Hotel owners in UK were unlawful

DubArk

The owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully, a judge has ruled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368

I wonder would the same apply here?

SugarHigh

If someone doesn't want me to stay at their B&B because I'm gay I don't see why the government should force them to let me. I don't see why my wants should be put above the wants of the person who actually set up their own B&B. There is also the fact I would prefer to know which B&B's don't want my business so I can avoid them because I don't want to give them my business.

Killer_banana

SugarHigh wrote: »

If someone doesn't want me to stay at their B&B because I'm gay I don't see why the government should force them to let me. I don't see why my wants should be put above the wants of the person who actually set up their own B&B. There is also the fact I would prefer to know which B&B's don't want my business so I can avoid them because I don't want to give them my business.

I'm currently studying Hotel and Catering Managment and we're taught that it is the responsibility of the establishment to satisfy the customers needs in regard to accomodation, food a drink. So in my opinion when the couple set up the B&B they were entering into an unspoken contract of sorts. If they do not supply unwed couples with a double bed then fair enough (as long as they let the couples know beforehand anyway). However the two men are civil partners which in Britain is the legal equivalant of a heterosexual marriage (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) so the woman didn't have any grounds to refuse them on.

I can understand people not wanting to compromise their beliefs for the sake of a job (no matter how much I diagree with those beliefs) but in an industry like hospitality and a society like today the owners should have considered issues like this before setting up the B&B. It's inevitable, in my opinion, in this day and age.

I don't think personally I would have gone so far as to take them to court (although I understand completely why the couple did so) but they do need to know that in the industry they're in that refusing civil partners is not acceptable and could cause a lot of trouble for their business in the future.

SugarHigh

I'm currently studying Hotel and Catering Managment and we're taught that it is the responsibility of the establishment to satisfy the customers needs in regard to accomodation, food a drink. So in my opinion when the couple set up the B&B they were entering into an unspoken contract of sorts. If they do not supply unwed couples with a double bed then fair enough (as long as they let the couples know beforehand anyway). However the two men are civil partners which in Britain is the legal equivalant of a heterosexual marriage (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) so the woman didn't have any grounds to refuse them on.

Why is it ok to discriminate against unwed couples but not ok to discriminate against gay people?

As far as I'm concerned it's their private business and they should be allowed to choose their customers. If they want to turn away business that should be up to them.

I can understand people not wanting to compromise their beliefs for the sake of a job (no matter how much I diagree with those beliefs) but in an industry like hospitality and a society like today the owners should have considered issues like this before setting up the B&B. It's inevitable, in my opinion, in this day and age.

My point is that it's wrong to dictate to business who they have to do business with. Your only argument against this seems to be "Well thats the way it is so they shouldn't have got into this business". Thats not a very strong argument.

I don't think personally I would have gone so far as to take them to court (although I understand completely why the couple did so) but they do need to know that in the industry they're in that refusing civil partners is not acceptable and could cause a lot of trouble for their business in the future

Shouldn't that be up to them if they want the hassle of turning down business?

Yes it will cause them trouble in terms of court cases but that is what I'm disagreeing with. You shouldn't be able to bring you to court because they don't want to do business with you.

If it was government organisation I would understand but I just don't think the government has any place to tell people who they have to do business with.

cgcsb

The fact is that the state collects tax from all businesses including B&Bs so the Government has a responsibility to regulate those businesses and enforce the equal status act 2004 (or whatever the British version is)

St._Andalou

A funny little quotation from today's Guardian in relation to this:

If the Bulls had a sense of humour, something they don't seem God-blessed with, they might have spotted the irony of spending the Christmas season fighting for the entitlement to turn guests away from their inn.

St._Andalou

SugarHigh wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned it's their private business and they should be allowed to choose their customers. If they want to turn away business that should be up to them.

My point is that it's wrong to dictate to business who they have to do business with. Your only argument against this seems to be "Well thats the way it is so they shouldn't have got into this business". Thats not a very strong argument.

They run a commercial business so they're subject to equality laws that were hard fought for.

These laws apply to businesses and public services. You can't pick and choose. What about if devout Muslim or Christian midwives decided they didn't want to deal with unmarried mothers? Or a Christian police officer refused to aid a gay man? Or a Muslim barista refused to serve a latte to a Jew?

