Gay Couple Win B&B Discrimination Case

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

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

No, the ECHR paid for the prosecution costs. As well as refunding their deposit, the Bulls did in fact offer Preddy and Hall the difference in cost of their alternative accommodation as well as a modest amount for their inconvenience...Preddy and Hall refused this gesture and bizarrely, when they were refused the double room, went to the local police station to enquire about alternative accommodation.

But I still feel that testing the law is one thing, to go all out to ruin someone's business is another thing altogether.

reply to post by destination now

Preddy and Hall refused this gesture and bizarrely, when they were refused the double room, went to the local police station to enquire about alternative accommodation.

Because - this was about fairness - not making nice

The issue is the double bed - nothing more - nothing less

If you were told that you couldn't have the pink pony you legitimately ordered because someone doesn't believe in giving out pink ponies to Scottish women - would you then happily accept a brown goat instead?

Doesn't seem like something you would stand for based on your strong nature. And this isn't about ponies

:-)

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by destination now

 

Preddy and Hall refused this gesture and bizarrely, when they were refused the double room, went to the local police station to enquire about alternative accommodation.

Because - this was about fairness - not making nice

The issue is the double bed - nothing more - nothing less

If you were told that you couldn't have the pink pony you legitimately ordered because someone doesn't believe in giving out pink ponies to Scottish women - would you then happily accept a brown goat instead?

Doesn't seem like something you would stand for based on your strong nature. And this isn't about ponies

:-)

Ah but then again, I wouldn't be ordering anything from a company that said on their website that they may not allow me to have the goods I order because I am a Scottish woman...

ScepticalBeliever
Yep, 100% agree with the judgement. Once you turn your house into a commerical enterprise, you must abide by the laws of the country that regulate all businesses. I read that article on the Guardian website earlier, and as it pointed out, had the gay couple of lost their case, it would have set a very dangerous precedent- what next, gays not allowed on buses, in bars, etc? Common sense prevails!

That is precisely why many are closing their businesses of years and even family business. Many others aren't even starting a business right now, even if they're in a position to. I know people personally who fall into that, and these are men with money who COULD be hiring people if they chose to go that route.

The attitude that "Once you open a business, you didn't make it and you don't own it' will insure we have very limited options in the future compared to what Americans have known in the past. We're becoming more like everyone else in the world, and this is just one more way of it. Nothing good about it....Just another blow toward any individuality or sense of basic freedom, even within your OWN B&B.

Heck, it's another victory for a minority community though, so damn freedom and celebrate! (sigh)

reply to post by destination now

Ah but then again, I wouldn't be ordering anything from a company that said on their website that they may not allow me to have the goods I order because I am a Scottish woman...

Christian Today

Preddy and Hall were refused a double room by the Bulls in 2008 because of their policy that only allowed married couples to share a double bed. The policy was advertised on the B&B website and booking form, and applied to all couples whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Emphasis mine

“We’re really pleased that the judge has confirmed what we already know – that in these circumstances our civil partnership has the same status in law as a marriage between a man and a woman, and that, regardless of each person’s religious beliefs, no-one is above the law.”

Talk About Equality

All they said was that they had to be married

They chose not to recognize their union - was there really any other way that this could go?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The attitude that "Once you open a business, you didn't make it and you don't own it' will insure we have very limited options in the future compared to what Americans have known in the past.

Hold on there Wrabbit - talk about mixing your metaphors

Or something :-)

This ain't that - and you know it

You can run your business any way you want - as long as it's legal. Some laws - no doubt - you approve of because they work in your favor

Should people be allowed to discriminate? Should it be legal to turn away who ever we wish?

Make your case - I'd love to hear it

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Many businesses still have the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"

Now some areas of life have been determined totally and completely off limits for that. Civil Rights for race, for instance. There was a time, not long ago, where comparing the gay rights movement with Civil Rights of the 50's, 60's and 70's brought true rage from black folks. I've been there to hear and see some of it where it's come up in public and it got passionate at times.

I still don't see a comparison and while tolerating everyone is a no brainer, being ordered by the Government to accept and embrace things which are patently offensive won't force compliance. It WILL see business simply close. It's not a "We should force them" or "We shouldn't force them" debate, as much as it's a very simple cause and effect. Continue causing business misery and headache to operate and business will continue to reduce it's numbers on a steady decline.

