NationStates

The Bleeding Roses wrote:

Dakini wrote:Fixed.

Not fixed seeing as these dipshits weren't customers yet...

Nice try!

They were going to pay to stay in the place until the owners refused to let them stay in one room.

At any rate, it's not clear to me that they took anything other than a bunch of shit from a bigoted B&B owner.

Good.

Although quite why a gay couple would want to stay in a place where they're clearly not welcome is a little beyond me.

Dakini wrote:It's not clear why they're allowed to discriminate against non-married couples in general though.

Just because not everyone is stupid enough to jump right into a lifelong commitment doesn't mean they don't want to take vacations together.

I don't think they go far enough...they should only serve HAPPILY married couples, who have never been divorced in the past, and who are prepared to provide the bloody sheet from the wedding as proof that they consummated their union.

Bottle wrote:

Dakini wrote:It's not clear why they're allowed to discriminate against non-married couples in general though.

Just because not everyone is stupid enough to jump right into a lifelong commitment doesn't mean they don't want to take vacations together.

I don't think they go far enough...they should only serve HAPPILY married couples, who have never been divorced in the past, and who are prepared to provide the bloody sheet from the wedding as proof that they consummated their union.

Oh, and if they've been married for more than a year they should be able to provide evidence of children as well. After all, marriage is clearly for making babies, just like god intended.

Georgism wrote:Good.

Although quite why a gay couple would want to stay in a place where they're clearly not welcome is a little beyond me.

Same reason black people wanted to sit in seats on the bus where they weren't welcome. Same reason women wanted to attend college and hold jobs where they weren't welcome. Same reason oppressed classes always have to freaking force their way in where they aren't welcome...because if we let ourselves be limited to only going where the ruling class welcomes us, we'd never get to sit at the front of the bus, or attend school, or hold a job outside the home, or do much of anything else.

Tagmatium wrote:

North Suran wrote:I think you mean is a secular state.

Church of England ring a bell?

They don't make the law here.

Tagmatium wrote:

North Suran wrote:I think you mean is a secular state.

Church of England ring a bell?

As its name implies, it only operates in England. It was disestablished in Wales, and while there is a Church of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament declared Scotland to be a secular state. There is no Church of Ireland. As such, out of the four 'home nations' that make up the UK, three are secular. So it is pretty ambiguous as to whether the UK itself is a secular state or not.

Georgism wrote:Good.

Although quite why a gay couple would want to stay in a place where they're clearly not welcome is a little beyond me.

What do you think the odds are the business owner loudly proclaims on their website that they expect non-married couples to stay in separate rooms and that they don't count civil unions as marriages?

So what do you think the odds are that this couple drove all the way out there to find only then that they were expected to pay for two different rooms?

Unchecked Expansion wrote:

Tagmatium wrote:Church of England ring a bell?

They don't make the law here.

True, but we officially have a state religion, which is certainly not a feature of a secular country.

Admittedly, few give a toss about it anymore and it is increasingly an outdated relic.

EDIT: Yeah, I realise that we're not exactly a non-secular state anyway.

This post was slow because I was looking up what countries were, or were not, secular states.

Georgism wrote:Good.

Although quite why a gay couple would want to stay in a place where they're clearly not welcome is a little beyond me.

They didn't know they weren't welcome

Dakini wrote:

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Not fixed seeing as these dipshits weren't customers yet...

Nice try!

They were going to pay to stay in the place until the owners refused to let them stay in one room.

At any rate, it's not clear to me that they took anything other than a bunch of shit from a bigoted B&B owner.

Isn't it quite obvious? These dipshits wanted to make a scene... Radical homosexuality at work.

Step 1. Obvious PDA that is disgusting regardless of whether or not a couple is same sex or not
Step 2. Find someone to call you out on it.
Step 3. Lawyer up and contact the ACLU, liberal media, and the gay bowling league listserv.
Step 4. March
Step 5. Repeat

Dakini wrote:What do you think the odds are the business owner loudly proclaims on their website that they expect non-married couples to stay in separate rooms and that they don't count civil unions as marriages?

So what do you think the odds are that this couple drove all the way out there to find only then that they were expected to pay for two different rooms?

