[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by setanta

Seriously LT, what are you talking about? They had no valid reason to turn them away.

They did in their eyes. I am not justifying what they did but only trying to make sure that there is balance and not the usual hysteria.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

They did in their eyes. I am not justifying what they did but only trying to make sure that there is balance and not the usual hysteria.

Not in the eyes of the law though, that's the point.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by setanta

Not in the eyes of the law though, that's the point.

No the law does allow "good reason" and that is what they would argue. Whether they are successful is up to the courts.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No the law does allow "good reason" and that is what they would argue. Whether they are successful is up to the courts.

They may argue this but they will not win. They should not be allowed to remain open as a B & B if they're views conflict with the law.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No the law does allow "good reason" and that is what they would argue. Whether they are successful is up to the courts.

They had no "good reason". Wow LT.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by setanta

They had no "good reason". Wow LT.

No, they have misinterpretated what being a Christian entails with regards to running a business. Whilst the Bible sees the homosexual act as a sin there is nothing Biblical about stopping homosexuals staying in your guesthouse.

mostly they have been guilty of niavety and as such there is no need to take with any legal proceedure. This would be necessary if what they did was rife, it is not so to take them to court would be spiteful, vengeful.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No, they have misinterpretated what being a Christian entails with regards to running a business. Whilst the Bible sees the homosexual act as a sin there is nothing Biblical about stopping homosexuals staying in your guesthouse.

mostly they have been guilty of niavety and as such there is no need to take with any legal proceedure. This would be necessary if what they did was rife, it is not so to take them to court would be spiteful, vengeful.

What???? Putting their religious beliefs to the side for a minute, they should know, when opening a business what laws they need to adhere to, they should be punished for this behaviour and law breaking and they may not be so quick to do such a discriminatory act in the future.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No, they have misinterpretated what being a Christian entails with regards to running a business. Whilst the Bible sees the homosexual act as a sin there is nothing Biblical about stopping homosexuals staying in your guesthouse.

mostly they have been guilty of niavety and as such there is no need to take with any legal proceedure. This would be necessary if what they did was rife, it is not so to take them to court would be spiteful, vengeful.

No, taking them to court is entirely justified in my eyes. You wouldn't be giving us this spiel if an Islamic owned B and B had turned down somebody based on their values or beliefs.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by setanta

No, taking them to court is entirely justified in my eyes. You wouldn't be giving us this spiel if an Islamic owned B and B had turned down somebody based on their values or beliefs.

This pretty much.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No, they have misinterpretated what being a Christian entails with regards to running a business. Whilst the Bible sees the homosexual act as a sin there is nothing Biblical about stopping homosexuals staying in your guesthouse.

mostly they have been guilty of niavety and as such there is no need to take with any legal proceedure. This would be necessary if what they did was rife, it is not so to take them to court would be spiteful, vengeful.

Taking them to court could be considered spiteful but then failing to take them to court would send the message to some that it was okay to discriminate against certain groups of people.

The law acts as a deterrent failing to invoke the law to punish then undermines the deterrent effect.

Its simple if you run a business you comply with the laws that are relevant to that business. The owners of the B&B wanted to make money by offering a service, they opened their house as part of that service, they cant then decide which parts of the relevant laws they will and wont comply with.

In refusing to allow the the men to share a bed the owners of the B&B were discriminating against them on the grounds of their sexuality, that is an offence against the Equality Act.

I laughed at this comment "She insisted she was not homophobic and would have offered two single rooms, but the guest house was fully booked". There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by setanta

No, taking them to court is entirely justified in my eyes. You wouldn't be giving us this spiel if an Islamic owned B and B had turned down somebody based on their values or beliefs.

I disagree it would be spiteful and sets no example whatsoever.

I wonder how many b&bs in the UK flout one law or another (probably most), to expect every b&b owner to know every law applicable to them is at best fanciful.

This is an isolated case and as such would serve simple be a waste of legal time and money.

I wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a specifically gay b&B refusing to take Christians (spoiler: a lot less).

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I disagree it would be spiteful and sets no example whatsoever.

I wonder how many b&bs in the UK flout one law or another (probably most), to expect every b&b owner to know every law applicable to them is at best fanciful.

