Gay Couple Win B&B Discrimination Case

reply to post by Skyfloating

The utopian delusion is to think you can force people to do good.

The South (as just one example) had a delusion once too. Or, was that about free-choice?

If I'm going to pick from a selection of available delusions, my choices get easier and easier...

People, left to their own devices - well, what can I say? You're all for segregation then? How about genocide?

Sometimes some stuff just won't fly - individual preferences be damned

There is no point in FORCING people who do not want to work with me to work with me...unless you are trying to establish totalitarianism.

Individual rights are determined by the group. Confusing - I know :-)

Human rights - it's complicated and messy - especially for rugged individualists

I'm an egalitarian humanist Sky. I guess I just don't get some stuff

I think we should all just get along - even if we have to fake it

:-)

Spiramirabilis
People, left to their own devices - well, what can I say? You're all for segregation then? How about genocide?

All genocide is by definition collective, not individual.

individual preferences be damned

I shudder to consider the implications of this and the fact that only 60 years after the fall of fascism and 20 years after the fall of communism, the collectivist approach is once again being paraded as the big answer.

Just an observation, no need to reply. In fact, I can't stomach to return to this thread, my apologies.

reply to post by Skyfloating

All genocide is by definition collective, not individual.

The separation, the disdain - the campaign against any group of individuals begins with a supposed right by one group to hate, disassociate from or abuse another

Where does the individual end and the group begin?

I think it's interesting that you think individual rights can exist separately from rights that exist for the group - we are humans. We are both

Just an observation, no need to reply. In fact, I can't stomach to return to this thread, my apologies.

Convenient

JohnnyCanuck

dusty1
This stuff does set a precedent.
At some point, the age of consent will be lowered in the eyes of the law.
One day pedophiles will be treated as a protected class.
Hotel owners will either go along, or be sued out of business.

I do believe that is what is called a 'straw man' defence. Also quite offensive to equate Gays with paedophiles.

This is about the right to choice as a business owner. As to what activity to allow in ones own establishment.

Straw man?

According to a fellow Canadian, pedophiles are a sexual orientation.

Dr. Hubert Van Gijseghem (Psychologist and Professor (retired), University of Montreal

If we know that pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offence from time to time but rather are grappling with with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality, and if we agree on the fact that true pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation, everyone knows that there is no such thing as real therapy. You cannot change this person's sexual orientation.

Parliament of Canada


The age of consent has a history of being lowered in Europe.

Ages of Consent in Europe


So if I owned a hotel in Spain (or pick the country) and a man came in, (making his intentions clear), with a male child aged 13, I gotta give them a room?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

The separation, the disdain - the campaign against any group of individuals begins with a supposed right by one group to hate, disassociate from or abuse another

You mean like death threats, vandalism, and forcing an elderly couple out of business?

The Bulls have since been forced to close the B&B in September because their falling income no longer covered the mortgage on the business they had nurtured over three decades. They suffered a drop in bookings following the controversy, which led to negative reviews online, their website being hacked, property vandalised and receiving death threats. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I guess it's only your side that is allowed to abuse and hate.





Enjoy your victory.......

reply to post by dusty1

I guess it's only your side that is allowed to abuse and hate.

Maybe this is just your problem, or maybe this is an example of the actual problem - that you see this as being about sides

Equality and fairness are for everyone - everyone, not just the people you like or agree with

This is where we seem to lose some people :-)

You can't legislate morality - especially since morality is in the eye of the beholder. We can decide together as a people what is acceptable and what isn't - and this changes all the time. For now we mostly agree that discrimination is wrong - and this couple lost that battle

As far as the abuse and hate - it's not my side that did that - I don't have a side. Abuse and hate are wrong - and you are going to assume I approve of this? Why - because I think this couple was wrong to discriminate?

Then - you've missed the entire point

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Maybe this is just your problem, or maybe this is an example of the actual problem - that you see this as being about sides

That's why lawyers got involved, cause their are no sides, is that right?