They did have it one their website.

Edit: Still do.

If they were able to show that they demanded proof from heterosexual couples that they were married before giving them a double bed, then I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately, it seems- since them doing this isn't in any articles I've read on the case- that they're in fact not pro-marriage landlords, but simply homophobic ones, and as much as I support property rights, their defence simply doesn't stand up.

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Radical homosexuality at work.

I love reading your posts.

The Bleeding Roses wrote:

Dakini wrote:They were going to pay to stay in the place until the owners refused to let them stay in one room.

At any rate, it's not clear to me that they took anything other than a bunch of shit from a bigoted B&B owner.

Isn't it quite obvious? These dipshits wanted to make a scene... Radical homosexuality at work.

Y'know, like Rosa Parks. Bitch could have just changed seats, but noooo, she just had to make a scene. Black radicals at work!

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Step 1. Obvious PDA that is disgusting regardless of whether or not a couple is same sex or not

Like...sharing a bed? How vile!

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Step 2. Find someone to call you out on it.
Step 3. Lawyer up and contact the ACLU, liberal media, and the gay bowling league listserv.

Which all operate in the UK, right?

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Isn't it quite obvious? These dipshits wanted to make a scene... Radical homosexuality at work.

Step 1. Obvious PDA that is disgusting regardless of whether or not a couple is same sex or not
Step 2. Find someone to call you out on it.
Step 3. Lawyer up and contact the ACLU, liberal media, and the gay bowling league listserv.
Step 4. March
Step 5. Repeat

Wait, trying to get a room at a bed and breakfast is disgusting?

I hate to think of all the people I must have offended with my heathenish, attention-whoring acts the last time I visited the Lake District....

Unchecked Expansion wrote:

Tagmatium wrote:Church of England ring a bell?

They don't make the law here.

Actually champ... they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

The Bleeding Roses wrote:Isn't it quite obvious? These dipshits wanted to make a scene... Radical homosexuality at work.

That's the obvious conclusion? Er... alright, I guess.

Step 1. Obvious PDA that is disgusting regardless of whether or not a couple is same sex or not

So this is about jealousy, then?

Step 2. Find someone to call you out on it.
Step 3. Lawyer up and contact the ACLU, liberal media, and the gay bowling league listserv.
Step 4. March
Step 5. Repeat

Not sure what the ACLU has to do with a UK case, but I don't suppose you're one to let facts get in the way of a good rage.

That's retarded.

The Bleeding Roses wrote:

Unchecked Expansion wrote:They don't make the law here.

Actually champ... they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Do a little reading first, champ.

The House of Lords doesn't tend to make much legislation, and the Lords Spiritual don't get to vote on it.

"Christians are being sidelined. The judge recognises that his decision has a profound impact on the religious liberty of Peter and Hazelmary."

Erk.

And, again, more Christians whinging because they can't dictate what goes on any more.

Bottle wrote:

Georgism wrote:Good.

Although quite why a gay couple would want to stay in a place where they're clearly not welcome is a little beyond me.

Same reason black people wanted to sit in seats on the bus where they weren't welcome. Same reason women wanted to attend college and hold jobs where they weren't welcome. Same reason oppressed classes always have to freaking force their way in where they aren't welcome...because if we let ourselves be limited to only going where the ruling class welcomes us, we'd never get to sit at the front of the bus, or attend school, or hold a job outside the home, or do much of anything else.

Not strictly disagreeing with you, but there isn't exactly a dearth of nice hotels in Penzance with rather more progressive owners. It's not really comparable with state-enforced unequal segregation or rampant cultural sexism.

Mindhar wrote:Wait, trying to get a room at a bed and breakfast is disgusting?

I hate to think of all the people I must have offended with my heathenish, attention-whoring acts the last time I visited the Lake District....

If God had wanted us to stay at B&Bs he wouldn't have given us hotels.

UCDF wrote:That's retarded.

What's retarded?

The Bleeding Roses wrote:

Unchecked Expansion wrote:They don't make the law here.

Actually champ... they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual

Look up what the House of Lords does. They review, but they don't have much authority to make law.
And the Lords Spiritual are 4% of that House. Not exactly lawmakers