[UK] Gay Couple wins B&B Discrimination case

seamus

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=121602

Summary for those on mobile:
Gay couple booked a double room in a B&B in Wales, but were refused a double on arrival because the owners were Christian and didn't believe it was right.

The owners argued that they would have the same policy for any unmarried couple, but the court decided that it was clear discrimination and awarded damages to the couple.

==================

No point in having the "was it right" debate here - of course it was - but have we had any similar cases in this country?

I have heard anedotally of B&B owners in Ireland refusing to rent a double room to unmarried couples, but that is contrary to the equal status act. Likewise, if a gay couple were to rent a room, it would be illegal on two grounds to deny them.

But can anyone recall any B&B/Hotel owners being found in breach in this country?

Dades

Don't ever remember seeing a similar case here. Would probably have been posted in A&A had it made headlines!

Galvasean

Myself and a male friend often book double bed rooms (usually works out cheaper than two single beds) when we go over to England for football matches. Never had any bother. They must have sensed our heterosexuality.

Beruthiel

Galvasean wrote: »

They must have sensed our heterosexuality.

It oozed from your very pores?

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

Myself and a male friend often book double bed rooms (usually works out cheaper than two single beds) when we go over to England for football matches. Never had any bother. They must have sensed our heterosexuality.

Yes, I can sense it from here.

MrP

Coriolanus

I've never heard of an Irish case and an admittedly brief search of the it archive shows nothing either.
Wonder if the lgbt forum has had any experiences of it.

Galvasean

Beruthiel wrote: »

It oozed from your very pores?

Hmm.. it was probably our lame duck fashion sense.

vinchick

I did hear muttering from people who know people (isn't it always the way?) who stayed in that B and B who were not married hetro couples and there was no bother. So pretty crappy defence in their case, it's not that hard to find out if it was true.

HavingCrack

Actually I would argue that the decision is wrong in this case, even though I imagine the majority of posters will be against me. I don't want to turn this into a political thread but as a libertarian I feel that this effectively is unneccessary government intervention in what should be a private matter for a business. Surely the owners should have the right to do business with whoever they choose. I'm actually not a fan of discrimination legislation for this sort of situation.

Penn

HavingCrack wrote: »

Actually I would argue that the decision is wrong in this case, even though I imagine the majority of posters will be against me. I don't want to turn this into a political thread but as a libertarian I feel that this effectively is unneccessary government intervention in what should be a private matter for a business. Surely the owners should have the right to do business with whoever they choose. I'm actually not a fan of discrimination legislation for this sort of situation.

What if they were a black married couple and were refused?

I hear what you're saying about the owners having the right to do business with whoever, but surely the gay couple have the right to be free from discrimination? Which would you value more?

magicbastarder

HavingCrack wrote: »

I imagine the majority of posters will be against me.

i suspect you're right.

HavingCrack wrote: »

what should be a private matter for a business.

contradiction in terms, surely? it's a private matter if they refuse to let a gay couple into their private house, but this was not a private matter, they are running a publicly advertised business.

mikhail

HavingCrack wrote: »

Actually I would argue that the decision is wrong in this case, even though I imagine the majority of posters will be against me. I don't want to turn this into a political thread but as a libertarian I feel that this effectively is unneccessary government intervention in what should be a private matter for a business. Surely the owners should have the right to do business with whoever they choose. I'm actually not a fan of discrimination legislation for this sort of situation.

I'd almost agree, but to agree to put someone up for the night and then change your mind on the evening is not something I feel a hotel or B&B should be allowed to do except for the most extreme reasons ("yes, m'lud, covered in blood"). It's potentially an enormous problem for the customers who could be unable to find alternative accomodation if the area was busy that evening (e.g. a concert or a major sporting event on).

vinchick

Nope. I am pretty sure if you are open to the public you are open. I am pretty sure there are times when you can reject business but they would be around things like safety, inability to pay or legislative allowances (eg knives to under 18's). They by all means can market their place as a particular B and B for a particular clientèle but they can't refuse people who don't fit it. Or something, it has been a long time since I had to learn this stuff.

mikhail

magicbastarder wrote: »

contradiction in terms, surely? it's a private matter if they refuse to let a gay couple into their private house, but this was not a private matter, they are running a publicly advertised business.

