View Full Version : Gay couple turned away from B&B
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 09:56
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100321/tuk-gay-couple-turned-away-from-b-b-6323e80.html
What do y'all think?
Should this woman have accepted them as it's illegal to do otherwise or should she have the legal right to turn away a gay couple from her own private home if it goes against her own moral code?
I guess you could turn anyone away you don't like the look of...without giving a reason.
northener
22-Mar-10, 10:21
I'm sure there was another case like this about two years ago, I even checked the date to see if it was 'old news' that had re-appeared.
Difficult call....personal moral beliefs against equality legislation. Hmmm....
As this place is the womans home, I would say she has the right to refuse anyone she sees as unfit. But on the other hand, she is running a business that is accessed by the public - so discrimination should be out.
Not sure.
But......(drags soapbox out)......
We have some ridiculous double standards in this Country. We believe in equal rights for all - which is commendable, yet creep around the crumbling, backward looking religious establishments that routinely discriminate against women and homosexuals without a squeak from the Law.
If the Political and Legal arms of the Government refuse to rein in these hypocritical, self-serving organisations that routinely flout the law, I fail to see how they can possibly criticise one woman for having her own 'moral' standards in her own house.
:eek: Stonewall are right, “In open-and-shut cases of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the law's quite clear - it's illegal for businesses to turn away gay customers or discriminate against them when providing goods or services, and this can't be overridden by personal prejudice."
[disgust] You as an individual are denied the right to think and act in accordance with your own beliefs, be they moral or religious – because this is defined as a ‘prejudice’ and has no place in this Neu Liebour PC world.
:) IMHO the owners of the Guest House should have the right to decide since it is their home and not a hotel. The gay couple should have respected the home owner’s decision and planned for that eventuality.
PS. Let my signature below be a guide.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 10:27
This is not her own personal home, this is a buisiness and as such she has to abide by the law.
In her own home she has the right to decide who can and cannot stay, as this is a registered business then she has no right to discriminate and should be shut down as a B&B.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 10:32
I don't agree. If you open a business to the public then it follows that you accept the public. You can't discriminate- unless they look and act like axe murderers or drunks etc. If I booked as a respectable citizen at B&B and got there to find I was not acceptable for what I am then I would not be too happy about it.
We must have one law for all. Or chaos.
And I have trouble getting good B and B cos all the beds are for tiches and my feet stick out the bottom.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 10:51
:) IMHO the owners of the Guest House should have the right to decide since it is their home and not a hotel. The gay couple should have respected the home owner’s decision and planned for that eventuality.
How would you suggest they planned for that eventuality?
Do we now all have to book 3 different places just in case one or two turn us away on illegal grounds?
She had a contract with them by accepting the booking - she broke it by turning them away.
onecalledk
22-Mar-10, 10:54
surely if that is her moral stance then she should have some warning on her website or info about her B & B ? If she is so against homosexuals she should state that in her literature?
But then she would probably go out of business wouldnt she .....
She cannot have it both ways. She is either a business OR a private residence. If you use your home as a business then you would need to abide by the rules of said business.......
K
I was turned away from a campsite several years ago as myself and my now husband were at the time unmarried. Bit of a bummer, but we just carried on and found somewhere else. Hardly crime of the century.
As for the lady turning the couple away from the B&B, why not? She has a business, if she wants to turn them away, it's her call. Admittedly, she could have been a bit more discreet and pretended there was a double-booking so as not to offend the couple in question. If she wants to lose business, it's her shout. I personally can't see a problem with the couple but it's not me running the B&B.
On a similar line to an earlier post, if it was a Muslim B&B owner turning them away it would probably have been okay as it would have offended their religious beliefs. This country panders to some religions/communities but then ignores others. Don't get me started on womens' rights. Women are supposed to have full rights and most of us do. Then we look at the Muslim community and some of their women are hidden in Burkas, forced marriages etc. etc. but 'we' can't intervene as it is their culture. Anyway, that is going off-topic.
So what about this B&B owner's cultural background? It obviously doesn't extend to embracing gay guests - fine, that's her decision. She decides on her sausages and bacon, colour of sheets and wallpaper in the B&B and should be left to decide on her own guests.
when reading this thread i found it so sad for the couple to be turned away so very wrong
I've been turned away from B & Bs in the past (admittedly, it is better now) based on, guess what?
Mode of transport :eek:
'They gave me no prior warning' she said (quote)
Are they supposed to prior warn people that their gay! how ridiculous, I wouldnt ring a guest house & be expected to state that im not actually married to my partner just in case it offends them so why should they have to state their gay?
How would you suggest they planned for that eventuality?
:) The couple should accept that regardless of the law, their lifestyle choice may conflict with other people’s, including the guest house owner's, religious or moral beliefs. Given the opportunity to discuss the issue they may have been directed to alternate accommodation.
I agree there should be one law for everyone BUT when this law impinges on someone else’s religious or moral beliefs it is a bad law and should be challenged. Many people see the law as ‘black and white’ without ever considering the many shades of ‘grey’ in between.
It appears to me that in the rush for equality we are in danger of creating more inequalities, when in fact if people were to talk about these issues openly we can arrive at a point where we can tolerate our differences. ;)
I felt very sad to think that this could still happen and hate to think of it happening to my own gay friends.
It reminds me of how unmarried heterosexual couples used to have to pretend to be married to book a double room, and how black people would be turned away too.:( It was only possible to reject people in this way while society as a whole felt the same way.
It's not for anyone to impose their own views or 'morals' on their paying customers when they're running a business, even if it is using their home.
Does "management reserve the right......" cover this?
Surely they are not obliged to accept everyone who turns up?
Or do they need to specify on the sign "no homo's here"?
As previously posted this woman is RUNNING a business. she gave up her private home when she registered it as a guest house. I believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but when running this type of business you have to be very open minded and put your beliefs to one side and if unable to do this, as is very obvious in this case, then maybe this woman should re-think her career choice. DISCRIMINATION of any kind is against the law end of. As for everyone planning for things like this to happen if you were to book various b&b's "in case of this eventuallity" you would find that potentially you would be charged for non appearance at the ones you didn't turn up at hence a very expensive holiday indeed. I feel very sorry for these men this must have been very embarressing for them.
I've been turned away from B & Bs in the past (admittedly, it is better now) based on, guess what?
Mode of transport :eek:
How did you arrive, ducati? Flying saucer? Elephant? Pet Pterodactyl? ;)
...oh surely it wasn't a bike? :eek:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100321/tuk-gay-couple-turned-away-from-b-b-6323e80.html
What do y'all think?
Should this woman have accepted them as it's illegal to do otherwise or should she have the legal right to turn away a gay couple from her own private home if it goes against her own moral code?
Having experienced similiar, I believe this woman should have a legal right to decide who does what under her own roof,
no amount of political pressure can force a god fearing christian into accepting people into their homes, to commit immoral acts,
it's just not natural.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 11:25
Then it follows that no-one should force a God fearing christian to run a B&B.
I've been turned away from B & Bs in the past (admittedly, it is better now) based on, guess what?
Mode of transport :eek:
was it a ducati[lol]
OK playing devils advocate a bit here....yes you are all right in that she is running a business and therefore she didnt have the right to refuse the couple,BUT what if that couple had been for instance know sex offenders-would you all be saying then that she didnt have the right to refuse them entry into her home? I have gay friends and have nothing against them,but as this woman obviously did I think she was right to stand by her beliefs x
changilass
22-Mar-10, 11:33
No one is forced to run a B&B.
If you cannot run one within the confines of the law then maybe they should think of a different business - preferably one that doesn't involve them coming into contact with the public.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 11:35
I have to admit that I believe she should have the right to turn away a same sex couple if that is what her moral standards dictates her to do.
Yes it could be argued that she shouldn't be able to discriminate when she's given her own private up to run as a guest house but I also believe that she should have the right to choose who stays there and who doesn't.
I know alot of people would say that's wrong but there you have it. This is her home at the end of the day and she should not have to be subjected to a situation that makes her feel uncomfortable in it.
I really do not know how I would react. I have nothing against same sex couples, I know 'gay' people and I understand that they have as much right to choose the sex of their partners as 'straight' people do.
Having said that I do not like witnessing public displays of affection between same sex couples. I know that makes me a hypocrite, narrow minded, unjust and all the rest of it but a life time of prejudices being drummed into people is not so easy to disperse just because a law says we have to.
I'd like to believe that I would just take their money and treat them like any other customer but I have a sneaky suspicion that I would struggle with it.
'They gave me no prior warning' she said (quote)
Are they supposed to prior warn people that their gay! how ridiculous, I wouldnt ring a guest house & be expected to state that im not actually married to my partner just in case it offends them so why should they have to state their gay?
Yes – Why not? If you have a particular dietary requirement you would mention it. If you have a particular requirement because of a disability you would mention it. If you want to bring your dog with you, you would mention it. You might even mention that you would be arriving after dark on a big motorbike wearing a full face helmet!
If one has a lifestyle that could conflict with someone's religious and moral beliefs surely it's worth mentioning?
In most cases a guesthouse owner, given the opportunity, would be able to direct you to alternate accommodation.
preferably one that doesn't involve them coming into contact with the public.
But you can catch gayness over the phone can't you?
Perhaps I should mention that one of my daughters is gay and her partner is (obviously) female. They prefer to stay in places they know they will get the same reception as anyone else.
I find it hurtful that they should have to pretend to be different from how they are to be acceptable to some people, but they know that this is the case.
They've found that booking a twin room can sometimes be a good idea, as people can either see them as a gay couple or as two girls who are friends and don't want the extra expense of paying for two single rooms.
I do wonder if the B&B owner would have felt the same if it had been two women and not two men who appeared on her doorstep...:confused
changilass
22-Mar-10, 11:43
So are you suggesting that an Indian or Chinese person should state their nationality when booking just in case someone doesn't like it?
Do folks have to take along their marriage certificates and passports to prove who they are and that they are married, just to avoid hurting the sensabilities of some fuddy duddy who shouldn't be running a B&B in the first place?
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 11:45
No one is forced to run a B&B.
If you cannot run one within the confines of the law then maybe they should think of a different business - preferably one that doesn't involve them coming into contact with the public.
Changi as much as I understand and respect your opinions and thoughts on this and I can see from your posts that it's something you're quite passionate about, it simply isn't as black and white for many people.
We've grown up in a world full of prejudice on this sort of thing. Prejudices that have left many of us with an uneasiness about same sex couples.
Rightly or wrongly is not really the issue.
The issue is that society is suddenly expected yet again to relinquish their own right to their own moral standards in order to do what society has suddenly dictated is pc.
I understand the need for laws to protect against prejudices of many themes however forcing people to reject their own morals and take up those of others is not the way to go about it.
How would the law stand if this lady lost custom because people left due to there being a same sex couple there? Or people left because they have young children that they don't want subjected to it?
A large hotel is maybe a different matter. I personally would have no problem staying where there are same sex couples however a small, private, family run guest house could be a different matter.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 11:49
Whilst ever this type of thing is allowed to go unchallenged then there will always be prejudices.
Its just plain wrong.
No one is saying that the woman should change her moral code, just that she should change her line of business.
She is the one breaking the law here, not the two men.
No one is forced to run a B&B.
If you cannot run one within the confines of the law then maybe they should think of a different business - preferably one that doesn't involve them coming into contact with the public.
THIS IS A VERY SELFISH POINT OF VIEW!
I do not believe that any business B&B or otherwise should have to put up with political pressure within their own home business.
People, have rights, Homosexuals have rights, Hetrosexual should have right to their own beliefs without being forced to accept the immoral actings of others.
As the once owner of a Guest House, I found it most difficult to accept that two of my guests were in fact a couple,
I think homosexuals male or female should stick to places where they are welcome instead of ramming their sexuality down the throats of hetrosexuals and expect to be respected for it.
In the end up, I did refuse "bookings" from such individuals, why should I have to put up with that, in my own home.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 11:50
So are you suggesting that an Indian or Chinese person should state their nationality when bookin just in case someone doesn't like it?
Do folks have to take along their marriage certificates and passports to prove who they are an that they are married, just ot avoid hurting the sinsibilities of some fuddy duddy who shouldn't be running a B&B in the first place?
