Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Debs.]

....at last some common sense!
The court has decided that if your hotel is "open" for guests; it should mean just that!

Hardly rocket science, if the 'offence' had been caused by being dark-skinnned, a midget, a Buddhist or whatever the heck else: there would`ve been uproar.

Fact......there are gay men and gay women; it doesn`t demean or change your personal religious beliefs or threaten your sexuality; they`re not 'doing it' to annoy or hurt you...they are just living their lives and trying to be happy: `get over it!

[/rant]

[Gaffers]

....at last some common sense!
The court has decided that if your hotel is "open" for guests; it should mean just that!

Hardly rocket science, if the 'offence' had been caused by being dark-skinnned, a midget, a Buddhist or whatever the heck else: there would`ve been uproar.

Fact......there are gay men and gay women; it doesn`t demean or change your personal religious beliefs or threaten your sexuality; they`re not 'doing it' to annoy or hurt you...they are just living their lives and trying to be happy: `get over it!

[/rant]

+1 

[Dishevelled Den]

What about guests smelling of wool and urine? :-/

[Elite Pete]

What about guests smelling of wool and urine? :-/

[Debs.]

What about guests smelling of wool and urine? :-/

I`ve had my fuller them!

[Martin_1962]

A few things of note.

They should not have accepted the booking in the first place if they didn't want them.

Was there anything on booking to warn the visitors what the rules were?

Should small establishment owners be able to pick & choose? Lots of establishments have no single sex groups (to deter stag / hen groups).

As far as I am concerned both sides do have rights, both the gay couple and the religious B&B owners.

[Mysteryman]

A few things of note.

They should not have accepted the booking in the first place if they didn't want them.

Was there anything on booking to warn the visitors what the rules were?

Should small establishment owners be able to pick & choose? Lots of establishments have no single sex groups (to deter stag / hen groups).

As far as I am concerned both sides do have rights, both the gay couple and the religious B&B owners.

Quite right Martin.

[Debs.]

A few things of note.

They should not have accepted the booking in the first place if they didn't want them.

Was there anything on booking to warn the visitors what the rules were?

Should small establishment owners be able to pick & choose? Lots of establishments have no single sex groups (to deter stag / hen groups).

As far as I am concerned both sides do have rights, both the gay couple and the religious B&B owners.

Such proscriptive "conditions" (if any were to be applied) should have been clearly announced BEFORE any booking was accepted.....The reason they weren`t (it would seem to me) is because the hoteliers knew that any such proscription would be against British and European law....but they chose to open for "public" business whilst applying 'occult' judgements on guests: a welcome, but only if you fit their view of acceptability.

It seems, that they now know the meaning of: "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself"

[Lizzie_Zoom]

A good decision Debs, and as you say pure common sense

[albitz]

I have to disagree. I have kept a bit of an eye on this case through the web/papers/TV etc.
My opinion is that it was a set up organised by the "Peter Tatchell wing" of the gay community. I also believe that the Christain couple should have the right to decide that they dont have gay couples in their B&B. It is not the same as barring people for being Irish/black/brown etc. etc. There is no possible reason to have moral or religious objection to people due to their skin colour or country of origin. It is possible to have moral or religious objection to homosexuality.
I believe that the left have held a sustained campaign against Christianity in this country for a long time, and this is part of it.
Its an easy target really - Gays are now widely accepted in society at large, but "old fashioned Christians" dont accept  it so it makes it quite easy to hammer them.
To me, it seems that tolerance and diversity is a one way street.
I am still waiting for the day when these people decide to launch their attack on the muslim religion. I am somewhat bemused by the fact that they didnt start there.After all, at least some Muslim preacher teach that Homosexuals should be put to death by stoning or being thrown off a cliff. But maybe their agenda is more about attacking Christianity than it is about defending Gay rights.Or maybe Muslims fit into the left wing description of a threatened minority, and are therefore exempt from criticism ?
The fact is that there always have been and always will be people who are attracted to their own sex. But I believe it is an alternative lifestyle, no more no less. It is not imo as valid and relevant in society as the hetrosexual relationship, on which civilisation has been founded since the dawn of time.
Homophobic ? - no, Im not frightened of homosexuality, but I do find the "militant tendency" which has come to the fore in recent years, both scary and sinister.
P.S. If you google "gay only hotels" you will find a long list of them in this country. I dont see anyone bringing prosecutions against them. I rest my case.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=ie7&q=gay+only+hotels+uk&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enGB404GB404&redir_esc=&ei=VdQ1TdrfGoqKhQfXj4j_Cw

[Mysteryman]

A few things of note.

They should not have accepted the booking in the first place if they didn't want them.

Was there anything on booking to warn the visitors what the rules were?

