Gay couple turned away from B&B in Cookham

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
There is no evidence to back up your claim that it is a choice to be attracted to the same sex, indeed science has backed up gay people who say "i was born like this". Homosexual behavior can be observed in nature, especially among primates. Human studies of brain structure show a clear difference between gay and straight brains.

You should read my post more carefully. I didn't state it was a choice to be attracted to the same sex. I said it was a choice to have sex with somebody of the same sex. And science has not proven that sexual orientation is something you are born with. There are a variety of factors (physiological, psychological, chemical) that relate to one's sexual orientation. However, There is more evidence that suggests sexual orientation is correlated with experience and upbringing than genetics. That is for another thread though, this thread is to do with a business owner having the right to refuse service (in a non-emergency situation) to certain customers when alternatives are available.

Why should they have to go some place else because they are born with a different sexuality? I assume you are straight so is that a choice? Why is one sexuality a choice and another not a choice? How about religion then, would you be ok for someone to refuse to serve a Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc?

Why do I have to walk an extra 10 metres at the mall if I want to urinate? Why can't I just go into the Women's toilets and urinate there? Is it my fault I was born with testicles? Everyone has the right to have consensual, legal sex with any other person. But this is about a minority kicking up a storm because a private business owner does not agree with their lifestyle choice. This is an issue of Political Correctness.

If I am turned away from a private, non-emergency business where alternatives are available I would accept it. If they told me they do not allow people that wear bow-ties to stay there then I will simply go elsewhere. I wouldn't agree with them, but I would not waste my time and energy inconveniencing other people because I feel hurt and offended.

When soemone is discriminated against then they have every right to speak out. Actually it's strange how you support the womans freedoms but you don't support the freedoms of the gay people to speak out against her actions.

Because I am sick of hearing about how people get so offended over petty matters. As a white male I am reminded pretty much every day of my life how people with the same colour skin as me have done wrong to other people in the past. Every time a Gay Rights issue is brought up it's related someway to slavery or other negative past actions by white people.

[edit on 23/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
By this measure we could easily go back to the days where people could ban black people from shops, or hairdressers, or well anywhere. Would you support this action?

In case you haven't realised, racism is alive and well, despite every law trying to stamp it out.

Many people are too fearful of anything that makes them different from others.

There are suburbs in my town where I would be extremely discouraged to enter certain businesses, by the local ghetto culture of the dominant migrants.

Business owners can do what they like. It doesn't mean that it's 'right' or 'moral' though.

Once the system fails, the hatred will openly spill out again.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by tezzajw]

Maybe the proprietor already had a group from the some anti gay group staying at her place and was concerned for the wellbeing of the homosexual couple.

Is it ok to give nazi's b&b ?

reply to post by jackflap


Quite a story, has me mixed in thoughts for a variety of reasons.

I have an aunt that is homosexual and runs a B&B. She refuses heterosexual couples and only allows homosexual females to stay in her residence. I dont see a big massive splash of headlines about this anywhere.

Just trying to balance the scales a little and add a twist but a true one, to what really happens in real life and not according to the BBC fantasy reality.

If this couple does get in trouble for refusing a gay couple residence, its time that they really did start pushing equal rights instead of pushing minority rights. There has to be a balance if theres going to be equal rights, not minority sided bias.

Some might not agree with me but theres discrimination from all sides.

If it was personally myself I would have let the couple stay, its not for me to judge someones sexuality.

From a religious stance, Judge not lest ye be judged springs to mind and the couple maybe should have took comfort in that verse. Its what I would have done. Everything I have just said is based on this story being completely true as the article potrays it.


However, sweep all this bickering aside (referring to ATS posts arguing etc) for a second and if you read the article its full of propoganda. I suspect a mountain is being made out of a molehill here as usual with the BBC.

Some snippets of what I am talking about from the article...

She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples.

So they refused on grounds of sexuality but, its not actually quoted, this is the view of the BBC!

Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Highlighting the BBC's viewpoint yet again as this has nothing to do with the article yet, it should be stated at the bottom, which it is as well which just reinforces the idea of discrimination in the readers mind.

Ms Wilkinson told the BBC: "They gave me no prior warning and I couldn't offer them another room as I was fully booked.

This is quoted, which shows that Ms Wilkinson actually said this, not the BBC. This was the reason stated for refusing and why would she mention an offer of another room?? Think about it while you read it.

"I don't see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I've held for years just because the government should force it on me.

"I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house."

Read the quotes and ask yourself, why would someone say this to the BBC, someone asked questions to them then quoted it without actually stating the questions asked to them. If this said the BBC asked Ms Wilkinson "bla bla" then Ms Wilkinson responded with "Bla bla" it would be unbiased. Theres something hidden here.

Mr Black told the BBC: "We're two respectable middle-aged men - John is leader of the Lib Dem group on Huntingdon Town Council.

"This was the first time either of us had experienced homophobia at first hand, despite being aged 56 and 62. We were shocked and embarrassed.

"Mrs Wilkinson saw us both before we got out of the car and immediately acted in an unwelcoming, cold way, but my boyfriend and I were polite and friendly.

"She said if we'd told her in advance she would have told us not to come.

"She apologised for turning us away. I asked for a refund of the deposit, which she gave me without quibble.

"We stayed polite and, to be fair, she wasn't rude or abusive.

Read this and look at the wording. "Mrs Wilkinson saw us both... acted in an unwelcoming, cold way". This suggests that Mrs Wilkinson knew she had no rooms if you look at the original information. She was not rude or abusive and offered an apology as said by the gay couple.

"All she said about her reasons for turning us away was that it went against her convictions for us to stay there.

Nothing yet again about the questions that were asked. Its a bias article, its propoganda and quite frankly, crap journalism. The writer of the article should be fired for this drivel.

news.bbc.co.uk...

This appears to be nothing more than fully booked rooms or a possible mix up with double bookings at worst and im quite surprised nobody can see how misleading this article is.

Good job BBC on ruining someones life and livelihood. Disgusting journalism like this should be stopped in my opinion.



[edit on 23-3-2010 by XXXN3O]

Originally posted by TokiTheDestroyer
reply to post by dolphinfan

 

All this nonsense about it being her personal home becomes null and void when it is operating as a business.

Businesses have property rights too.. not saying this isn't a good case with good legal arguments that can be arranged on both sides.. but you make it sound like you don't have property rights if you are running a business off of that property.. not true.

While discrimination against people who are gay by refusing them service is wrong, this case is not clear cut.

There is a case to be made (especially by gays) for occasionally having an "all gay" or "only gay" establishment; and so then why not an "only straights" one?

Picture a sign hanging over the door-way, however, that states the fact of "no gays" or "no straights"; whatever the case may be, and I think you would have a problem.

Sometimes its not so much about what the law is, but what would be reasonable to most persons. While the reality of life is that gay people have always been asked to accommodate themselves to the larger straight world and are tired of it; nevertheless, wanting to impose themselves on an unwilling host is not cool; anymore than it would be for a religious extremist to demand accommodation in a small openly gay establishment. The laws are there to secure rights and prevent gross abuses, but sometimes discretion is required in when to choose to make a stand or let sleeping dogs lye.

Recently I took a job driving taxi's. One day I was sent to pick up a fare and the passenger turned out to be disabled and in a wheelchair. It took me ages to get the guy into the car and then pack up all his stuff including his chair. Same time taken at the other end. All in all the job took a lot longer than usual, but same fee was charged.

Back at the office they told me this chap regularly called for a cab but they only took him on if they were real quiet and had nothing else to do. Otherwise they would make up some excuse so they didnt have to bother with him.