Our nation can't afford to continue the decline, however noble some may think the social justice causes are. Trying to pursue ALL of them, AT ONCE will and IS resulting in our decline in downright staggering ways. We could slow the decline by just not screwing with business so much ...

That COULD start with people, just occasionally, accepting that being offended will happen in life and lawsuits aren't the answer to every unfair action that happens. What people get worked up about in our nation is so small in comparison to what defines 'a bad day' in MOST of the world....yet we're willing to do such damage to our very economy in the pursuit of correcting it. It makes no sense to me.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

There was a time, not long ago, where comparing the gay rights movement with Civil Rights of the 50's, 60's and 70's brought true rage from black folks.

Not long ago? But no longer? How do you explain that? :-)

Times change, people change, attitudes change...

The only thing I can think to say about that anyhow is - so what?

Everyone (and I mean everyone) assigns a value to this and that - everyone sees someone as being less deserving in some way than this person or that person...it's been said before, many times - and said better than I'm about to say it now, but gay people have been downtrodden and persecuted throughout history

Do you actually mean to say that their rights are less important - because it will hurt the economy?

Well, I believe that argument has been made before - and I'm kinda sorry to hear you say it

The economy will carry on - same as it always has - up and down. If it suffers, maybe we should start looking at other reasons instead of making excuses and blaming our economic woes on this group of people or that - because I believe that's been done before too. If the right to refuse service to another human being based on bigotry and nothing else is a right you want to preserve, I say - take it back to the courts and make it so - if you can

But I believe this train has left the station - and I also believe we are better people for it

None of us is free until all of us are free

Good...if you refuse service based on anything that isn't considered a threat...then you deserve to fail.

Good for those who won't open a business or closing one due to ignorance, your not needed in today's society.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Yes, the economy will carry on. Through 10's of thousands of new regulations over the last 24 months alone, it will carry on. Through the highest corporate tax rate on Earth (literally...and that carries down to one man LLC's as much as IBM or Exxon), it will carry on. Through the highest chronic and sustained unemployment streak our nation has seen in living memory, it will carry on.

It will, as you note, carry on through any of those things. So far, it's even carrying on through all of them together.

I wonder how long it can maintain through this period of 'Death through a thousand cuts'? \

As far as persecuted, I'm Wiccan by Faith and know very well what persecution is about and what it means. Hell, I live in Missouri. Southern. The Buckle of the Bible belt by sheer number of Theology related schools and Bible colleges within 30 miles of me. I'm real aware of what persecution is. "Gay bashing" is persecution. Burning witches at the stake...is persecution. Refusing employment for a man's ability to work is persecution or housing for a man's ability to shelter himself and his family. THESE things, are persecution.

Not getting a cake made by the first shop called in a phone book, being refused service by bigots in a B&B (They'd *WANT* to stay there, knowing the attitude now? REALLY?!) is called life being unfair and, well, some people desperately need less access to attorney's and thicker skin all around.

Life WILL offend people....and life will NOT always offer a paycheck in the form of a settlement to make them feel all better again. People need to stop looking for riches in other people's pockets because they got offended or pissed off about something.

Persecution and General bad attitudes are two radically different things...or at least, to intelligent adults, they USED to be. Now? Too many adults don't see a hair of difference between them...and making society 100% friendly for *ANY* one group WILL, by definition within a diverse society, screw someone else to achieve it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Life WILL offend people....and life will NOT always offer a paycheck in the form of a settlement to make them feel all better again. People need to stop looking for riches in other people's pockets because they got offended or pissed off about something.

In this, I totally agree with you Wrabbit.

I see this situation as two grown men, picking the pocket of two old people, who worked for many years to create a small business.

People now feel entitled, they scream for their rights, but aren't so concerned with their responsibilities.

Go after some big hotel or motel, not some little old lady and her bed and breakfast.

"We only allow married couples". Everyone knows what that means, and has meant, for thousands of years.

But because things have changed in the last handful of years, these men demand, their way. They demand acceptance, and cooperation, with their lifestyle. These men knew that the old couple would feel uncomfortable with the situation, but the gay couple decided to go and spike the football in their faces.

For some, the same sex marriage movement is about fairness and a loving monogamous union.

