Homosexual Couple Win B&B Bed Ban Case

[Bottle]

If this was a straight unmarried couple, would this be a big deal?

You betcha.

It would also be a big deal if it was a black man and his white wife.

Or if it was a Jewish couple.

See, there are some of us who think it's cool that businesses are no longer allowed to act the way the South did during Jim Crow. We know what our country was like during that time, and we think it's better if countries don't have to be like that again. We know that "The Free Market" doesn't fix it, we know that the childish foot-stamping about how that store is MINE MINE MINE I DON'T WANNA SHARE WITH DARKIES doesn't fix it, and we know that society as a whole is better off without that kind of BS, so we're content to watch bigots burst into tears at the unfairness of it all while the government gently but firmly reminds them that their business is not a sovereign nation.

[Dregruk]

Pretty much. Civil Unions are not legalised "Gay Marriage", it's a separate, purely secular construct. All couples can apply to be given a civil partnership, but only heterosexuals can be "married". Marriage remains the gold standard, like my Family Law lecturer used to say.

It's been amended a few times since 2004 to make a civil union essentially the same as a marriage.

If it is a secular establishment, though, wouldn't that suggest a very obvious right on the part of religious groups to oppose it as a valid alternative to marriage?

Sure, they can oppose it democratically, they can even oppose it in their private lives by not letting gay people into their home, or let their kiddies spend time with a gay couple. But it doesn't give them a right to discriminate in the course of a business. No more than they could refuse to serve muslims, hispanics, transvestites, or whatever. That's the distinction.

[Risottia]

But if you're choosing arbitrarily your customers, you're NOT providing items to the general public anymore.

I think that's one of the most important differences between Europe and America. In Europe, generally (I don't know if that's the case in the UK, but I guess it is) you have "private premises" (a house, a club), "public premises" (a road, a park), and "private premises open to the public" (a shop, a hotel, a restaurant). The idea is that a shop is a service operated by a private but aimed at the public. If you want to choose your customers arbitrarily, you have to operate a private club (that is, requiring invitation or membership to enter) and not an "open to the public" sort of shop.

I live in neither...

I SHOULDN'T have to provide my items to the general public. My wording is a little mixed up, I'll admit. I'm discussing mostly from a moral viewpoint, not a legal one.

Then you're not operating a shop, or a hotel. You're operating a private sales company, or a private resort club. It's different. If you advertise your private resort club as hotel, you're morally despicable because you're knowlingly stating a falsehood.

Also, about the rights you get from "the labour you put in providing items to the general public" as you put it: the right you get is being paid for it, and that's it. You work, you get paid. Simple, ain't it?

[Central Slavia]

Anyone comparing it to discrimination against race is missing the point.
Negroid, Europoid, Mongoloid, whatever race people can't "not be X" nor does it imply anything about them that they are.
On the other hand gay behaviour is voluntary, and therefore i see no problem in someone banning it in a public place, similarly to for example our student accomodation banning deep frying devices for fire risk.

Fortunately, the bulk of our national and European law disagrees with you there.

Sadly, it is so in many countries.
Shows the decadence of western world.

[Dregruk]

Tradition. A largely irrelevant one, thankfully. As to intervention... it's the same law that would stop a gay b&b owning couple from refusing the reservations of a Christian couple because they don't recognise their marriage.

I can't say I'd be happy with that.

I can't say I'd sue for USD5000, which if I am correct, is roughly equivalent to 5000 pounds or 5000 Aus dollars?

In fairness, as a Scots lawyer, I tend to disagree with the English practice of punitive damages, like in this case. But still, minority rights need to be argued for more vigorously, by virtue of their minority status. Ignoring bigotry is a tacit acceptance of it, in my mind.

[Central Slavia]

I live in neither...

I SHOULDN'T have to provide my items to the general public. My wording is a little mixed up, I'll admit. I'm discussing mostly from a moral viewpoint, not a legal one.

Then you're not operating a shop, or a hotel. You're operating a private sales company, or a private resort club. It's different. If you advertise your private resort club as hotel, you're morally despicable because you're knowlingly stating a falsehood.

I see an exploit.
Operate the hotel as a private club and hand out freely a entry licence to anyone, except the few peoples you want to keep out.

[Nobel Hobos]

Anyone comparing it to discrimination against race is missing the point.
Negroid, Europoid, Mongoloid, whatever race people can't "not be X" nor does it imply anything about them that they are.
On the other hand gay behaviour is voluntary, and therefore i see no problem in someone banning it in a public place, similarly to for example our student accomodation banning deep frying devices for fire risk.

Is marriage (or civil union) "behaviour"? I'd have called it a legal status.

The hotel was not banning gay behaviour. Unless you consider two men having breakfast together to be "gay behaviour". Any "gay behaviour" would have happened within the privacy purchased by the guests. In their room.