Anyone is free to practice their faith in privacy, but western Europe is -- or at least strives to be -- a secular society, so we conduct our public lives accordingly, and we should all be grateful for this.

DubArk

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why is it ok to discriminate against unwed couples but not ok to discriminate against gay people?

As far as I'm concerned it's their private business and they should be allowed to choose their customers. If they want to turn away business that should be up to them.

My point is that it's wrong to dictate to business who they have to do business with. Your only argument against this seems to be "Well thats the way it is so they shouldn't have got into this business". Thats not a very strong argument.

Shouldn't that be up to them if they want the hassle of turning down business?

Yes it will cause them trouble in terms of court cases but that is what I'm disagreeing with. You shouldn't be able to bring you to court because they don't want to do business with you.

If it was government organisation I would understand but I just don't think the government has any place to tell people who they have to do business with.

Why you? Do you own a B&B?


So get this scenario: My partner and I are going to a wedding in the arse hole of no where and have booked a B&B to stay in… very little or no other accommodation in the locality. Setting off late due to work commitments we arrive at 21:00 …..

We arrive and are refused our booking because the owners don’t want Gays in there establishment. We then have nowhere to stay in the vicinity!!

Should I have explained that we were a Gay couple before we booked or should they have told me (on the phone or if they have a website) that they don’t allow Gay couples in there premises?

Killer_banana

Why is it ok to discriminate against unwed couples but not ok to discriminate against gay people?

I don't think it's okay but what I was trying to say (and I'll admit I went about it in a very unclear way) was that the two men were civil partners which is the legal equivalent of wed, therefore her argument wasn't founded since they're not an unwed couple. Personally I don't think she has the right to refuse double beds to unwed couples but as far as I'm aware there's no law against it so she still can. I'll admit the phrasing of my original post didn't convey that very well.

As for your other points I think St._Andalou have said DubArk have expressed similar opinions to my own so there's no point in me posting the same thing if it's already been said.

SugarHigh

cgcsb wrote: »

The fact is that the state collects tax from all businesses including B&Bs so the Government has a responsibility to regulate those businesses and enforce the equal status act 2004 (or whatever the British version is)

St._Andalou wrote: »

They run a commercial business so they're subject to equality laws that were hard fought for.

These laws apply to businesses and public services. You can't pick and choose. What about if devout Muslim or Christian midwives decided they didn't want to deal with unmarried mothers? Or a Christian police officer refused to aid a gay man? Or a Muslim barista refused to serve a latte to a Jew?

Anyone is free to practice their faith in privacy, but western Europe is -- or at least strives to be -- a secular society, so we conduct our public lives accordingly, and we should all be grateful for this.

I know what they were doing is against the law I never said it wasn't.

My point is that the law is bollocks.

What about if devout Muslim or Christian midwives decided they didn't want to deal with unmarried mothers? Or a Christian police officer refused to aid a gay man? Or a Muslim barista refused to serve a latte to a Jew?

The government pays their wages so I have no problem with the governments telling them who they have to provide a service to. The government does not pay the wages of someone who owns a B&B, if they give them grants I would have no problem with the grants being refused but I don't think it's right to dictate by law who they have to do business with.

I think people are being very biased here. If a bar can decide who they do business with why can't a B&B?

SugarHigh

DubArk wrote: »

Why you? Do you own a B&B?


So get this scenario: My partner and I are going to a wedding in the arse hole of no where and have booked a B&B to stay in… very little or no other accommodation in the locality. Setting off late due to work commitments we arrive at 21:00 …..

We arrive and are refused our booking because the owners don’t want Gays in there establishment. We then have nowhere to stay in the vicinity!!

Should I have explained that we were a Gay couple before we booked or should they have told me (on the phone or if they have a website) that they don’t allow Gay couples in there premises?

They should be allowed to state in the advertisement that they aren't gay friendly. If I'm renting out a house I can say "Females only" so why not "straight people only"?

The funny thing is you would also get away with "Only gay people wanted" and no one would kick up a fuss. If a gay B&B was set up I bet no one would give a crap.

