Some people aren't getting it.

Private clubs and establishments with certain member only policies - like an advertised gay only hotel - are fully within the law with legislation to protect them. The hotel in that case awhile back was not advertised as a No Fags zone. It was just a standard hotel run by a Christian couple who decided to let their private beliefs infringe upon their public business in a way deemed unlawful by the courts.

What's the difference between this establishment and a barber shop that only caters towards men? Go on. Is the barber shop being sexist? Where do you draw the line? Should we cry wolf on a Catholic church that refuses to baptise a practicing Muslim next? A gay hotel is absoloutely fine.

Suffer persecution to this day after a long history of it and you are sort of entitled to your own bit of sanctuary. What's wrong with homosexuals enjoying a hotel where they don't have to fear being judged or sneered at for holding hands at the ****ing pool?

It bills itself as a gay hotel. Just like barber shops bill themselves as male haircutting establishments. Just like a million other lawfully protected, legitimate clubs, establishments and businesses bill themselves as being for specific clientele.

Maybe if the Christian couple had billed themselves as being a hotel with strong Christian principals that gay couple would not have won the case as it would have simply been pointed out to them that they knew what they were letting themselves in for. But the reality was radically different, wasn't it.

It's unlawful to refuse a woman the right to employment based on her sexuality. It's not unlawful to deny her entry to a mens changing room.

Boy oh boy I can't wait till LeatherTrumpet gets here.

[MTVN]

Some people aren't getting it.

Private clubs and establishments with certain member only policies - like an advertised gay only hotel - are fully within the law with legislation to protect them. The hotel in that case awhile back was not advertised as a No Fags zone. It was just a standard hotel run by a Christian couple who decided to let their private beliefs infringe upon their public business in a way deemed unlawful by the courts.

What's the difference between this establishment and a barber shop that only caters towards men? Go on. Is the barber shop being sexist? Where do you draw the line? Should we cry wolf on a Catholic church that refuses to baptise a practicing Muslim next? A gay hotel is absoloutely fine.

Suffer persecution to this day after a long history of it and you are sort of entitled to your own bit of sanctuary. What's wrong with homosexuals enjoying a hotel where they don't have to fear being judged or sneered at for holding hands at the ****ing pool?

It bills itself as a gay hotel. Just like barber shops bill themselves as male haircutting establishments. Just like a million other lawfully protected, legitimate clubs, establishments and businesses bill themselves as being for specific clientele.

Maybe if the Christian couple had billed themselves as being a hotel with strong Christian principals that gay couple would not have won the case as it would have simply been pointed out to them that they knew what they were letting themselves in for. But the reality was radically different, wasn't it.

It's unlawful to refuse a woman the right to employment based on her sexuality. It's not unlawful to deny her entry to a mens changing room.

Boy oh boy I can't wait till LeatherTrumpet gets here.

But the Christian couple did bill themselves as that. They had a note on their website saying "please respect that due to our strong Christian beliefs, our double-bedded rooms are only available to married couples". I'm paraphrasing there but I am almost certain that they did indeed clarify such a policy, and they had had it in place for 20 years. Allegedly the Gay couple also used a false name to book the room, saying they were a Mr & Mrs ______. Don't hold me to that because I'm not sure if it ever got proved or disproved in the Court's verdict but that was what was alleged

Edit: just found a link to their website and it says this on the booking page:

Special Note:

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples Thank you.

(Interesting that that's still there btw)

[Shaun]

Fair enough I guess...in both examples (that B&B that was prosecuted for persecuting against gay couples and this) it just seems bizarre that anyone against the norm would want to stay there.

[Stu]

But the Christian couple did bill themselves as that. They had a note on their website saying "please respect that due to our strong Christian beliefs, our double-bedded rooms are only available to married couples". I'm paraphrasing there but I am almost certain that they did indeed clarify such a policy, and they had had it in place for 20 years. Allegedly the Gay couple also used a false name to book the room, saying they were a Mr & Mrs ______. Don't hold me to that because I'm not sure if it ever got proved or disproved in the Court's verdict but that was what was alleged

Edit: just found a link to their website and it says this on the booking page:

Special Note:

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples Thank you.

(Interesting that that's still there btw)
Oh fair enough. I didn't know that. I'm not going to back out of my argument so in lieu of that I would say the Christian couple were in the right there.

[arista]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g13/tanuki-kage/Emoticons/spittake.gif


I hope you were able to Laugh as well
as spiting out your hot drink.

