It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gay Couple Win B&B Discrimination Case

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
How is that any different to what they've done?

Why would two adults of the same gender want to share a bed unless they were a couple?

I don't see what you're saying here.


If the policy says nothing about sexual orientation than it's not discriminating based on sexual orientation.


Originally posted by blupblup
Because it gives equal rights to people whatever their sexual orientation?

Again, not getting your point.



People already had equal rights... a gay couple that owned a bed and breakfast could have turned my wife and I away because they catered to gay men... all that's happened is that rights have been taken away from business owners... gay and straight people already had equal rights.
edit on 21-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
If the policy says nothing about sexual orientation than it's not discriminating based on sexual orientation.




It says that the couple didn't want unmarried couples staying in the same bed but in the eyes of the LAW, this couple are married.
They have a civil partnership, which is the gay equivalent of a marriage.

So the owners of the B&B had no grounds to not let them stay.







People already had equal rights... a gay couple that owned a bed and breakfast could have turned my wife and I away because they catered to gay men... all that's happened is that rights have been taken away from business owners... gay and straight people already had equal rights.




Yes but this couple don't advertise as a hetrosexual only B&B and I'm sure they couldn't do that anyway.

Gay and straight people DO have equal rights.... but not in the eyes of this couple.

If a straight married couple wanted to stay at this B&B and share a bed.... they can, a Gay married couple could not.... so how is that equality?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
It says that the couple didn't want unmarried couples staying in the same bed but in the eyes of the LAW, this couple are married.
They have a civil partnership, which is the gay equivalent of a marriage.


Right... and? Like I said, if they simply have a policy that says they won't rent single-bed rooms to two adults of the same gender that would be perfectly legal (because it would apply to gay and straight, married and unmarried alike... no discrimination).



Originally posted by blupblup
Yes but this couple don't advertise as a hetrosexual only B&B and I'm sure they couldn't do that anyway.


So? How or if they advertise is irrelevent.

Why don't you support a gay man's right to open a B and B that caters only to gay male couples (and excludes other kinds of couples, singles, and kids)? I think he should have that right, you apparently don't.

Originally posted by blupblup
Gay and straight people DO have equal rights.... but not in the eyes of this couple.


Huh?


Originally posted by blupblup
If a straight married couple wanted to stay at this B&B and share a bed.... they can, a Gay married couple could not.... so how is that equality?


Right, and if an adult couple wants to stay at some hotels they can, but an adult and child can't... so how is that equal? Would you like to remove the owners right to have an adults only policy?
edit on 21-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 




Right your arguments make very little sense.


Banning two adults of the same gender from sharing a bed.... is basically banning homosexuals from your establishment... which is what this couple did.

That is ILLEGAL.

The court case has been and gone and the owners of the B&B lost the case.

They were ordered to pay damages to the gay couple.


End of story.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Exactly, and as previously stated, it's the whole slippery slope argument. What next? 2 people of the same sex, of similiar age groups, can't get a table at a restaurant together? Women with short hair aren't allowed into hotels, unless with a male? Sounds a bit daft, perhaps, but going with your thinking, SevenBeans, these laws would be perfectly fine, or at least have a case to argue that they were. There is no mention of sexual orientation in these laws, but of course, we know it's likely to weed out those damn second class citizens.

Once you turn your home into a business, you must comply to rules with apply to all businesses. Therefore, if they'd have made a ruling for the Christian owners, which applied to this business, it could have been used as a precedent for any business in the future.

It would work the same way if the opposite occured, too. A homosexual couple couldn't turn down a heterosexual couple, for the exact same reason; it would serve to create a social divide/apartheid, or at least give potential legal ammo. for it to come into play in the future.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ScepticalBeliever
 




I know... you can't start picking and choosing the types of people that you want to serve in business.

It's a very slippery slope as you say.

Some people can't see that.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Right your arguments make very little sense.


Do you think a gay man should have the right to open a B and B that caters only to gay couples (excluding singles, kids etc. etc.)?

I think he should, you think he shouldn't.

End of story.


edit on 24-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ScepticalBeliever
It would work the same way if the opposite occured, too. A homosexual couple couldn't turn down a heterosexual couple.


