Gay Couple Win Damages Against Hotel

[PrivateerMk2]

Presumably that's how the AA would justify priority breakdown service for women - 'the extent to which the service is required by one sex' justified by the presumption that women are in greater danger from assault etc. if stranded by the roadside than men.

Nah, women are just shit at fixing cars.

[Number79]

I find this all quite amusing.

In an effort to be non discriminatory we are discriminating, but as usual positive discrimination in favour of a minority is at the expense of the majority.

Tough call on the bible bashers, they are running a business so should comply but it is their business, their home even, so imo they should have the right to decide. I am sure that the blokes managed to find alternative accommodation without too many tears.

The religious couple said that they wouldnt allow a couple that were not married to share a bed either. Had I gone there unmarried and they said that then I would have walked out and taken my money else where. I dont see why the gays have to make such a fuss or be entitled to anything.

What a joke when playing the gay/sexist/colour card causes such fear in the majority and gets anything you want.

Swimming was mentioned, some of our local baths have women only times when foreign women can go and swim in their pyjamas without being seen by men. I do not think that it is about women per se but rather religion although I would expect an english woman to be allowed in there in a swimming costume probably. I wont go over to that sports centre anymore.

[Patfig]

I find this all quite amusing.

In an effort to be non discriminatory we are discriminating, but as usual positive discrimination in favour of a minority is at the expense of the majority.

Tough call on the bible bashers, they are running a business so should comply but it is their business, their home even, so imo they should have the right to decide. I am sure that the blokes managed to find alternative accommodation without too many tears.

The religious couple said that they wouldnt allow a couple that were not married to share a bed either. Had I gone there unmarried and they said that then I would have walked out and taken my money else where. I dont see why the gays have to make such a fuss or be entitled to anything.

What a joke when playing the gay/sexist/colour card causes such fear in the majority and gets anything you want.

Swimming was mentioned, some of our local baths have women only times when foreign women can go and swim in their pyjamas without being seen by men. I do not think that it is about women per se but rather religion although I would expect an english woman to be allowed in there in a swimming costume probably. I wont go over to that sports centre anymore.

Some women look much better in pyjamas

[Ologhai Jones]

I find this all quite amusing.

In an effort to be non discriminatory we are discriminating, but as usual positive discrimination in favour of a minority is at the expense of the majority.

Tough call on the bible bashers, they are running a business so should comply but it is their business, their home even, so imo they should have the right to decide. I am sure that the blokes managed to find alternative accommodation without too many tears.

I think the 'discriminating to be non-discriminatory' point isn't really true -- in their private lives, the hoteliers are allowed to believe whatever they want. No one is preventing them from privately believing or doing anything they like (within the law, of course).

That same right should be granted to the hotel visitors. They too should be allowed to believe or do whatever they like in private (again, within the law).

Incidentally, I'm not saying the law is completely correct (or incorrect for that matter); as I said earlier, I think that one of the law's roles is to try to represent our current-best shot at a moral and ethical code. But, that aside -- the law is what the law (currently) is, so we may as well incorporate it into what we collectively consider to be okay, even if we as individuals might think the law should be changed in some particulars.

I also think that the 'hotel is their home' position is a red herring. The hoteliers chose to have their home within a building which also happens to house a hotel. Their place of residence is the apartment, not the hotel as a whole, which is a semi-public place of business.

The religious couple said that they wouldnt allow a couple that were not married to share a bed either. Had I gone there unmarried and they said that then I would have walked out and taken my money else where. I dont see why the gays have to make such a fuss or be entitled to anything.

The free market offers a reasonable solution, although it's a bit of an inconvenience to discover that, despite your booking, a hotel owner doesn't want you to stay (for whatever reason -- lack of marriage or sexual orientation). At worst, you could turn up late in the evening to your booked accommodation only to discover that you need to take your business elsewhere at no notice and whether or not you're able to find anywhere nearby or at all with vacancies.