[cub]

It is as unlawful for a gay owned establishment to ban straight people as it is a straight establishment to ban gays. And this is correct and how it should be.

A gay b&b is not a club. You cannot ban straight people from a gay club either.

The only way you can run a men-only leather bar today is to create one as a 'members only' club with a membership card etc.

[Niall]

Fair enough I guess...in both examples (that B&B that was prosecuted for persecuting against gay couples and this) it just seems bizarre that anyone against the norm would want to stay there.

This. :conf2:

[Pyramid*]

Any business owner should have the right to refuse to offer their services to whomever they want to refuse - without all the pc brigade sh!t that inevitably follows. I realise this is prompted by the ECHR but it's only a matter of time.

If a straight couple don't want to accomodate gays, if gay owners don't want to accomodate hetros, if Mr & Mrs Traditional Whatever Business They Run don't want to accomodate x/y/z.... its their business...THEIR business, not Joe Publics.

It's time people stopped talking fecking huff, stop throwing court actions all over the place because they want to force others into doing something they don't want to do. If a business owner doesn't want to do business with any type of person (whether it be gender, race, sexual orientation etc) - they shouldn't be forced to. It might not make them business person of the year, but it's their business and they should be able to run it as they wish to - not because some arsehold joe public throws a strop because they cant get their own way or the ECHR wanting learning to get a grip.

[Angus]

The difference being I suppose that many Christian and Muslim couples would not want to set foot inside a Gay establishment, so one could argue that forewarned is forearmed.

But the principle should be applied to all - if it was illegal for this Christian couple to have refused lodgings to a gay couple, then it should be just as illegal for Gay hotel owners to refuse to take heterosexual couples.

[cub]

Any business owner should have the right to refuse to offer their services to whomever they want to refuse - without all the pc brigade sh!t that inevitably follows. I realise this is prompted by the ECHR but it's only a matter of time.

If a straight couple don't want to accomodate gays, if gay owners don't want to accomodate hetros, if Mr & Mrs Traditional Whatever Business They Run don't want to accomodate x/y/z.... its their business...THEIR business, not Joe Publics.

It's time people stopped talking fecking huff, stop throwing court actions all over the place because they want to force others into doing something they don't want to do. If a business owner doesn't want to do business with any type of person (whether it be gender, race, sexual orientation etc) - they shouldn't be forced to. It might not make them business person of the year, but it's their business and they should be able to run it as they wish to - not because some arsehold joe public throws a strop because they cant get their own way or the ECHR wanting learning to get a grip.


So where do you draw the line. If small businesses - like B&Bs - can discrminate, why not large busnesses? Why not companies?

You have to have anti-discrimination procedures across the board. Therefore anyone that opens a registered business CANNOT discriminate.

It's quite simple. But people still can't grasp it.

[Pyramid*]

So where do you draw the line. If small businesses - like B&Bs - can discrminate, why not large busnesses? Why not companies?

You have to have anti-discrimination procedures across the board. Therefore anyone that opens a registered business CANNOT discriminate.

It's quite simple. But people still can't grasp it.

Really? The simple truth is: no one should have anything rammed down their throats or forced to accept clientele that they don't wish to have on their premises. Very very few small businesses are so select that the public does not have an alternative choice. So it's only the 'consumer' or the 'end user' that is allowed the choice - going bywhat is going on here.

What about the human rights of the small business person then - who cater for and to a very specific market - clearly that means nothing then, as does THEIR own rights to cater to a specific market of their chosing. It's only the end user that gets the choice. Isn't that discrimination in reversal?

[Shasown]

Really? The simple truth is: no one should have anything rammed down their throats or forced to accept clientele that they don't wish to have on their premises. Very very few small businesses are so select that the public does not have an alternative choice. So it's only the 'consumer' or the 'end user' that is allowed the choice - going bywhat is going on here.

What about the human rights of the small business person then - who cater for and to a very specific market - clearly that means nothing then, as does THEIR own rights to cater to a specific market of their chosing. It's only the end user that gets the choice. Isn't that discrimination in reversal?

Funny thing is it all started of with the gay couple and the christian B&B naturally the gay couple didnt "entrap" the christians by ignoring the "married couples only" bit.

Now because someone has pointed out to the EHRC(Equality and Human Rights Commission) that they have to be balanced and fair, they are instigating an investigation into gay only businesses. Obviously this isnt just "being seen to be fair" or justifying their own existence.

The law is a double edged sword, sometimes it cuts the users.

[MTVN]

So where do you draw the line. If small businesses - like B&Bs - can discrminate, why not large busnesses? Why not companies?