You're talking of completely different situations here.
Sexual orientation is a million miles away from ethnic origins.
You have to remember that it will take time for a society born on sexual prejudices to embrace completely a freedom of sexual orientation.
I'm not saying that it's right that there are still prejudices out there, I'm simply saying that change takes time.
Just because someone has stuck by their own moral standards does not make them a fuddy duddy.
Yes – Why not? If you have a particular dietary requirement you would mention it. If you have a particular requirement because of a disability you would mention it. If you want to bring your dog with you, you would mention it. You might even mention that you would be arriving after dark on a big motorbike wearing a full face helmet!
If one has a lifestyle that could conflict with someone's religious and moral beliefs surely it's worth mentioning?
In most cases a guesthouse owner, given the opportunity, would be able to direct you to alternate accommodation.
Perhaps it's up to the B&B owner to say who or what they won't accept -be it dogs, disabled people or gay couples? Or is it illegal to do that? If it is, then why should it be acceptable to discriminate against people away when you see them? :confused
We once stayed at a B&B that had changed ownership since we'd last stayed there and become a "Christian guesthouse". Now if we'd known that, we wouldn't have stayed there - as an unmarried couple we were clearly frowned on and ...disaster! :eek:we could no longer have a glass of wine with our evening meal, as the new owners ran a teetotal establishment.:(
John Little
22-Mar-10, 11:52
"THIS IS A VERY SELFISH POINT OF VIEW!
I do not believe that any business B&B or otherwise should have to put up with political pressure within their own home business.
People, have rights, Homosexuals have rights, Hetrosexual should have right to their own beliefs without being forced to accept the immoral actings of others.
As the once owner of a Guest House, I found it most difficult to accept that two of my guests were in fact a couple,
I think homosexuals male or female should stick to places where they are welcome instead of ramming their sexuality down the throats of hetrosexuals and expect to be respected for it.
In the end up, I did refuse "bookings" from such individuals, why should I have to put up with that, in my own home. "
Such frankness must be applauded.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 11:54
THIS IS A VERY SELFISH POINT OF VIEW!
I do not believe that any business B&B or otherwise should have to put up with political pressure within their own home business.
People, have rights, Homosexuals have rights, Hetrosexual should have right to their own beliefs without being forced to accept the immoral actings of others.
As the once owner of a Guest House, I found it most difficult to accept that two of my guests were in fact a couple,
I think homosexuals male or female should stick to places where they are welcome instead of ramming their sexuality down the throats of hetrosexuals and expect to be respected for it.
In the end up, I did refuse "bookings" from such individuals, why should I have to put up with that, in my own home.
With such obvious homophobic views, then you shouldn't be running a Guest House anyway, so its a good job you are an ex owner.
The guest house owner is perfectly intituled to her personal views. This woman guest house is a business - not her private home even if she does live there. It is bad management to let your personal feelings conflict with professional obligation to customers.
There still seems to be a major stigma attached to being gay. You imagine if a guesthouse turned away a black couple for being black - I doubt that would happen now a days
changilass
22-Mar-10, 11:55
You're talking of completely different situations here.
Sexual orientation is a million miles away from ethnic origins.
You have to remember that it will take time for a society born on sexual prejudices to embrace completely a freedom of sexual orientation.
I'm not saying that it's right that there are still prejudices out there, I'm simply saying that change takes time.
Just because someone has stuck by their own moral standards does not make them a fuddy duddy.
Both are examples of prejudice and discrimination.
On many B&B web sites we see stated No Dogs or Pets allowed, and there is no song and dance about that, I would then look for a pet friendly web site and book accordingly, there are homosexual friendly B&B's out there.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 11:56
Perhaps I should mention that one of my daughters is gay and her partner is (obviously) female. They prefer to stay in places they know they will get the same reception as anyone else.
I find it hurtful that they should have to pretend to be different from how they are to be acceptable to some people, but they know that this is the case.
They've found that booking a twin room can sometimes be a good idea, as people can either see them as a gay couple or as two girls who are friends and don't want the extra expense of paying for two single rooms.
I do wonder if the B&B owner would have felt the same if it had been two women and not two men who appeared on her doorstep...:confused
See now this where I really do get confused on my own feelings of same sex couples.
If I were running a small B&B I would find it so much easier to accept 2 gay female partners as opposed males.
I do not know why this is either. It's not because I could convince myself that they're simply two friends either as I've usually found that it's quite easy to tell gay females as it is gay males.
But for some reason I would not have as much of a problem with it were I running a B&B.
Double standards I know!
THIS IS A VERY SELFISH POINT OF VIEW!
I do not believe that any business B&B or otherwise should have to put up with political pressure within their own home business.
People, have rights, Homosexuals have rights, Hetrosexual should have right to their own beliefs without being forced to accept the immoral actings of others.
As the once owner of a Guest House, I found it most difficult to accept that two of my guests were in fact a couple,
I think homosexuals male or female should stick to places where they are welcome instead of ramming their sexuality down the throats of hetrosexuals and expect to be respected for it.
In the end up, I did refuse "bookings" from such individuals, why should I have to put up with that, in my own home.
I am appalled by your post, Commore. [disgust] I have never yet known a gay couple who have as you so delightfully put it 'rammed their sexuality' down my throat.
northener
22-Mar-10, 12:02
I am appalled by your post, Commore. [disgust] I have never yet known a gay couple who have as you so delightfully put it 'rammed their sexuality' down my throat.
I suggest you never have any dealings with Stonewall in that case......there are some nasty people amongst that lot.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 12:04
Both are examples of prejudice and discrimination.
Which of course comes in many shapes and forms.
So should this lady be forced to house say a known murderer, rapist, pedophile as she would be discriminating if she didn't????
Please do not think I am comparing same sex couples to the likes of such lowlife as above I am simply trying to point out that discrimination comes in many forms, when we are forced to relinquish our own morals for that of others where does it end?????
changilass
22-Mar-10, 12:04
Who are stonewall?
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 12:05
Who are stonewall?
Haven't a clue.
Who are stonewall Northerner????????????
changilass
22-Mar-10, 12:07
If said rapist, murderer, or whatever have served their time then they have as much right to a holiday as anyone else.
Having said that, how many unknown of the above have stayed in folks houses without them even knowing.
I doubt headliners would be looking to stay in local B&B's anyhow.
I suggest you never have any dealings with Stonewall in that case......there are some nasty people amongst that lot.
No, I've never had any dealings with them, northener.
I can only speak from my own dealings with gay people. Some are more concerned about gay rights than others.
The couple turned away from the guesthouse looked an innocuous middle aged pair to me. A B&B owner shouldn't be speculating on what their guests are doing in the privacy of the bedroom they have paid for anyway...but I'd wager that like anyone else they wanted a good night's sleep and a decent breakfast!
There is a lot of talk of it being against morality. The law says your 'morality' is wrong and is in fact prejudice. A person who is gay has no less 'moral sensibilities' than someone who is straight.
It amazes me that this is even a topic of discussion. The majority of the country have no bother with gays at all. It just seems to be a few small minded people is an area that hasn't been exposed to much. Yes this is a lovely place with lovely family values but some people can have quite bigoted opinions :(
northener
22-Mar-10, 12:09
I've been turned away from B & Bs in the past (admittedly, it is better now) based on, guess what?
Mode of transport :eek:
Yup, I can remember back in the '70's and '80's seeing pubs dahn sarf with large 'No Bikers' signs outside.
Yet they'd happily serve skinheads and NF thugs. Much better now.
I think homosexuals male or female should stick to places where they are welcome instead of ramming their sexuality down the throats of hetrosexuals and expect to be respected for it.
Why is it ramming sexuality down peoples throats just because 'THEY' want to stay in a B&B.
This is the small minded, closeted views that do us proud :confused
What is it your having to put up with? Did they march in, throw down a tube of KY and say right, your next!!
How on earth can anyone compare a rapist/murderer/paedophile with someone who is gay? How is that even an analogy? One is legal and the other not...
So are you suggesting that an Indian or Chinese person should state their nationality when booking just in case someone doesn't like it?
Do folks have to take along their marriage certificates and passports to prove who they are and that they are married, just to avoid hurting the sensabilities of some fuddy duddy who shouldn't be running a B&B in the first place?
First point – The Race Relations Act has been with us for 34 years. In that time it has been amended and most people are now use to the way it works. The reason it works is because people talked, discussed and debated it.
It is a fact that Indian and Chinese guesthouse users tend to favour particular guesthouses because of their dietary needs and not because of any perceived racism.
Legislation regarding sexuality and ‘Gay rights’ is fairly recent and while not perfect will require discussion and debate before it satisfies everyone.
Second point – ‘Fuddy duddies’ and their ‘sensibilities’ are usually based upon religious or moral beliefs that have formed over time. They should be respected. People’s view of the world do change and given the opportunity will change.
Surely it’s not too much to ask for a little patience, tolerance and understanding.
Second point – ‘Fuddy duddies’ and their ‘sensibilities’ are usually based upon religious or moral beliefs that have formed over time. They should be respected. People’s view of the world does change and given the opportunity will change.
Surely it’s not too much to ask for a little patience, tolerance and understanding.
Moral?? How is a straight person any less moral than someone who is gay? Religious beliefs cannot be compared to moral beliefs.
northener
22-Mar-10, 12:14
Stonewall are a gay rights movement, their spokesman, Derek Munn is quoted in the original article.
They have been known to 'out' quiet living, decent people who prefer to keep their sexuality their own business. So much for understanding.....
A friend of mine had his life made a misery by some of these people, so I've no time for their movement whatsoever.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 12:14
Reply to Gronnuck
Aye thats what the two guys were expecting!
If you have strong view don't go into a business where you deal with the general public - not rocket science.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 12:18
There is a lot of talk of it being against morality. The law says your 'morality' is wrong and is in fact prejudice. A person who is gay has no less 'moral sensibilities' than someone who is straight.
It amazes me that this is even a topic of discussion. The majority of the country have no bother with gays at all. It just seems to be a few small minded people is an area that hasn't been exposed to much. Yes this is a lovely place with lovely family values but some people can have quite bigoted opinions :(
Huh?
The majority of the country have no problem with gays at all? Where di those statistics come from????
Berkshire (where this b&b was) is hardly the back of beyond that 'hasn't been exposed to much'.
Unless of course you're are referring to Caithness being full of small minded people who haven't been exposed to much??? In which case where do those statistics come from???
I for one have been exposed to many many things during my life, good bad and downright ugly.
Why would this topic of conversation amaze you? It's a topic that hit the headlines today and is a thoughtful case.
Not talking about such things, as would seem to be your preference, is exactly why prejudices DO still exist and exactly why they WILL continue to exist.
Silence ain't exactly gonna cure us of all our ills is it!
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 12:20
How on earth can anyone compare a rapist/murderer/paedophile with someone who is gay? How is that even an analogy? One is legal and the other not...
If you go back and read the thread you refer to properly and engage the brain before answering you will note that I pointed out that I was NOT comparing the rapist, murderer or pedophile with same sex couples. I was comparing the act of discrimination.
I was a bit taken aback at the number of people who held the views on the forum. In my experience people who are anti- anything are told to keep their belief to themselves. People seem quite vocal on here. P - you weren't the only person relating to criminals - I wasn't refering to your comment so please don't be offended. What I was saying is how is it even comparable? People have a right to be feared of someone who has comitted a horrific crime, how can that be compared?
a big clap for changilass she's got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nobody is debating the womans moral views but she seriously shouldn't be dealing with the the public with such strong views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a family member who had to leave there home jobs and family and move hundred of miles away because of there sexuality and the homophobic attitude of small town mentality[evil] but doing this they realised that it really doesn't matter what people of no importance to them think they have the love and support of family and true friends and that's all that matters. I'v been out to clubs with this family member and believe me the majority of gay people don't "ram it down your throats" any more than straight people. Refer to previous thread of middle aged STRAIGHT couple making out in a local pub, but then straight people think its acceptable to make out in pubs because this is NORMAL (isn't it ???)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![disgust] This world would be a much better place if people we'rnt so judgemental I'm a firm believe that unless someone hurts me or mine let people live there lives regardless of sexuality, religion etc................:(
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 12:35
I was a bit taken aback at the number of people who held the views on the forum. In my experience people who are anti- anything are told to keep their belief to themselves. People seem quite vocal on here. P - you weren't the only person relating to criminals - I wasn't refering to your comment so please don't be offended. What I was saying is how is it even comparable? People have a right to be feared of someone who has comitted a horrific crime, how can that be compared?