[Dregruk]

Fortunately, the bulk of our national and European law disagrees with you there.

Sadly, it is so in many countries.
Shows the decadence of western world.

Yeah, freedom of sexuality really is the worst.

[Central Slavia]

I can't say I'd be happy with that.

I can't say I'd sue for USD5000, which if I am correct, is roughly equivalent to 5000 pounds or 5000 Aus dollars?

In fairness, as a Scots lawyer, I tend to disagree with the English practice of punitive damages, like in this case. But still, minority rights need to be argued for more vigorously, by virtue of their minority status. Ignoring bigotry is a tacit acceptance of it, in my mind.

Nice understanding of equality before the law.
At least though, you admit it.

[Dregruk]

Then you're not operating a shop, or a hotel. You're operating a private sales company, or a private resort club. It's different. If you advertise your private resort club as hotel, you're morally despicable because you're knowlingly stating a falsehood.

I see an exploit.
Operate the hotel as a private club and hand out freely a entry licence to anyone, except the few peoples you want to keep out.

Wouldn't work.

[Bottle]

Anyone comparing it to discrimination against race is missing the point.
Negroid, Europoid, Mongoloid, whatever race people can't "not be X" nor does it imply anything about them that they are.
On the other hand gay behaviour is voluntary, and therefore i see no problem in someone banning it in a public place, similarly to for example our student accomodation banning deep frying devices for fire risk.

Is marriage (or civil union) "behaviour"? I'd have called it a legal status.

The hotel was not banning gay behaviour. Unless you consider two men having breakfast together to be "gay behaviour". Any "gay behaviour" would have happened within the privacy purchased by the guests. In their room.

Psst, NH, you forget: gay behavior is behaving while gay.

Walking while gay? Gay behavior.
Eating while gay? Gay behavior.
Talking while gay? Gay behavior.

See, the problem with gay behavior is that when you're around other people, and you're behaving as if you're a person even though you're actually gay, then somebody might notice something that makes them realize you're gay, and then they have to be aware that gay people are out in public BEHAVING all the time.

[Dregruk]

In fairness, as a Scots lawyer, I tend to disagree with the English practice of punitive damages, like in this case. But still, minority rights need to be argued for more vigorously, by virtue of their minority status. Ignoring bigotry is a tacit acceptance of it, in my mind.

Nice understanding of equality before the law.
At least though, you admit it.

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?

[Vortiaganica]

I can't say I'd be happy with that.

I can't say I'd sue for USD5000, which if I am correct, is roughly equivalent to 5000 pounds or 5000 Aus dollars?

In fairness, as a Scots lawyer, I tend to disagree with the English practice of punitive damages, like in this case. But still, minority rights need to be argued for more vigorously, by virtue of their minority status. Ignoring bigotry is a tacit acceptance of it, in my mind.

If they can put forward a fair case.

Here, the case is clear cut (to me) on technical terms.

If the hotel were to discriminate purely on racist, or biased terms, say, openly banning homosexuals, I would agree with the couple.

But I believe even if they are in the right, 5000 pounds is really FAR too much, and the judge agreed wtih me.

The hotel made clear their stance, and they stuck to it.

If they have issues with HOMOSEXUALITY, then that's not a valid stance. I'm happy with them standing by their ideas of married couples only sharing a room, but when they start discriminating with that sort of thing, that's not something they can argue against on their religious grounds.

(will edit, there's a bit more I need to say, right now it does look sort of contradictory)

[Bottle]

Nice understanding of equality before the law.
At least though, you admit it.

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?

Ok, this is going to date me, but you ever see that Far Side cartoon where it shows what dogs hear when we talk to them? And what the dog, Ginger, hears is, "Blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah GINGER blah blah!"

I think some people in this thread are operating at that level. So what they saw of your post is:

Blah blah blah lawyer, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah, minority rights blah blah blah more blah, blah blah blah minority status. Blah blah blah accept blah it, blah.

[Dregruk]

Sorry, small point, but where are you getting the £5000 figure from? I can't see in the article anything about what they were suing for, just what they were awarded...

[Dregruk]

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?

Ok, this is going to date me, but you ever see that Far Side cartoon where it shows what dogs hear when we talk to them? And what the dog, Ginger, hears is, "Blah blah blah blah GINGER blah blah blah GINGER blah blah!"

I think some people in this thread are operating at that level. So what they saw of your post is:

Blah blah blah lawyer, blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah, minority rights blah blah blah more blah, blah blah blah minority status. Blah blah blah accept blah it, blah.

Heheh, you get a for that one. (I always preferred the dog with the biscuit balanced on his nose, thinking, "This is it. I'm going to kill him." personally )

[Central Slavia]

Nice understanding of equality before the law.
At least though, you admit it.