Have you ever seen a sign along the lines of, "The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time"? That's a right of a business owner. I'm not sure how it interacts with discrimination legislation (I think a sign saying, "No dogs, no blacks, no Irish" is not going to fly these days), but if I walk into your DIY shop and ask for a hammer, you can say, "No, please leave my store," and I'm obliged to do so. You're not obliged to give a reason either.

magicbastarder

you can't trump the law by putting up signs which contradicts it.

mikhail

magicbastarder wrote: »

you can't trump the law by putting up signs which contradicts it.

And I'm telling you that you can refuse to serve someone for no stated reason.

Galvasean

mikhail wrote: »

And I'm telling you that you can refuse to serve someone for no stated reason.

But if they bring it to the courts and accuse you of discrimination you have to give a damn good reason.

HavingCrack

Barrington wrote: »

What if they were a black married couple and were refused?

I hear what you're saying about the owners having the right to do business with whoever, but surely the gay couple have the right to be free from discrimination? Which would you value more?

It's a fair point, but effectively what this case says is the rights of the gay couple trump the rights of the business owner. If a black couple were refused entry I'd make the same point. It's a tricky situation and I don't really know what the solution is.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect you're right.


contradiction in terms, surely? it's a private matter if they refuse to let a gay couple into their private house, but this was not a private matter, they are running a publicly advertised business.

But it's their priavte business, not a semi state body or a publicly run company. Say you ran a shop and someone came in and you just didn't want to serve them, should they have the right to demand service and have the force of law at their backs in doing so? Whoose rights are more important?

mikhail wrote: »

Have you ever seen a sign along the lines of, "The management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time"? That's a right of a business owner. I'm not sure how it interacts with discrimination legislation (I think a sign saying, "No dogs, no blacks, no Irish" is not going to fly these days), but if I walk into your DIY shop and ask for a hammer, you can say, "No, please leave my store," and I'm obliged to do so. You're not obliged to give a reason either.

This is my point. Whoose rights are more important?

HavingCrack

Galvasean wrote: »

But if they bring it to the courts and accuse you of discrimination you have to give a damn good reason.

And I think this is wrong. I don't agree with discrimination legislation in its current form anyway.

ShooterSF

While it was a horrible act can anyone explain to me the legal differences between this and say "Curves" gyms refusing men?

MrPudding

mikhail wrote: »

And I'm telling you that you can refuse to serve someone for no stated reason.

No. You are entitled to put up a sign saying that, whether or not that sign has any force in law is another matter entirely.

The classic is "the management accept no liability for injury or damage howsoever caused."

The ability to refuse service is a qualified one, and it simply does not exist when the grounds of refusal are discriminatory on nature.

MrP

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Don't ever remember seeing a similar case here. Would probably have been posted in A&A had it made headlines!

Not an Irish case, but this popped up in my news feed today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/georgia-homeless-center-gays-lesbians_n_810609.html

Long story short: Christian homeless shelter in Georgia evicts lesbians for being lesbians.

Penn

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's a fair point, but effectively what this case says is the rights of the gay couple trump the rights of the business owner. If a black couple were refused entry I'd make the same point. It's a tricky situation and I don't really know what the solution is.

It's not that the rights of the gay couple trump the rights of the business owner, it's the rights in question which determine the case. The right to not be discriminated against is more important than the Business rights. If it was the other way round, the gay couple would be in the wrong for not allowing a married couple to stay in their b&b because of their religious beliefs

But it's their priavte business, not a semi state body or a publicly run company. Say you ran a shop and someone came in and you just didn't want to serve them, should they have the right to demand service and have the force of law at their backs in doing so? Whoose rights are more important?

You have the right to refuse service to anyone, but you must have just cause if they take you to court. If they appeared to be dangerous, could cause damage etc, that's fine. But you cannot refuse service due to a persons gender, religious beliefs, sexuality or ethnicity


This is my point. Whoose rights are more important?

Like I said, it isn't whose rights are more important. It's which rights are more important. And the right to be able to live your life in accordance with law and be free from discrimination trumps the right to discriminate in a business. If it was their private home, they can let in who they want. But if they are operating a b&b, regardless if they live there or not, it is a business and all customers are to be treated equally unless you have reason to believe they will cause damage etc to the business

PDN

ShooterSF wrote: »

While it was a horrible act can anyone explain to me the legal differences between this and say "Curves" gyms refusing men?