Equality and fairness are for everyone - everyone, not just the people you like or agree with

Especially if you lawyer up, and belong to an elite, affluent community, with political and media connections.

You can't legislate morality - especially since morality is in the eye of the beholder. We can decide together as a people what is acceptable and what isn't - and this changes all the time. For now we mostly agree that discrimination is wrong - and this couple lost that battle

You keep saying "we".

So we have decided that an individual small business owner cannot withhold work services to anyone based on moral grounds.

The individual no longer has the right to say no.


What if We decide, that the law should state, that you, cannot withhold sexual services from us?

The individual no longer can decide who to be with, We decide for you.



This is why the rights of the individual, is so important.

Dictatorships and mob rule aint all it's cracked up to be.

So you would rather allow discrimination?

discrimination is wrong on any level, any person should not discriminate, and yet people almost want it as long as it's on someone else, us Gays with our "Agenda" is okay to discriminate because our "Agenda" is to take over and control America and destroy the constitution correct?

the couple can believe what they want, they have the freedom to think, believe, say etc. but they opened a business and there are laws protecting people from discrimination, they broke those laws. there shouldn't have to be laws, people should just understand we are Human and you can disagree with whatever but we are all protected to be treated as equally as anyone else

reply to post by Darth_Prime


Just couldn't stay in the bed and breakfast without a double bed.










All this so men can be Monogamish?



Darth Prime

I mean no ill will toward you. That is the truth.


What I see behind this movement, at least by some, is hate......

It looks like this couple were set up by the gay lobby. You may look on their views as anachronistic or distasteful but it is their personal religious conviction and imo you should be allowed to decide what happens in your own home - even though it also happens to be your business. It's not as if they were a public service or that there wasn't a choice of bed and breakfasts which wouldn't give a stuff about who or what their customers were.
Most ordinary people that I've talked to about this fully support the couple.
I remember in the UK when hotels wouldn't like taking unmarried couples and it was the norm to pretend to be married. That doesn't happen now but if I encountered it I would just go somewhere else. I certainly wouldn't subject the owners to what this couple went through afterwards. The gay community hasn't done itself any favours.

reply to post by dusty1

Dictatorships and mob rule aint all it's cracked up to be.

What are they cracked up to be? Is one the same as the other? Do either of them have anything to do with this situation? :-)

We - decide together what is and isn't acceptable. This changes with time and circumstance and the we part changes too

Is there something about that you can't understand?

At one time it was acceptable to refuse to allow African Americans in your establishment

The individual had much more freedom to do as they pleased back then - so long as they were white individuals

Were those the good old days?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

What are they cracked up to be? Is one the same as the other? Do either of them have anything to do with this situation? :-)

Saddam, his sons, and a small class, decided what was best for everyone.

That included Uday and Qusay raping whomever they wanted.

At one time it was acceptable to refuse to allow African Americans in your establishment

I keep hearing that one.

African Americans would have to have been, in general, well educated, affluent, politically connected and able to visibly blend in to the racist white culture for it to be analogous.

reply to post by dusty1


And with that I feel free to quit taking you seriously

:-)

Thank you

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

And with that I feel free to quit taking you seriously

Don't you mean "We", quit taking "you", seriously?



With that the collective takes it's ball, and goes home......




The collective does not understand that the forced participation, in an activity that is morally offensive to an individual, is wrong.

Whether that be participation in a ceremony or sleeping arrangements.

I disagree with the collective on this one.

If your soo gay, frequent gay establishments. If they don't exist, make your own. Stop bringing litigation to people and screaming in the media. If you truly want people to respect you, yall have a funny way of going about it.

Gays are now getting a "card" of their own to brandish about. I'm not one of the types to oppress and hold people back, I want equality and progress for all. Have a thick skin and stop trying to RUIN peoples lives if they don't completely bend to your wants. I know people that would shun me, but I don't force myself amongst them and sue and cause problems.