Why should you be allowed to force yourself on a business? I think a business should be allowed to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. In japan there were restaurants that basically said no foreigners allowed. I'm not going to kick up a fuss and force them to serve me. I have the right to choose who I do business with so why shouldn't they?

SugarHigh

Killer_banana wrote: »

I don't think it's okay but what I was trying to say (and I'll admit I went about it in a very unclear way) was that the two men were civil partners which is the legal equivalent of wed, therefore her argument wasn't founded since they're not an unwed couple. Personally I don't think she has the right to refuse double beds to unwed couples but as far as I'm aware there's no law against it so she still can. I'll admit the phrasing of my original post didn't convey that very well.

As for your other points I think St._Andalou have said DubArk have expressed similar opinions to my own so there's no point in me posting the same thing if it's already been said.

Maybe they were talking about married in the eyes of the church?

If they believe homosexuality is wrong I don't think it's fair to force yourself on them. They aren't forcing their beliefs on you. You have the option of staying at another B&B and if there are non available then tough shít, if the only a B&B available was out of your price range they wouldn't be forced to take you in just because you had no where else to stay.

Killer_banana

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe they were talking about married in the eyes of the church?

If they believe homosexuality is wrong I don't think it's fair to force yourself on them. They aren't forcing their beliefs on you. You have the option of staying at another B&B and if there are non available then tough shít, if the only a B&B available was out of your price range they wouldn't be forced to take you in just because you had no where else to stay.

Surely if they don't see your marriage as legitimate just because it's not in the eyes of the church or because it goes by another name that is forcing their beliefs on you?

Refusing business 'cause the person can't pay for the service you provide is a completely different matter.

The funny thing is you would also get away with "Only gay people wanted" and no one would kick up a fuss.

I personally think any business which refuses to serve customers based on sexuality, be the customer straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual or asexual is discriminating and definitely should not be allowed to do that. People of all sexualities deserve the same rights.

Annasopra

DubArk wrote: »

I wonder would the same apply here?

Yes - The equal status acts would cover this

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think people are being very biased here. If a bar can decide who they do business with why can't a B&B?

- Actually bars can't refuse people under any of the 9 grounds of the Equal Status Acts either - Bars and B & Bs are as such subject to the same legislation except that claims for discrimination in a bar have to go to a district court rather than equality tribunal and bars can under certain circumstances choose age limits

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

- Actually bars can't refuse people under any of the 9 grounds of the Equal Status Acts either - Bars and B & Bs are as such subject to the same legislation except that claims for discrimination in a bar have to go to a district court rather than equality tribunal and bars can under certain circumstances choose age limits

I never said they could.

They can still choose who they want to do business with and why shouldn't they? It's their club they should be allowed to decide who gets in. If you can be turned away for wearing the wrong clothes why not for being gay?

It really annoys me how people need the government to stand up for them the whole time. If someone doesn't want you to stay in their B&B get the fúck over it and stay somewhere else, why would you even want to stay there?

SugarHigh

Killer_banana wrote: »

Surely if they don't see your marriage as legitimate just because it's not in the eyes of the church or because it goes by another name that is forcing their beliefs on you?

Refusing business 'cause the person can't pay for the service you provide is a completely different matter.


I personally think any business which refuses to serve customers based on sexuality, be the customer straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual or asexual is discriminating and definitely should not be allowed to do that. People of all sexualities deserve the same rights.

They aren't forcing their beliefs on you because they aren't going out of their way to interact with you. They basically said they weren't gay friendly on their website and that's why some gay group decided to force their beliefs on the B&B by starting this case.

If a gay person wanted to stay at the B&B they were refused and simply had to find somewhere else. No one was trying to turn them straight they were simply trying to avoid dealing with you. The gay is purposefully forcing these people to interact with homosexuals when they don't want to.

I think a business should be able to choose it's customers, if they do this to the detriment to their own business than that's their problem but why should we force them to agree with us?

This really shouldn't be any of the governments business. It's kind of like a kid crying to their mommy that you don't want to play with them and the mother forcing you to.:D

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

They can still choose who they want to do business with

They can't choose that at all - a pub or club can't refuse you because you are gay or a woman or a traveller or gay or any of the 9 grounds of the equal status act

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

They can't choose that at all - a pub or club can't refuse you because you are gay or a woman or a traveller or gay or any of the 9 grounds of the equal status act

I never said they could do any of that.

