Thats a ludicrous thing to say. >:(That sentence was alluding to the fact that it wasnt uncommon 30 years ago to encounter what was reffered to "queer bashing" and the fact that the world (or this part of it) has moved on a long way since then........methinks we are trying to engage in an interesting exchange of views and opinions with a closed and brainwashed mind. 
For all you know I may be Gay. I am standing up for what I believe to be the rights of a couple who happen to be Christian, although Im not a Christian. Its nothing to do with my own personal religious beliefs, or orientation. Im simply saying it because I believe it to be right.
Maybe you dont believe I should have the right to do that ?
The veiled threat ?...of "I fear you may be........." would possibly suggest so. 
I would also be interested in your opinion on the fact that there are many hotels which specifically cater for Gays. Is their existence not discriminatory against hetrosexuals ?
Albs - don't want to leave this on a bad note so let me try to answer your points.
Thanks for the clarification of your meaning on militants etc. I don't equate queer bashing with the actions of these two blokes (& whichever organisation may have supported them). So I was not suggesting a return to QBing. Instead, I was saying that there is an opportunity for OOF members (who feel strongly about it) to bring a case against any gay hotels that discriminate against straight guests. See my post somewhere above (about 7.05) about the Equality Act.
Of course you have the right to your views - it was never my intention to suggest otherwise, and I'd be interested to understand what I may have written that created that impression.
"I fear you may be ..." - OK, fair point, on reflection this is weaselly - not intended to be a veiled threat. Substitute the more assertive "I think you are being discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation here. A person's willingness to stand up for their rights is not a function of their sexual orientation."
K
EDIT - your fourth point - for the avoidance of doubt, IMO gay hotels which discriminate against heterosexuals are in the wrong - they have to keep up and provide the same service to all. But there's an important difference here between "discriminating against" and "catering for". If they want to "cater for", let them go ahead and do it. Just like Christian hotels, etc etc - if it's just a difference of taste and style, that's what diversity is all about. Provided it does not treat anyone unfairly.
Author
Topic: The 'gay' B & B case..... (Read 4049 times)