For many, the joke is that they are monogomish, they have an open marriage. They seek the destruction of the institution of marriage and seek to destroy any who don't actively support their cause. This makes them liars, claiming one thing but seeking another.



I believe that because this issue is one of a sexual nature, and that it involves forcing people to do something against their will,

It at times rises to the level of a kind of social rape.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I still don't see a comparison and while tolerating everyone is a no brainer, being ordered by the Government to accept and embrace things which are patently offensive won't force compliance.

Honestly Wrabbit :-)

So - the entire civil rights movement - a waste of time?

An infringement on people's right to discriminate?

Gay people not entitled to the same rights as everyone else?

I think this is where we are - these are not people that matter to you. You think this is trivial. Apparently you don't understand that these laws apply to and are there for everyone - they aren't specific to individual groups

Sincere question - should we undo all the legislation - let things go back to the way they were? You think our economy will be better then? How about our quality of life?

You still have the right to be offended Wrabbit - and so do I. Nothing has changed

What people get worked up about in our nation is so small in comparison to what defines 'a bad day' in MOST of the world....yet we're willing to do such damage to our very economy in the pursuit of correcting it. It makes no sense to me.

Our nation has worked through a lot to get where we are now - to the point where people take so much for granted that they're whining about having to be fair to each other

In many other countries around the world gay people are still routinely persecuted and killed - one of the reasons we are still considered one of the finest countries on the planet is because of the changes we've gone through, the challenges we've met and the rights we've fought for and managed to uphold. I'd like to think it's also because we're still fighting for these things. Hurts a little bit to see that you think it's all frivolous

Everyone is still free to be as bigoted as they want to be - nothing is ever going to change that - apparently. If you honestly believe our economy is going to fall apart because small business owners no longer have a right to their open bigotry - I guess I've run out of things to say

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You can't honestly be blaming the ails of the economy on social movements that other countries had years ago and did just fine with.

Why don't you focus your energy on:

- Offshoring
- Military budgets
- Corporate tax breaks
- Banking

You'll make a lot more progress. Be careful, though; "progressive" is a naughty word now.

Honestly, though -- now I've heard it all. The economy is in shambles because "the gays (we use adjectives as nouns when we don't want to be reminded that the noun is actually PEOPLE)" sued a B&B. Obviously the B&B was doing swimmingly beforehand since a couple thousand bucks sunk them, right? All of the employment opportunities they were offering to absolutely nobody -- wasted!

We should really just get rid of this equality nonsense and invest in the cotton industry again.

By the way, comparing being gay to being Wiccan shows a bit of ignorance in itself. You chose to believe in something. Gay people are simply attracted to the same gender; it's not the same kind of persecution. It's more comparable to persecution based on race or gender.

destination now
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

But I still feel that testing the law is one thing, to go all out to ruin someone's business is another thing altogether.

They ruined their own business when they decided that they were going to exclusively reject legally-recognized same sex marriages.

The laws aren't there as suggestions.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I think it boils down to something exceedingly simple. Every major change to pursue social goals and social justice will bring downside in some form. Generally, it's downside that is either part of the point or acceptable to what is being accomplished.

However, we don't need to pursue EVERY social justice program and idea within the same few year period. We'll have the most socially just 3rd world nation going, at this rate.

It's not just one issue though and it's almost absurd just HOW absolutely hot button anything even remotely touching the gay community is. It's a matter of lawsuits being the ultimate replacement these days for offense of just about any kind, on any level...and this is a fair example of that.

What was gained in the end here? They got clobbered for what they did in their business... That wouldn't be a major 'win' but a situation where we can now be sure all sides lost completely, in one way or another.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What you're talking about is closer to social engineering - I'm talking about human rights

If the only way a fight can be won is by taking it to court and testing our laws - then that's how it's got to be. Wrabbit - this is one of the more wonderful things about our country - that this is even possible is one of mankind's greatest achievements. It's so common that now people see it as a nuisance

You seem to think it's about the cake

Again - I think you see the rights of some people as being more important than others - and the process then seems to you to be arbitrary, unnecessary and ultimately damaging. Laws are made, unmade, rearranged and changed all the time - through this process

I have to wonder (and have actually asked you) do you think things would be better if we undid the laws - let things go back to the way they were?