The gay movement has become militant; if they wanted honest support and help, they blew it. Try to make people accept you not hate you even more.

I followed this case as it unfolded and it's not quite as cut and dried as the verdict would have you believe. My daughter is gay, so no personal issues from me regarding gay equality. However, Stonewall, the gay rights organisation had targeted this particular business because they had a "no bed sharing for unmarried couples" policy, and of course that policy extended to all unmarried couples and when Mrs Bull took the booking over the phone she believed it was for a Mr and Mrs Preddy, until Preddy and his partner Martyn Hall turned up. Furthermore, they were not refused a room, simply that they couldn't have a double bed

The Bulls had accepted an £80-a-night double room booking, believing Steven Preddy, 38, would be staying with his wife.
But when Mr Preddy arrived with his 46-year-old civil partner Martyn Hall, the men, from Bristol, were told they would not be able to share one room and instead had to sleep separately.
The Bulls denied that they had discriminated against the couple, arguing that their policy of only allowing married couples to sleep in a double bed, in accordance with their religious beliefs, was applied to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
They said they had also prevented unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing double rooms since they opened 25 yrs ago

Source

As such, I personally believe that this was a calculated attempt to force the gay rights issue, rather than a simple requirement for a B&B to spend the night in. As for the compensation, why the heck would they need compensation over and above the extra costs of finding alternative accommodation? What they were awarded was excessive in my opinion, particularly as it would seem that Preddy and Hall were well aware of this establishments policy prior to booking, knowing full well that they would be refused a double room, due to the policy that Stonewall themselves had written to the Bulls about (though they could have had two singles, and if they had accepted that, I could understand getting compensation for the extra cost) More info about Stonewall writing to the Bulls before the booking

Furthermore, the abuse the Bulls have suffered since then is totally unacceptable in my opinion. Preddy and Hall were not verbally or physically abused, they weren't even turned away, just refused a double room and sorry, but I don't really think this is a victory for gay rights, just a case of who can be the biggest bully

reply to post by destination now

However, Stonewall, the gay rights organisation had targeted this particular business because they had a "no bed sharing for unmarried couples" policy, and of course that policy extended to all unmarried couples and when Mrs Bull took the booking over the phone she believed it was for a Mr and Mrs Preddy, until Preddy and his partner Martyn Hall turned up. Furthermore, they were not refused a room, simply that they couldn't have a double bed

Why would she assume it was for Mr. and Mrs. Preddy? Did he lie? Did she ask? If she asked - did she tell him at the time that he must be married to share a double bed? Does she regularly ask and inform people that she won't let out a double bed to any unmarried couples?

Would that have made this right?

If Mr Preddy and Mr Hall ran a hotel which denied a double room to Mr and Mrs Bull, whether on the grounds of their Christian beliefs or on the grounds of their sexual orientation, they would find themselves in the same situation that Mr and Mrs Bull find themselves today.

Independen t
The couple have previously lost fights in a County Court and the Court of Appeal. In 2011 a judge at Bristol County Court concluded that the Bulls acted unlawfully and ordered them to pay a total of £3,600 damages. In 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Bulls following a hearing in London. The couple had asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Court of Appeal.

It really isn't all that cut and dried - this is a complicated situation

But, this has been through more than one court, which I'm sure you know since you've been following it so closely. Do you honestly believe that the only reason they lost is because of the gay lobby and political correctness?

Times are changing destination now - you know this better than most - or at least many. It's about time. This process is not going to be easy or painless

As I've mentioned in several other posts - there was a time when it was nothing to refuse service to many different kinds of people - religious beliefs were used then as well as many other pathetic excuses

We are all equal under the law. We don't have to like it - we don't have to like each other. But, the law is the law. If we don't like the laws - we are all free to work to change them

Would you go back to this?





Do you think people gave up their 'right' to discriminate cheerfully back then?