They can still decide who they do business with. If they don't like the look of you they don't have to do business with you.

Killer_banana

They aren't forcing their beliefs on you because they aren't going out of their way to interact with you. They basically said they weren't gay friendly on their website and that's why some gay group decided to force their beliefs on the B&B by starting this case.

They opened a business meaning they were going out of their way to interact with a large number of people who presumably would be of different races, genders, sexualities e.t.c. Sure it's not going out of their way to specifically interact with gay men but they did make it a possibility.

I think a business should be able to choose it's customers, if they do this to the detriment to their own business than that's their problem but why should we force them to agree with us?

Because people can't think that they're discriminatory behavior is okay. And if we start by letting people refuse people based on sexuality where would it end? Should businesses be allowed turn people away based on race? On gender? On hair colour? On level of attractiveness? On whether they're able bodied or not?

I'll put it this way. I'm bisexual. If I owned a B&B and I found it one of my guests was a terrible homophobe I would still accept his custom because opening a business means I will be interacting with people of all kinds. I would loathe his beliefs, of course, but as a B&B owner my responsibility is to provide this person with the relevant service. If I were to meet him in a way that had nothing to do with my work I might not let him off so easily but as a B&B owner I would have no right to treat him differently to another customer because their beliefs were more agreeable to me.

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

They aren't forcing their beliefs on you because they aren't going out of their way to interact with you. They basically said they weren't gay friendly on their website and that's why some gay group decided to force their beliefs on the B&B by starting this case.

If a gay person wanted to stay at the B&B they were refused and simply had to find somewhere else. No one was trying to turn them straight they were simply trying to avoid dealing with you. The gay is purposefully forcing these people to interact with homosexuals when they don't want to.

I think a business should be able to choose it's customers, if they do this to the detriment to their own business than that's their problem but why should we force them to agree with us?

This really shouldn't be any of the governments business. It's kind of like a kid crying to their mommy that you don't want to play with them and the mother forcing you to.:D

I disagree - I think its perfectly legitimate for the state to say that businesses should not discriminate against people

SugarHigh

They opened a business meaning they were going out of their way to interact with a large number of people who presumably would be of different races, genders, sexualities e.t.c. Sure it's not going out of their way to specifically interact with gay men but they did make it a possibility.

They reduced that possibility by saying they did not want gay couples on their website. A gay couple after viewing this decided to go out of their way to cause hassle and force this B&B to do something they don't want to do.

Because people can't think that they're discriminatory behavior is okay. And if we start by letting people refuse people based on sexuality where would it end? Should businesses be allowed turn people away based on race? On gender? On hair colour? On level of attractiveness? On whether they're able bodied or not?

Yes you should be able to refuse to do business with whoever you like if you are a completely privately owned business. If this means turning away business because you don't like their aura or because you think they have come back from the future to kill you well then it should really be up to you.

The customer has the right to choose who he does business with so why shouldn't the business be given the same freedom?

I'll put it this way. I'm bisexual. If I owned a B&B and I found it one of my guests was a terrible homophobe I would still accept his custom because opening a business means I will be interacting with people of all kinds. I would loathe his beliefs, of course, but as a B&B owner my responsibility is to provide this person with the relevant service. If I were to meet him in a way that had nothing to do with my work I might not let him off so easily but as a B&B owner I would have no right to treat him differently to another customer because their beliefs were more agreeable to me.

I think that's very good of you but I don't see why the government should force everyone else to be like you. The B&B owner only has a responsibility to his customers because he has already gotten into a contract with them. They don't want to get into this contract with gay people but they are being forced to which I think is unfair.

Curves gym decided they only want female customers. I think their reasoning behind this is laughable but I'm not going to force myself on them. If they only want females and their customers only want females why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Endymion

It comes down to whether or not you believe the state has the right to regulate private enterprise. If you don't agree with state intervention, then surely you don't agree with the state prevent price monopolies and cartels?

The minute you accept that there are certain circumstances under which the state should inter vein in the running of private business for the better meant of society as a whole, the arguments against the equality act fall apart. If you're offering a service, you must offer it to everyone. It's one of the great things about living in a reasonably progressive European country.