Because I suspect that the anti - discrimination act would protect those who have committed horiffic crimes (and are time served or classed as rehabilitated) in exactly the same way it protects same sex couples. In other words, despite your own beliefs and moral standards the law would prevent you from turning them away.
So if we accept that the B&B owner does not have the right to turn away the same sex couple under the anti - discrimination act surely we have to also agree that the B&B owner does not have the right to turn away the murder, rapist etc etc?
If not we then revert to double standards.
a big clap for changilass she's got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nobody is debating the womans moral views but she seriously shouldn't be dealing with the the public with such strong views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a family member who had to leave there home jobs and family and move hundred of miles away because of there sexuality and the homophobic attitude of small town mentality[evil] but doing this they realised that it really doesn't matter what people of no importance to them think they have the love and support of family and true friends and that's all that matters. I'v been out to clubs with this family member and believe me the majority of gay people don't "ram it down your throats" any more than straight people. Refer to previous thread of middle aged STRAIGHT couple making out in a local pub, but then straight people think its acceptable to make out in pubs because this is NORMAL (isn't it ???)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![disgust] This world would be a much better place if people we'rnt so judgemental I'm a firm believe that unless someone hurts me or mine let people live there lives regardless of sexuality, religion etc................:(
Forum message: If anyone needs an exclamation mark please wait ten minutes while they reload!!!!!!!!!
Because I suspect that the anti - discrimination act would protect those who have committed horiffic crimes (and are time served or classed as rehabilitated) in exactly the same way it protects same sex couples. In other words, despite your own beliefs and moral standards the law would prevent you from turning them away.
So if we accept that the B&B owner does not have the right to turn away the same sex couple under the anti - discrimination act surely we have to also agree that the B&B owner does not have the right to turn away the murder, rapist etc etc?
If not we then revert to double standards.
Yeah that's a bit messed up isn't it?
Moral?? How is a straight person any less moral than someone who is gay? Religious beliefs cannot be compared to moral beliefs.
:eek: Moral (adjective) – Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character.
Adhering to the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable.
I did not say, describe or imply that one person’s morals were any greater or less than anyone else’s. All I am saying is that they are different.
Most religions describe the way adherents should behave and thus lay the basis for their moral beliefs.
What I will say is that respect should be afforded to the Gay couple for their choice of lifestyle as should respect be affored to the guesthouse owner for her moral view.
What we must do is find a way through discussion and debate, to arrive at a point where a compromise can be reached. This compromise should allow both parties to acknowledge each other's view/beliefs.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 12:43
a big clap for changilass she's got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nobody is debating the womans moral views but she seriously shouldn't be dealing with the the public with such strong views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come again?
See this is what happens during the brainwashing procedure.
This woman was no doubt bought up in a way that strictly went against same sex couples, this she carried on into her adult life.
Now whether that view is right or wrong the point is that it is her view and she has a right to it just the same as you or I do to ours.
No one has the right to abuse or assault a person based on their sexual orientation but a homeowner should always reserve the right to choose who enters their home.
This world would be a much better place if people we'rnt so judgemental I'm a firm believe that unless someone hurts me or mine let people live there lives regardless of sexuality, religion etc................:(
What do you define as "hurt"
It could be argued that being forced to lodge a same sex couple would "hurt" this woman mentally and emotionally as well as strip her of her moral codes.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 12:45
She isnt being forced to lodge - she just shouldn''t be in that business is all I am saying.
It aint her private home its a business and you have to abide by business laws.
The lady in question should be allowed to make her own choice as whether or not she wants to let homosexuals in her home/business.
What would she do however, if she or her family, needed a blood transfusion/organ transplant.
Would she refuse one from a homosexual? I think not
The lady in question should be allowed to make her own choice as whether or not she wants to let homosexuals in her home/business.
What would she do however, if she or her family, needed a blood transfusion/organ transplant.
Would she refuse one from a homosexual? I think not
That's interesting-I seem to remember I had to fill in a lifestyle questionnaire when I started giving blood and if you were in a "high risk" group you were not accepted-has this changed?
High-risk groups would include: gay men, intravenous drug users, anyone who had, had hepatitis, amongst others.
The lady is running a business - she should be able to decide who she provides a service for the same as they decide whether or not to use her. Whether this fits in with PC laws or not is a different matter and there are diplomatic ways around everything and she should take a few lessons on that topic. I am sure plenty of joiners or whatever do a runner from particular houses they don't really want to work in.
I went to buy a car a few years back and went to the Volvo garage. The salesman refused to even let me test drive one and his standard reply to every question was, "They are very expensive". Did I moan and bleat? No, I went straight across the road and bought an Audi. Everytime I pass the Volvo garage in question I give them the two-fingered salute and a few blue mutterings. They obviously didn't like the look of me and thought that I didn't have enough cash. Prejudiced, yes but I got on with it without a rumpus and exercised my right to spend my money somewhere else.
Exactly Changilass the woman isn't being FORCED to do anything she CHOSE to do this as a business so she should do it without discrimination and yes abide by the laws of the business or give it up if she wants to stick to her morals. It really isn't rocket science. :roll:
There seems to be quite a few people here that have the view that this woman has the right to refuse guests on the basis of thier sexuality. 2 questions for you now.
1. In the event that this woman needs to employ someone and her moral objection to gays stands. Do you agree that she should refuse employment on the basis of someones sexuality? If she employs someone and later finds out that this person is gay, would you support the owner if they sacked the employee due to thier sexuality?
2. If a gay man or woman booked a single room would she still have a problem with it? How would she know if they were gay?
this is completly off subject but as i was reading the pages of offended peoples rants.. i started thinking..
we now as a people, accept that there is homosexuality.. its rampit, its not just a few sicko's who are being deviant.
it is becoming a culture all its own.. and the younger generation is growing up with acceptance.
what we are not thinking about is that the older generation, was brought up in a time when open gayness was unheard of. that it was sinful and morally corrupt.
that basically it was a fast track ticket to hell.
we have a HUGE culture gap within a single generation.. and i bet a lot of older people are really struggling with what we take for granted. Changilass is obviously very upset about how same sex couples are being discriminated against.. just out of curiosity how old are you hun? and just to clarify.. not having a go or anything like that.. just curious as if you are younger it will play in with the theme that you have a more open mind.. due to your teachings being much broader because of what is acceptable in todays society.
im not saying that its wrong and have had many conversations with family memebers in my mothers generation that find it horrifying to think that one of their kids could ever be gay.
people who are so uncomfortable with the thought of being near a gay person that it makes them feel unwell... why? because they do not understand how to deal with the situation. they were always taught it was wrong.. and now they are being told that they have to accept that it is happening and to deal with it. Unfortunatly they dont know how.. and the best way is advoidance.
i told my uncle one time.. that as much as i would love to have grandchildren, that if sam or ben grew up and for what ever reason were gay that i would be fine with it.
at the end of the day no one is going to be good enough for my boys doesnt matter if they are boys or girls! as long as their choosen partner treats them right and makes them happy that is all that matters to me.. other wise .. well MIL from hell comes to mind *G*
after reading so many fantasy novels .. something else came to mind.. if our world wasnt so over populated do you think we would really have the same out look on homosexuality?
imagine if we had to make every couple count just to reproduce.. then it would be a problem. in todays world with the rabbit like breeding some people do its not an issue.
so what ever makes you happy i guess.. i do see both sides though.. when it is something that is so fundamentaly wrong to everything you were ever taught to belive it is very hard to understand and be comfortable with it. and i guess to some people who were taught that way it would be just as bad as a pedeophile, murder or rapist.
not saying that it is or that its right.. just that i understand how some peeps could feel that way.
i know myself that some people mostly men.. can make me feel very uncomfortable.. just being around them. the way they talk the way they move.. its instintiual and something i cant control. but i try not to freak out when someone i dont know walks by me in the dark.. even though they probwould never lay a finger on someone.. its just fear of the unknown.
we all have our fear and prejudices.. and it will never be overcome in a day.. it takes years and years of work and understanding on both sides to meet in the middle *G*
i always try to remember on this situation .. gay means happy *laughs*
changilass
22-Mar-10, 13:59
I am not one of the younger generation Brandy, I just think that if the woman in question can't bide by business law then she shouldn't be in business.
It has been said by others on here that 'gays have no right to ram their views/life down others throats', but it seems as if they just wanted a roof over their heads, whilst the woman in question was ramming her religious and moral view down their throats by refusing to honour the contract and allow them entry.
I am not saying that everyone has to allow any one entry to their homes, but if you have a business then it is a different matter.
I was a bit taken aback at the number of people who held the views on the forum. In my experience people who are anti- anything are told to keep their belief to themselves. People seem quite vocal on here. P - you weren't the only person relating to criminals - I wasn't refering to your comment so please don't be offended. What I was saying is how is it even comparable? People have a right to be feared of someone who has comitted a horrific crime, how can that be compared?
I assume you mean my post then leanne? I stated in black and white that i was playing devils advocate by posting it,perhaps you should read things better before judging,but then again it wouldnt be the first time :roll: For your clarity and understanding what I meant was that IF it was someone with a record for murder,pedophelia,rape ect would they still say the same thing about her being wrong to turn them away?Oh and NO I am not comparing gay people to murderers or anything before that statement is miss quoted too,what I mean is surely as it is the womans home she has the right to feel comfortable with whom she is sharing it with? Some people have failed to move with the times but at least she was open and honest about it,she could have simply said she had double booked the room and was sorry about the inconvienience x
onecalledk
22-Mar-10, 14:21
The woman in questions morals are hers and thats the problem really isnt it, they are HERS. She is forcing HER beliefs onto other people. That in itself is a problem when you are in a business where you have regular contact with the general public. I agree that no one forced her to run a guest house but it MUST have crossed her mind that at some point in her business life she would have to deal with a situation such as this or in her world do gay people not holiday?
She must have realised that runnning a B & B would throw up situations where people with different morals to her own would appear or is she somewhat niave in thinking that the rest of the world have the same views as herself?
She has a very narrow minded point of view. I know plenty of gay people and have never had their sexuality flaunted in front of me. I still find it incredulous that in the 21st century you can be ridiculed and insulted because you happen to share your bed with someone of the same sex. ITS NOBODIES BUSINESS but the couple in question.
And before someone pulls me up for saying she has a narrow point of view, yes she is entitled to it , but she is not entitled to ram it down other peoples throats when running a business that involves joe public .....
K
:D Brandy – you make a very good point, there will be many people who for various reasons will have strong views and will no doubt, given time, embark upon a learning curve. I’m old enough to remember when homosexuality in men was illegal. Thankfully those days are long gone. I have gay friends, male and female and respect them all – although they can occasionally be prats too.
:D Changilass – you’re right to criticise people’s use of inflammatory language, in particular those who said, “Gays have no right to ram their views/life down other’s throats” but you shouldn’t really have said, “the woman in question was ramming her religious and moral view down their throats.” If you read the article, there didn’t appear to be raised voices, even the complainants said she was polite.
Unfortunately much of the present equality legislation is such that one person’s equality is another person’s oppression. Change will take time so long as we all continue to talk about the issue.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 14:27
The very fact that she turned them away is ramming her beliefs upon them, the fact that she did it politley does not change that fact.
She still broke her contract and the law.
I can see little hope for change in society where the debate, discussion or argument becomes polarised through the continued use of inflammatory language and intransigence. If people wish to see only the negativity of both sides then IMHO little positive will come of further discussion.
Kevin Milkins
22-Mar-10, 15:04
If I had a guest house, I would like to think that I could refuse entry to anyone that I did not feel comfortable with, and if it's against the law, then the law is an ass.