You have to have anti-discrimination procedures across the board. Therefore anyone that opens a registered business CANNOT discriminate.

It's quite simple. But people still can't grasp it.

So what about Diamond insurance, and other companies like that, who are specifically for woman drivers? Surely that is discrimination by a large businesses. And Stu made the point about barber shops as well, the same applies there.

[Shasown]

So what about Diamond insurance, and other companies like that, who are specifically for woman drivers? Surely that is discrimination by a large businesses. And Stu made the point about barber shops as well, the same applies there.

Been done to death that argument.

Sheilas wheels etc offer lower premiums for women because statistically women cause and get involved in fewer accidents. All insurance companies actually quote women drivers lower than same age etc males. Its a marketing ploy is all.

If a man rings up and asks for a quote they transfer you to another part of their company, they technically dont refuse to insure males.

Most Barber and hairdressers are unisex hair salons in the UK, if a shop advertises itself as a barber shop its actually guiding the customer not to go in and ask for layered and coloured styles. Again they arent refusing opn the grounds of sex rather staff ability. Many women you know want a short back and sides or flattop and slopwalls?

[BB_Eye]

Any business owner should have the right to refuse to offer their services to whomever they want to refuse - without all the pc brigade sh!t that inevitably follows. I realise this is prompted by the ECHR but it's only a matter of time.

If a straight couple don't want to accomodate gays, if gay owners don't want to accomodate hetros, if Mr & Mrs Traditional Whatever Business They Run don't want to accomodate x/y/z.... its their business...THEIR business, not Joe Publics.This is not about ownership. It's simply about giving consumers equal opportunities. By your reasoning, a high street shop is well within their rights to refuse wheelchair access to their upper floor or a hotel can refuse a room to an Irish person. Attack laws against discrimination in the provision of goods and services all you like, but do you have a better suggestion?

It's time people stopped talking fecking huff, stop throwing court actions all over the place because they want to force others into doing something they don't want to do. If a business owner doesn't want to do business with any type of person (whether it be gender, race, sexual orientation etc) - they shouldn't be forced to. It might not make them business person of the year, but it's their business and they should be able to run it as they wish to - not because some arsehold joe public throws a strop because they cant get their own way or the ECHR wanting learning to get a grip.I know. Isn't it incredibly selfish when people demand to be treated fairly? What front.

[MTVN]

Been done to death that argument.

Sheilas wheels etc offer lower premiums for women because statistically women cause and get involved in fewer accidents. All insurance companies actually quote women drivers lower than same age etc males. Its a marketing ploy is all.

If a man rings up and asks for a quote they transfer you to another part of their company, they technically dont refuse to insure males.

Most Barber and hairdressers are unisex hair salons in the UK, if a shop advertises itself as a barber shop its actually guiding the customer not to go in and ask for layered and coloured styles. Again they arent refusing opn the grounds of sex rather staff ability. Many women you know want a short back and sides or flattop and slopwalls?

Yeah fair enough, I see your point there

[Zippy]

Some gay hotels are kinda like gay saunas in that they are geared towards a casual sex market. The entertainment and facilities cater for that purpose. In those cases its understandable they only want gay guests. But that should be made clear in advertising.

However, for a hotel catering for normal accommodation purposes I see no reason to discriminate based on sexuality. Stupid from a business point of view. Surprised they even have the luxury of choice.

To say that any business can discriminate is basically saying that they should be allowed to put up No blacks allowed signs or similar. I think not.

[Marsh.]

Some gay hotels are kinda like gay saunas in that they are geared towards a casual sex market. The entertainment and facilities cater for that purpose. In those cases its understandable they only want gay guests. But that should be made clear in advertising.

However, for a hotel catering for normal accommodation purposes I see no reason to discriminate based on sexuality. Stupid from a business point of view. Surprised they even have the luxury of choice.

To say that any business can discriminate is basically saying that they should be allowed to put up No blacks allowed signs or similar. I think not.


:laugh2: I love your signature.

[Pyramid*]

This is not about ownership. It's simply about giving consumers equal opportunities. By your reasoning, a high street shop is well within their rights to refuse wheelchair access to their upper floor or a hotel can refuse a room to an Irish person. Attack laws against discrimination in the provision of goods and services all you like, but do you have a better suggestion?

I know. Isn't it incredibly selfish when people demand to be treated fairly? What front.

