|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: B&Bs that don't want to hire to gay couples
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I apologise for the tone of my last post. I stand by my claim the comparisons are not apt, but I should not have phrased it in such a nasty fashion. No excuses, it was rude.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's partly because sexual orientation isn't quite so obvious as features like skin colour.
So you're saying anti-gay bigotry is more like religious discrimination? Well, that makes it okay then! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Er...no. Where on earth did you get that from?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's partly because sexual orientation isn't quite so obvious as features like skin colour.
So you're saying anti-gay bigotry is more like religious discrimination? Well, that makes it okay then!
Er...no. Where on earth did you get that from?
Assuming your post was a response to lilbuddha's entry in the oppression olympics, it seems to imply that discrimination isn't as much of a problem if it's based on non-obvious characteristics.
BTW, what qualifies as Jewish "skin colour"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It muddies the waters because there is no equivilance. Persecuting gay people is wrong. But has not been done either as systematically, or at the scale, as has been against Jews and Black people. Period, End Of.
In short the Nazis only sent between 5,000 and 15,000 gay people to the concentration camps - and as far as I know, those wearing the pink triangle were the only group to have been liberated from the concentration camps and immediately reimprisoned in large numbers. And the Nazi-strengthened laws against homosexuality remained in place in West Germany until 1969. Even in Britain post WWII gay men were chemically castrated - and this was done to the man with arguably the greatest single contribution to winning WWII, who in response ate a cyanide-laced apple. And that's without getting into how British Police are the best in the world...
(I'm sticking to my side of the Atlantic - I don't know the US situation so well although believe it to be significantly worse).
Just a quick addition from this side of the pond as I, a queer Californian, head off to the public school teaching position that was almost officially made off limits to me twenty-odd years ago:
Briggs Initiative
We've all got our ponies in the discrimination derby. I don't think it's helpful to argue that one group has it worse or less bad than another: "equivalence" isn't a meaningful standard.
But the historical records have some similarities that need, in my view at least, to be acknowledged.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's partly because sexual orientation isn't quite so obvious as features like skin colour.
So you're saying anti-gay bigotry is more like religious discrimination? Well, that makes it okay then!
Er...no. Where on earth did you get that from?
Assuming your post was a response to lilbuddha's entry in the oppression olympics, it seems to imply that discrimination isn't as much of a problem if it's based on non-obvious characteristics.
BTW, what qualifies as Jewish "skin colour"?
I didn't imply that it was less of a problem or an evil; I implied that it was less likely to happen and that that was an explanation for LilBuddha's assertion that less of it happened (as I read that assertion). I would have thought that was fairly self-evident, but never mind...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Assuming your post was a response to lilbuddha's entry in the oppression olympics, it seems to imply that discrimination isn't as much of a problem if it's based on non-obvious characteristics.
BTW, what qualifies as Jewish "skin colour"?
I didn't imply that it was less of a problem or an evil; I implied that it was less likely to happen and that that was an explanation for LilBuddha's assertion that less of it happened (as I read that assertion). I would have thought that was fairly self-evident, but never mind...
And your explanation was that it was because Jews have different colored skin. Somehow that doesn't seem terribly convincing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I had in mind black people as it happens. (I believe that was one of the groups that LilBuddha mentioned.)
[ 24. October 2012, 15:30: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Assuming your post was a response to lilbuddha's entry in the oppression olympics, it seems to imply that discrimination isn't as much of a problem if it's based on non-obvious characteristics.
That is an inaccurate assumption and the statement is utter rubbish. Not what I am on about. I have started a post in purg about it, if you wish to discuss the matter.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
And thank you for that, lilBuddha.
Now that this tangent is being dealt with elsewhere, can we please return to the subject matter of this thread.
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Some of us are lacking a few mundane details around this event that happened some time ago.
The room was booked by e-mail, and presumably the proprietor responded assuring the couple that they would have it. When they arrived, the proprietor went back on her word.
What happened to change her mind?
1) Did initial publicity stipulate that the room was available only to husband and wife?
2) Were both aspiring occupants named when they made the reservation? Were they required to specify the nature of their relationship at that or any subsequent time? Did they somehow volunteer that information after showing up?
Igor Stravinsky mentioned that he and his amanuensis Robert Craft occupied the same bed on at least one occasion.
So did Abraham Lincoln and a colleague. There is, admittedly, considerable other evidence that Lincoln was bisexual, but without it someone would be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Would she have denied accommodation to these applicants?
Why is sexual orientation even entering the picture? From what one can see in the article, it looks like an open and shut case of fraudulent advertising and breach of contract, at least in principle.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
I'm going back to the original title of this thread. It isn't about B&B owners hiring gay coupes - it is the other way round. These people make their home into a business. There are laws in this country about how you run businesses and in particular about whether or not you are able to discriminate regarding who can use your business or service.
The Equality Act 2010 makes it clear that it is illegal to discriminate either directly or indirectly against people on the grounds of nine categories of "protected characteriestics" - and, lest any of you think that that in istelf is discriminatory, every single person in the country will have at least one of those protected characteristics (gender, for example, is one) - so it applies to everyone.
