[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

I love your signature.

[Tom4784]

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

Yes Dezzy
and in Sex.

[Shaun]

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