Thread: Top Tory: 'Let B&Bs Turn Away Gay Couples'

What ever happened to a free country and standing by your own principles and family values, this country's gone to pot with this bullying government, and if your are reading this Lord Mandellson, i would not have you in my bed and breakfast, not because you are gay, because i carnt stand the fooking sight of you, is there a law against that??? bet there will be one soon with this labour government

I wonder what the reaction would be if an MP suggested that a gay B&B proprieter should be able to turn away hetrosexual couples?

I wouldnt want to stay in a place full of bum bandits, so turn me away please

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Anybody who opens a hotel, restaurant, B&B, pub or other public amenity cannot expect to impose their moral beliefs, values or whatever on strangers.

Publicans have the right to serve whoever they want for whatever reason they see fit.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Publicans have the right to serve whoever they want for whatever reason they see fit.

Really?

So a publican could refuse to serve some one on the basis of colour, race,height, gender etc etc?

I doubt that.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Publicans have the right to serve whoever they want for whatever reason they see fit.

provided that reason does not infringe upon their race, religion, sexuality or disability.

In the US it appears to be thus;

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude? | LegalZoom

.
It's proving hard to find any cut and dried legal statement.

It's a human rights issue.
Surely the owners of the B&B have the right to refuse whomever they want.

^
According to some they don't
If someone turns up with a jerrycan and a box of matches you have to give him a room

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Originally Posted by buriramboy

but no way would i want those couple of dirty old gits staying.

What about lesbians ?

I must be a lesbian I like women also

Why can't you just say,,, sorry darlings , but we are fully booked for the next 10 years . So sorry byeeee.

Originally Posted by FarangRed

I wouldnt want to stay in a place full of bum bandits, so turn me away please

Are you afraid of the weak, limp wristed pansies forcibly getting into your macho, 'I'll punch your lights out if you get near me' pants?

I'm afraid of nothing, so it's my choice where to stay, and I choose not to stay in a gay hotel

One would think the English had more pressing issues to deal with ....
BR>Jack

Originally Posted by JACK DANIELS ESQ

One would think the English had more pressing issues to deal with ....
BR>Jack

They have, it was just the left wing Guardian trying to score points for Labour. Other things are on the front page now.

Two things struck me about this thread/article/newspost: First, the difference between home and business. Second, discrimination against homosexuals vs discrimination against other (more protected) minorities.

A B&B is not a simple home. An individual, in the UK, the US, even Continental Europe, has the right to disallow gay people in his own home. Being an ass in private is still perfectly legal. It's bigoted, wrong, and immoral, but legal.

A B&B is a business and must follow the laws for businesses: It must pay taxes. It must meet certain health and safety standards. It must offer service to all paying customers without regard to certain protected statuses (race and gender being most common, most developed nations add age, religion, and more and more are adding sexual orientation).

The reality is that the nasty crone of an owner could have refused service on any number of non-protected grounds: She didn't like the way they smelled. She won't rent to users of hair products (soils the pillows!), etc.

I agree in theory with the folks that suggest letting the "free" market decide. Just let gays post lists of friendly places and take their money where they're wanted. I'd be perfectly happy to watch the bigots go out of business the old-fashioned way.

The reality brings us to the second point: Discrimination against gays is exactly the same as discrimination against people of African ancestry, the Irish (I'm an American, I don't understand the problems between the Irish and the English/British. They're all the same to us), Jews, Anglicans, the blind.

The fact that it is still acceptable to use phrases like "shirt lifters" or "buggering" or "bum riders" (I think I made that last one up...I will say the English/British/Irish have much more imaginative slang that we do) in an otherwise somewhat civilized discussion shows how far we have to go before people can be treated equally without fear that we will somehow all be infected with gayness just because a guy in a pastel shirt stood too close to us.

More to say, but previous entry was getting too long.

The fact that a politician was caught being a bigot is no surprise. Politicians (UK, US, Thai, whatever) are generally (and unfortunately) pretty representative of the people they govern.

Final note on religion and choice. A while ago a beauty pageant contestant here in the US said something silly against gays getting married. She claimed her views were based on her Christian faith. (Nevermind that she was in a beauty pageant all wrapped up with vanity, lust, wantonness, etc.)

There was quite an uproar from pro-gay groups or groups that just want equality for everyone. The more fundamentally religious groups responded that her opinion was protected because it was based on religious belief.

What the religious groups misunderstood was what is protected: The contestant has the right to hold a bigoted, evil opinion. She has the right to express her bigoted, evil opinion publicly. She does not have the right to expect everyone to agree. She does not have the right to avoid ridicule for her silly opinion. Indeed several times the Bible states that you will be persecuted for your beliefs. (My own opinion is that people who use religion as an excuse for hatred should be persecuted.)

Last one, I promise (for now)...

It would be interesting to get more discussion of this type of issue (discrimination, and specifically anti-gay discrimination) in Thailand.

From what I understand, Thai generally have a more open view of homosexuality, but not necessarily a more accepting one. Gays are more open, more commonly "out of the closet," but I think are still roundly ridiculed and lampooned.

Also interesting is that my wife always had trouble speaking about gays in English insofar as her use of the third person pronoun: He or She. That shows a very different understanding of the gender relationships than we typically hold in the West. Also because of the gender differences in spoken Thai (krup vs ka), individuals can self-select their role in society in a more concrete way than in the West.