These laws are meant to include everybody. Cover everybody, protect everybody and apply to - everybody. They weren't forced on anybody - we agreed on them together. This is how it works

Can you come up with a good reason for why Gay people are not also everybody?

What I think you miss is the idea that while you simply can not make people like each other - you can create an environment where they can (more or less) get along. This is what we have now - more or less. It's a system that's constantly being put to the test - and it's not always going to go smoothly

Do you actually prefer the alternative?

Edit to add: I have had more than a few good friends in my life that just happen to be gay. I've probably had a few family members who were/are gay as well, though I may never know for sure. I'd be willing to bet that you can say the same. I've lived to see them be able to live their lives openly - something that didn't seem possible not too awfully long ago. Equality and freedom are invaluable things - but they always have a cost

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

However, we don't need to pursue EVERY social justice program and idea within the same few year period. We'll have the most socially just 3rd world nation going, at this rate.

So you're saying that social issues should be handled progessively?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here. We should put social laws on hold for a few years? If we decide what's fair on an issue politically, we should wait long periods of time before implementation?

I don't get it.

reply to post by TheRegal


I'm suggesting we move through one set of major changes across society, what it brings and the downsides that need dealt with, at a time. Not a half dozen different major social things at one time, ALL bringing downsides and total chaos as it is now, simply because each one, on it's own, sounds good.

The gay rights issue is one I have mixed feelings over because the gay community ranges from the average people who happen to be gay and living life like everyone else to those who define their whole existence by that one factor and make it their mission to make it a part of everyone else's awareness, too.

I think that leads to an overall situation for this issue where much needed reforms are being seen and some serious protections on things like legal rights between consenting and partnering adults (straight OR gay, for that matter) mixed with the absurd ...like suing a B&B (a rather close and intimate situation compared to a Hotel) because they won't cater to non-married couples.

For what it's worth, when my wife and I were homeless a long time ago, we were years short of when we'd be officially married. Common law didn't mean squat and shelters we'd used at the time flat refused to have us in the same area. Married? Yes. 100% comitted? no. Is it wrong? I thought so...and staying in the car was cold. I hadn't thought to sue anyone though....and that seems pretty close to what happened here.

Freedom to discriminate but not to be treated equal? they have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe, but we are all protected from discrimination, and thus they broke that law

i can't seem to understand why people would rather allow discrimination, you have the freedom to believe whatever they wanted, they have the freedom to speak how they want, to act how they want and express themselves how they want, but when offering a public service to every except a person based on sexuality, religion, race, gender that is discrimination.

everyone has life experiences, everyone could probably come up with a scenario in which they may be discriminated against, or felt like they were discriminated against, but what if your entire life you were told you are wrong for being straight? that you are different, and you have to fight for your rights that people end up resenting, that you are "accepted" but only by "Supporters". that "Straights are going to hell" and "God hates straights" that you needed to fight for laws that protected you from discrimination, that you had to fight for laws that would allow straights to get married?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by TheRegal

 

I think that leads to an overall situation for this issue where much needed reforms are being seen and some serious protections on things like legal rights between consenting and partnering adults (straight OR gay, for that matter) mixed with the absurd ...like suing a B&B (a rather close and intimate situation compared to a Hotel) because they won't cater to non-married couples.

For what it's worth, when my wife and I were homeless a long time ago, we were years short of when we'd be officially married. Common law didn't mean squat and shelters we'd used at the time flat refused to have us in the same area. Married? Yes. 100% comitted? no. Is it wrong? I thought so...and staying in the car was cold. I hadn't thought to sue anyone though....and that seems pretty close to what happened here.

You see, I think you're missisng a huge part of the situation here. This gay couple was actually legally recognized as a married couple. The only difference being that it's not called marriage on account of the marriage definition enthusiasts in politics. Their relationship had the exact same legal status as any other marriage and there are very specific laws that outline that there is to be absolutely no different treatement between this civil union and any other marriage.

It's what comes out of the popular stance of "You can get a legal union, just call it something other than marriage".

I also have to wonder, if this small B&B only offered double beds to married folk... do you think that they actually were checking every single applicant to make sure they were legally married? Or do you think they simply wrongfully assumed that these two weren't legally married because they were a same-sex couple?

I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for people whose businesses get shut down because they:

1. Break the law

and

2. Have absolutely retarded rules