[arista]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by arista

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




Feel The Force

[arista]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

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

[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 fucking 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]

Originally Posted by 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 fucking 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)

[Stu]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.