I don't know whether the law would support me, but if some hotel owner left me and my partner scrabbling around for accommodation in some strange town at 11pm because we're not married, I would feel entitled to something, wouldn't you?

[Number79]

I think the 'discriminating to be non-discriminatory' point isn't really true -- in their private lives, the hoteliers are allowed to believe whatever they want. No one is preventing them from privately believing or doing anything they like (within the law, of course).

That same right should be granted to the hotel visitors. They too should be allowed to believe or do whatever they like in private (again, within the law).

Incidentally, I'm not saying the law is completely correct (or incorrect for that matter); as I said earlier, I think that one of the law's roles is to try to represent our current-best shot at a moral and ethical code. But, that aside -- the law is what the law (currently) is, so we may as well incorporate it into what we collectively consider to be okay, even if we as individuals might think the law should be changed in some particulars.

I also think that the 'hotel is their home' position is a red herring. The hoteliers chose to have their home within a building which also happens to house a hotel. Their place of residence is the apartment, not the hotel as a whole, which is a semi-public place of business.

The free market offers a reasonable solution, although it's a bit of an inconvenience to discover that, despite your booking, a hotel owner doesn't want you to stay (for whatever reason -- lack of marriage or sexual orientation). At worst, you could turn up late in the evening to your booked accommodation only to discover that you need to take your business elsewhere at no notice and whether or not you're able to find anywhere nearby or at all with vacancies.

I don't know whether the law would support me, but if some hotel owner left me and my partner scrabbling around for accommodation in some strange town at 11pm because we're not married, I would feel entitled to something, wouldn't you?

Like I said, a tough call.

The couple chose that business and live within it so should be professional about it and put aside their personal issues when it comes to said business.

I can also see that they should have the right to run their business how they see fit. The law forcing them to accommodate those that they do not wish to is wrong imo. Exactly what grounds are there left that you could refuse someone from staying in your b&b?

If it were a hotel then it would have been different but the place is a 7 bed b&b which is quite different. Personally, had I arrived at a b&b where the owners openly showed a dislike of me then I wouldnt stay in their home and would walk.

Would I have felt entitled to something? No I wouldnt, such is life but I would be content taking my money else where. Entitlement, litigation culture, pc brigade, h&s brigade etc etc have done far more harm than good in many cases imo. People need to grow up.

[Ologhai Jones]

I can also see that they should have the right to run their business how they see fit. The law forcing them to accommodate those that they do not wish to is wrong imo. Exactly what grounds are there left that you could refuse someone from staying in your b&b?

This is a tough one, but I suppose if someone showed up at my (hypothetical) B&B drunk, or swearing loudly or... in short, acting in a disturbing-the-peace kind of way (so I guess I'm back to the law), then I'd probably feel inclined to turn them away.

Maybe it comes down to victimless crimes to some extent -- if the hoteliers don't have any reason to believe that guests are going to be harming anyone, damaging anything or generally causing trouble, then its not really any of their affair whether the views of their guests agree with their own.

People need to grow up.

That's almost certainly true!

But -- I still stand by the view that, if I was having to look for replacement accommodation late at night having been turned out of a hotel, I'd feel entitled to something, even if it was only an apology!

[6538]

I find this all quite amusing.

In an effort to be non discriminatory we are discriminating, but as usual positive discrimination in favour of a minority is at the expense of the majority.

The problem is that it is impossible to be non-discriminatory to everyone at the same time. We have the situation where the law has to make a decision as to which rights are to trump others. In this case, the hoteliers have a right to religious freedom and to their private life but the two blokes have a right to their private life as well. It's a difficult one but I can see why the court came down where it did.

Yes, the hotel is private property. However, the owners chose to open it as a business and to invite in the pubic. That being the case, they are at the outset willingly prepared to give up a limited area of their private lives to the public. They would still be perfectly entitled to prevent people coming into the part of their property which was still exclusively occupied by them, upon any condition as they saw fit, as they judgre made clear. If they chose to prevent gays, blacks or jews from entering their private residence then the law cannot stop them, and rightly so.