18 January 2011 Last updated at 12:28 GMT


Bristol gay couple win Cornwall B&B bed ban case

Click to play


Click to play





Advertisement

Steven Preddy: "Nothing in this judgement attacks the beliefs of Christians"

Continue reading the main story Related stories

• Gay couple's B&B refusal deferred
• Gay couple challenge B&B refusal

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.
Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.
They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.
"When we booked to stay at the Chymorvah Hotel this was not, as some have suggested, a set up sponsored by a pressure group, we just wanted a relaxing weekend away - something thousands of other couples in Britain do every weekend," Mr Preddy said.
'Sincere beliefs'
"Because we wanted to bring our new dog we checked he would be welcome. It didn't even cross our minds that in 2008 in Britain we needed to ask if we would be.
He said that the judgement showed that civil partnerships were legally the same as marriages.
Continue reading the main story Analysis

Dominic Casciani BBC News home affairs correspondent
Over the past five years, the law has swung decisively against Mr and Mrs Bull's expectations that their religious beliefs should influence how they run their hotel.
Everyone in British society enjoys equal protection of their right to live the way they choose.
But if your particular beliefs or actions unreasonably impinge on someone else's right to live the life that they do, then the law will find you in the wrong.
That is exactly the issue at the heart of the B&B discrimination case.
The Bulls said their double rooms were only for married couples - but Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, being civil partners, have exactly the same legal status as a heterosexual couple.
The 2010 Equality Act has consolidated the law in this area and cleared up some grey areas.
So we may soon see more claims of sexual orientation discrimination before the courts - and probably more victories for those claiming they were treated badly.

"Judge Rutherford has found that our treatment was an act of direct discrimination and therefore a breach of the law," he added.
Speaking outside court Mrs Bull said she and her husband were considering an appeal.
"We are obviously disappointed with the result," she said.
"Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody."
In his ruling, Judge Rutherford said that, in the past 50 years, social attitudes in Britain had changed and it was inevitable that laws would "cut across" some people's beliefs.
"I am quite satisfied as to the genuineness of the defendants' beliefs and it is, I have no doubt, one which others also hold," he added.
"It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large.
"Now it is the other way around."
Judge Rutherford granted the Bulls leave to appeal against his ruling.
'Cloak for prejudice'
Mr Hall and Mr Preddy's case was backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
John Wadham, a director at the commission, said the hotel was a commercial enterprise and subject to community standards, rather than private ones.
The couple had intended to visit the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance
"The right of an individual to practise their religion and live out their beliefs is one of the most fundamental rights a person can have, but so is the right not to be turned away by a hotel just because you are gay," he said.
Gay equality charity Stonewall said it was delighted at the outcome.
"You can't turn away people from a hotel because they're black or Jewish and in 2011 you shouldn't be able to demean them by turning them away because they're gay either," its chief executive Ben Summerskill said.
"Religious freedom shouldn't be used as a cloak for prejudice."
Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, which funded the Bulls' defence, said: "This ruling is further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield.
"Peter and Hazelmary were sued with the full backing of the government-funded Equality Commission.
"Christians are being sidelined. The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary."

a ridiculous decision by the court that i'm sure will be overturned on appeal.

it is discriminatory against christians.

But if your particular beliefs or actions unreasonably impinge on someone else's right to live the life that they do, then the law will find you in the wrong.

unless you are a muslim.

Originally Posted by jandajoy

Disagree.

If you set up a place, be it a shop or a guest house, a pub or a park, you've set it up for the public to use.

You're looking at making money out of paying customers.

IMHO you've then got to accept the mores of society and accommodate all and sundry.

The Hilton would not have done this.

The fact that it's a guest house/B&B is irrelevant.

They opened it up to the public.

You don't want gays, darkies, midgets, ducks or hairy people in your house?

Don't turn your house into a "guest House".

Accept the consequences.

Harsh but Fair.

In a truly free society, I can have any guests I want and you have no right to take that option away form me.

Originally Posted by Gerbil

Originally Posted by kingwilly

no Irish'.

Quite right too.

Stupid prick,

They were a Christian couple running the place. They don't want two men getting up to some anal action in their beds, that's all.

Understandable.

Originally Posted by Peter Jordan

More to say, but previous entry was getting too long.

The fact that a politician was caught being a bigot is no surprise. Politicians (UK, US, Thai, whatever) are generally (and unfortunately) pretty representative of the people they govern.

Final note on religion and choice. A while ago a beauty pageant contestant here in the US said something silly against gays getting married. She claimed her views were based on her Christian faith. (Nevermind that she was in a beauty pageant all wrapped up with vanity, lust, wantonness, etc.)

There was quite an uproar from pro-gay groups or groups that just want equality for everyone. The more fundamentally religious groups responded that her opinion was protected because it was based on religious belief.

What the religious groups misunderstood was what is protected: The contestant has the right to hold a bigoted, evil opinion. She has the right to express her bigoted, evil opinion publicly. She does not have the right to expect everyone to agree. She does not have the right to avoid ridicule for her silly opinion. Indeed several times the Bible states that you will be persecuted for your beliefs. (My own opinion is that people who use religion as an excuse for hatred should be persecuted.)

sounds reasonable. ethics rule.
put the bible and koran in the bin.