It means that it is illegal to refuse to serve someone in your shop because they are pregnant (maternity is one protected characteristics) or because they are black or Irish, or refuse a room to a man in your hotel because you would prefer it to be filled with women. Look up the Equality Act for the whole 22 yards on this one.
So it means that if someone rings your B&B and wants to make a booking and you decide you don't like this character on the basis of the phone call - then of course you can simply say that you are fully booked and avoid them that way. It's discrimination, but no one could prove it.
But if you take the booking for a double bedded room and they turn up and they are a couple who are gay, Muslim, lesbian, disabled (let's pretend it is on the ground floor) or anything else you don't like, then basically it is tough. You cannot discriminate against them on the basis of those protected characteristics. Swallow your principles/prejudices or whatever they are, smile, hand them the key and pick up their bags and show them to the room. Now that is proper Christian humility and hospitality.
That's the law in this land. And I am very glad it is. No one is forcing anyone to go into business that turns parts of their home into the business premises. But if they do, then they should abide by the law.
Other countries can do as they please - but the Christian Legal Centre and their allies do themselves no favours by taking these cases time and again through the courts and losing all of them. They aren't victims - they are just spoiling for a fight. No one is above the law.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yes. But. I was more looking at how someone could continue with their business without ending up with the rights conflict in the first place. Only thing we've come up with is only having single rooms to let.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I would say advertising as being bible-believing Christian might well help. It would certainly put me off.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
So it means that if someone rings your B&B and wants to make a booking and you decide you don't like this character on the basis of the phone call - then of course you can simply say that you are fully booked and avoid them that way. It's discrimination, but no one could prove it.
Surely that's only the case if you don't like the character because of a protected characteristic? If you don't like them because they sound posh, that's fine, because that isn't protected. The fact that they fall into any number of protected categories is irrelevant, so long as they are not the reason for making the decision.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
Doublethink writes
quote:
Yes. But. I was more looking at how someone could continue with their business without ending up with the rights conflict in the first place. Only thing we've come up with is only having single rooms to let.
Emigrate?
That is not entirely flippant. I don't think I agree that anyone's rights are denied by equality legislation. Some BBCs may feel that they don't want to live as some of their paying guests may - but there ain't nothing in the Bible that means they have to play moral policeman about what everyone is doing in the bedroom. And there is lots in the Bible about the importance of hospitality. And some imprtant stuff about not rushing to judgement. Making judgements about what my partner and I might or might not do in a bed is none of their damn business. Chances are we just want a good night's sleep.
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Aelred: quote:
Making judgements about what my partner and I might or might not do in a bed is none of their damn business. Chances are we just want a good night's sleep.
So true. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anyway, it rather amuses me, the fuss and bother about the "sin" of same gender sex especially between monogamous couples together over a year. If their sex lives are anything like hetero sex lives, they only commit their sins a few times a week or maybe even a month. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Hell, my interest earning investments compound daily.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Did you not get the memo? Them homos are at it like knives day and night. Turn your back and they're up each other like a rat up a drain pipe.
[ 06. November 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Did you not get the memo? Them homos are at it like knives day and night. Turn your back and they're up each other like a rat up a drain pipe.
Simile- erp. Get me the brain bleach! Stat! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Bumping this up, as the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the appeal by the Bulls:
Press Summary of judgement is here
Any comments?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
I would say advertising as being bible-believing Christian might well help. It would certainly put me off.
It would put me off too (though it seems, from reading the CHR judgment, that they do advertise this). Do they ask to see your marriage lines when you arrive? Do you have to show your passport as well, so they can check you are the same people as on the marriage certificate? I mean, any couple could turn up with wedding rings on their fingers and claim to be married. It might even be true, but who's to say they are married to each other?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Bumping this up, as the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the appeal by the Bulls:
Press Summary of judgement is here
Any comments?
Totally the right decision, IMO. I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on the technicalities, but morally speaking I think it's out of the question that anyone should be able to refuse service to someone solely because we don't approve of their lifestyle.
The Equality Act 2010 does permit discrimination if it can be 'objectively justified' (I think that's the phrase) but IMO simply disapproving of a lifestyle choice shouldn't ever be grounds for refusal to serve someone.
Unless, of course, people are happy with a world in which a mixed-race couple can get turned away from a B&B, or perhaps a man with long hair (or woman with short hair), or a person wearing red lipstick. If the B&B owners had won their case then ISTM all those situations I've given wcould be justified on the same basis.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
A few months ago my partner and I booked into motel for the night. As we didn't have a reservation I asked the receptionist for a double and she looked throught the office window to the car and replied you mean twin. No says I, I mean double and as I worked in hospitality for many years, know the difference and if it is a problem will happily go elsewhere. She blushed many shades of red and apologised humbly. There was a price difference between the two!!
When I started in the industry many years ago I was trained by a very experienced CEO who enforced three things:
1. It is none of our business who is in the room or what their relationship is, they are renting the room for the night.
2. Don't divulge guest details to ANYONE outside the said estabishment.
3. Don't fratenise with the guests.
Can't say I stuck to no3!!!
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
you said it all.