It comes down to whether their rights to religious belief (in fact their rights to impose their beliefs upon others) should trump another persons rights to go about their lawful business whilst being accorded the same freedoms as everyone else.

I think that one of their problems was that their policy was not evenly applied and was not proportunate - or even rationally thought out sufficiently - in order to tackle the point of religious belief that they were claiming they had a right to have defended. Their religious belief was one of no sex before marriage. Whether that is actually a point worthy of protection isn't really the case because even if it was they didn't appear to do enough to prevent it from happening under their roof as their policy would still allow the couple to occupy a twin or single bed room. Therefore, the policy appears arbitrary in nature.

Tough call on the bible bashers, they are running a business so should comply but it is their business, their home even, so imo they should have the right to decide. I am sure that the blokes managed to find alternative accommodation without too many tears.

Not saying that I disagree but where is the logical end? If a business owner can decide to bar certain people on any ground at all then discrimination law would not be worth the paper it was written on. Do we really want to go back to "No blacks" signs?

The religious couple said that they wouldnt allow a couple that were not married to share a bed either. Had I gone there unmarried and they said that then I would have walked out and taken my money else where. I dont see why the gays have to make such a fuss or be entitled to anything.

Maybe but hardly the point. From the ruling here there seems to be no reason at all as to why a hetrosexual unmarried couple would not have also won had they brought a case. It's unfortunate that it was a gay couple as the whole "gay" angle tends to distort the story, which, in reality, is actually one of religious freedom rights, rather than gay rights. It seems as though a lot of the responses on here would have been different had it been a hetro couple, I think there would likely have been a lot more comments about religionists being allowed to impose their beliefs on others were that the case.

[Bloo Loo]

Like I said, a tough call.

The couple chose that business and live within it so should be professional about it and put aside their personal issues when it comes to said business.

I can also see that they should have the right to run their business how they see fit. The law forcing them to accommodate those that they do not wish to is wrong imo. Exactly what grounds are there left that you could refuse someone from staying in your b&b?

If it were a hotel then it would have been different but the place is a 7 bed b&b which is quite different. Personally, had I arrived at a b&b where the owners openly showed a dislike of me then I wouldnt stay in their home and would walk.

Would I have felt entitled to something? No I wouldnt, such is life but I would be content taking my money else where. Entitlement, litigation culture, pc brigade, h&s brigade etc etc have done far more harm than good in many cases imo. People need to grow up.

so now this Hotel has to let couples in that arent married....its the law.

So if I pick up a professional lady and we decide to go to that hotel, we should be allowed a room.

And the hotelier ( the man at least) could be found guilty of immoral earnings from prostitution..a Crime.

Businesses all have rules...to protect guests, the owners and people from themselves and each other.

[RentingForever]

In an effort to be non discriminatory we are discriminating, but as usual positive discrimination in favour of a minority is at the expense of the majority.

I would imagine that there are far more gay people in the UK than there are people who believe in and actively practice "no sex before marriage".

[Number79]

I would imagine that there are far more gay people in the UK than there are people who believe in and actively practice "no sex before marriage".

I agree but my comment was about the gays vs christians/religion. I would assume that there are far more god botherers than gays.

[Authoritarian]

I saw a picture of the gay couple in the Metro today, they looked liked twins.

Freakin' weirdos.

[6538]

so now this Hotel has to let couples in that arent married....its the law.

So if I pick up a professional lady and we decide to go to that hotel, we should be allowed a room.

And the hotelier ( the man at least) could be found guilty of immoral earnings from prostitution..a Crime.

Businesses all have rules...to protect guests, the owners and people from themselves and each other.

That stopped being a crime some years back and was replaced with "controlling prostitution for gain". Even if it hadn't then he still wouldn't have been convicted as he would have to be living directly off the earnings of the prostitute andhe wouldn't be, he'd be living off his earnings from the hotel. If he were actually using it as a brothel then that would be a different matter.