Do you mean that a heterosexual man is unlikely to want to join a Curves gym, so their women-only rule is essentially excluding gay men?

MrPudding

HavingCrack wrote: »

It's a fair point, but effectively what this case says is the rights of the gay couple trump the rights of the business owner. If a black couple were refused entry I'd make the same point. It's a tricky situation and I don't really know what the solution is.

The thing is, when you start a business, you impliedly agree to follow all relevant legislation, not just the bits you agree with.*

HavingCrack wrote:

But it's their priavte business, not a semi state body or a publicly run company.

not really relevant as equality legislation applies to all businesses.*

HavingCrack wrote:

Say you ran a shop and someone came in and you just didn't want to serve them, should they have the right to demand service and have the force of law at their backs in doing so? Whoose rights are more important?

Unless you have a non discriminatory for refusing then yes, they have the law on their side. Whether it results in a court case is another matter.*

HavingCrack wrote:

This is my point. Whoose rights are more important?

Simple. The party that has the law on their side. As a business owner you agree to follow the laws that apply to your business. It may be you private home, but if you open it up to the public as a business then certain laws apply to you. If you are not willing or indeed able to abide by those laws, then you have to ask yourself if you are in the right business.*

MrP

ShooterSF

PDN wrote: »

Do you mean that a heterosexual man is unlikely to want to join a Curves gym, so their women-only rule is essentially excluding gay men?

No I mean it excludes all men (even if they mightn't want to join). Last I checked gender discrimination was illegal too.

I just picked it out as a business that seems to get by breaking the law and was wondering if they had some kind of loop hole...

magicbastarder

charging men more for insurance is also a form of discrimination, and i'm not sure if that's been challenged in court either.

magicbastarder

ShooterSF wrote: »

No I mean it excludes all men (even if they mightn't want to join).

an interesting, yet probably not definitive, case:
http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=91&docID=798

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

No I mean it excludes all men (even if they mightn't want to join). Last I checked gender discrimination was illegal too.

I just picked it out as a business that seems to get by breaking the law and was wondering if they had some kind of loop hole...

Clubs can get through on very specific grounds:

9.—(1) For the purposes of section 8 , a club shall not be considered to be a discriminating club by reason only that—

(a) if its principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of—

(i) persons of a particular gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, nationality or ethnic or national origin,

(ii) persons who are members of the Traveller community, or

(iii) persons who have no religious belief,

it refuses membership to other persons

For gender discrimination it's hard to see objectively. If you think about it logically, it should be perfectly legal to have a "Catholics-only" club, provided that you refuse membership to everyone who is not Catholic. Morally, ethically, this seems OK. If you want your club to cater solely to Catholics, then you should be allowed to chose to do so, right? Key word here being "club" of course.

Problem is, there are only two genders, but the same principle applies - if you have a club which caters only for women, that's OK provided that you refuse membership to everyone who is not a woman.

In the equality case quoted above, although having a women-only area is OK in principle, it needs to satisfy a few requirements (such as there being equivalent facilities provided for men), which the club failed to satisfy.

magicbastarder wrote: »

charging men more for insurance is also a form of discrimination, and i'm not sure if that's been challenged in court either.

That's covered by the Act, and legal.

5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

(d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment—

(i) is effected by reference to—

(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

and

(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors

ShooterSF

I knew there were loop holes like insurance and pubs legally allowed to discriminate on age (upwards but not downwards irritatingly) e.g over 21's, over 25's etc.

I didn't know about clubs. How strange. I work in a sports club with a members bar and I can't believe it would be possible to even consider making it an Irish only club but it seems you can.

magicbastarder

i wonder if the ICA has a women-only policy. i suspect not, as i believe their CEO is a man.

seamus

I'm no law-speaking guy, so I couldn't confirm that specifically. My suspicion is that it's OK to have a <something>-only club, provided that the club caters for the specific needs of that <something>. In other words, you would need to show that Irish people have a specific need that other nationalities don't, which your club is fulfilling.