SugarHigh

SugarHigh wrote: »

The government pays their wages

You are assuming all hospitals are public, which they are not. So the government does not pay the wages of all mid-wives and doctors. So going back to ''What about if devout Muslim or Christian midwives decided they didn't want to deal with unmarried mothers?

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I disagree - I think its perfectly legitimate for the state to say that businesses should not discriminate against people

Well that's where the debate is.;)

I don't want the government to tell me what my beliefs have to be. It wasn't so long ago that the government would be on the side of the B&B and enforcing no 2 men sleeping together. I'm of the viewpoint that it's none of the governments business.

Endymion

The government isn't telling them what to believe, it's merely setting out criteria under which goods and services maybe provided in an effort to protect consumers. This is exactly what the government is for.

I may advance your comment. Should Hotels have the right to refuse traveller weddings? Many do so. Personally, (Controversially statement) I think they probably should be able to once it's shown that they are not doing so out of malice.

SugarHigh

Endymion wrote: »

It comes down to whether or not you believe the state has the right to regulate private enterprise. If you don't agree with state intervention, then surely you don't agree with the state prevent price monopolies and cartels?

The minute you accept that there are certain circumstances under which the state should inter vein in the running of private business for the better meant of society as a whole, the arguments against the equality act fall apart. If you're offering a service, you must offer it to everyone. It's one of the great things about living in a reasonably progressive European country.

It's the governments role to protect the economy so it is justified in those instances. You are making a big leap to say that just because I'm ok with your example then I also have to be ok with the B&B case. I want free speech but I'm also ok with libel and slander laws.

Gay people have plenty of gay friendly B&B's to stay in just the way men have plenty of non-female only gyms to train at.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are assuming all hospitals are public, which they are not. So the government does not pay the wages of all mid-wives and doctors. So going back to ''What about if devout Muslim or Christian midwives decided they didn't want to deal with unmarried mothers?

These mid-wives don't run the Hospital it should be up to whoever runs the hospital who should be treated there.

Endymion

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's the governments role to protect the economy so it is justified in those instances. You are making a big leap to say that just because I'm ok with your example then I also have to be ok with the B&B case. I want free speech but I'm also ok with libel and slander laws.

Gay people have plenty of gay friendly B&B's to stay in just the way men have plenty of non-female only gyms to train at.

But a government isn't purely about protecting the economy. Labour laws are there to protect people, not help companies. Government's have the right to enact social policy as well as economic policy. Successive governments have been of the view that outlawing discrimination of various grounds is a good social policy.

SugarHigh wrote: »

These mid-wives don't run the Hospital it should be up to whoever runs the hospital who should be treated there.

You shouldn't be allowed into a health care profession if you're unwilling to provide medical treatment to all people, regardless of your own personal morality. Medical treatment is one of those things which should be available to all people regardless, it's simply not good enough to say "There's a hospital someone which will treat you".

SugarHigh

SugarHigh wrote: »

These mid-wives don't run the Hospital it should be up to whoever runs the hospital who should be treated there.

So you you think it's okay for whoever runs a private hospital to refuse admission for procedures and emergencies for people, whose lifestyles they don't agree with (such as single mothers and gay people)?

We live in the 21st century, in a civil society, we all pay tax and we provide and consume goods and services. If you want to be part of society that the government (representing the people) regulates you should abide by its rules.

SugarHigh

Endymion wrote: »

The government isn't telling them what to believe, it's merely setting out criteria under which goods and services maybe provided in an effort to protect consumers. This is exactly what the government is for.

What if they decided they wanted to protect business and in doing so removed your right to choose who to do business with? How about instead of letting you buy foreign produce they forced you to buy local unless no local alternative was available?

Why should the consumer be given the choice of who to do business with but the person who actually sets up a business is denied it?

SugarHigh

Government's have the right to enact social policy as well as economic policy. Successive governments have been of the view that outlawing discrimination of various grounds is a good social policy.

You realise I know this is the law and it is in fact what I'm arguing against?:D

You shouldn't be allowed into a health care profession if you're unwilling to provide medical treatment to all people, regardless of your own personal morality. Medical treatment is one of those things which should be available to all people regardless, it's simply not good enough to say "There's a hospital someone which will treat you".