This lady, not only had her own moral standards to consider, but also the feelings of other guests, and it could be tricky to accommodate everyone in a small B&B
I would say that she might think twice next time someone tries to book under the name of Mr & Mr Smith.
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 15:16
The very fact that she turned them away is ramming her beliefs upon them, the fact that she did it politley does not change that fact.
She still broke her contract and the law.
But what is the point is instilling morals etc in our kids if one day when they're older a situation will arise where they'll be expected to roll over like a dog and forget them?
The whole point of morals and beliefs is something to guide you through the life you live, they're not something that a person can switch on or off as the situation suits.
No one has a right to tell another person how they can or cannot feel. Society can be guided and moulded as the world progresses and morals and beliefs will gradually come around as time goes by but it's not something that will happen overnight and IMO it will take much longer than necessary if new pc morals are forced on to people.
TBH for me it's really not about what sex the couple were, it would be the same if she'd turned away a gang of Hells Angels or a loutish family.
It's the fact that yet again we as a society are being stripped of our right to free thinking and freedom of speech.
It wasn't so long ago that same sex couples were not tolerated at all, ever anywhere and rightly or wrongly that set the precedent for a whole generation of people.
We Brits can be a 'stick up the arse' nation. Anything to do with sexuality, body parts or the like leaves many of us with feelings of 'what is the world coming to'.
Take Breast feeding in public for example. The uproar that can cause. Women are made to feel as though they can't leave their house during daylight hours if they have a nursing baby, leaving many women having to feed in public toilets if they do dare to venture out [evil]
Society is slowly becoming more accepting of breastfeeding in public but again, rightly or wrongly, it takes time to bring people around.
The woman in questions morals are hers and thats the problem really isnt it, they are HERS. She is forcing HER beliefs onto other people. That in itself is a problem when you are in a business where you have regular contact with the general public. I agree that no one forced her to run a guest house but it MUST have crossed her mind that at some point in her business life she would have to deal with a situation such as this or in her world do gay people not holiday?
She must have realised that runnning a B & B would throw up situations where people with different morals to her own would appear or is she somewhat niave in thinking that the rest of the world have the same views as herself?
She has a very narrow minded point of view. I know plenty of gay people and have never had their sexuality flaunted in front of me. I still find it incredulous that in the 21st century you can be ridiculed and insulted because you happen to share your bed with someone of the same sex. ITS NOBODIES BUSINESS but the couple in question.
And before someone pulls me up for saying she has a narrow point of view, yes she is entitled to it , but she is not entitled to ram it down other peoples throats when running a business that involves joe public .....
K
It was a GUEST house not a public hotel, it was this womans home and her decision not ours and not the Governments.
Like it or not many people especially religious people are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality.
As long as she was polite about it then I have no issue with someone excercising her right to her own opinion and her own rules in her own home.
If this was a Muslim guest House there would be no issue as we are all sensitive to thier beliefs but im guessing she is a white christian so its pretty much open season for the PR brigade and societys do gooders who love to take offence on other peoples behalf.
onecalledk
22-Mar-10, 16:02
It was a GUEST house not a public hotel, it was this womans home and her decision not ours and not the Governments.
Like it or not many people especially religious people are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality.
As long as she was polite about it then I have no issue with someone excercising her right to her own opinion and her own rules in her own home.
If this was a Muslim guest House there would be no issue as we are all sensitive to thier beliefs but im guessing she is a white christian so its pretty much open season for the PR brigade and societys do gooders who love to take offence on other peoples behalf.
It was a BUSINESS, therefore it is no longer her private dwelling house. There are rules and regulations she would have had to adhere to for health and safety and fire etc, so why should she have to adhere to rules for things like that and not to other rules of business ???
The point that everyone is missing is that it is NOT her own home, it is a house used for a business venture. She has to abide by all sorts of rules that she wouldnt have to if it was a private house.
This is not about religion, its about business and the law. Religion does not come into it. Quoting religions is not helpful at all the very title of "white christian" infers that being white is more christian than being any other colour !
Religion and morals are TWO SEPARATE things. You dont have to be religious to have morals. Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion but no bible anywhere condones killing of others........
K
It was a BUSINESS, therefore it is no longer her private dwelling house. There are rules and regulations she would have had to adhere to for health and safety and fire etc, so why should she have to adhere to rules for things like that and not to other rules of business ???
The point that everyone is missing is that it is NOT her own home, it is a house used for a business venture. She has to abide by all sorts of rules that she wouldnt have to if it was a private house.
This is not about religion, its about business and the law. Religion does not come into it. Quoting religions is not helpful at all the very title of "white christian" infers that being white is more christian than being any other colour !
Religion and morals are TWO SEPARATE things. You dont have to be religious to have morals. Plenty of people have been killed in the name of religion but no bible anywhere condones killing of others........
K
Have you read it? Plenty of references can be found condoning killing!
I am amazed and somewhat amused at the degree of pseudo political correctness that permeates the .org.
For what it is worth homosexuality is, in my opinion, a deviant and un-natural practice , end of. There is no way that a pair of practising homosexuals will sleep under my roof, and furthermore I would not contemplate staying in premises which openly condoned these practices.
If this lady is prosecuted/put out of business because of her beliefs then the law and the pseudo pc brigade, who appear to be plentiful on the .org, are both an 'ass'. That is 'ass' as in donkey, not 'ass' in any un-natural way.
Invisible
22-Mar-10, 17:22
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100321/tuk-gay-couple-turned-away-from-b-b-6323e80.html
What do y'all think?
What a bummer eh? Jokes aside I agree with onecalledk.
ITS NOBODIES BUSINESS but the couple in question.
If she wants guests then refuses homosexuals why not specify this.
B&B but no B n' B :confused
porshiepoo
22-Mar-10, 17:58
I am amazed and somewhat amused at the degree of pseudo political correctness that permeates the .org.
For what it is worth homosexuality is, in my opinion, a deviant and un-natural practice , end of. There is no way that a pair of practising homosexuals will sleep under my roof, and furthermore I would not contemplate staying in premises which openly condoned these practices.
If this lady is prosecuted/put out of business because of her beliefs then the law and the pseudo pc brigade, who appear to be plentiful on the .org, are both an 'ass'. That is 'ass' as in donkey, not 'ass' in any un-natural way.
Brave statement of opinion. :)
The Drunken Duck
22-Mar-10, 18:00
The woman has a right to decided who shares a bed under HER roof, yes she is running a buisness but this was a case of their lifestyle being in conflict with her beliefs. If she was running a shop and had refused to serve them that is a different kettle of fish and I would not have agreed with her stance. But two people sleeping in her house is a different situation, its much more personal.
It seems to me we are now being told how to feel about certain things in today's society and it makes me very uncomfortable. Respect is a two way street. We are inundated with "awareness" information these days and it seems to me that Gay people should also appreciate the fact that some people do not approve of their lifestyle without immediatly claiming "Homophobia". As long as people are polite and do not resort to verbal or physical violence there should be no problem with them having that view. I just worry about the current level of "thought policing" and the branding of people as "Homophobic" at every opportunity.
EDIT .. Or she should convert to Islam and claim "religious beliefs", should stump Diversity enthusiasts that. Then just watch the police investigation disappear very rapidly.
I am amazed and somewhat amused at the degree of pseudo political correctness that permeates the .org.
For what it is worth homosexuality is, in my opinion, a deviant and un-natural practice , end of. There is no way that a pair of practising homosexuals will sleep under my roof, and furthermore I would not contemplate staying in premises which openly condoned these practices.
If this lady is prosecuted/put out of business because of her beliefs then the law and the pseudo pc brigade, who appear to be plentiful on the .org, are both an 'ass'. That is 'ass' as in donkey, not 'ass' in any un-natural way.
:roll: Political correctness aside davie, homosexuality is not an unnatural practice.
Bruce Bagemihl in his book ‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity’, (1999), counted 470 species that indulge in same-sex activity including rams, penguins and macaques. His argument has been debated widely in various academic and scientific journals. Since homosexuality exists in the animal world it follows that it is perfectly reasonable to believe it has always existed in the human world; at least until religion taught us otherwise.
Here (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm) is an essay by Scott Bidstrup that might explain things a little further.
You are entitled to your opinion but I would say you need to know people before you can dislike them or the way they live their lives ;)
:roll: Political correctness aside davie, homosexuality is not an unnatural practice.
Bruce Bagemihl in his book ‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity’, (1999), counted 470 species that indulge in same-sex activity including rams, penguins and macaques. His argument has been debated widely in various academic and scientific journals. Since homosexuality exists in the animal world it follows that it is perfectly reasonable to believe it has always existed in the human world; at least until religion taught us otherwise.
Here (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm) is an essay by Scott Bidstrup that might explain things a little further.
You are entitled to your opinion but I would say you need to know people before you can dislike them or the way they live their lives ;)do u think she would have turned the penguins away?
At the end of the day we all come across some form of discrimination at some point in life and I dont think that will ever change,people are very quick to judge even when they claim not to,it can be because someone is fat,thin,black,white,bad at grammar(;) ) too tall,short,wearing geeky clothes or anything else! I bet if we all sat back and thought about it we have all either done this or have had it done to us at some point in out lives,yes it is hurtful and wrong but I cant see it ever changing x
northener
22-Mar-10, 18:18
do u think she would have turned the penguins away?
I would. Remember the dodgy penguin lodger on Wallace and Gromit?
The woman has a right to decided who shares a bed under HER roof, yes she is running a buisness but this was a case of their lifestyle being in conflict with her beliefs. If she was running a shop and had refused to serve them that is a different kettle of fish and I would not have agreed with her stance. But two people sleeping in her house is a different situation, its much more personal.
It seems to me we are now being told how to feel about certain things in today's society and it makes me very uncomfortable. Respect is a two way street. We are inundated with "awareness" information these days and it seems to me that Gay people should also appreciate the fact that some people do not approve of their lifestyle without immediatly claiming "Homophobia". As long as people are polite and do not resort to verbal or physical violence there should be no problem with them having that view. I just worry about the current level of "thought policing" and the branding of people as "Homophobic" at every opportunity.
EDIT .. Or she should convert to Islam and claim "religious beliefs", should stump Diversity enthusiasts that. Then just watch the police investigation disappear very rapidly.
Good point - the though police are very much in your face.
Question immigration or asylum issues you’re branded a 'racist'.
Question Israel’s policy of house building in the occupied territories your an ‘anti-Semite’.
Question anything to do with women you’re a ‘sexist’.
There has to be a way for people to talk through the issues. The adoption agency ‘Catholic Care’ won its appeal for an exemption from sexual orientation regulations that say it must consider applications from gay couples.
After all there are lots of other adoption agencies gay couples can go to.
do u think she would have turned the penguins away?
:lol: I would - I hear they fart something terrible AND they snore!
John Little
22-Mar-10, 18:29
I just wonder what gay Orgers think reading this thread.
If I were in their shoes living up there I would stay so far back in my wardrobe you'd need a 20 foot bargepole to reach me.
With such obvious homophobic views, then you shouldn't be running a Guest House anyway, so its a good job you are an ex owner.
I am NOT HOMOPHOBIC,
I have principles, which I firmly believe I have a right to!
Just because I do not wish homosexual canoodling within my private space, does not mean that I am homophobic!!
oh and you do not know me well enough to assume or for that matter presume to form an opinion of me.
:roll: Political correctness aside davie, homosexuality is not an unnatural practice.
Bruce Bagemihl in his book ‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity’, (1999), counted 470 species that indulge in same-sex activity including rams, penguins and macaques. His argument has been debated widely in various academic and scientific journals. Since homosexuality exists in the animal world it follows that it is perfectly reasonable to believe it has always existed in the human world; at least until religion taught us otherwise.
Here (http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm) is an essay by Scott Bidstrup that might explain things a little further.
You are entitled to your opinion but I would say you need to know people before you can dislike them or the way they live their lives ;)
...........and no doubt Bruce will be gay himself. The fact that something exists does not make it natural.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 18:49
"The ongoing psychopathic hatred of same-sex sexuality has made the United States the laughingstock of the civilized world. In most of the First World, monotheism is weak. Where it is weak or nonexistent, private sexual behavior has nothing at all to do with anyone else, much less with the law. At least when the Emperor Justinian, a sky-god man, decided to outlaw sodomy, he had to come up with a good practical reason, which he did. It is well known, Justinian declared, that sodomy is a principal cause of earthquake and so must be prohibited. But our sky-godders, always eager to hate, still quote Leviticus, as if that loony text had anything useful to say about anything, except perhaps the inadvisability of eating shellfish in the Jerusalem area."