[RentingForever]

I agree but my comment was about the gays vs christians/religion. I would assume that there are far more god botherers than gays.

Except maybe in the clergy

There are two incompatible sets of "rights" in this case - the right to treat people differently in business because of your religious beliefs (subjective, chosen opinions) vs the right not to be refused business because of an innate characteristic that you did not choose. One of them had to win. Seems to me most people would agree that the right one did.

[OnionTerror]

In a sort of related piece of news, it is claimed that G-A-Y turned away "straight" fans...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2011/jan/18/jeremy-joseph-gay-one-direction?INTCMP=SRCH

[Bloo Loo]

That stopped being a crime some years back and was replaced with "controlling prostitution for gain". Even if it hadn't then he still wouldn't have been convicted as he would have to be living directly off the earnings of the prostitute andhe wouldn't be, he'd be living off his earnings from the hotel. If he were actually using it as a brothel then that would be a different matter.

you live and learn...muchos gracias.

[corevalue]

I find it all very strange.

Why did the owners accept the booking for two men to share a room, as is inferred by the article? Perhaps they were OK for the two to share a twin room, so did the gays book a twin, then show up and ask for a double instead?

I thought a hotel owner could be done for "disorderly house" if he allowed unmarried couples to share a room. When did that law change? If it is still the case, is this a push to have the rights of civil partnerships increased?

[Byron]

I wonder what this hotel couples attitude would be if two brothers or father and son turned up and asked for a double?

[Number79]

I wonder what this hotel couples attitude would be if two brothers or father and son turned up and asked for a double?

they are christian, it maybe close but, they are not mental.

[OnionTerror]

Incest is a sin as well

Is it? Well, bugger me...

[lulu]

Interesting that he didn't choose a hotel run by Muslims for his sting operation. It would be even more interesting to speculate as to, if he had, whether the resulting court case would have been for a claim or religious discrimination (potential grey area) or racial (illegal pure and simple).

Yes, but that would not fit with the Guardian reading mindset would it? It is very obvious that there is an agenda to undermine Christanity in the country. These Guardian reading types would not dare pick on Muslims but Christians are their focused targets so will be attacked at any opportunity.

[6538]

Yes, but that would not fit with the Guardian reading mindset would it? It is very obvious that there is an agenda to undermine Christanity in the country. These Guardian reading types would not dare pick on Muslims but Christians are their focused targets so will be attacked at any opportunity.

I don't think that that is the case. People simply don't care as most people aren't religious and don't give a toss one way or the other. I don't know anyone who could be bothered to undermine christianity as there's no benefit, besides, christianity does a pretty good job of that its self.

Had the hoteliers actually put a genuinly even handed and proportunate policy to stop sex before marriage on their premises then they may have actually got somewhere.

It's a pro-gay story if anything which I think clouds the religious rights issue as the gay side to it was actually pretty suplerfluous.

[SarahBell]

Tell me how a £81,000 mortage equals a monthly repayment of £2,800?

... the Cornish guesthouse they’d owned for 25 years; the home they’d poured not only their life savings into, but also their heart and souls.

If they aint paid it off in 25 years they really have been doing something wrong.

TR17 0DQ

[Number79]

Yes, looks like they infact didn't pour anything into it, other than MEW applications. They certainly didn't spend any of the savings paying down the capital.

This case is a rare one where both sides are equally reprehensible.

not so sure, they dont look like they have had a lot of cash for clothes,cars or holidays and the place doesnt look great either.

The report said that the business had been on the rocks for some time. More likely it has been losing money ever since they bought it and they have been living on the extra cash borrowed from the bank.

Either way it is their own fault but I guess that many of us in their situation would have been hoping to turn it around and get a descent season etc etc rather than trying to sell in the mother of all messes. I dont know that they really had any option but to close their eyes and hope for the best tbh.

[Byron]

The odd thing is that if they had turned it into a 'Gay Hotel'. They would probably have done very well!