Or is this not the same thing?

Not one of us is free until all of us are free

reply to post by destination now

Furthermore, the abuse the Bulls have suffered since then is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

Not just your opinion - mine too - and many others as well

One is just as bad as the other - and people who suggest that this is a case of turnabout is fair play are as wrong as it gets

Humanity moves forward one awkward, painful step at a time - and sometimes takes a couple steps back to boot

But, we'll get there

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


You know that I don't subscribe to that way of thought, I'm totally for equality on every level. My issue with this case is that Stonewall, upon seeing the couples website stating that only married couples could book double rooms, had written to the couple stating that what they were doing was possibly illegal. The Bulls obviously ignored that communication, probably due to the fact that they had been doing their business that way for 25 years and clearly operating on the logic of "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" which is fair enough in my opinion, I wouldn't book into a hotel like that, though there are probably plenty of people who would, that's their choice.

Then shortly after the Bulls had received the letter from Stonewall, Steven Preddy phoned the hotel and made a booking for Mr & Mrs Preddy...as this was a phonecall, there is obviously no proof of this, but I think it's not too big a leap to believe the Bulls as they wouldn't have accepted the booking otherwise.

This along with the letter the Bulls had received from Stonewall was presented as part of the Bull's case, but as it couldn't be proved that Preddy and Hall had any affiliation to Stonewall or that Preddy had booked the room for a Mr & Mrs Preddy it was dismissed on the grounds of a lack of evidence.

But lets face it, if Preddy and Hall had found the B&B as a result of the website, then they would have known the position of the Bulls prior to making the booking and that to me is what is distasteful about the whole event, because as I said previously, why the heck would they want to go to that establishment anyway...Cornwall is full of hotels and B&B's, why not go to any number of other establishments that didn't have specific rules about sharing?

I was just reading another thread about a server who made a claim that a couple refused to tip and left a nasty note because the server was gay and it has now transpired that the server is a compulsive liar and the customers have proof that they did indeed tip her. Sadly these types of events will not make people more understanding, just more wary and ready with a plethora of other excuses and that ultimately does the cause no good at all

reply to post by destination now

You know that I don't subscribe to that way of thought, I'm totally for equality on every level.

I do know that - just trying to make a dramatic point. Many others see this whole thing as being trivial - because it's not about them

The Bulls obviously ignored that communication, probably due to the fact that they had been doing their business that way for 25 years and clearly operating on the logic of "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" which is fair enough in my opinion, I wouldn't book into a hotel like that, though there are probably plenty of people who would, that's their choice.

This is where I get confused. If one form of discrimination is unacceptable, why are they all not unacceptable?

People see this (for some reason) as being less of an issue because (I believe) they see homosexuality as a lifestyle and a choice. I could go on and on making the same old argument that that doesn't matter even if it's true - but for now let's focus on the fact that we people all live together - and the law states that you cannot discriminate

They discriminated

I'm not going to quote the rest of your post - but you seem to be upset about a lot of things that you would like to suppose or assume - but can't prove - any more than they could

This is how the law works. If they were set up - well - what can we say about that? This is a movement that is putting the laws to the test. Bad form? Low blow? Maybe - or definitely - depending on our personal views. Is equality worth putting some things to the test? I think it is - others disagree.

Did they deserve to be ruined? No. Not in my opinion. Is that what happened? Maybe - but even that is not as cut and dried as some would like to believe

Did they discriminate? At the end of the day - this is what this is about. Should they be allowed to discriminate? If you think they should - then this is where you should focus your energy - by righting what you perceive to be a wrong. And you know what? At least over here - there is a very healthy exercise of rights and laws and fighting going on in our courts. This is just the way it should be - and this is how society works out it's disagreements and changes the way it does things - as well as eventually changing what it believes

As far as the settlement - that you mentioned in your last post - sometimes the legal costs are factored in. That's why they paid more than the whole thing was worth from the get go