Do YOU have a better suggestion? There simply isn't one because by whatever way it's looked at - someone will have to accept being forced to do something they don't want to do -whether the owner or consumer. So explain to me....how is that treating the person offering the business fairly? Oh..... it's not. It's making them accept clientele that they may not wish to accept - for whatever reason. But because they own a business, that's just their tough luck isn't it.

I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that the whole Human Rights Act may have it's good side, there is a lot of down side to it as well.

Double edged sword as mentioned earlier. Damned if they do, damned if the don't.

[BB_Eye]

Do YOU have a better suggestion?
There is no better suggestion. That's my point. I happen to believe people shouldn't be refused a good or service simply because of their race, sex, disability or sexual orientation. I'm sorry you don't agree.

There simply isn't one because by whatever way it's looked at - someone will have to accept being forced to do something they don't want to do -whether the owner or consumer. So explain to me....how is that treating the person offering the business fairly? Oh..... it's not. It's making them accept clientele that they may not wish to accept - for whatever reason. But because they own a business, that's just their tough luck isn't it.

Quibbles about certain aspects of discrimination law aside, if you take issue with the fact that the services industry cannot discriminate against certain minorities, what would you say to a guesthouse that telling a black family 'we don't allow n*****s in our establishment' or a newsagent that refuses to serve muslims or women. Because like it or not, that is essentially what you are defending. You can't argue one minority's rights are more important than another, but since you are so keen to pick and choose, you'll be reassured to know that registered religious charities such as churches have been given special treatment and can opt out in most circumstances. Not that the charities in question have ever shown an ounce of gratitude.

Not forgetting that your point raises questions about discrimination carried out by businesses against employees too. If they can refuse to serve somebody, why not refuse to employ certain people? Weren't the very same arguments as yours used to justify open discrimination in the workplace in a bygone era? I don't expect a self-described feminist would approve of such things.

I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that the whole Human Rights Act may have it's good side, there is a lot of down side to it as well.
Yes, as has been hammered home ad nauseum by the populist brigade, you are entitled to an opinion. Give yourself a pat on the back for pointing this out. Does this mean that people who disagree with you are afforded the same right and you'll henceforth refrain from fulminating against the 'arsehold(sic) joe public... throw[ing] a strop' -in your own words- when they raise objections to guesthouses that refuse a room to gay couples?

Double edged sword as mentioned earlier. Damned if they do, damned if the don't.:shrug:

[Livia]

Been done to death that argument.

Sheilas wheels etc offer lower premiums for women because statistically women cause and get involved in fewer accidents. All insurance companies actually quote women drivers lower than same age etc males. Its a marketing ploy is all......... etc.

Say it was statistically proven that black people had fewer accidents than white people. Would it be okay, do you think, to use that same marketing ploy to advertise themselves as giving preferential treatment to black people?

If we're all striving to be equal, some cannot be seen to be more equal than others, surely. And that, to me, includes offering a hotel service that picks and chooses which guests it will accept.

[Pyramid*]

There is no better suggestion. That's my point. I happen to believe people shouldn't be refused a good or service simply because of their race, sex, disability or sexual orientation. I'm sorry you don't agree.



Quibbles about certain aspects of discrimination law aside, if you take issue with the fact that the services industry cannot discriminate against certain minorities, what would you say to a guesthouse that telling a black family 'we don't allow n*****s in our establishment' or a newsagent that refuses to serve muslims or women. Because like it or not, that is essentially what you are defending. You can't argue one minority's rights are more important than another, but since you are so keen to pick and choose, you'll be reassured to know that registered religious charities such as churches have been given special treatment and can opt out in most circumstances. Not that the charities in question have ever shown an ounce of gratitude.

Not forgetting that your point raises questions about discrimination carried out by businesses against employees too. If they can refuse to serve somebody, why not refuse to employ certain people? Weren't the very same arguments as yours used to justify open discrimination in the workplace in a bygone era? I don't expect a self-described feminist would approve of such things.


Yes, as has been hammered home ad nauseum by the populist brigade, you are entitled to an opinion. Give yourself a pat on the back for pointing this out. Does this mean that people who disagree with you are afforded the same right and you'll henceforth refrain from fulminating against the 'arsehold(sic) joe public... throw[ing] a strop' -in your own words- when they raise objections to guesthouses that refuse a room to gay couples?

:shrug:

Firstly, you can quit with the santimonious and patronising attitude towards my own comments. I'll think what I wish, because that's my choice. If you don't agree - great - I'm not asking you to. And yes, and you have pointed out - I have my right to my opiniion, and whilst you may not agree, you do have a right on this forum to respect another person's opinion.