Gore Vidal.
He's gay by the way.
http://archive.8m.net/vidal.htm
So she didnae want an earthquake then.
Well I can relate to that.
Can we please keep this one running!!
There is so much sence an tripe going on, I cann'y think where to hang my hat!!
But I know wrere to park my bum;)
...........and no doubt Bruce will be gay himself. The fact that something exists does not make it natural.
:roll: If it exists in nature - and there is plenty of evidence to show that it does - by definition it is natural.
You may think it unnatural because of the way you have been socialised and/or educated. You are entitled to your opinion.
Murder exists, it could be said that it is natural to some.
If your going to run a b&b when dealing with customers your going to meet people from all walks of life and if you cant deal with it then you shouldnt be opening your home up to the public.
For me she is just a person with double standards thats quite happy to turn away people and ruin there holiday on her own values that she is to scared to express openly her views and make it clear on the holiday brochure or tourist information were ever she advertise her business so everyone knows were they stand thats why i have a low opinion of the owner of the b&b.
And the only reason she doesnt do that is beacuse the majority of people wouldnt go to her b&b if they new her views and her policys
I am NOT HOMOPHOBIC,
I have principles, which I firmly believe I have a right to!
Just because I do not wish homosexual canoodling within my private space, does not mean that I am homophobic!!
oh and you do not know me well enough to assume or for that matter presume to form an opinion of me.
Me thinks you doth protest too much;)
If your going to run a b&b when dealing with customers your going to meet people from all walks of life and if you cant deal with it then you shouldnt be opening your home up to the public.
For me she is just a person with double standards thats quite happy to turn away people and ruin there holiday on her own values that she is to scared to express openly her views and make it clear on the holiday brochure or tourist information were ever she advertise her business so everyone knows were they stand thats why i have a low opinion of the owner of the b&b.
And the only reason she doesnt do that is beacuse the majority of people wouldnt go to her b&b if they new her views and her policys
The reason the owner cannot say in any advertising literature what her views are is because the current legislation denies her the right to do so. It also denies her the right to think and act in accordance with her own moral or religious beliefs.
If you had read the thread from the beginning you would have grasped that there is a variety of opinions on this issue.
There are some Orgers who support her emphatically; some don't.
As I see it there should be room for both points of view.
The reason the owner cannot say in any advertising literature what her views are is because the current legislation denies her the right to do so. It also denies her the right to think and act in accordance with her own moral or religious beliefs.
If you had read the thread from the beginning you would have grasped that there is a variety of opinions on this issue.
There are some Orgers who support her emphatically; some don't.
As I see it there should be room for both points of view.
Then maybey if she should have thought about her moral or religious beliefs before starting of her b&b business knowing what the current legislation states?
For me its very black and white shes is completly in the wrong and she should question whether its wise to continue her business with her view points
The amount of trouble caused by peoples religious beliefs all over the world is terrible and what i would say to anyone with strong religious beliefs is to keep on believing in what u believe but also respect other people religous beliefs or there lifestlye they choose its not there place to force your religous beliefs on anyone else is that to much to ask for?
onecalledk
22-Mar-10, 19:56
Then maybey if she should have thought about her moral or religious beliefs before starting of her b&b business knowing what the current legislation states?
For me its very black and white shes is completly in the wrong and she should question whether its wise to continue her business with her view points
The amount of trouble caused by peoples religious beliefs all over the world is terrible and what i would say to anyone with strong religious beliefs is to keep on believing in what u believe but also respect other people religous beliefs or there lifestlye they choose its not there place to force your religous beliefs on anyone else is that to much to ask for?
you may well find that it is ..... :~(
K
The amount of trouble caused by peoples religious beliefs all over the world is terrible and what i would say to anyone with strong religious beliefs is to keep on believing in what u believe but also respect other people religous beliefs or there lifestlye they choose its not there place to force your religous beliefs on anyone else is that to much to ask for?
I don't think she was forcing her beliefs on them, it was just a bit of NIMBYism.
Considering that people are being maimed, persecuted and murdered worldwide in the name of religious beliefs ie Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel etc. then I would hardly rate some biddy booting two blokes out of her home/business in the same league.
Boozeburglar
22-Mar-10, 20:03
Being in a same sex relationship myself, I feel I have an opinion on this.
Regardless of it being your 'own home', as a B&B bod you ought to make it clear who is NOT welcome, and take your chances with the authorities.
Turning guests away at the door is totally beyond the pale.
Boozeburglar
22-Mar-10, 20:07
On a similar note, my wife and I stayed in a guest house one night, and the couple who ran it were gay men.
Our room was the luxury one, and it turned out to be the one they use when it is not booked.
How would you feel about sleeping in a gay couple's bed?
northener
22-Mar-10, 20:15
......
How would you feel about sleeping in a gay couple's bed?
Depends on if they keep nicking the duvet or not:Razz
Me thinks you doth protest too much;)
Is that a fact.
Kevin Milkins
22-Mar-10, 20:24
On a similar note, my wife and I stayed in a guest house one night, and the couple who ran it were gay men.
Our room was the luxury one, and it turned out to be the one they use when it is not booked.
How would you feel about sleeping in a gay couple's bed?
That's a very good point Boozeburgler, What if you had booked a bed and breakfast and turned up to find it was run by two gay men, and you decided not to stay, what is the pc angle on that scenario.:confused
Then maybey if she should have thought about her moral or religious beliefs before starting of her b&b business knowing what the current legislation states?
For me its very black and white shes is completly in the wrong and she should question whether its wise to continue her business with her view points
The amount of trouble caused by peoples religious beliefs all over the world is terrible and what i would say to anyone with strong religious beliefs is to keep on believing in what u believe but also respect other people religous beliefs or there lifestlye they choose its not there place to force your religous beliefs on anyone else is that to much to ask for?
The legislation regarding the gay rights in question only came into being in 2007. This legislation was rushed through to appease the gay and lesbian lobby. There was little time for any meaningful discussion. Consequently a lot of organisations had to rapidly rethink their policies. Obviously the owner of the B&B thought it didn’t apply to her since she was using her private home as her place of business. Clearly she was wrong.
My argument is that both sides should step back and take time to consider the other’s point of view.
The results of not doing so are that you end up with polarised opinions, a lot of negativity and little possibility of achieving anything positive. The views of the majority of posts on this thread shows two diametrically opposing views which help no one.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 20:37
It's amazing really.
You forget things - I had forgotten that there are many people out there who still get uptight about where other people stick their bits and worry about what they do in bed.
I mean - it's creepy.
Then maybey if she should have thought about her moral or religious beliefs before starting of her b&b business knowing what the current legislation states?
So to a degree she would be denied her right to earn a living.
There is a difficulty with this issue as this is something that is(was/would have) happened within someone's home, quite different from a 'work' premises where personal / professional opinions can be easily divided.
The "black & white" of legislation does not fit in easily with the humanity of religion and morals. Especially in what can be perceived as confusing messages coming from the gov't and political parties in the run up to the election. Family Values, Traditional Values, Moral Compass's etc. etc.
Here we go again ignorance disguised as prejudice. As a Christian (born and raised) I get so angry and embarrassed when people of any religion use it as a reason for homophobia or any other prejudice. People are born homosexual just as they are born of one colour, with red hair, tall, short, undecided gender or any other variation. It's not a choice and I have many gay friends who, for one reason or another (but mainly because of prejudice in their childhood) wish they were "straight". As someone said earlier, animals can be gay - remember those male penguins who made such excellent fathers?
The only reason Gay Rights groups still exist is because so many of them encounter prejudice and quite recently being gay was illegal. It's not so long since mixed race couples were unacceptable and some still have a problem with that. Get over it.
Can you imagine how children of people with this prejudice must feel when they find they can no longer hide their nature from their parents?
The sad thing about this story is not so much that this woman is breaking the law, but that she is so ignorant.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 20:53
Well said Badger. I thought I would post the Org links for any Gay and Lesbian people who might be worried by the general tenor of this discussion.
Personal Safety Advice for the LGBT Community (http://www.lbp.police.uk/homepage/link/lgbt.htm)
Caithness
Caithness Gay Lesbian and Bi-sexual Group (http://www.caithness.org/community/social/text/gayandlesbianbisexualgroup.htm)
Sorry - they don't work,
(http://www.caithness.org/community/social/text/gayandlesbianbisexualgroup.htm)
Well said Badger. I thought I would post the Org links for any Gay and Lesbian people who might be worried by the general tenor of this discussion.
I didn't think this discussion was overly biased nor homophobic, I thought it captured a rough spread of the spectrum.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 21:33
The discussion is not in question - I agree with you. But rough is to the point. There are some views on here that I think my gay friends would find quite terrifying.
Also I wished to draw attention to the fact that the Org's help links for the gay community actually do not work.
The sad thing about this story is not so much that this woman is breaking the law, but that she is so ignorant.
The woman probably has long standing religious and/or moral beliefs and thought that since she was in her own home she was acting within the law. She was clearly wrong. I see no reason to belittle her and would hope that as a Christian you would have exercised some compassion. I imagine she is now launching herself on a steep learning curve.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 21:53
She has no choice.
She's breaking the law.
"The Law and Discriminating Against Particular Guests
Access for all has become a contentious issue in the last few years. The days of overt race discriminations, seeing signs such as 'no blacks or Irish' in the windows of B&B's, are thankfully over, although some B&B's might pretend to be full if someone of a particular race turned up at the door. Discrimination like that is difficult to prove and enforce though. The recent furore has surrounded discrimination against gay couples, where a number of B&B owners have refused to allow them to share a room on the grounds that their sexuality contradicts their religious beliefs. This was brought to a head when the government introduced the sexual orientation regulations that would outlaw the provision of any service on those grounds.
One of the examples chosen as a focus for opposition was the removal of the choice of a Christian B&B owner to refuse to allow same-sex couple into their establishment, as their sexual orientation offended their religious beliefs. Despite objections, from mainly Christian activists, the law was passed by both houses and the fuss now seems to have died down."
http://www.startabedandbreakfast.co.uk/relevance-anti-discrimination-laws.html
End of.
I didn't think this discussion was overly biased nor homophobic, I thought it captured a rough spread of the spectrum.
I can't agree Phill. In some posts I can see two distinct entrenched views have emerged with little room for dialogue between them. Without dialogue we can soon descend into bigotry – that’s a worry.
The woman probably has long standing religious and/or moral beliefs and thought that since she was in her own home she was acting within the law. She was clearly wrong. I see no reason to belittle her and would hope that as a Christian you would have exercised some compassion. I imagine she is now launching herself on a steep learning curve.
I don't think Badger was saying the owner was ignorant of the law. Either way if she was that is no excuse, especially for a business owner.
The woman probably has long standing religious and/or moral beliefs and thought that since she was in her own home she was acting within the law. She was clearly wrong. I see no reason to belittle her and would hope that as a Christian you would have exercised some compassion. I imagine she is now launching herself on a steep learning curve.
I was not belittling her, or that was certainly not my intention. I simply said that it was sad she knows so little about homosexuality. That applies to many people I imagine who do not personally know anyone who is gay, or at least are not aware that they do. Even more sad is that if she had been able to overcome her prejudice, she might have got to know two nice men and been able to change her mind. She might even have made two new friends.
I don't believe there is anything religious or moral about condemning other human beings just because they happen to be different. Fear of the unknown.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:25
Badger - I know 2 true Christians.
I've never met you but you are the third.
There are some views on here that I think my gay friends would find quite terrifying.
To be honest, I'd say they'd probably seen & heard it all before. But I stand to be corrected.
Also I wished to draw attention to the fact that the Org's help links for the gay community actually do not work.
Not a good sign I must say.