It's just an example of real life. Businessess are there to make money and the proprietor has the right to refuse any job he doesn't want to do for any reason.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
That is for another thread though, this thread is to do with a business owner having the right to refuse service (in a non-emergency situation) to certain customers when alternatives are available.

Why should they have to go some place else because they are born with a different sexuality? I assume you are straight so is that a choice? Why is one sexuality a choice and another not a choice? How about religion then, would you be ok for someone to refuse to serve a Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc?

Why do I have to walk an extra 10 metres at the mall if I want to urinate? Why can't I just go into the Women's toilets and urinate there? Is it my fault I was born with testicles? Everyone has the right to have consensual, legal sex with any other person. But this is about a minority kicking up a storm because a private business owner does not agree with their lifestyle choice. This is an issue of Political Correctness.

If I am turned away from a private, non-emergency business where alternatives are available I would accept it. If they told me they do not allow people that wear bow-ties to stay there then I will simply go elsewhere. I wouldn't agree with them, but I would not waste my time and energy inconveniencing other people because I feel hurt and offended.

When soemone is discriminated against then they have every right to speak out. Actually it's strange how you support the womans freedoms but you don't support the freedoms of the gay people to speak out against her actions.

Because I am sick of hearing about how people get so offended over petty matters. As a white male I am reminded pretty much every day of my life how people with the same colour skin as me have done wrong to other people in the past. Every time a Gay Rights issue is brought up it's related someway to slavery or other negative past actions by white people.

[edit on 23/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Unfortunately for yourself the law as it stands doesn't recognise the business owner is king attitude in the UK or being able to operate outside of the law simply because it goes against my religious principles. I'm hetro but would think it thoroughly unfair if my hetroness was legally recognised and protected only in principle and it was regarded as a crime to carry out my hetro lifestyle so saying you're not against gays just those who "choose" to carry out their sexual desires is a bit weak and disingenuous. I'm a man of my place and time and tbh I would not want gay men having sex in my spare room and may cringe at the thought but I recognise I'm wrong in thinking that way. Prejudice is wrong but may one day save your life discrimination will never do any one any good.

"In open-and-shut cases of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the law’s quite clear," said Derek Munn, the director of public affairs for GLBT advocacy group Stonewall. "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."

www.edgeboston.com...

reply to post by XXXN3O


There is another interview where they state it more directly, but even in this video, they make no bones about why they did what they did.

However, just do you can see for yourself what the parties involved said, (which is a good idea in general, to check for yourself as the news does sensationalize)

Their house...... Their rules...... I dont have to have anyone in my house who I dont want then why should they???
The gay issue is irrelevant... This comes down to who you are allowed to let stay in your house... If people loose that right then you can imagine the consequences!

However a gay couple would not have cause the foundations of their house to dissolve either!...

But it is STILL THEIR house and they can do what they wish in it.... The moment the law steps over our thresholds to legislate on who or what we can do in our own homes then we ALL..... Gay or straight... Will have big problems...

This is yet another example of a group of people attempting to be more EQUAL than others... Sad fact of life is that not everyone in the world is going to agree with what you do or say or even like you.... Grow a pair and get over it......

If this was not someones home but a big hotel group/corporation then there would be a problem... But this is their home... And in it they can be as bigoted as they like....

Thats a good thing by the way...

You dont have to give THEM lodgings either!!

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Yissachar1]

Originally posted by Yissachar1

If this was not someones home but a big hotel group/corporation then there would be a problem... But this is their home... And in it they can be as bigoted as they like....

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it isnt whether you live in your place of business that makes it a business, it is that business is conducted there. They turned their home into a business. That gives them, (or it would in America) favorable tax treatment as they can depreciate the dwelling, etc. Its the whole you cant have your cake and eat it to.

If they werent conducting business there, they could discriminate to their hearts content. But its a business.