Should small establishment owners be able to pick & choose? Lots of establishments have no single sex groups (to deter stag / hen groups).

As far as I am concerned both sides do have rights, both the gay couple and the religious B&B owners.

Such proscriptive "conditions" (if any were to be applied) should have been clearly announced BEFORE any booking was accepted.....The reason they weren`t (it would seem to me) is because the hoteliers knew that any such proscription would be against British and European law....but they chose to open for "public" business whilst applying 'occult' judgements on guests: a welcome, but only if you fit their view of acceptability.

It seems, that they now know the meaning of: "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself"

Maybe. But I have read that these particular homosexuals had prior knowledge of the B&B and the booking was made to 'entrap' the owners. I can't say that that is definately the case but, in this world, I would not be surprised.

[Debs.]

If you google "gay only hotels" you will find a long list of them in this country.

The whole point is that this hotel was not advertised as "No-Gays"/"Anti-Gay"....if they had the courage of their convictions (and it were legal to do so) then this case might easily have been 'rested'.

They chose to exercise judgement and act in a way contrary to law; that they are 'of faith' is secondary to that fact.

e.g: It`s against my religious beliefs to pay taxes; but does that excuse me from liability? 

[Shackeng]

I have to disagree. I have kept a bit of an eye on this case through the web/papers/TV etc.
My opinion is that it was a set up organised by the "Peter Tatchell wing" of the gay community. I also believe that the Christain couple should have the right to decide that they dont have gay couples in their B&B. It is not the same as barring people for being Irish/black/brown etc. etc. There is no possible reason to have moral or religious objection to people due to their skin colour or country of origin. It is possible to have moral or religious objection to homosexuality.
I believe that the left have held a sustained campaign against Christianity in this country for a long time, and this is part of it.
Its an easy target really - Gays are now widely accepted in society at large, but "old fashioned Christians" dont accept  it so it makes it quite easy to hammer them.
To me, it seems that tolerance and diversity is a one way street.
I am still waiting for the day when these people decide to launch their attack on the muslim religion. I am somewhat bemused by the fact that they didnt start there.After all, at least some Muslim preacher teach that Homosexuals should be put to death by stoning or being thrown off a cliff. But maybe their agenda is more about attacking Christianity than it is about defending Gay rights.Or maybe Muslims fit into the left wing description of a threatened minority, and are therefore exempt from criticism ?
The fact is that there always have been and always will be people who are attracted to their own sex. But I believe it is an alternative lifestyle, no more no less. It is not imo as valid and relevant in society as the hetrosexual relationship, on which civilisation has been founded since the dawn of time.
Homophobic ? - no, Im not frightened of homosexuality, but I do find the "militant tendency" which has come to the fore in recent years, both scary and sinister.
P.S. If you google "gay only hotels" you will find a long list of them in this country. I dont see anyone bringing prosecutions against them. I rest my case.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=ie7&q=gay+only+hotels+uk&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enGB404GB404&redir_esc=&ei=VdQ1TdrfGoqKhQfXj4j_Cw

I agree ALBS, I also think it was a deliberate set-up, and perhaps a bit of 'live and let live' would not go amiss in these sort of circumstances. The problem in this country nowadays is that 'most' people's beliefs and personal preferences are further and further constrained by ever increasing legislation. 

[albitz]

If you google "gay only hotels" you will find a long list of them in this country.

The whole point is that this hotel was not advertised as "No-Gays"/"Anti-Gay"....if they had the courage of their convictions (and it were legal to do so) then this case might easily have been 'rested'.

They chose to exercise judgement and act in a way contrary to law; that they are 'of faith' is secondary to that fact.

e.g: It`s against my religious beliefs to pay taxes; but does that excuse me from liability? 

If they had advertised as "A hotel for hetrosexuals" Im very sure they would have ended up in the same situation they are in now, yet all these hotels openly advertise themselves as " gay hotels" without fear of prosecution because they know full well that the " new establishment are on side with them.
The couple were prosecuted under the equality act - things dont seem very equal to me.
"Of faith" being secondary to the law of the land, very much depends which faith you are "of" - demonstrated by the fact that Muslims can preach "death to homosexuals" without fear of prosecution.
As for taxation being against (Christian) religious beliefs. I seem to remember the good lord saying on that subject "render onto Caesar that which is Caesar,s".

[Chris_H]

It looks to me as though the defense was that the B&B owners do not wish to let out double rooms to unmarried couples.  Same sex was not the issue though the prosecution wished to make it that way.

A difficult one to enforce IMHO as the "Mr & Mrs Smith" syndrome has been going on for decades.  Granted "Mr & Mr Smith" is a bit of a giveaway!

I have certainly shared a hotel room with another bloke before now with no untoward connotations.