The woman probably has long standing religious and/or moral beliefs and thought that since she was in her own home she was acting within the law. She was clearly wrong. I see no reason to belittle her and would hope that as a Christian you would have exercised some compassion. I imagine she is now launching herself on a steep learning curve.
I think this possibly sums it up from her perspective. It appears she was honest and polite about the situation, I have seen far worse over far less.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 22:31
The org can only display the information it is given, it is up to the various organisations to ensure their information is up to date.
The org can only display the information it is given, it is up to the various organisations to ensure their information is up to date.
The actual links don't work though. That is the webmaster's responsibility. But with such a big site it is probably hard to keep on top of.
Edit: I have reported it to admin so hopefully if it is in their power they will sort it.
surely if that is her moral stance then she should have some warning on her website or info about her B & B ? If she is so against homosexuals she should state that in her literature?
But then she would probably go out of business wouldnt she .....
She cannot have it both ways. She is either a business OR a private residence. If you use your home as a business then you would need to abide by the rules of said business.......
K
I completly agree with you K.
It is disgraceful that this lady is being harassed by the police and some members of the public for standing by her principles and politely turning away these two adult males who wanted to share the same bed in her house.
The two elderly homosexuals claimed to have been "shocked and embarrassed," yet they were not too "shocked and embarrassed" to go to the police station and make a complaint. Must have made a speedy recovery I expect. Perhaps the thought of a little free publicity at this stage of their lives?
Miss Wilkinson gave them their deposit back, so all's well that ends well. She is perfectly entitled to refuse entry into her house and I'm sure that the two elderly homosexuals would easily find many other establishments that were not as discerning as she was.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 22:48
She aint being harrassed, the situation is under investigation as she has broken the law by denying them bed and board.
Why should folk have to find elsewhere when they have already booked somewhere?
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:49
"She is perfectly entitled to refuse entry into her house"
Not if she's running a B& B she ain't.
Did you read what I said?
I repeat then;
"The Law and Discriminating Against Particular Guests
Access for all has become a contentious issue in the last few years. The days of overt race discriminations, seeing signs such as 'no blacks or Irish' in the windows of B&B's, are thankfully over, although some B&B's might pretend to be full if someone of a particular race turned up at the door. Discrimination like that is difficult to prove and enforce though. The recent furore has surrounded discrimination against gay couples, where a number of B&B owners have refused to allow them to share a room on the grounds that their sexuality contradicts their religious beliefs. This was brought to a head when the government introduced the sexual orientation regulations that would outlaw the provision of any service on those grounds.
One of the examples chosen as a focus for opposition was the removal of the choice of a Christian B&B owner to refuse to allow same-sex couple into their establishment, as their sexual orientation offended their religious beliefs. Despite objections, from mainly Christian activists, the law was passed by both houses and the fuss now seems to have died down."
She's breaking the law.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:51
BTW I am not shouting. I am highlighting something I have already said.
Should you wish to condone her criminality that would be a different matter.
Did you read what I said?
I repeat then;
She's breaking the law.
Why should I have read what you said in particular?
If she is breaking the law, then
1) The law is an ass;
2) That's her problem and no doubt she will handle it.
BTW I am not shouting. I am highlighting something I have already said.
You could have used a different colour for that.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:53
Because she is absolutely not not not entitled to refuse entry on grounds of sexuality if she's running a B and B and you said that she was.
You cannot argue that black is white.
And you cannot shape the law to suit yourself.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:54
"You could have used a different colour for that."
But I don't want to.
"Why should I have read what you said in particular?"
Because I made the seemingly unreasonable assumption that before you came in with a view that you would have read the preceding posts to see what stage the discussion was at.
Yes – Why not? If you have a particular dietary requirement you would mention it. If you have a particular requirement because of a disability you would mention it. If you want to bring your dog with you, you would mention it. You might even mention that you would be arriving after dark on a big motorbike wearing a full face helmet!
If one has a lifestyle that could conflict with someone's religious and moral beliefs surely it's worth mentioning?
In most cases a guesthouse owner, given the opportunity, would be able to direct you to alternate accommodation.
Now you can take this a bit further. If you had to tell someone over the phone about your sexuality based on not wanting to offend them, would you then have to do it if you were an unmarried couple just in case it offended the owner that you were not married.
What about the islamic culture in which all women must be covered up sometimes to the point where you can only see the woman's eyes? What about a strict jew or a strict christian? Would you have to ensure you told them everything about your livestyle when trying to book in fear of upseting their beliefs?
Because she is absolutely not not not entitled to refuse entry on grounds of sexuality if she's running a B and B and you said that she was.
You cannot argue that black is white.
And you cannot shape the law to suit yourself.
You don't seem too bothered about Britain breaking international law in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so why are you so concerned about this trivial incident?
Yoda the flump
22-Mar-10, 22:57
Why should I have read what you said in particular?
If she is breaking the law, then
1) The law is an ass;
2) That's her problem and no doubt she will handle it.
Well, maybe it is an ass, but the law stands as it is and it must be obeyed.
You cannot decide which laws you wish to obey and which you do not.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 22:58
Sigh.
There is no international law.
It does not exist
And please do not put words into my mouth. I have never given a view on the legality or illegality of our invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan.
I actually disapproved of both and still do.
Yoda the flump
22-Mar-10, 22:59
You don't seem too bothered about Britain breaking international law in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so why are you so concerned about this trivial incident?
Ho hum, here we go.......
She should argue this under the law of contract, in my opinion. She terminated the contract by returning the homosexuals' deposit, before they had set foot in her house.
No problem.
Sigh.
There is no international law.
It does not exist
Rubbish, I'm afraid.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 23:01
Ah -my apologies - I had not realised you were a solicitor. I shall withdraw my objections immediately for I would not wish to questiuon professional expertise.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 23:02
What legislative body makes International Law?
Boozeburglar
22-Mar-10, 23:07
Ah -my apologies - I had not realised you were a solicitor.
No, he just thinks he is an expert on everything, because he can click a mouse.
changilass
22-Mar-10, 23:07
You don't seem too bothered about Britain breaking international law in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so why are you so concerned about this trivial incident?
What the hell has this got to do with the subject at hand?
You have enough threads about Iraq and Afghanistan already, don't bring it into this one, it aint bliddy relevant.
What the hell has this got to do with the subject at hand?
You have enough threads about Iraq and Afghanistan already, don't bring it into this one, it aint bliddy relevant.
The law is "bliddy relevant" and under common law Miss Wilkinson has committed no crime.
a big clap for changilass she's got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nobody is debating the womans moral views but she seriously shouldn't be dealing with the the public with such strong views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a family member who had to leave there home jobs and family and move hundred of miles away because of there sexuality and the homophobic attitude of small town mentality[evil] but doing this they realised that it really doesn't matter what people of no importance to them think they have the love and support of family and true friends and that's all that matters. I'v been out to clubs with this family member and believe me the majority of gay people don't "ram it down your throats" any more than straight people. Refer to previous thread of middle aged STRAIGHT couple making out in a local pub, but then straight people think its acceptable to make out in pubs because this is NORMAL (isn't it ???)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![disgust] This world would be a much better place if people we'rnt so judgemental I'm a firm believe that unless someone hurts me or mine let people live there lives regardless of sexuality, religion etc................:(
I completly agree with you. The problem is that the idea of what a couple is a man and a woman and anything else is wrong. Aye we're supposed to be accepting that this view is wrong and to accept people for who they are not what they are, but they are so many people that think its very wrong to be in a realtionship with anyone of the same sex.
I personally judge people with their attidude and character not what sexual preferences they have.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 23:15
I am so out of here!
This is quite scary.
I'm going to bed and hide beneath the covers.
Boozeburglar
22-Mar-10, 23:17
The law is "bliddy relevant" and under common law Miss Wilkinson has committed no crime.
You are talking tripe.
You are talking tripe.
No. Just something that you clearly do not understand.
John Little
22-Mar-10, 23:28
I am glad you are so learned on the matter.
Then you know that international law is something which is in the making, is haphazard in its application and depends very much on the political will of the members of the UN to enforce it.- and the legitimacy of the UN to do so is dubious. It depends ultimately on force.
You refer me to a UN Commission. I ain't a lawyer but I know that a commission ain't a law making body. A commission is set up to report, to study, to make recommendations.
I repeat, but with more elucidation
What legitimate, elected legislative body enacts International Law?
Since clearly you have done your homework, please tell me. I really wish to know.
What happened to the post I was replying to?????
It's gone!
If this person has a star/rose rating by one of the inspecting authorities I am quite certain this rating will immediately be removed if unwilling to comply with the law in regards to accommodating guests.
About 7/8 years ago there was a similar situation with a 3*B&B think it was Wester Ross, they got stars removed and excluded from inspecting authorities - but they got enough publicity from not accepting gays they were booked for years.
Several years ago, not long after the above tale, I attended a meeting of Hebridean Hospitality Welcomes You, to find out if it was relevant to my business - a man stood up and stated he would not have gays staying in his house as it was against the bibles teaching, quoted chapter and verse. Several other folk agreed and their opinions were extremely biased, always going on about men staying in the same room. I asked the first man if he objected to two ladies sharing a room - he had no problem with that, he could not understand when I advised him to look at himself.
I have had many folk share a room father/son, mother/daughter, friends, work mates over to work who are unable to find single rooms - who am I to judge what their relationship is or should be. Even had a couple of lads over delivering an art exhibition at Hebridean Celtic Festival time when not a bed is to be got on the island, girl friend of one had spent 7 hours phoning and getting not a bed, I just had a cancellation of double room - she took it as they would be sleeping in the van otherwise, gave them extra bedding. They had a laugh about it in the morning - they were both worried about snuggling up to the other one thinking it was their partner, but they both slept well and looked much better after a nights rest.
I have gay friends and would be disgusted if any of them received this type of treatment from any place.
About 7/8 years ago there was a similar situation with a 3*B&B think it was Wester Ross, they got stars removed and excluded from inspecting authorities - but they got enough publicity from not accepting gays they were booked for years.
Yes, all's well that ends well. I will mark Miss Wilkinson's down as a definite place to stay when down that way. :D
I am glad you are so learned on the matter.
Then you know that international law is something which is in the making, is haphazard in its application and depends very much on the political will of the members of the UN to enforce it.- and the legitimacy of the UN to do so is dubious. It depends ultimately on force.
You refer me to a UN Commission. I ain't a lawyer but I know that a commission ain't a law making body. A commission is set up to report, to study, to make recommendations.
I repeat, but with more elucidation
What legitimate, elected legislative body enacts International Law?
Since clearly you have done your homework, please tell me. I really wish to know.
What happened to the post I was replying to?????
It's gone!
I deleted the post because I fear we are digressing from the original debate.
To this end I will only give you a brief answer.
International Law exists because of this (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/) .
It’s purpose is to promote the development of International Law and its codification.
Public International Law is created through the custom, practice and treaties between sovereign nations. The legitimate elected bodies are the sovereign governments. The Geneva Conventions are an example. Other international bodies such as the UN can invoke international legislation.
For a fuller description you might want to look at 'Cases and Materials in International Law' by DJ Harris or 'A Modern Introduction to International Law' by Michael Akehurst.
Boozeburglar
22-Mar-10, 23:52
No. Just something that you clearly do not understand.
Feel free to explain it to me. If you can be bothered.
Boozeburglar
22-Mar-10, 23:54
Yes, all's well that ends well. I will mark Miss Wilkinson's down as a definite place to stay when down that way. :D
Not so fast, I hear she does not accept conspiracy nuts either.
I was turned away from a campsite several years ago as myself and my now husband were at the time unmarried. Bit of a bummer, but we just carried on and found somewhere else. Hardly crime of the century.
As for the lady turning the couple away from the B&B, why not? She has a business, if she wants to turn them away, it's her call. Admittedly, she could have been a bit more discreet and pretended there was a double-booking so as not to offend the couple in question. If she wants to lose business, it's her shout. I personally can't see a problem with the couple but it's not me running the B&B.
On a similar line to an earlier post, if it was a Muslim B&B owner turning them away it would probably have been okay as it would have offended their religious beliefs. This country panders to some religions/communities but then ignores others. Don't get me started on womens' rights. Women are supposed to have full rights and most of us do. Then we look at the Muslim community and some of their women are hidden in Burkas, forced marriages etc. etc. but 'we' can't intervene as it is their culture. Anyway, that is going off-topic.