Does a B&B also fall under this?:D

Talking about health care might be going a bit off topic but for what it's worth if someone sets up a private hospital they should be allowed to choose who they treat. This doesn't prevent health care being available to all people it's just an extra option available to whoever the owner decides.

Endymion

SugarHigh wrote: »

What if they decided they wanted to protect business and in doing so removed your right to choose who to do business with? How about instead of letting you buy foreign produce they forced you to buy local unless no local alternative was available?

Why should the consumer be given the choice of who to do business with but the person who actually sets up a business is denied it?

The government does do this in the form of tarrifs. Besides that, the government enforces health and safety standards which do limit my right to choose who I do business with. You're free to believe that these restrictions are nonsense, but nevertheless, the government does have the right to impose them. We live in a democracy, and unfortunately that means that needs and desires of the many often out weight the needs and desires of the few.

SugarHigh

Deleted User wrote: »

So you you think it's okay for whoever runs a private hospital to refuse admission for procedures and emergencies for people, whose lifestyles they don't agree with (such as single mothers and gay people)?

We live in the 21st century, in a civil society, we all pay tax and we provide and consume goods and services. If you want to be part of society that the government (representing the people) regulates you should abide by its rules.

You realise I am disagreeing with the rules and not breaking them right? I never said the B&B wasn't breaking the law.

Would you have refrained from gay sex before 1993?:D

Endymion

SugarHigh wrote: »

You realise I know this is the law and it is in fact what I'm arguing against?:D

I'm unsure if you're arguing against the law, or the governments right to enact such laws, or both.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Does a B&B also fall under this?:D

Talking about health care might be going a bit off topic but for what it's worth if someone sets up a private hospital they should be allowed to choose who they treat. This doesn't prevent health care being available to all people it's just an extra option available to whoever the owner decides.

Yes, lets leave health care as it's a hugely complicated subject and brings in issues of universal entitlement. I'd argue that if you're in the business of providing accommodation, it should be open to everyone willing to pay for it, assuming they will not materially damage your business.

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

Well that's where the debate is.;)

I don't want the government to tell me what my beliefs have to be.

The laws say absolutely nothing about what your beliefs should or should not be - they say that if you own a business then that business cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services for people who fall within 9 grounds

gender, civil (marital) status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community

SugarHigh

Endymion wrote: »

The government does do this in the form of tarrifs. Besides that, the government enforces health and safety standards which do limit my right to choose who I do business with. You're free to believe that these restrictions are nonsense, but nevertheless, the government does have the right to impose them. We live in a democracy, and unfortunately that means that needs and desires of the many often out weight the needs and desires of the few.

Again you seem to think I am saying this is unlawful. I never said the government doesn't have the right to impose these law because they clearly do based on the fact of what this thread is based on. I am saying they shouldn't.

We live in a democracy, and unfortunately that means that needs and desires of the many often out weight the needs and desires of the few.

I have no idea why you bring this up.
I realise that most people share a similar confirmation bias on this issue, it's not really what I'm debating against.

Endymion

SugarHigh wrote: »

Again you seem to think I am saying this is unlawful. I never said the government doesn't have the right to impose these law because they clearly do based on the fact of what this thread is based on. I am saying they shouldn't.

So you are saying that the government shouldn't enact social laws. I think I've made a good case as to why they do, and should.

SugarHigh wrote: »

I have no idea why you bring this up.
I realise that most people share a similar confirmation bias on this issue, it's not really what I'm debating against.

We live in a democracy, meaning the majority of the people, have abdicated the ability to making certain decisions, on behalf of and for the benefit of all of us. You maybe perfectly fine going to another B&B but the government has to represent the needs of those who don't have that option available to them.

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The laws say absolutely nothing about what your beliefs should or should not be - they say that if you own a business then that business cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services for people who fall within 9 grounds

gender, civil (marital) status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community

Ok it doesn't dictate what your beliefs should be but it stops you being able to abide by those beliefs.

Endymion

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The laws say absolutely nothing about what your beliefs should or should not be - they say that if you own a business then that business cannot discriminate in the provision of goods and services for people who fall within 9 grounds

gender, civil (marital) status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community

But interestingly enough, If I want to Let out my house I can say say no Black Transsexual Gay Protestant Travellers from broken homes who aren't married. The rights of the B&B operators are being trampled upon in favour of the "greater good" as determined by the state. There are always limits however.