This is an isolated case and as such would serve simple be a waste of legal time and money.

I wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a specifically gay b&B refusing to take Christians (spoiler: a lot less).

Yeah, you wouldn't be saying it was a waste of time then either.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yeah, you wouldn't be saying it was a waste of time then either.

tar

brush

no

thanks

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I disagree it would be spiteful and sets no example whatsoever.
I wonder how many b&bs in the UK flout one law or another (probably most), to expect every b&b owner to know every law applicable to them is at best fanciful.

This is an isolated case and as such would serve simple be a waste of legal time and money.

I wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a specifically gay b&B refusing to take Christians (spoiler: a lot less).

Of course it sets an example! It's saying that you cannot refuse same sex couples a double room in a B & B or a hotel!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

Of course it sets an example! It's saying that you cannot refuse same sex couples a double room in a B & B or a hotel!

have you heard of this prior to this case?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

have you heard of this prior to this case?

What has that got to do with anything LT? A law is a law. I'm not gay but I would imagine that gay people have to put up with prejudices and discrimination like this alot and probably feel very strongly that it should not be swept under the carpet but rather dealt with to help instill in people that it is not ok. This may seem like a small, insignificant occurance to you but then you are not part of the group in question so how would you know what it feels like to be victumised like this.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

What has that got to do with anything LT? A law is a law. I'm not gay but I would imagine that gay people have to put up with prejudices and discrimination like this alot and probably feel very strongly that it should not be swept under the carpet but rather dealt with to help instill in people that it is not ok. This may seem like a small, insignificant occurance to you but then you are not part of the group in question so how would you know what it feels like to be victumised like this.

but you just made that up "but I would imagine"

I would imagine that you are wrong

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

but you just made that up "but I would imagine"

I would imagine that you are wrong

Wrong about what?

I used I would imagine because I am not gay and so can only imagine what it would be like to be in a gay persons shoes.

If any gay men/women are reading and want to tell me if I am wrong or right that would be great.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

have you heard of this prior to this case?

Here you go mate from a site you will aprove of

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay...-rooms-policy/

and maybes one you wont

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5032...uble-room.html

A slightly different case because the earlier one in Cornwall noted on their website and other publicity that they dont allow unmarried couples.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Here you go mate from a site you will aprove of

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay...-rooms-policy/

and maybes one you wont

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5032...uble-room.html

A slightly different case because the earlier one in Cornwall noted on their website and other publicity that they dont allow unmarried couples.

exactly, one other case and how many b&b nights are there in the UK per year?

probably close to 32 million rooms per annum

....

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

Wrong about what?

I used I would imagine because I am not gay and so can only imagine what it would be like to be in a gay persons shoes.

If any gay men/women are reading and want to tell me if I am wrong or right that would be great.

yes, lets hear of all the b&b's that have refused them based on their sexual proclivity..

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

yes, lets hear of all the b&b's that have refused them based on their sexual proclivity..

This is more than just about B&Bs LT, it is about discrimination in general.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

exactly, one other case and how many b&b nights are there in the UK per year?

probably close to 32 million rooms per annum

....

Yes maybe that goes to show, other people read the law, understood it and applied it to their businesses, whereas these "alleged" Christians decided they were above the law. or that their religion somehow gave them legal immunity.

Didnt JC himself say give to Caesar..... - You have to respect the state and comply with its laws mate even if you dont agree with them.

[Z]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I disagree it would be spiteful and sets no example whatsoever.

I wonder how many b&bs in the UK flout one law or another (probably most), to expect every b&b owner to know every law applicable to them is at best fanciful.

This is an isolated case and as such would serve simple be a waste of legal time and money.

I wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a specifically gay b&B refusing to take Christians (spoiler: a lot less).

To expect every B&B owner to know every law applicable to them is at best fanciful, perhaps, but no one could feign ignorance to breaking the law regarding who's allowed to stay in your B&B and who isn't.

[cupid stunt]

why is it that people these days trip over themselves to be politically correct ? PEOPLE WHO DONT LIKE GAYS N MUSLIMS HAVE A RIGHT TO THERE OPINIONS