ChatterBank5 mins ago
Another B+B Tries To Break The Law.
http://
Despite the case in Cornwall going against the Bulls, another couple want to break anti-discrimination laws. Why are people like this so terribly interested in what people do it bed ?
Despite the case in Cornwall going against the Bulls, another couple want to break anti-discrimination laws. Why are people like this so terribly interested in what people do it bed ?
Answers
When you are talking about somebody's home (complete with three kids) doubling up as a B+B, it seems to me that they should be able to accept or refuse anybody they want. for whatever reason they want. This is just another example of the gay lobby trying to force absolutely everybody to see things their way.
14:39 Thu 20th Mar 2014
Because they're religious.
They want to have rules about what people can and can't do on their property, based on their beliefs. That's fair enough up to a point. However, once you start running something as a business and open it up to the paying public, it changes things, and you can't just impose whatever rules you like.
If this appeal goes against them, they'll need to make a decision as to whether to comply with the law or get out of the B&B business.
They want to have rules about what people can and can't do on their property, based on their beliefs. That's fair enough up to a point. However, once you start running something as a business and open it up to the paying public, it changes things, and you can't just impose whatever rules you like.
If this appeal goes against them, they'll need to make a decision as to whether to comply with the law or get out of the B&B business.
You'd think so, but that's not how these things work. A different court, a different set of judges, a different legal team on a different day produces a different result.
Decisions are always being overturned one way, and then back the other, and then back again. The law is always based on the latest result, so they're taking a punt at it.
Decisions are always being overturned one way, and then back the other, and then back again. The law is always based on the latest result, so they're taking a punt at it.
In order to possess religious beliefs in any way that impacts on your life, you adopt a degree of intolerance, to varying degrees.
This can vary from a tight-lipped frown, to outright discrimination against people who offend your beliefs - as in this case.
In order to open an accomodation business - you automatically undertake to welcome strangers into your home, with all their individual customs, habbits, foibles, and lifestyles, and an agreement to obey the law of the land is taken as read.
These two positions are incompatible.
So - of you want to be a devout Christian, an accomodation business is not for you.
If you want to run an accomodation business, devout Christianity is not for you.
It's that simple.
This can vary from a tight-lipped frown, to outright discrimination against people who offend your beliefs - as in this case.
In order to open an accomodation business - you automatically undertake to welcome strangers into your home, with all their individual customs, habbits, foibles, and lifestyles, and an agreement to obey the law of the land is taken as read.
These two positions are incompatible.
So - of you want to be a devout Christian, an accomodation business is not for you.
If you want to run an accomodation business, devout Christianity is not for you.
It's that simple.
Actually reading that link again, the owners don't seem to refusing this couple on the grounds that they're gay, but because they don't allow unmarried people to stay at their B&B - which throws a different light on it really. 'Adults only' hotels are legal so I'm wondering if 'marrieds only' hotels are equally legal?
naomi24
I suspect the reason that hasn't been tested (or perhaps it has, and the establishments chosen 'passed'?) is down to sheer pragmatism. Put simply - there aren't enough gay people to fill gay-friendly hotels and B&Bs. I believe that an establishment that attempted to introduce a 'no straights' policy would soon start to suffer financially.
But then there are gay bars which operate policies to restrict the number of straight people allowed in. This might sound incredibly hypocritical - but I support that (dives for cover).
I suspect the reason that hasn't been tested (or perhaps it has, and the establishments chosen 'passed'?) is down to sheer pragmatism. Put simply - there aren't enough gay people to fill gay-friendly hotels and B&Bs. I believe that an establishment that attempted to introduce a 'no straights' policy would soon start to suffer financially.
But then there are gay bars which operate policies to restrict the number of straight people allowed in. This might sound incredibly hypocritical - but I support that (dives for cover).
//But then there are gay bars which operate policies to restrict the number of straight people allowed in. //
How can that be legal? The owners are discriminating on the grounds of sexuality, which is no different to what the Christian owners of these B&Bs are doing.
(Actually, if you support that, it is hypocritical. You've really no room to complain when the boot is on the other foot).
How can that be legal? The owners are discriminating on the grounds of sexuality, which is no different to what the Christian owners of these B&Bs are doing.
(Actually, if you support that, it is hypocritical. You've really no room to complain when the boot is on the other foot).
I agree Naomi, it is hypocritical. I understand why they do it - it's because they don't want hen parties and other types coming in basically just to take the p1ss and have a gawp at the gays.
However, that's just tough basically. If you can't discriminate on sexuality, then it has to be the same for everyone.
However, that's just tough basically. If you can't discriminate on sexuality, then it has to be the same for everyone.
sp1814 - "But then there are gay bars which operate policies to restrict the number of straight people allowed in. This might sound incredibly hypocritical - but I support that (dives for cover)."
Is your support offered on the basis that straight people have an unlimited choice of venues, but 'gay friendly' bars are more limited, and like to save space for patrons who may feel less welcome elsewhere?
I would entirely support that view.
Is your support offered on the basis that straight people have an unlimited choice of venues, but 'gay friendly' bars are more limited, and like to save space for patrons who may feel less welcome elsewhere?
I would entirely support that view.
jno - "given that you can go on adults-only cruises, I'm not sure why it whould be legal to discriminate against children (and their parents), but not against unmarried people or gays or Irishmen (etc). Are some protected species and some not? That seems discriminatory in itself."
That comparison is not actually valid in my view.
'Adults only' cruises are geared specifically towards adult passengers - and on-board entertainment is geared to that clientele, without specific childrens' facilities - play areas, creches, and appropriate crew.
But - and this is where the analogy falls down, I don't believe that any line would turn down a family with children on the basis that they were not an adults-only party, or that passengers with no children would be prevented from cruising on a 'child-friendly' voyage.
Furthermore, from my experience, Cunnard and P &O both offer identically designed ships and itineraries - one for families, and one for adults, so a fair choice is available - not a choice offered by discriminatory hostelry owners.
That comparison is not actually valid in my view.
'Adults only' cruises are geared specifically towards adult passengers - and on-board entertainment is geared to that clientele, without specific childrens' facilities - play areas, creches, and appropriate crew.
But - and this is where the analogy falls down, I don't believe that any line would turn down a family with children on the basis that they were not an adults-only party, or that passengers with no children would be prevented from cruising on a 'child-friendly' voyage.
Furthermore, from my experience, Cunnard and P &O both offer identically designed ships and itineraries - one for families, and one for adults, so a fair choice is available - not a choice offered by discriminatory hostelry owners.
naomi24 - "Andy, according to SP, it's the straight people who are discriminated against on the basis of sexuality and hence have a limited choice of bars to use - not the gays. Gays can go anywhere."
Can they? From my experience you are far less likely to receive discrimination as a straight person in a gay bar, than you are as a gay person in a straight bar - hence the need for gay bars, and if my perception is correct - room for gays to visit them easily.
Can they? From my experience you are far less likely to receive discrimination as a straight person in a gay bar, than you are as a gay person in a straight bar - hence the need for gay bars, and if my perception is correct - room for gays to visit them easily.
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Society & Culture11 mins ago
Shopping & Style11 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.