SugarHigh

Endymion wrote: »

I'm unsure if you're arguing against the law, or the governments right to enact such laws, or both.



Yes, lets leave health care as it's a hugely complicated subject and brings in issues of universal entitlement. I'd argue that if you're in the business of providing accommodation, it should be open to everyone willing to pay for it, assuming they will not materially damage your business.

It's both.

should be open to everyone willing to pay for it, assuming they will not materially damage your business

I agree it should be but I don't agree with forcing others who don't hold that belief to follow my way of thinking.

SugarHigh

SugarHigh wrote: »

You realise I am disagreeing with the rules and not breaking them right? I never said the B&B wasn't breaking the law.

Would you have refrained from gay sex before 1993?:D

I do. I'm following on from the specific point made about hospitals. So am I right in saying you think whoever runs a private hospital is entitled to refuse admission to gays and single mothers if they are against those individuals lifestyles?

If so, I completely and utterly disagree with your argument. If no, you are contradicting your opinion that the B&B should of been allowed refuse admission to the gay couple.

A business provides goods and services to the PUBLIC, the public is one. There is no room for personal discrimination.

And probably not, as it wasn't enforced ( or was it?!)

Endymion

SugarHigh wrote: »

Ok it doesn't dictate what your beliefs should be but it stops you being able to abide by those beliefs.

And if my believe is that women are second class citizens who deserve to be beaten if they refuse my commands? There is a limit in how far one should indulge another's beliefs. I believe that limit is the point where those beliefs negative impact on others.

Of course, negative impact is a subjective term.

SugarHigh

I do. I'm following on from the specific point made about hospitals. So am I right in saying you think whoever runs a private hospital is entitled to refuse admission to gays and single mothers if they are against those individuals lifestyles?

If so, I completely and utterly disagree with your argument. If no, you are contradicting your opinion that the B&B should of been allowed refuse admission to the gay couple.

Yes I am. It's fair enough that you disagree but I don't really want to go down another argument.:D

I think it's just one of those arguments where it's just my confirmation bias disagreeing with yours and neither of us will learn anything from the discussion because we might as well be arguing why my favorite colour is better than yours.:D

And probably not, as it wasn't enforced ( or was it?!) :

I've heard stories of guards having to separate men holding hands but I don't know how true they were.

SugarHigh

Endymion wrote: »

And if my believe is that women are second class citizens who deserve to be beaten if they refuse my commands? There is a limit in how far one should indulge another's beliefs. I believe that limit is the point where those beliefs negative impact on others.

Of course, negative impact is a subjective term.

Yes negative impact is the important part. I think forcing the B&B to have people commit what they believe to be a sin in their home will have a bigger negative impact(To the point of maybe closing their business) than a gay couple having to find different accommodation.

I'm pretty sure the gay couple never wanted to stay there in the first place and they just wanted a fight.

Endymion

SugarHigh wrote: »

Yes negative impact is the important part. I think forcing the B&B to have people commit what they believe to be a sin in their home will have a bigger negative impact(To the point of maybe closing their business) than a gay couple having to find different accommodation.

Ah, but it's not their home. It's a business. It's simply a difference of opinion as to who should bare the brunt of the negative impact. The british government feels it shouldn't be minorities.

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the gay couple never wanted to stay there in the first place and they just wanted a fight.

Doesn't matter.

L1011

SugarHigh wrote: »

Ok it doesn't dictate what your beliefs should be but it stops you being able to abide by those beliefs.

A number of people believe that there shouldn't be an age of consent, the state prevents them abiding by those beliefs

A number of cultures believe in female genital mutilation, the state prevents them abiding by those beliefs

The state prevents people "abiding by" their beliefs every day where their beliefs are harmful or discriminatory.

And the couple owning this B&B were acting no differently than someone refusing to allow a black couple to stay - something which would have likely seen a far worse punishment and complete "do-over" by the press.

L1011

SugarHigh wrote: »

I've heard stories of guards having to separate men holding hands but I don't know how true they were.