So what about this B&B owner's cultural background? It obviously doesn't extend to embracing gay guests - fine, that's her decision. She decides on her sausages and bacon, colour of sheets and wallpaper in the B&B and should be left to decide on her own guests.
your right if she had told a white lie and said she was full up there wouldnt have been a problem.But she didnt and it might be her own house but the minute she turns it into a b&b she has to abide by the rules the same as any business thats why she is in the wrong.
:eek: Well the polarisation of viewpoints and the intransigence of many contributors has finally got to me.
Like a lot of new legislation it takes time to get right with lots of adjustments along the way. I had hoped that both sides could step back and take time to consider the other’s point of view.
As I said earlier the results of not doing so are that we end up with polarised opinions, a lot of negativity and little possibility of achieving anything positive. The views of the majority of posts on this thread shows two diametrically opposing views which help no one.
I shall retire. :eek:
Boozeburglar
23-Mar-10, 00:32
:eek: Well the polarisation of viewpoints and the intransigence of many contributors has finally got to me.
Like a lot of new legislation it takes time to get right with lots of adjustments along the way. I had hoped that both sides could step back and take time to consider the other’s point of view.
As I said earlier the results of not doing so are that we end up with polarised opinions, a lot of negativity and little possibility of achieving anything positive. The views of the majority of posts on this thread shows two diametrically opposing views which help no one.
I shall retire. :eek:
I did not realise we were law making here.
George Brims
23-Mar-10, 00:32
Should this woman have accepted them as it's illegal to do otherwise or should she have the legal right to turn away a gay couple from her own private home if it goes against her own moral code?
Discrimination is not a moral code. It is an immoral code.
:eek: Well the polarisation of viewpoints and the intransigence of many contributors has finally got to me.
Like a lot of new legislation it takes time to get right with lots of adjustments along the way. I had hoped that both sides could step back and take time to consider the other’s point of view.
As I said earlier the results of not doing so are that we end up with polarised opinions, a lot of negativity and little possibility of achieving anything positive. The views of the majority of posts on this thread shows two diametrically opposing views which help no one.
I shall retire. :eek:
Listen to yourself there not much to consider in different viewpoints is there its prity straightforward the owner of the b&b is bang out of order and im gald that the couple were open enough with there sexual orientation to report it to the newspapers i bet the wifey at the b&b didnt see that comming i bet she is the talk of the town lol maybey she has learnt her lesson now
Niall Fernie
23-Mar-10, 08:42
The Caithness.Org page is here:
http://www.caithness.org/community/social/text/caithness_gay_lesbian_and_bisexual_group.htm
Not sure about the other link, the OP can check and repost.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100321/tuk-gay-couple-turned-away-from-b-b-6323e80.html
What do y'all think?
Should this woman have accepted them as it's illegal to do otherwise or should she have the legal right to turn away a gay couple from her own private home if it goes against her own moral code?
I think its a very clear case of discrimination.
She is running a business, therefore she must follow the law of the land.
Perhaps businesses should clearly make any restrictions they have in any copy they put out, on a website etc.
I'm not sure on the legal situation it would depend on several variables not defined in the article.
John Little
23-Mar-10, 11:11
Gronnuck may have retired from this thread but I do wish to comment on International Law.
I think we are discussing terms of language here. The UN Commission on International Law is expressing a hope, since there is actually no international legal code, merely agreements on certain areas which nations sometimes choose to ignore.
There are also areas which are not covered at all - you could not arraign an American Citizen for war crimes because the US has refused to sign the International War Crimes convention. They will not have their citizens tried in foreign courts.
There is a limited amount of International jurisprudence on a range of issues, arrived at by mutual consent, but it may be abrogated by sovereign nations.
But I cannot call international law something which has such limited enforcement, the backing of no sovereign judiciary and which is so haphazard and discriminatory in its application.
If there were international law then Blair and Bush would be on trial right now.
It's a complete and utter misnomer.
porshiepoo
23-Mar-10, 11:18
So, we're all agreed then? :lol:
porshiepoo
23-Mar-10, 12:46
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100322/tuk-can-t-stay-if-you-re-gay-b-b-tells-c-45dbed5.html
Seems the guys are getting plenty of support at any rate.
The woman does still claim that her religious beliefs were her reason for not allowing them in - fair enough I say.
She wasn't abusive, she wasn't nasty and she didn't even attempt to fob them off with a lie which would have probably been better for her if she had.
She was polite, explained her beliefs and gave them a full refund.
Personally I don't think the men will take it any further. They've raised enough awareness of these situations without having to go that one step further.
So, check out her website later and see if she's ammended her site appropriately :lol:
I'm guessing the only way round this sort of thing is to to state 'no same sex couples allowed' on her information. Surely that can't be against the Law?
Looks like it is running down now porshie,lovely post but.
changilass
23-Mar-10, 13:38
They are just about to discuss this on the Jeremy Vine show on radio 2 if anyone is interested.
The Drunken Duck
23-Mar-10, 17:53
Counter article from yesterdays, I know its the Daily Wail but thats where I saw the story yesterday .. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259646/Gay-couple-turned-away-guest-house-owner-let-share-bed.html
Whatever the views of people leaving abusive messages, attacking their website and a threat to burn their house down is unacceptable. I fail to see how her actions warrant that kind of response.
Interestingly though the Police say they will not be taking any action as her actions were NOT a criminal offence.
This is not her own personal home, this is a buisiness and as such she has to abide by the law.
In her own home she has the right to decide who can and cannot stay, as this is a registered business then she has no right to discriminate and should be shut down as a B&B.
Not so this is true. Even a B abd B owner can decide who he/she wishes to stay in their accommodation. Now giving a reason which might be illegal is a different matter. Owner could simply say he/she os opting not to take someone and leave it at that.
I have read through this thread, and wonder where half the comments are coming from.
Regardless of the legal/pc position, the majority of normal people regard homosexuality as wrong, and do not wish either to hear about it or know about it. I am one of those normal people.
If you are homosexual, then fine, keep it to yourself, I do not want to hear about it, and I will not interfere or castigate you.
This pair are from down here, and have been on out TV screens, and I abhor their performance, and was sickened by having them in my living room. Everybody has the right to choose, but everybody has the right not to have it shoved down their throat.
The lady who turned them away has my vote.
As for homosexuality, that is what it is, there is nothing GAY about homosexuality. Lets have it RIGHT.
If I have upset some of you, then tough. I am entitled to my opinion, and you yours. In this case I am with the majority.
Regardless of the legal/pc position, the majority of normal people regard homosexuality as wrong, and do not wish either to hear about it or know about it. I am one of those normal people.
I wonder what you base that statement on? What do you consider normal? If you are, then I am definitely not. Nor are most of the people I know and I have lived all over the UK. Perhaps you could give us a description of yourself so that the rest of us, who are not exactly like you, know in what way we are "wrong". I am female and it seems you are male, so I am wrong? Sorry, that's the way I was born.
Boozeburglar
24-Mar-10, 00:24
I have read through this thread, and wonder where half the comments are coming from.
Regardless of the legal/pc position, the majority of normal people regard homosexuality as wrong, and do not wish either to hear about it or know about it. I am one of those normal people.
If you are homosexual, then fine, keep it to yourself, I do not want to hear about it, and I will not interfere or castigate you.
This pair are from down here, and have been on out TV screens, and I abhor their performance, and was sickened by having them in my living room. Everybody has the right to choose, but everybody has the right not to have it shoved down their throat.
The lady who turned them away has my vote.
As for homosexuality, that is what it is, there is nothing GAY about homosexuality. Lets have it RIGHT.
If I have upset some of you, then tough. I am entitled to my opinion, and you yours. In this case I am with the majority.
Well you don't know diddly!
Up here in God's country we are all Gay.
Live with it.
The Pepsi Challenge
24-Mar-10, 03:07
I have read through this thread, and wonder where half the comments are coming from.
Regardless of the legal/pc position, the majority of normal people regard homosexuality as wrong, and do not wish either to hear about it or know about it. I am one of those normal people.
If you are homosexual, then fine, keep it to yourself, I do not want to hear about it, and I will not interfere or castigate you.
This pair are from down here, and have been on out TV screens, and I abhor their performance, and was sickened by having them in my living room. Everybody has the right to choose, but everybody has the right not to have it shoved down their throat.
The lady who turned them away has my vote.
As for homosexuality, that is what it is, there is nothing GAY about homosexuality. Lets have it RIGHT.
If I have upset some of you, then tough. I am entitled to my opinion, and you yours. In this case I am with the majority.
Could I interest you in a few light-bulbs?
Metalattakk
24-Mar-10, 04:52
Could I interest you in a few light-bulbs?
Aye, illumination is always a good thing. But you know, there's always a butt...er.., I mean 'but'...
I'm a gay hermaphrodite - and love it!
I have read through this thread, and wonder where half the comments are coming from.
Regardless of the legal/pc position, the majority of normal people regard homosexuality as wrong, and do not wish either to hear about it or know about it. I am one of those normal people.
If you are homosexual, then fine, keep it to yourself, I do not want to hear about it, and I will not interfere or castigate you.
This pair are from down here, and have been on out TV screens, and I abhor their performance, and was sickened by having them in my living room. Everybody has the right to choose, but everybody has the right not to have it shoved down their throat.
The lady who turned them away has my vote.
As for homosexuality, that is what it is, there is nothing GAY about homosexuality. Lets have it RIGHT.
If I have upset some of you, then tough. I am entitled to my opinion, and you yours. In this case I am with the majority.
I doubt very much you are in the majority, maybe you have got confused between the majority and group that shout the loudest
northener
24-Mar-10, 10:10
I have read through this thread, and wonder where half the comments are coming from.
Regardless of the legal/pc position, the majority of normal people regard homosexuality as wrong, and do not wish either to hear about it or know about it. I am one of those normal people.
If you are homosexual, then fine, keep it to yourself, I do not want to hear about it, and I will not interfere or castigate you.
This pair are from down here, and have been on out TV screens, and I abhor their performance, and was sickened by having them in my living room. Everybody has the right to choose, but everybody has the right not to have it shoved down their throat.
The lady who turned them away has my vote.
As for homosexuality, that is what it is, there is nothing GAY about homosexuality. Lets have it RIGHT.
If I have upset some of you, then tough. I am entitled to my opinion, and you yours. In this case I am with the majority.
You're in Norfolk, Jim.
What's your views on inbreeding?:Razz
I'm not quite sure I know too much about in breeding, nor what is meant by it.
I have just had three years in Caithness, does it happen there - whatever it is.
Sara Jevo
24-Mar-10, 21:53
Having experienced similiar, I believe this woman should have a legal right to decide who does what under her own roof,
no amount of political pressure can force a god fearing christian into accepting people into their homes, to commit immoral acts,
it's just not natural.
Of course she has a legal right who she lets into her home, just as I do.
But this isn't her home - she has turned it into business premises. Just as I leave my personal opinions at home when I go to work, so should she. She is in the wrong.
Good to see Scotland taking the lead yesterday in stamping out some of the more ugly prejudices. New legislation means hate crime against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and disabled people is now on the same footing as hate crimes motivated by racial or religious prejudice. Courts now have the powers to deal more severely with crime aggravated by any of these prejudices. Apparently, Scotland has gone further than any country in Europe to tackle this. Well done, MSPs.
Hate crime law comes into force (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/03/23143524)
The Drunken Duck
24-Mar-10, 22:52
Of course she has a legal right who she lets into her home, just as I do.
But this isn't her home - she has turned it into business premises. Just as I leave my personal opinions at home when I go to work, so should she. She is in the wrong.
Good to see Scotland taking the lead yesterday in stamping out some of the more ugly prejudices. New legislation means hate crime against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and disabled people is now on the same footing as hate crimes motivated by racial or religious prejudice. Courts now have the powers to deal more severely with crime aggravated by any of these prejudices. Apparently, Scotland has gone further than any country in Europe to tackle this. Well done, MSPs.
