Gay couple in B&B

[AKMild]

I see that the gay couple who were refused a double room in a B&B have won their case and been awarded £1800 damages. I'm not sure of the background facts, so can't really comment, but the hoteliers were found to have acted unlawfully. Does anyone know which law they actually broke and what the damaged were in respect of?

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// why should they have to lower their standards because they are gay?///

Then why should the hoteliers allow them into their hotel if they choose not to, for whatever reason.

That is the answer to your question,

/// Placing unnecessary restrictions on the majority.....How are they? ///

That is of course if heterosexuals are still the majority?

[ELVIS68]

I`m surprised it went this far, why didn`t they just throw a hissy fit and leave?

[joggerjayne]

While supporting the visiting couple in principle, I do agree with ELVIS ...

They should have just said ... "BoIIocks to you, then ..."

... and spent their money elsewhere.

The trouble now is that Mr & Mrs "We Believe In The Tooth Fairy" will be seen as heroic Christians ...

"It cost us £1,800, but we stood up for true Christian principles."

I think the gay couple may have scored a bit of an own goal here.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

There are many hotels who don't allow dogs, hikers, coach-parties, stag parties, teenagers, certain right-wing parties, drunks, tramps or many others for a number of reasons.

Does this ensure reasonable tolerance for everyone, or only those specifically selected?.

[ummmm]

///Then why should the hoteliers allow them into their hotel if they choose not to, for whatever reason.///

Because it's a business. And they accepted their booking. Because it's illegal to discriminate. And like Chuck said before...they could have used any reason besides the ones that are illegal. Read his link..

// Placing unnecessary restrictions on the majority.....How are they? ///

How is letting a gay couple stay at a B&B placing unnecessary restrictions on the majority?

And yet again...why do you (and others) presume they are there for a bit of jiggy jiggy?

[ummmm]

AOG - it is selected to protect such people from the likes of you.

[ChuckFickens]

If they hoteliers were stupid enough to openly admit they were refusing the couple because they were gay then more fool them, it just proves they are outdated and bigoted with their attitudes and stupid to boot!

[anotheoldgit]

Hazel 104

/// The law is there to protect minorities from attitudes such as yours AOG ///

They should not require protection from my attitudes, since it would seem, it 's me who is the minority, so what have 'they' to fear?

[jackthehat]

Because it is perfectly possible to still run up against dinosaurs such as yourself occupying positions where they see it as their right to discriminate. Laws such as in this case, mean that it is illegal for them to do so.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - with the exception of tramps - who would surely be unable to afford accomodation like this - the rest of your list are defined by lifestyle choices. Sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice (it really isn't ETY!) anymore than colour, and accordingly should not attract discrimination.

[anotheoldgit]

ChuckFickens

/// Who are the majoritity (sic) in this case then? ///

That is obvious, in this case it is the 'heterosexuals'.

[Booldawg]

many years ago I once got disallowed entry into a night-club as they were only accepting groups of women at that particular time. I wonder if that would be illegal these days?

[jackthehat]

I think it is now, booldawg.
http://menmedia.co.uk...under_threat_from_law

I know the article is a little old........

[anotheoldgit]

Kromovaracun

AOG: If members of the 'majority' could be trusted to behave reasonably to members of the minority, there would be no need for such laws.

Who says that 'members of the minority' behave reasonably to 'members of the majority, and if they don't what special laws have been introduced to protect them?

[pa___ul3]

you see on all flyers and such for bars and clubs "ROAR" - right of acceptable refusal - meaning there's certain criterea against which you can't discriminate, bars still refuse entry to groups of lads that are too big or anyone who looks like trouble, they just create a valid 'acceptable' reason for refusal. It's fair to say sexual orientation is not and acceptable reason for refusal. I'd assume a similar code is in practice for hotels and guest houses. And AOG (to which I'm guessing you respond) - this isn't putting restrictions on all heterosexuals, the majority of heterosexuals aren't such raging homophobes!

[ummmm]

The law of the land AOG....

[squarebear]

"I wonder if that would be illegal these days?"

I doubt it. Our local has a male stripper and it's ladies only admittance. Surely this is discriminating on the grounds of sex?

[anotheoldgit]

gingejbee

/// The thing that irks these two- and others- is that THEY are the ones whose views are in the MINORITY.///

Well if you are correct in what you say, and we are in the MINORITY, then it is us that need the SPECIAL laws to protect US.

[jackthehat]

SB - If someone were to mount a legal challenge, it would be interesting to see quite what defence was proffered.