If Donald Trump (for instance) took his corporate office building, and set up house on the top floor, he does not have the right to say, "I can discriminate against whomever I like in this entire building, this is my house." Living in your own business establishment does not give you the right to claim the entire property as your personal private and sacred home. The portions where business are conducted are subject to any laws relating to that business. No one would say they had to let the men sleep in their own bed, in the private portion of their home. They decided to run a business in portions of their residence. No one made them. And, when they did, they agreed to follow the laws regarding that business. Now they are asking for a special exemption from the same laws that everyone else has to follow.

No. No special exemption for them. They claim it is their Christianity that leads them to feel justified in turning away lodgers. Jesus never said a single thing regarding not allowing same sex couples to sleep under your roof in the same bed. No where. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

He did speak about;

Luke 6:35-37 (King James Version)

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Not that I think same sex couple are evil or the enemy, personally. But the point Jesus was making in this and the preceding verses was that there is no merit in helping those who agree with you. Everyone does that. Everyone loves those who do for them, who are like minded, and everyone gives to those they hope to get something back from.

What Jesus is calling for is a higher standard. He is calling for the same love, help, compassion, good treatment that people gives to those they like and approve of to be given to those they do not like, do not approve of, etc.

I personally dislike when people use the title "Christian" as an excuse to be un-Christian.

They have hijacked the name and turned the religion into something absolutely opposed to the teachings of the Jesus they claim to love and follow.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's not forcing tolerance or kindness. The woman does not have to be tolerant or kind. It's disallowing discrimination.

I can be tolerant myself (and I am- very) but the problem begins when I expect it from others so much so that I try to intervene into the way they conduct Business or live their life.

Liberalism supposedly means "live and let live", put to some modern distortions of liberalism "let live" apparently only applies to minorities.

I wonder if it might have been different in regards the news angle,
if she had said i dont want punk rockers in my house,skinheads or just really dodgy looking people ,"most dont" "my point is each to his own period"
ITS her house /home, if she dont feel good in her gut why should she ,it might make her unwell,etc even not sleep, she probally old school above 45,why should the gov force anything like thison folks, leave these people alone, this world is screwed up ,this isnt news,this is sh%%t stiring because they couldnt get there own way, make a big deal of everything and f every one else ,you c the world they the nwo want to build "devils world" do whatever thou want,and if you carnt phone the paper or get the police this is my house . My poor little children i am sorry for bringing you in this world ,this is crap not the op but the fact its in print if it happened to me id find some other bed house,No big deal id probally call her why looking but thats it.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Its so true that the term Liberal no longer means Liberal. Its become like newspeak from Orwell's 1984. Liberals and Liberalism meant a laissez-faire attitude on all things.

Somewhere the terms Liberal and Progressive became synonomous.

Liberals once stood up to the power of organized churches and monarchs that dictated how people would live and conduct business. Sadly it seems government autocracy over how we live and conduct business has become the standard. Progressive ideologies and trustees have taken the places of the organized churches and monarchs.

I would still like to see if this story would have gotten any coverage if this was a Muslim bed and breakfast. I think this was more of a progressive attack on the woman's beliefs than it was the defense of the couple.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I can be tolerant myself (and I am- very) but the problem begins when I expect it from others so much so that I try to intervene into the way they conduct Business or live their life.

Governments make rules about what businesses can and cant do all the time.

You cant hire children under a certain age, you cant sell certain products, there are restrictions on to whom you may sell certain legal products,

It also intervenes in peoples lives, setting down legal rules about what we may or may not do, including in our own private homes. (ie; you may not have sex with children in your home, or murder someone, even if it is not a business.)

We accept these rules all the time. Especially when they work in our favor. The problem with this rule is not that its intrusive, or grossly unfair, it isnt any more unfair than most of the other restrictions we live with day to day.