Seeing as holding hands wasn't illegal, "complete and utter bull****" is how true they were.

The legal preventions in place prior to 1993 were on anal and oral sex, nothing more. They hadn't been enforced in approximately 30 years, as it had been government policy not to do so; strengthened after the Dudgeon ECHR judgement against NI as it was realised that a similar judgement (namely Norris) was looming for here.

DubArk

SugarHigh wrote: »

They should be allowed to state in the advertisement that they aren't gay friendly. If I'm renting out a house I can say "Females only" so why not "straight people only"?

The funny thing is you would also get away with "Only gay people wanted" and no one would kick up a fuss. If a gay B&B was set up I bet no one would give a crap.

Why should you be allowed to force yourself on a business? I think a business should be allowed to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. In japan there were restaurants that basically said no foreigners allowed. I'm not going to kick up a fuss and force them to serve me. I have the right to choose who I do business with so why shouldn't they?

So on that note if they had, for example; Only Blacks welcome, would you again think this was in line with your beliefs? Or even No blacks welcome?

See they have opened Hotels and B&B’s that do state they are Gay friendly. Never ONLY Gays. They reason is quite simple: due to historical reasons because businesses didn’t want any Gays there, it was felt it was important to state they weren’t bigoted, in the absence of any legislation.

The Bar theory is a very good analogy I agree, I have heard that straight people have been turned away from certain Gay Bars here in Ireland and the UK but that doesn’t make it right. That’s where Gay Bars get it as wrong as bigoted B&Bs. I for one believe that if a straight person/s was refused admittance from any establishment (Business) because of their sexual orientation they should bring them to court too.

Equal rights should be for all not just a chosen few. If for whatever, religious conviction or moral stance, you as a business feel you can’t provide a service to all our citizens, white, black, straight, gay, disabled etc….. Then don’t get into providing a service.


Japan of course is a shining example of an open society… scraping bottom bucket dot com.

28064212

SugarHigh wrote: »

Yes negative impact is the important part. I think forcing the B&B to have people commit what they believe to be a sin in their home will have a bigger negative impact(To the point of maybe closing their business) than a gay couple having to find different accommodation.

If they didn't want people "committing sin" in their business premises, they shouldn't have opened a business. However, they decided they were going to make money out of providing a service. Once they made that decision, they don't get to discriminate on the basis of any of the protected characteristics

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the gay couple never wanted to stay there in the first place and they just wanted a fight.

Completely and utterly irrelevant, but what are you basing this on?

Quentinkrisp

SugarHigh wrote: »

This really shouldn't be any of the governments business. It's kind of like a kid crying to their mommy that you don't want to play with them and the mother forcing you to.

That's a different form of discrimination you're talking about there - Behaviour related discrimination, i.e discriminating against someone because of how they behaved towards you in the past. This is perfectly normal and natural IMO, all of us do it to some degree or another. It happens in many places everywhere, every day. Pubs/nightclubs/schools can be a prime example of this: person X attends club Y. person X misbehaves in club Y, person X attacks people, causes trouble and has to be ejected from club Y. Person X is then permanently denied entry to club Y because of their conduct. That, to mind mind, is the only sort of case where discrimination is warranted.

Following your analogy, if you didn't want to play with that kid because he did something bad to you, then fine. Otherwise, No.

If a person has mistreated you or acted aggressively towards you, then discrimination may be warranted. otherwise, it isn't.

The type of discrimination that this thread is about is discrimination based
on background, age, ethnicity, marital status, gender and sexuality, as well as belonging to a minority, i.e not serving someone in a shop because they are female, 89 years old, or gay.

This type of discrimination is built on baseless prejudice that the government is trying to minimise for the sake of a better functioning society.

TL;DR: Discriminate against someone for what they did to you (if necessary)

Don't discriminate because of what they are (9 grounds)

rochey84

SugarHigh wrote: »

This really shouldn't be any of the governments business. It's kind of like a kid crying to their mommy that you don't want to play with them and the mother forcing you to.:D

I haven't read the entire thread so I could be repeating someone here but to the best of my knowledge the couple had made a booking and therefore entered a contract with the B&B, the B&B subsequently broke this contract based on sexual orientation which is illegal hence the government and the law being brought into it!