If a gay man wants to have a b and b for male couples I don't see what the problem is... it's his b and b let him run it how he wants. Why do you have such a big problem with that, that you're willing to erode his rights?

Following your logic you also must make all hotels etc. etc. accept children, singles etc. etc.
edit on 24-1-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 




Well I would imagine in that case, although I'd have to find out, that there would be some licence you would have to apply for or whatever.

For example, if you want to hire a female nurse for an elderly female patient at home, you have to apply for a licence/permission to be able to advertise for one specific gender, so as not to break the law regarding sexual discrimination.

Perhaps, and I'm not saying it IS the case.., the same applies for running a business that caters to either one gender or one sexual orientation.


A man cannot be a member of the WI right?

There are still working man's clubs where a woman cannot be a member.

There are exceptions for every rule and there are permissions to be granted.

The point is, and I really do think you're constantly missing it... is that this couple did not have any permission, any right.... and LEGAL grounds to do what they did..... None, zilch, zip.

This was evidenced by the outcome of the courtcase.

What they did is basically religious fundamentalism...They imposed THEIR will and THEIR beliefs on someone else and expected them to adhere to THEIR beliefs.

You cannot do that.

Maybe the B&B couple will appeal and win their case?

Maybe it will set a precedent and people all over can start letting in who they want and refuse to serve blacks, whites, women, men.... midgets..... whoever they so choose.

Until that happens..... the LAW has been upheld.

The gay couple WON their case.

As I said before, that's it.... there's nothing else really to say.

If and when there is an appeal and something changes, be it the law or just the judges decision in this case, then we can pick it up again.



ETA:

According to the couple (B&B owning couple) they did not ban the gay couple because they were gay, they banned them because they were not married and they didn't let unmarried people share a bed.
I think they are hiding behind that personally but whatever, but this gay couple are in a civil partnership.... which, in the eyes of the LAW (and that's the important bit ok?) a civil partnership gives a gay couple the same rights and status as a married couple.

So they have literally NO argument.... in the eyes of the LAW.

A belief does not take precedence over and above the law.


edit on 24/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Well I would imagine in that case, although I'd have to find out, that there would be some licence you would have to apply for or whatever.

For example, if you want to hire a female nurse for an elderly female patient at home, you have to apply for a licence/permission to be able to advertise for one specific gender, so as not to break the law regarding sexual discrimination.

Perhaps, and I'm not saying it IS the case.., the same applies for running a business that caters to either one gender or one sexual orientation.


A man cannot be a member of the WI right?

There are still working man's clubs where a woman cannot be a member.

There are exceptions for every rule and there are permissions to be granted.

The point is, and I really do think you're constantly missing it... is that this couple diod not have any permission, any right.... and LEGAL grounds to do what they did..... None, zilch, zip.


I see... so if they had asked permission first and gotten a licence to only cater to straight couples you'd have no problem with it?

LOL.


Originally posted by blupblup
They imposed THEIR will and THEIR beliefs ons someone else and expected them to adhere to THEIR beliefs.

You cannot do that.


You got it completely backwards...



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 



Court ruled in favour of the gay couple.... case is over.

Your opinion is invalid.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by SevenBeans
 



Court ruled in favour of the gay couple.... case is over.

Your opinion is invalid.

Are you saying that because the law has decided on something, it can't be discussed? (strange opinion for someone on here to hold).
I hear that the guest house owners lost their appeal. Now I haven't a religious bone in my body but I think they were in the right. It's not as if they were providing a public/essential service. They should be allowed to turn away someone for any reason whatsoever. In their case, homosexuality is deeply repulsive to them as well as being against their religious convictions. And it's their own home as well as a private business.
Do people realise that when this business first started this couple was flooded with gay porn? That's the reality of what we are dealing with.
We are talking state interference with the way we run our lives.
Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 and the Thought Police'.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I know im going to get burned for this but here goes.

I honestly feel that owners rights are being infringed upon. Now, i have a gay brother who i love very much and would never want to change him - We'll, maybe his current attitude about work. I myself had a brief encounter with someone of the same sex, so im comfortable with it. Its natural, its been around since the dawn of time and there's nothing wrong with it.

But these people have a right to practice there faith and if they choose to be believe that homosexuality isn't godly, then let them. Its their business and if they want to LOOSE INCOME, its their loss. Its not like there putting time into hating homosexuals. There not making offensive banners and protesting. They said they disagreed and didn't want it under THERE ROOF.

