Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill

[Theland]

This bill is being debated in the House Of Lords tonight. The contentious example given, is where a guest house owner, should or should not have the right to refuse accomodation to homosexuals if homosexuality goes against their personal beliefs.
Should the guest house owner reserve the right to refuse?

[Athley]

How do they give proof of their homosexuality on arrival at the guesthouse though??

Sometimes people go on hols and share rooms and beds but doesn't make them homosexual, lesbian or bisexual sometimes its just cheaper!!

[Pippa68]

Yes, that makes you wonder doesn't it?

Do particular Hoteliers/Guest house owners have a 'sexual orientation' section on their booking forms?

In answer to the question, I don't think anyone should have the right to refuse accomodation on the grounds of sexual orientation. Although I am sure if the owner gets wind of 'the gay' he may refuse accomodation for another reason..he may just be able to make something up or ''oh dear, I have just realised I have over booked, silly me''

[raysparx1]

Hi Theland, I think if you are in any part of the service industry, you are there to do the job you chose to do, I would never refuse to work for anybody gay, why would I ? a restaurant would never refuse a customer, all people are equal if they can't handle it they should do another job.

I remember years ago when I was a kid seeing signs saying flat to let " No Blacks" lets hope we have moved on from that.

[Octavius]

Well the bill is not as straight-forward as that. Both sides will argue their case but I think that what this law will do is say that it is wrong to put a sign outside a pub or a hotel saying 'no gays'. I agree with this, I would not like to see signs saying 'no blacks', or in fact 'no Catholics' or 'no Muslims�. That, as far as I am aware is already illegal.

However, in respect of operating a business the sexual orientation of a guest should not be a factor, although other terms of their own rights/freedom of speech/beliefs should remain. Whether they reserve their right to refuse someone and this is found to be discriminatory then that is a unique matter for the individual concerned. Scare-mongers are suggesting that this law will mean that gay bars will refuse entry to straight couples and that a teacher would be breaking the law if he or she promotes heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership.

I think that personal beliefs should not really enter into the operations of a business. What if they truly believed in monogamy and refused Mr & Mrs Smith?! I think they would go out of business! Saying that though, I did once refuse to work on the building of a new animal laboratory project many years ago.

[Theland]

I believe that as long as the customer has got the money for the room, then, as you say, the hotel owner has no right to pry into his customers privacy.
Having said that, I also believe that homosexuals should not be given the same rights as heterosexuals, in areas such as adoption for example. I quote the business / hotel example, as that is the one used by the media, but I believe that the bill will have much wider implications than this.
Undoubtedly, their noble Lords will leave no stone unturned in this evenings debate.

[Loosehead]

What? there'll be unmarried couples sharing hotel rooms next!

[Theland]

In the business / service example, then I refer to my previous post and don't support discrimination in the provision of services. I do not believe that homosexual couples should be given the same rights, in other areas, such as adoption, and fertility treatment for example. The new bill may have something to say about his.

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, i think they should have the right to refuse anyone, not just homos. Personally, i wouldnt mind if some lesbians wanted to stay in my hotel...

[Theland]

I believe that the best planned scenario for bringing up children, is with a Mum and a Dad. This doesn't always happen obviously, as couples split up for a variety of reasons, but they don't plan to when having a family. But to be aided by the state to plan to bring up children in a house where there is not the usual Mum and Dad is not the best decision for the children, so I believe.

[Pippa68]

Well this is a bit of a sticky wicket, Theland. If a homosexual couple are to be seen as equal to heterosexuals (civil partnership et al) then the adoption scenario must also apply, surely?

Yes, the 'ideal' parents for children may well be mum & dad (personally I don't agree, but that's neither here nor there ;o) but as you say couples are splitting up by the minute, it seems. There are also MANY single parents who actually choose to be so. Surely to bring up a child in a secure environment with two parents (gay or straight) is better? they have a realtionship in the same way any couple does..one will work, the other stays at home or both work part time etc etc. Why would they be aided by the state? and if they were, what is the actual difference between a straight couple and a gay couple doing this?

[Octavius]

Did you raise the question so you could have a debate about adoption and fertility treatments for same sex couples? Although I disagree with you, your views are noted and accepted, no need to keep repeating it.

Mr Ben, that is what I was trying to say, nevertheless, if the hotel/B&B etc was found to be consistently discriminating against a particular group, then one could surmise that the hotel might receive bad publicity and hence a lack of business. I would probably be put off staying at a hotel that had a visual sign saying �no gays� as I would find this offensive and bigoted and not something that should be present in a place of business � especially if they want mine.

[Theland]

Fertility and adoption are state funded. That's the state endorsing this alternative lifestyle.
If a homosexual couple wish to live together, that's their business. To them, that is a, "normal", relationship. To me, it is not.
I believe that a child has the right to the chance of a normal heterosexual upbringing, and the alternative should not be encouraged by the state.

[Theland]

Octavius - My apologies for digressing from my own question. I used the examples of adoption and fertility, to illustrate how this bill, could have wider implications than the narrow parameters of the service industry, which were quoted in the media.

[WaldoMcFroog]

so, if we're definining abnormal on the basis on it being something done by only 10% of the population, that presumably precludes churchgoers from adoption too?

[Pippa68]

Yes but...homosexual couples pay into the state system, do they not? therefore they should be entitled to all the benefits heterosexual couples have, surely?

I won't go into the debate about governments encouraging this or that as they are all a bunch of hypocrites anyway ;o)

Th way I see it is that I wouold rather have a child live in a loving caring home then sit in a childrens home or in and out of foster homes all their lives...

[Theland]

Pippa68 - If a child in a childrens home is offered a way out of there, then any family environment has to be better than an institution surely? So, yes, I agree with you. But, the ideal would be a heterosexual couple would it not.
My apologies to Octavius again, for talking about this narrow issue, just answering Pippas comment.
The thing is, are there wider issues to this bill?

[Pippa68]

Maybe it would be a better scenario, Theland ~ however you will find that the majority of heterosexual couples wish to adopt babies. Babies are thin on the ground nowadays, and many a homosexual couple have successfully adopted/fostered older children as they don't feel the need to go through the 'baby' stage of parenting, whereas a heterosexual couple may.

Well as this has moved to anothr subject I shall finish now ;o) yes, I agree that there are wider issues to this bill.