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?

I did ... according to you minority rights should be argued for more vigorously.... sadly i pretty often see such things happening.

[Dregruk]

You didn't really read what I wrote, did you?

I did ... according to you minority rights should be argued for more vigorously.... sadly i pretty often see such things happening.

Right. I didn't say anything about them being "Enforced more vigorously", did I? I'm arguing in favour of equality before the law. But it's pretty telling that you're saddened by minority rights being respected.

[Bottle]

I did ... according to you minority rights should be argued for more vigorously.... sadly i pretty often see such things happening.

Right. I didn't say anything about them being "Enforced more vigorously", did I? I'm arguing in favour of equality before the law. But it's pretty telling that you're saddened by minority rights being respected.

No, he just doesn't accept that you might have to yell louder to get attention for minorities. He thinks that when you say that you'll probably need to fight harder to get the EQUAL rights of minorities to be respected, that means you're saying you think minorities should have more rights, which is hilariously backwards if you think about it...minorities have to fight harder to get the same rights, but he thinks that fact is evidence that we're all trying to make minorities MORE powerful.

[Kirovnia]

I hate all of you euro-libs who have absoloutly no concept of the free market, or how businesses have rights.

Look, THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN. If a bed and breakfeast, refuses Homo-sexuals, or Non-Married people. THEN That leaves a GAP IN THE MARKET!!! That can be exploited by another Bed and Breakfeast. BUT FREAKING EURO-LIBS, with your Absolute, unforgiving, Inquisition of the Religion of Political Correctness.

[Bottle]

I hate all of you euro-libs who have absoloutly no concept of the free market, or how businesses have rights.

Look, THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN. If a bed and breakfeast, refuses Homo-sexuals, or Non-Married people. THEN That leaves a GAP IN THE MARKET!!! That can be exploited by another Bed and Breakfeast. BUT FREAKING EURO-LIBS, with your Absolute, unforgiving, Inquisition of the Religion of Political Correctness.

6/10 for the repeated use of "Euro-libs".

[Tekania]

I'll believe it when I see it.

The media might disagree with me...
*shrugs*

Not that it matters much, as the media doesn't decide these sorts of things (thank the Lord), the courts do.

I'm fairly certain the media would likely not have reported on this, though I doubt it would have changed the courts general direction to consider this a discriminatory practice still and have still found for the plaintiff.

[Der Kaiser Mikey III]

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, of the Chymorvah Hotel, near Penzance, said as Christians they did not believe unmarried couples should share a room.

Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, from Bristol, said the incident in September 2008 was "direct discrimination" against them.

They were awarded £1,800 each in damages at Bristol County Court.

Full Article

Now, whilst businesses do have a right to refuse service, I think the Judge has made a brilliant decision in this case. Here, we've got a business refusing service on the grounds of sexuality, which is just plain wrong.

In fact, if the Judge had made any other decision, it would've been an invitation to any bigoted business owners to discriminate against entire demographics.

Your thoughts, NSG?

The business owners do have the right to discriminate, however. If they are receiving government money of any sort to run their motel, then they do not have the rights, but if it is their business, they can decide not to serve blacks, indians, gays, or transvestites

[Nobel Hobos]

If this was a straight unmarried couple, would this be a big deal?

You betcha.

It would also be a big deal if it was a black man and his white wife.

Or if it was a Jewish couple.

See, there are some of us who think it's cool that businesses are no longer allowed to act the way the South did during Jim Crow. We know what our country was like during that time, and we think it's better if countries don't have to be like that again.

I'll politely remind you that Britain abolished slavery before the US did. That Britain granted the vote to women before the US did. And that however archaic their laws may seem, that they can change the basis of law (the "constitution") simply by Acts of Parliament, and have done so far more recently than the US have amended their constitution. Liberty is not well served by adherence to that Bible by another name, the Constitution.

Just so you don't look silly, arguing Liberty in American terms.

[Bottle]

You betcha.

It would also be a big deal if it was a black man and his white wife.

Or if it was a Jewish couple.

See, there are some of us who think it's cool that businesses are no longer allowed to act the way the South did during Jim Crow. We know what our country was like during that time, and we think it's better if countries don't have to be like that again.

I'll politely remind you that Britain abolished slavery before the US did. That Britain granted the vote to women before the US did. And that however archaic their laws may seem, that they can change the basis of law (the "constitution") simply by Acts of Parliament, and have done so far more recently than the US have amended their constitution. Liberty is not well served by adherence to that Bible by another name, the Constitution.

Just so you don't look silly, arguing Liberty in American terms.

Hey now, don't misread me on this one...I'm just saying I know what MY bass-ackwards country was like when we allowed the "Free Market" to address discrimination, and nobody should have to go through that.