No one is trying to change their beliefs or their minds. Only their business behaviors in this case. In society, you cannot just do whatever you want to do. It isnt that way now, and it has never been that way in any society ever.
Society is a trade off, you benefit from the grouping, you gain from the technology, the protection from enemies, public works, etc. In return for the very real benefits you receive you agree to lose absolute freedom in terms of your behavior. Its quid pro quo. No one makes you accept this arrangement. Granted, you cant just found your own country anymore, but you could go be a hermit somewhere and do anything you wanted as long as you were far enough away from others that you did not raise them against you.

These people want all the benefits of society, its laws, its protections, (of their religious freedom, enforcement of property laws, etc., ) but they want to renege on their end of the agreement. They want their rights to be protected, but not the rights of others.


I cant feel sorry for them. Nor do I want to make them more tolerant. I dont care how they feel about homosexuals. Thats their business. They could hunker down under the covers at night and giggle about how homosexuals are all going to hell all they want. I dont care, and society doesnt care how they feel. We care how they behave. What their actions are.

I personally may feel ending the practice of feeding Christians to lions was a bad idea. No one gives a rats tail end what I feel about the matter. People care a whole hell of a lot how I might act regarding those feelings.

Why some people are so personally offended that you cannot discriminate against homosexuals I can only guess. Ultimately the "why" doesnt matter. Its a rule that that society has seen fit to codify into law. If people dont like it, they can do what the religious here do, and raise holy hell about it and get the law changed if the majority feels that way. If the majority doesnt feel that way, (which is likely since it IS a law in that country) the people who are being discriminatory can either comply with societies rules, or they can pay the consequences for not doing so. (which they seem willing at this point to do, pay the consequences)

The only reason the B&B couple have rights is because their government, which supposedly functions at the behest of the majority, says they do. And the rights granted to them by the state do not trump the rights granted to other members of society granted by the same state.

Edit to add;

Those who get their shorts in a twist about the protections for minority groups forget one important thing. Where these protections exist in a democracy, they exist because the majority of the people have decided they should. Hence here in the US with our large psuedo Christian voting block, we do NOT have the protections of homosexuals to the same degree the more moderately religious countries do.

Even if the protected group is a minority, the law exists or not to suit the majority. So those complaining about minority protections are in the minority, and well, we know how that goes in democracy. Get to marching in your "uncivil rights" movement and swing the tide of public opinion back your way if you dont like it.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


So in 40 years will you support that same government that passes Sharia law and imprisons, deports or worse to homosexuals?

I mean it is the State, they are working for the Greater Good.

If the B&B claims itself as a business, pays taxes like a business, or takes deductions like a business, then they are a business subject to federal law.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


I will come down on Socrates side on this one. If the majority of people in my country pass Sharia law, I have three options.

1) I can work within the law to change the law.

2) Failing that, I can decide to leave.

or

3) I can stay and accept the laws.

Notice there is no fourth option which is to be a member of a state and simply do whatever the hell I please, benefiting from the collective and flaunting my end of the bargain. In my case, I would have fought tooth and nail legally to prevent the change, and failing that I would probably have to leave. I could not live in that system and follow its rules.

Edit to add,

Mind you I feel much the same way about having a "Christian" theocracy. If the separation of church and state is lost in the US, and it cannot be restored, I would probably have to leave. I do not think fanatical Christians are any better than fanatical Muslims.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Firstly I have to say that I am not against gay people...

If you wanna be gay.. Sooo what???

Who cares?? More power to you...

And I see your point about turning your home into a business... However it is a home still... The business part can be forgotten.. And those folks have lost the opportunity of earning a few extra bucks.... Stupid in the current economic climate hey???
But it isnt about that with them.... If you had people staying in your house would they stay for nothing or would you make them contribute? Gay or straight?

Damn right you would... Would that then make your house a place of business?? Coz that would affect every house in the UK almost...

Those people have a right to say who stays under their roof... A proprietor has the right to serve who he/she may not choose either... I once had a potential landlord turn me away because he did not like my dad... Did i call the police? No.... His place... His rules and in the end of the day would you want to stay in a place where you were unwelcome?

Their loss

Their right..