Hate crime law comes into force (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/03/23143524)
No she isnt in the wrong. The Police are taking no action as she has not broken a law. Therefore the only "wrong" she is deemed to have done is in the eyes of the people who disagree with her stance. And some of these people have left threatening messages on her phone and websites, including one to burn her house down.
As for the "Hate Crime" law, that is something I am all in favour of IF it is a crime based on a prejudice. But these laws give added blanket protection to people PURELY BECAUSE they are Gay, Bisexual, Transgender etc etc. A workmate of mine got involved in a fistfight not that long ago at a taxi rank. Witnesses there said a guy tried to nick his Taxi and he objected, the lad then smacked him and he defended himself. End result was the lad called the Police and both him and my mate were lifted. Turns out the lad was Gay and started singing the "Its because I was Gay" tune. Luckily there were plenty of witnesses who said otherwise. Mate said later that a PC told him that any complaint that is deemed to be homophobic, racist or discriminatory BY THE PERSON MAKING THE COMPLAINT has to be taken as such by the Police. So the claim that a crime was "aggravated by prejudice" is purely in the hands of the person making the complaint which allows for misuse of these laws, as above. But for witnesses my workmate was in line for not only an assault charge but a "homophobic" crime charge thrown in too.
So called "Minorities" are nothing of the sort anymore. When they have more protection, and the assumed right to have their complaints taken more seriously than others, things have gone too far. Are these laws applicable to the gay lad I used to work with who would call hetero men "breeders" for instance, or are they just for these "minorities" ??
I for one am tired of people I know playing the race/gay/female card when things dont go their way.
John Little
24-Mar-10, 22:54
"The Police are taking no action as she has not broken a law"
The police are taking no action because she has not broken the criminal law.
But she has broken civil law. So if private individuals wish to take her to court she will probably face a heavy fine.
"The Police are taking no action as she has not broken a law"
The police are taking no action because she has not broken the criminal law.
But she has broken civil law. So if private individuals wish to take her to court she will probably face a heavy fine.
You're assuming she is found guilty - very presumptuous of you.
The Drunken Duck
24-Mar-10, 23:12
"The Police are taking no action as she has not broken a law"
The police are taking no action because she has not broken the criminal law.
But she has broken civil law. So if private individuals wish to take her to court she will probably face a heavy fine.
With the emphasis on "probably" It wont happen though, the two lads have had their fifteen minutes of fame and their moan.
Sara Jevo
24-Mar-10, 23:22
Yes, drunken duck, I think she is wrong. That's my opinion, that's all. She is discriminating against people because she has a hang-up about their sexuality. Is there any difference between her turning away people because they are gay, because they are in wheelchairs, because their skin colour is dark or because they speak with a foreign accent? It's all a form of prejudice and intolerance of others who are different.
As I understand the legal position, it's not the police who sentence but the courts. If there is an allegation of any crime, with or without aggravation, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The individual in this case, I guess, could himself have been charged himself for making up the aggravation. Wasting police time or whatever it's called.
So long as people apply the legislation with common sense, it's fine. There will always be nerds who try to take advantage of any situation. That's not exclusive to the gay community - we come across them all the time, in all walks of life.
The Drunken Duck
25-Mar-10, 00:00
Yes, drunken duck, I think she is wrong. That's my opinion, that's all. She is discriminating against people because she has a hang-up about their sexuality. Is there any difference between her turning away people because they are gay, because they are in wheelchairs, because their skin colour is dark or because they speak with a foreign accent? It's all a form of prejudice and intolerance of others who are different.
As I understand the legal position, it's not the police who sentence but the courts. If there is an allegation of any crime, with or without aggravation, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The individual in this case, I guess, could himself have been charged himself for making up the aggravation. Wasting police time or whatever it's called.
So long as people apply the legislation with common sense, it's fine. There will always be nerds who try to take advantage of any situation. That's not exclusive to the gay community - we come across them all the time, in all walks of life.
We will just have to agree to disagree on the B+B issue I reckon. Not much point in going round and round.
As for these new laws, like you say there will always be people who try to take advantage but the Courts only deal with charges that are brought. The Police decide what those charges are. It just disturbs me that someone who is Gay/not white/Disabled can tell the Police "I want this threated as a Homophobic/Racist/Discriminatory crime" and the Police have to. I dont see whats wrong with allowing the Police to use their discretion and judgement.
I have just seen so many different "cards" played by people that I find it uncomfortable is all.
John Little
25-Mar-10, 06:03
Gronnuck
"You're assuming she is found guilty - very presumptuous of you."
Two things.
1 IMHO it's a fairly open and shut case since she turned away two guys who had pre-booked, on grounds of their sexuality - but it's only imho.
2 I presume nothing. I did not say that she would receive a heavy fine. I said that she would face it - as that would be the penalty if found guilty. If found not guilty then she would not have to pay it. But she would still have to face it as a possibility.
I was unaware that a Civil Court can "fine" anyone - surely a fine has to fall within the limits prescribed by Statute ? or is there a different law for the downtrodden minorities in this country.
or is there a different law for the downtrodden minorities in this country.
Oh, but of course!
The press love stories like this. A moral conundrum. It's going to take forever before homosexuality doesnt recieve a different kind of reaction than straight sex in the moral zone. Its good to see that so many people are indifferent to it. Most blokes I know around my age have an aversion to it but when we grew up homosexuality was still illegal. Unlike other illicit vices we never thought about trying it though. :eek:
I suppose attitudes take many generations to change. It's a good start.
Of course she has a legal right who she lets into her home, just as I do.
But this isn't her home - she has turned it into business premises. Just as I leave my personal opinions at home when I go to work, so should she. She is in the wrong.
Good to see Scotland taking the lead yesterday in stamping out some of the more ugly prejudices. New legislation means hate crime against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and disabled people is now on the same footing as hate crimes motivated by racial or religious prejudice. Courts now have the powers to deal more severely with crime aggravated by any of these prejudices. Apparently, Scotland has gone further than any country in Europe to tackle this. Well done, MSPs.
Hate crime law comes into force (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/03/23143524)
Nowhere, anywhere on this forum nor anywhere else have I indicated that I hate, and Scotland hasn't gone far enough to erradicate "Hate Crime",
there are places in Scotland that are no go areas, and that dear friend includes the highlands and the islands.
Quote "But this isn't her home - she has turned it into business premises",
I disagree, her home is now mixed residential, but it is still her home, it can hardly be considered as commercial, unless she using more than two rooms, which I doubt that she is.
I will stand corrected, if I am wrong.
No she isnt in the wrong. The Police are taking no action as she has not broken a law. Therefore the only "wrong" she is deemed to have done is in the eyes of the people who disagree with her stance. And some of these people have left threatening messages on her phone and websites, including one to burn her house down.
As for the "Hate Crime" law, that is something I am all in favour of IF it is a crime based on a prejudice. But these laws give added blanket protection to people PURELY BECAUSE they are Gay, Bisexual, Transgender etc etc. A workmate of mine got involved in a fistfight not that long ago at a taxi rank. Witnesses there said a guy tried to nick his Taxi and he objected, the lad then smacked him and he defended himself. End result was the lad called the Police and both him and my mate were lifted. Turns out the lad was Gay and started singing the "Its because I was Gay" tune. Luckily there were plenty of witnesses who said otherwise. Mate said later that a PC told him that any complaint that is deemed to be homophobic, racist or discriminatory BY THE PERSON MAKING THE COMPLAINT has to be taken as such by the Police. So the claim that a crime was "aggravated by prejudice" is purely in the hands of the person making the complaint which allows for misuse of these laws, as above. But for witnesses my workmate was in line for not only an assault charge but a "homophobic" crime charge thrown in too.
So called "Minorities" are nothing of the sort anymore. When they have more protection, and the assumed right to have their complaints taken more seriously than others, things have gone too far. Are these laws applicable to the gay lad I used to work with who would call hetero men "breeders" for instance, or are they just for these "minorities" ??
I for one am tired of people I know playing the race/gay/female card when things dont go their way.
Could not have written it better myself!
No she isnt in the wrong. The Police are taking no action as she has not broken a law. Therefore the only "wrong" she is deemed to have done is in the eyes of the people who disagree with her stance. And some of these people have left threatening messages on her phone and websites, including one to burn her house down.
As for the "Hate Crime" law, that is something I am all in favour of IF it is a crime based on a prejudice. But these laws give added blanket protection to people PURELY BECAUSE they are Gay, Bisexual, Transgender etc etc. A workmate of mine got involved in a fistfight not that long ago at a taxi rank. Witnesses there said a guy tried to nick his Taxi and he objected, the lad then smacked him and he defended himself. End result was the lad called the Police and both him and my mate were lifted. Turns out the lad was Gay and started singing the "Its because I was Gay" tune. Luckily there were plenty of witnesses who said otherwise. Mate said later that a PC told him that any complaint that is deemed to be homophobic, racist or discriminatory BY THE PERSON MAKING THE COMPLAINT has to be taken as such by the Police. So the claim that a crime was "aggravated by prejudice" is purely in the hands of the person making the complaint which allows for misuse of these laws, as above. But for witnesses my workmate was in line for not only an assault charge but a "homophobic" crime charge thrown in too.
So called "Minorities" are nothing of the sort anymore. When they have more protection, and the assumed right to have their complaints taken more seriously than others, things have gone too far. Are these laws applicable to the gay lad I used to work with who would call hetero men "breeders" for instance, or are they just for these "minorities" ??
I for one am tired of people I know playing the race/gay/female card when things dont go their way.
Here Here DD
John Little
26-Mar-10, 23:14
"I was unaware that a Civil Court can "fine" anyone - surely a fine has to fall within the limits prescribed by Statute ? or is there a different law for the downtrodden minorities in this country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_penalty
"I was unaware that a Civil Court can "fine" anyone - surely a fine has to fall within the limits prescribed by Statute ? or is there a different law for the downtrodden minorities in this country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_penalty
Two problems with that - it appears to be in Americanese and makes no mention of 'fines'.
And a third even, its wikipedia which is the biggest load of borrocks on the internet
Boozeburglar
27-Mar-10, 00:12
its wikipedia which is the biggest load of borrocks on the internet
Have to agree.
John Little
27-Mar-10, 10:05
Dismissing something by default simply because it's on Wikipedia does not seem to me to invalidate what it says.
Dismissing something because it is 'Americanese' does not invalidate what it says. I like several Americans, and I do not dismiss what they say by virtue of the way they say things.
You say it does not mention 'fines'.
"The civil fine is not considered to be a criminal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment)"
You are right. It uses singular instead of plural.
My bad.
If you are not fond of Wikipedia I am sure you can find similar definitions of civil law and its penalties if you look for them - I just clicked the first hit that came, it set things out plainly and sufficed.
Now I am out of this thread; I am not seeking to prolong it any longer for as far as I personally am concerned it merits no further discussion.
Your opinion may be different
But it seems full plain to me that;
1 The woman has not breached criminal law.
2 She has however breached Civil Law prima facie and if taken to court she faces a fine.
3 If the individuals concerned wish to do that then they may pursue the matter in a civil court and she may be fined.
4 Alternatively they could report her to the Equal Opportunites Commission who may pursue the matter in the Civil courts and she may be fined.
What anyone here may think of that law is another matter entire.
You surely miss the point that your Wiki crap is talking about America - last time I looked we were not a State of the Untion
You surely miss the point that your Wiki crap is talking about America - last time I looked we were not a State of the Untion
Although I like the flag of Hawaii...
John Little
27-Mar-10, 16:52
I take your point and so I break my own undertaking not to say more. We are hung up on terms again. There are many similarities between British and American civil law, but words vary, and in this case 'fine' is the word.
On both sides of the Atlantic a court may order a person breaching civil law to pay an appropriate amount of cash. In the US they call it a fine. Here we call it damages; the principle is the same.
In British criminal law a fine is levied as a punishment.
In British Civil law it is paid to the injured party as compensation as 'damages.' So if the gay couple or Equal opportunities commission on their behalf pursue the landlady she would pay 'damages' on this side of the pond.
I stand corrected.
This from a UK site for A level Citizenship students;
http://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/media/post16/files/activity_4.pdf
Page 6
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.