I believe in these maters, that the Human Rights Act goes too far. since you are clearly unable to offer up any discussion or debate without being rude and condescending on a personal level - I see little point in continuing with you.

[bananarama]

For example when you see asian shops selling only asian clothes is that not discriminating against other cultures!!!!!!!!!

The whole business of free choice or not in a business environment is seriously flawed..One law for one and another law for someone else....

The other week I had to renew my driving licence with the picture type......Told on the form that a photo signed by a prominent person who has known me for at least two years is required...............Fine....However If i had been an immigrant and not been in the country for as long as two years I would be allowed to go to the nearest DVLA office and they would sign the picture......

As a resident in the country all my life that facility was denied me.........Yea.......discrimination against none immigrants.......

The law is an ass........Pressure groups minority groups get away with murder......

[cub]

Say it was statistically proven that black people had fewer accidents than white people. Would it be okay, do you think, to use that same marketing ploy to advertise themselves as giving preferential treatment to black people?


If you look at advertising you'll see discrimination all the time. Daytime TV adverts showing 'useless men' and women rolling their eyes.

A good way to spot descrimination to to reverse the roles.

[Angus]

If you look at advertising you'll see discrimination all the time. Daytime TV adverts showing 'useless men' and women rolling their eyes.

A good way to spot descrimination to to reverse the roles.

Just look at the way women are perceived, packaged, marketed, portrayed in the media, the demeaning way they are talked about by otherwise supposedly intelligent and enlighted males,(this forum itself is a case in point), and then tell me that misogyny and sexual discrimination has been eradicated, and that women are viewed as equals in our society. You can't.
Just judging by the way they are talked to, and about, on this forum alone, it is sad to see attitudes towards women over the past 50 years have hardly changed at all. Men pay lip service to sexual equality, that's all.

[Shasown]

Say it was statistically proven that black people had fewer accidents than white people. Would it be okay, do you think, to use that same marketing ploy to advertise themselves as giving preferential treatment to black people?

If we're all striving to be equal, some cannot be seen to be more equal than others, surely. And that, to me, includes offering a hotel service that picks and chooses which guests it will accept.

Insurance companies were allowed a let out of part of the Equality Act when it was initially enacted as their lobbyists put up more convincing arguments is all.

Its not as black and white as women copping for cheaper car insurance, after the woman reaches pensionable age the premiums rise sharply, due to women living longer etc.

But we may not have to worry about women drivers having cheaper premiums it may end soon anyway. There is a test case currently awaiting judges ruling that may make it illegal for insurers to differentiate on premiums based on gender. An excuse for the insurance companies to put up everyones premiums no doubt.

PMSL again it is at the European Court of Justice, so whatever they decide, the UK government could refuse to accept it. More debates on here about it no doubt.

[Tom4784]

I think it's fair enough, it has to go both ways or equality just won't work.

[arista]

I think it's fair enough, it has to go both ways or equality just won't work.



Yes Dezzy
and in Sex.

[Pyramid*]

For example when you see asian shops selling only asian clothes is that not discriminating against other cultures!!!!!!!!!

The whole business of free choice or not in a business environment is seriously flawed..One law for one and another law for someone else....

The other week I had to renew my driving licence with the picture type......Told on the form that a photo signed by a prominent person who has known me for at least two years is required...............Fine....However If i had been an immigrant and not been in the country for as long as two years I would be allowed to go to the nearest DVLA office and they would sign the picture......

As a resident in the country all my life that facility was denied me.........Yea.......discrimination against none immigrants.......

The law is an ass........Pressure groups minority groups get away with murder......


Couldn't agree more.

I think of the schools that had to stop Nativity plays etc at Xmas time because it was offensive to the minority of non Christians who also attended - that's simply an example of how pathetic is all gets.

I've seen jobs being advertised in Mosques - and being advertised as 'Men only'.

Minority groups - regardless - do get away with murder. It's getting to the point that people can't say no through fear of getting dragged through law courts.

Madness. sheer madness.

[InOne]

Couldn't agree more.

I think of the schools that had to stop Nativity plays etc at Xmas time because it was offensive to the minority of non Christians who also attended - that's simply an example of how pathetic is all gets.

I've seen jobs being advertised in Mosques - and being advertised as 'Men only'.

Minority groups - regardless - do get away with murder. It's getting to the point that people can't say no through fear of getting dragged through law courts.

Madness. sheer madness.

Is that really happening in Primary Schools? D:

[Shaun]

only a few I'd imagine - these cases make the news because they're scaremongering rarities :p