They have religious beliefs and someone's faith should be respected if its not harming anyone else. These guys could have gone somewhere else, its not like its the only B&B in england. But no, they have decided to sue this couple, drag there name and there business through the mud seeking a twisted form of "justice" because they had there feelings hurt. Thats just life, they'll always be someone that disagree's with some aspect of your existence. Grow up, get over it, move on. Suing them changes NOTHING.

/Waits to get burned.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup

I know... you can't start picking and choosing the types of people that you want to serve in business.

It's a very slippery slope as you say.

Some people can't see that.


Actually you can.

You just can't state why you are picking and choosing.

Ironic isn't it.

Most companies are savy enough to do it with BS excuses and outrageous prices. This couple was not. If anything, they learned a very valuable business lesson:
'Loose lips sink ships.'

If the couple had never let it slip that they were denying service because of homosexuality not aligning with their faith, there would have been no case.

What would the court do?

Court: You had an empty suite!
Owner: No we did not, here is my friend that was 'supposed' to stay there that night, he was detained, we did not find out until after we had denied service to the couple.
*Friend confirms story*
Court: Damn! Case dismissed.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchild10

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by SevenBeans
 



Court ruled in favour of the gay couple.... case is over.

Your opinion is invalid.

Are you saying that because the law has decided on something, it can't be discussed? (strange opinion for someone on here to hold).
I hear that the guest house owners lost their appeal. Now I haven't a religious bone in my body but I think they were in the right. It's not as if they were providing a public/essential service. They should be allowed to turn away someone for any reason whatsoever. In their case, homosexuality is deeply repulsive to them as well as being against their religious convictions. And it's their own home as well as a private business.
Do people realise that when this business first started this couple was flooded with gay porn? That's the reality of what we are dealing with.
We are talking state interference with the way we run our lives.
Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 and the Thought Police'.


Right. Who knows, maybe next time they will have a lawsuit against them for having bacon and alcohol in the house while Muslims who follow Sharia Law are guests there. People never follow these things to their conclusions.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by starchild10
Now I haven't a religious bone in my body but I think they were in the right. It's not as if they were providing a public/essential service. They should be allowed to turn away someone for any reason whatsoever. In their case, homosexuality is deeply repulsive to them as well as being against their religious convictions. And it's their own home as well as a private business.



No they shouldn't, the law is there to stop bigotry, racism, homophobia, sexism and so on...
If they don't want to have to deal with all kinds of people, don't start a business.

This couple's religious "laws" do not trump the laws of the land.





We are talking state interference with the way we run our lives.
Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 and the Thought Police'.




No we're not, we're talking about equality and treating every customer fairly and equally.


There is NO good argument for what this couple did, everyone can say and believe whatever they like but when you run a business, you better be careful what you say and do and you'd better not discriminate otherwise this kind of thing will happen.


The couple were wrong and they lost.

Two courts have ruled now.

They should either shut up or close their business.
edit on 11/2/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
Actually you can.

You just can't state why you are picking and choosing.

Ironic isn't it.

Most companies are savy enough to do it with BS excuses and outrageous prices. This couple was not. If anything, they learned a very valuable business lesson:
'Loose lips sink ships.'




Yes you're right... and people discriminate all the time and we all know that goes on
This couple blatantly and overtly discriminated and they got what they deserved.

I'm not someone who wants to police thought, people are free to believe whatever they like.... but if you let it affect your customers and/or business... then the law will punish you.

This couple broke the Law and they were dealt with accordingly.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Right. Who knows, maybe next time they will have a lawsuit against them for having bacon and alcohol in the house while Muslims who follow Sharia Law are guests there. People never follow these things to their conclusions.




No, because there is nothing illegal about that.

The point of this is that religion CANNOT trump the LAW..... not the other way around, your example is the absolute opposite of what happened here and is absolutely against the law.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Let me just repeat and make it clear here.


This Couple Broke The Law



They have now been punished accordingly.




edit on 11/2/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Let me just repeat and make it clear here.


This Couple Broke The Law



They have now been punished accordingly.




edit on 11/2/12 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



So effectively, this couple have no rights?




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join