henry d Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 My hangover + my bigoted religious views. Henry's in on this thread. I'll just observe this thread for a change. FAIL, didn`t take long for you to post again eh .....Nice try Henry but your trying to make discrimination and ethics the same thing and its not..... Really, expand a bit please? What seems to have been lost in amongst the whole gay thing is that the owners say that they wouldn't let unmarried straight couples share a double bed either. So basically they didn`t allow unmarried couples, full stop, in their establishment, how is that discrimination? If you do business you can't discriminate without facing the consequences. Really, if I said I wanted a lamb shish which wasn`t halal, could I claim discrimination? (1 Cor.8) ...Very good point Al4x, but this has been the Tatchell and Stonewall agenda for some time. If everyone just went about their lives quietly, there would be a lot less agression around the whole thing... This, if I am correct, is closer to the bone of the matter. If they sue and get a result, they have one over on religion and in the future will the church/synagogue/temple be able to defend against someone who wishes to get married in a church/synagogue/temple as it could be argued that this is part of their business and to it would be discriminatory to do otherwise? Contextualise this a bit please. They had bisexual feelings and perhaps chose to focus one one gender over another? Anyone want to try and contextualise whether bisexuality is not a sexual preference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Anyone want to try and contextualise whether bisexuality is not a sexual preference? It is. A simple test being would you rather make love to an ugly woman or a beautiful man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smig4373 Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 why do people get so et up about being offended....Its 'just' offended.....nothing else happens....no-one gets hurt or bleeds... seems to be just losers in this particular situation...although i think the gay community will feel they've 'won'...at least for the short term... rights against religion...ill let you lot argue this 1 out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Ugly woman. at least in the dark she's still a woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Can we extend this discrimination query to the Church then? Whats wrong with females of normal sexuality being vicars, cardinals/bishops or is there a really good reason why this is not permitted and hence why all 'orthodox' Christians need men to do the job - is this not a 'worse' or at least equivalent discrimination to that of disliking homosexuality for its own sake ? - sorry 'Gay' is a word appropriated from another and better meaning to 'desensitise' those who are homosexual. I have no problem with homosexual clergy or anyone else but I do have a problem with anyone trying to impose their minority views on society - even shooters - whats wrong these days with quietly doing your 'thing' ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 This has got ban written all over it for poor old Rob, so for that reason I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 This has got ban written all over it for poor old Rob, so for that reason I'm out. Scaredy-cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Oh, I'm so torn on this one. Do I go with the bigoted B&B owners who need to chillax a bit and live & let live, or the militant gays clearly out looking to make a "rights" point who need to chillax a bit and live & let live? Neither side comes out of this with any dignity. There are a million way more important thngs to worrry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 Can we extend this discrimination query to the Church then? Church as a building? Whats wrong with females of normal sexuality being vicars, cardinals/bishops or is there a really good reason why this is not permitted (Whoa, it isn`t permitted.....) and hence why all 'orthodox' Christians need men to do the job - is this not a 'worse' or at least equivalent discrimination to that of disliking homosexuality for its own sake ? Have another read of the letters (epistles) and let us know what you think - sorry 'Gay' is a word appropriated from another and better meaning to 'desensitise' those who are homosexual. I have no problem with homosexual clergy or anyone else but I do have a problem with anyone trying to impose their minority views on society - even shooters - whats wrong these days with quietly doing your 'thing' ? That is exactly it, the gay couple aren`t, the B&B couple didn`t ask them to take it to court. Neither side comes out of this with any dignity. There are a million way more important thngs to worrry about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeredup Posted October 19, 2012 Report Share Posted October 19, 2012 i love this forum its like some old wild west drinking saloon the slightest thing causes a scrap its handbags at dawn gents get ya slingbacks on!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SakoQuad Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Quote from a news report:- Both men were awarded £1,800 in damages. Lawyers from Liberty, the human rights organisation, which has taken up the case, argued that under legal regulations it was unlawful for a person concerned with the provision of services to the public to discriminate against a person on the grounds of that person's sexual orientation. Lawyers for Mrs Wilkinson had argued that a person offering bed and breakfast in their own home was entitled to refuse to permit people who were not married or in a civil partnership to share a double bed. So, NOT a fine but compensation for the couple who were unlawfully denied a room in the B&B because of discrimination against them. The law in this country says you cannot discriminate against people because of their gender, race, sexual orientation, or in some respects, disability or age. You risk consequences if you allow your prejudices to lead you to break these laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 The Law is an ***............