[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/ukne...lity-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]

Originally Posted by arista

'objective balance'.


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

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

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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

yep, very true

[arista]

Originally Posted by cub

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

No Gays are Fine

As are normal non gay couples

[Jords]

Originally Posted by 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!

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by 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

Absolutely, you are 100% right.

[cub]

Originally Posted by arista

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]

Originally Posted by cub

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

Spiffing

[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

[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)

[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]

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

This.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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*]

Originally Posted by cub

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?