scoop   10 #25 Posted January 18, 2011 I remember hearing about a campsite that doesn't allow unmarried couples.  Makes me womder how they determine whether a couple are friends or lovers? I've camped and shared hotel rooms with same sex friends many times.  And how do they determine if an oppisite sex couple is married or not?  I'm married, but my boyfriend isn't. Would we be allowed to stay? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   540 #26 Posted January 18, 2011 There is also an argument that that they were entitled to refuse entry on the basis of marriage, and this was the argument that they used. So the case could have gone either way, and was quite important. On balance I am glad that they lost, because otherwise a precedent would have been set, based on a loophole in the inequality of marriage and civil partnership laws, that would have enabled bigots everywhere to discriminate. If a precedent had been set that it was OK to discriminate based on the inequality of marriages and civil partnerships there would certainly be calls for to eliminate the fudge that are civil partnerships by legalising marriage between gay couples. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Noob   10 #27 Posted January 18, 2011 These gays wanted all the tolerance in the world shown to them, and respect, yet they offered none nor showed any respect to these people with Christian beliefs. To hell with the pair of them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mj.scuba   10 #28 Posted January 18, 2011 These gays wanted all the tolerance in the world shown to them, and respect, yet they offered none nor showed any respect to these people with Christian beliefs. To hell with the pair of them.  Surely it isn't the business of hotel owners to pass moral judgement on their guests, and thereby grant or deny services based on that judgement? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Hots on   10 #29 Posted January 18, 2011  Peter and Hazelmary Bull must now pay £3,600 damages to Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy after denying them a room at their hotel in Cornwall in 2008.    Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol, had been seeking up to £5,000 damages for sexual orientation discrimination.   Why do this gay couple want/need money from the hotel owners? and why are they getting some? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   540 #30 Posted January 18, 2011 When I used to work away from Sheffield down south - which would be the early 1990/1 I used to stay at a B&B that was run by a fearsome lady. She had a sign that simply said "Lodgings for Singles" (either men or women). She basically didn't want rumpy-pumpy in the night. I wonder if that would be considered acceptable or legal these days. As it is treating everyone equally, it wouldn't fall foul of anti discrimination laws.  Did she have an opinion on solo sex - or didn't you ask? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sccsux   10 #31 Posted January 18, 2011 Why do this gay couple want/need money from the hotel owners? and why are they getting some?  The hotel owners broke the law, the gay couple have broken none. Not exactly rocket science, is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Noob   10 #32 Posted January 18, 2011 Surely it isn't the business of hotel owners to pass moral judgement on their guests, and thereby grant or deny services based on that judgement?  What happened to "Management have the right to refuse admission" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
quisquose   10 #33 Posted January 18, 2011 This is the thing that gets me about these stories ...  Where is the supposed Christian teaching of "love thy neigbour" in all this?  Peter and Hazelmary Bull admitted that it was a mistake, that they simply forgot to ask the couple if they were married when they accepted the booking, so assumed that they were.  If I owned a hotel that didn't accept pets, but forgot to inform one person of this, who then drove 200 miles and arrived with a dog, I would bloody well let them stay and curse myself for failing to do my job properly. My religious faith or lack of would have nothing to do with my decision.  So why couldn't this couple accept that it was their mistake, and in the true supposed spirit of Christianity let them stay after accepting their payment, and after they had driven so far? If they objected to sleeping in the same building as gays sharing a bed, they should have rented a room elsewhere, because it was their mistake.  This lack of empathy for others just goes to prove, in my opinion, that they are bigots first and Christians second. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Kthebean   10 #34 Posted January 18, 2011 So because the publican doesn't have to say why he refuses service it's OK? The end result is the same...maybe the hotel/bandb owners should have lied and just said that they had no vacancies...?  They had a booking... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tripe hound   10 #35 Posted January 18, 2011 So because the publican doesn't have to say why he refuses service it's OK? The end result is the same...maybe the hotel/bandb owners should have lied and just said that they had no vacancies...?  it would have worked out cheaper Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #36 Posted January 18, 2011 They had a booking...  "sorry we've overbooked the place"....wouldn't be the first time that's happened.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
