[Vicky.]

Cant be as low as 1.5%...practically half the people I know are gay/bi

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Cant be as low as 1.5%...practically half the people I know are gay/bi

That was according to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629

The data was collected on peoples doorsteps or over the phone though, and as people are asked more regularly they're more likely to be truthful and say they're gay apparently so it probably is more than that. I'd say 3 or 4%

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Cant be as low as 1.5%...practically half the people I know are gay/bi

That mean little when talking about % of population. sample size of 1 is no sample.

Most people in the UK do not know or are friends with any gay person. fact

[Stu]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Most people in the UK do not know or are friends with any gay person.

I find that a bit hard to believe. That said Philip hardly does 'the movement' any favours by loudly stomping into any thread with the word 'gay' in the title, handbags at the ready to dish insult after insult to those evil homophobes.

'A woman today was momentarily shocked when her son came out as g -'

'KILL URESELF U IGNORANT ***** LOL. IGNORRRAAAANNNCEEE'.

[Jack_]

I'm not entirely sure [and I should be...I do Business Studies], but I believe there are discrimination acts which prevent businesses from not employing staff/refusing to serve customers on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation, amongst other things. In which case they are indeed breaking the law. There's no 'oh it's their home they can do what they want' about it. It's a business. They have to adhere to rules.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I'm not entirely sure [and I should be...I do Business Studies], but I believe there are discrimination acts which prevent businesses from not employing staff/refusing to serve customers on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation, amongst other things. In which case they are indeed breaking the law. There's no 'oh it's their home they can do what they want' about it. It's a business. They have to adhere to rules.

Yeah but the question was whether the policy targetted gay people specifically or all married couples as was the official line. The judge ruled that seeing as they still didnt allow those who are gay and in a civil partnership that the policy did discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

I think if it was a gay couple who were not in a civil partnership then they would not have been prosecuted

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yup e

I think if it was a gay couple who were not in a civil partnership then they would not have been prosecuted

Yup exactly.

The 'rules' were against non married couples. This couple was married yet still refused.

[cub]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah but the question was whether the policy targetted gay people specifically or all married couples as was the official line. The judge ruled that seeing as they still didnt allow those who are gay and in a civil partnership that the policy did discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

I think if it was a gay couple who were not in a civil partnership then they would not have been prosecuted

Er, why?

Equal rights means that - no more no less. It doesn't mean heterosexual couples have any rights above homosexuals. What part of 'equal' are you having a problem with?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by cub

Er, why?

Equal rights means that - no more no less. It doesn't mean heterosexual couples have any rights above homosexuals. What part of 'equal' are you having a problem with?

Because even a heterosexual couple would have been turned away according to their policy (which I find it hard to believe though tbh)

So a gay unmarried couple should be turned away if heterosexual unmarried couples are too.

However, this gay couple WAS married. Hence the problem

[Niall]

Good for them. They deserve to win. I hope that intolerant cow who turned them away in the first place was sacked aswell.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Niall

Good for them. They deserve to win. I hope that intolerant cow who turned them away in the first place was sacked aswell.

She cant sack herself

[Niall]

Originally Posted by MTVN

She cant sack herself

Oh I thought she was just the receptionist or something

Well I hope she gets no business then

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niall

Good for them. They deserve to win. I hope that intolerant cow who turned them away in the first place was sacked aswell.

No its there Home/Hotel.

They should Close

Or more Set Up
Gay blokes will go there to piss them off

[arista]

"What should they do? Just...stop being gay? Just to please a couple of bigots? I dont think so. "


Yes Vicky Correct
There Bible tells them Gays are Evil.


They will have to Close
or sell up.

Sign Of The Times.

[arista]

No Stu
they can Sell up
and move to America with the rest of those Bible freaks

[Stu]

Great, Arista. What you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

Thanks for that interesting piece though.

[joeysteele]

I think there are 2 issues here,the first is that when booking, perhaps to avoid problems like this,make sure you say you are booking a room for 2 men or 2 women etc.
If there is a follow on question to that then problems of being turned away could be minimalised.

Once accepting the booking and the 2 men there, the coouple should have accepted them and honoured the booking so the judgement today is right.

The 2nd issue is,while its accepted this couple say its their home, they have chosen to make part of their home a business to generate income,the fact that income comes from direct dealing with the public on the premises leaves no argument for discrimination of any kind.
Had they said in their advertisements or literature that they would not accept gay couples etc then an argument for their stance may have had some substance.

In my view if you are operating a business dealing face to face with the public and then discriminate for any supposed reason(I don't accept being Christians as grounds for discrimination,far from it,it should remove any discrimination), then you should face consequences for that,as these did.

Maybe they should be advised to operate a more less direct business from part of their home than full public contact, where being more selective who you deal with could be easier.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by cub

Er, why?

Equal rights means that - no more no less. It doesn't mean heterosexual couples have any rights above homosexuals. What part of 'equal' are you having a problem with?

You missed the point. Have a read of the article and you'll see that the official rule is that couples who are not married cannot book a double room. This was their justification for turning away the gay couple, saying it was not discriminating on the basis of sexuality. Although seeing as a civil partnership was ruled essentially the same thing as marriage, they were deemed to be acting unlawfully.

It was not their policy against unmarried couples that was the problem, it was that all homosexuals supposedly fell into that. Marriage is a choice unlike your sexuality, and married couples are treated differently to unmarried couples - legally, socially and financially - so it would not be illegal to treat them differently when booking a hotel room

[bananarama]

The owners have a right to their religious beliefs but by putting those beliefs into practice they were imposing their religion onto someone else.......That cannot be right........

As others have said if the owners felt that strong about their beliefs they should not be in the business of sharing their home for financial gain if they cannot comply with discrimination laws......

[InOne]

They were stupid about it, they could've just made up some excuse. But then again I guess they didn't expect this whole song and dance.

[MrWong]

Aw diddums. The poor ickle Chwistians are not allowed to discriminate.

Thankfully this ruling shows that religious beliefs can't 'trump' the law and rightly so!

[cub]

Originally Posted by InOne

They were stupid about it, they could've just made up some excuse. But then again I guess they didn't expect this whole song and dance.

They've created all of this themselves. If you want to discrminate you you want onto your business premises, or who you want to do business with, you make an excuse or you grin and bear it.

You cannot just have the atittude that you are above the law and use your faith as an excuse. But of course a lot of this type are living in the past and think they can do as they wish with no consequences.

It will be sad for them to lose their home, but who else can they blame but themselves?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by cub

They've created all of this themselves. If you want to discrminate you you want onto your business premises, or who you want to do business with, you make an excuse or you grin and bear it.

You cannot just have the atittude that you are above the law and use your faith as an excuse. But of course a lot of this type are living in the past and think they can do as they wish with no consequences.

It will be sad for them to lose their home, but who else can they blame but themselves?

and why is it different from a club that turns away ugly folk?

[MrWong]

Loving the photo of the idiots outside court supporting the Bulls, holding up their 'It's Their Home' banners. No you idiots, it's their business and as such they are required to run it within the laws.

Fail Daily - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...away-gays.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by MrWong

Loving the photo of the idiots outside court supporting the Bulls, holding up their 'It's Their Home' banners. No you idiots, it's their business and as such they are required to run it within the laws.

Fail Daily - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...away-gays.html

and the fact that the two "gay" men seem to think

1. not shaving looks cool
2. dressing the same looks cute