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeon pete Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 i love this forum its like some old wild west drinking saloon the slightest thing causes a scrap its handbags at dawn gents get ya slingbacks on!! well you did say dont trust men in leather trousers lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 I fall into the live and let live camp, errr obviously thats camp as in... I do believe that if you are a ******, you are born a ****** and you have no choice in the matter because that's how the good Lord made you and messed up your chromosomes ;-) Well, there is a choice, you either give it some down at the Cockring discotheque or you give it the Cliff Richard treatment. However, if you're running a family B&B and you have a couple of militant ******** in your reception / bar area and they're giving it the full on two blokes just got married and are starting their honeymoon early.... well, that's not good for business, and so I think business owners should have the absolute right to do whatever they need to do to preserve their business. A couple of fellas going at it on the QT? Well that's any Hotel in Herts on any weekend innit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED BEARD Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 well to start with i have no problem with gay folk,but i also think the b&b owners should be able to ban gay's from using there digs if thats what they want to do (also why would you want to stay at there digs if you knew they didn't like you or what you were doing??).it doesn't matter wether its on religoes grounds or not,its there digs and they should be allowed to say who can use them.i take folk as i find them,if i don't like someone its not because of their sexuality,religion or colour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy1403 Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 if the couple from the b&b play this right they could shove this in the coverments face. due to bad publicity they have to close there b&b and go on the dole. as they only get their bennifits they can only afford to pay the compensation off at 50p per week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philscreens Posted October 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Totally agree everytime we open the papers/ see the news there seems to be another "victim" of something or other, claiming com-pun say-shun.Ambulance chasing No win No lose lawyers are to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigeonblasterian Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 You should be able to have who you want or not to stay in your home.If you do not like the look of someone why should you feel you have to accommodate them. The owners of a B@B should be able to accommodate who they like it is their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Sorry Blasterian, as i have mentioned, the B & B is a business not a home so they cannot discriminate. Red Beard, like it or not, the B & B owners were discriminating against these people based on their sexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RED BEARD Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Sorry Blasterian, as i have mentioned, the B & B is a business not a home so they cannot discriminate. Red Beard, like it or not, the B & B owners were discriminating against these people based on their sexuality. that just goes to show what a load of **** the discrimination law is,they wern't going out looking for people to victimise or discriminate against,they just don't agree with having them using their buisness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Wow there are some people with double standards on this thread!! There are also some downright homophobes as well! but I digress. I cant really be bothered trying to answer some of the arguments because I reckon most have already been answered. But just to refresh the couple with the B&B lose the right to be picky about who stays in their "Home" whenever they make their home a business premises! and rightly so!! The point someone made about a landlord having the right to refuse entry to his premises is correct but he cannot decide on the ground of sex, religion or race! This is to allow him to prevent someone coming in who is drunk or likely to cause trouble etc. If he says "sorry your not getting in as your gay" he's in BIG trouble as is a local licensed premise near to me is about to find out! I doubt very much the gay couple are seriously effected emotionally but are more likely to be ensuring the law is upheld and are making a valid point that they cannot be descriminated against and again I think rightly so. On a final point I think the Mods should be tidying up this thread and sending some warnings to some members regards their use of offensive terms to describe gays! If a thread was started about Ethnic minorities and certain terms used to describe Pakistani's or Arabs were used there would be folk getting warnings and threads censored, this should also be applied to this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Sorry Blasterian, as i have mentioned, the B & B is a business not a home so they cannot discriminate. Red Beard, like it or not, the B & B owners were discriminating against these people based on their sexuality. Did the couple not live there then? I'm sorry, but my view is that if this couple didn't want a gay couple in their B&B then that's entirely up to them. It is after all their property and I think this fine stinks. I personally have nothing against gays. A good friend of mine is gay and since finding out nothing has changed. He's still the good mate he always was but I can see why some people don't like it and that's fair enough. It's called freedom of opinion and that's something that seems to be getting overlooked these days. This country is becoming very aware of the rights of minorities which on a whole is great, but what about the rights of us every day folk who are now forced to do things against our will? What happened to the rights of the B&B owners, who after all own the place, pay the bills and work hard sharing their home with others for years? How come they don't get a say yet this pair of gayers can turn up one day and take control? That's a step too far and in my view seriously breaches the rights of the owners. But I guess that's just hard luck, they're not gay or black are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 So njc110381 what if this couple decide to employ a cleaner (as many B&B's do) they then find out she/he is gay and they get rid of them for that reason alone. Justified or illegal?? Both work out to be the same issue as it is a BUSINESS!! Forget the fact its their house m8, they have chosen to turn their home into a business. Therefore the law is on the side of the gay lads thus their victory! If they are simply offering friends a room for the night with no money changing hands they can pick and choose who the heck they like to sleep in their beds, BUT THEY AINT DOING THAT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 I have every sympathy for the couple who run the B&B but my sympathy only goes so far. Like I said before, none of us are going to like every law in place. Like it or not they are in business. The Equality Act is pretty wide-ranging, for example did you know that if NJC (above) had the mickey taken out of him at work for going to lunch with his gay mate he could claim 'associative discrimination' under the Act, even though he (supposedly ) doesn't in fact possess the protected characteristic himself. This info is not that widely known yet, but the implications are quite large. Replace lunch with gay mate to lunch with with burka, wheelchair, cross round neck etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted October 21, 2012 Report Share Posted October 21, 2012 Takes all the fun out of work..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.