Curves caters for women's "need" to exercise shrouded in secrecy and modesty, I guess. That's a tenuous justification IMO, so I may be wrong about that.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone set up a men-only gym on the same basis.

magicbastarder

a club for (as an example) brazilian ex-pats living in ireland makes some sense; but a club for irish people living in ireland is fairly nonsensical. i'd be surprised if a club like the former had a rule specifically banning non-brazilians from joining.

maybe that couple who own the hotel should set up as a 'heterosexual couple club' which provides accommodation? it would seem to be lawful under irish law. they might even see an increase in business...

Ghost Buster

seamus wrote: »

I'm no law-speaking guy, so I couldn't confirm that specifically. My suspicion is that it's OK to have a <something>-only club, provided that the club caters for the specific needs of that <something>. In other words, you would need to show that Irish people have a specific need that other nationalities don't, which your club is fulfilling.

Curves caters for women's "need" to exercise shrouded in secrecy and modesty, I guess. That's a tenuous justification IMO, so I may be wrong about that.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone set up a men-only gym on the same basis.

I intend to set up a club for supernaturally pregnant virgins who, along with their husbands and donkeys can avail of low cost B and B rates at a middle Eastern inn of their choosing

Stercus Accidit

When does a club stop being a club and start being a business? Curves is a business first and foremost, it is probably legally registered as such, how does a club register if differently?

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

I'm no law-speaking guy, so I couldn't confirm that specifically. My suspicion is that it's OK to have a <something>-only club, provided that the club caters for the specific needs of that <something>. In other words, you would need to show that Irish people have a specific need that other nationalities don't, which your club is fulfilling.

Curves caters for women's "need" to exercise shrouded in secrecy and modesty, I guess. That's a tenuous justification IMO, so I may be wrong about that.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone set up a men-only gym on the same basis.

I know this is quite the hypothetical and maybe the wrong place to go too deep but could one not argue that the women's "needs" re:curves is one based on a discriminatory attitude against men. If such you could claim that some Irish have a "need" to be amongst only Irish people, also horribly discriminatory but also based on some arbitrary "need".

Just for clarity I'm not in anyway condoning the setting up of Irish only clubs. I just don't like hypocracy(sp?)

Retail Hell

seamus wrote: »

http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=121602

Summary for those on mobile:
Gay couple booked a double room in a B&B in Wales, but were refused a double on arrival because the owners were Christian and didn't believe it was right.

The owners argued that they would have the same policy for any unmarried couple, but the court decided that it was clear discrimination and awarded damages to the couple.

==================

No point in having the "was it right" debate here - of course it was - but have we had any similar cases in this country?

I have heard anedotally of B&B owners in Ireland refusing to rent a double room to unmarried couples, but that is contrary to the equal status act. Likewise, if a gay couple were to rent a room, it would be illegal on two grounds to deny them.

But can anyone recall any B&B/Hotel owners being found in breach in this country?

there is a recession all tourists should be welcome whatever there sexual preferances or marital state.

seamus

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

When does a club stop being a club and start being a business? Curves is a business first and foremost, it is probably legally registered as such, how does a club register if differently?

It's covered by the Registration of Clubs Acts, which oddly aren't available online.

I imagine that being a club and being a business aren't mutually exclusive. The only difference being that a club only provides services to club members, a normal business provides service regardless of membership.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

That's covered by the Act, and legal.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0301/insurance.html

Dades

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0301/insurance.html

'Taking the gender of the insured individual into account as a risk factor in insurance contracts constitutes discrimination.'

Anyone else find this ridiculous?

What busybody brought this to the attention of the ECJ?

Dades

Dades wrote: »

Anyone else find this ridiculous?

What busybody brought this to the attention of the ECJ?

Someone who got their renewal quote in the post

And yes, I agree

magicbastarder

if it could be shown that skin colour could be correlated with car accidents, they wouldn't be allowed discriminate. society has chosen that age is a factor you can discriminate on, skin colour not.
you could argue about it all day long.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Anyone else find this ridiculous?

What busybody brought this to the attention of the ECJ?

It is nuts.

Assessment of risk is essential for any financial system to operate. Heck, the reason why the world's economy has nose-dived is primarily because people divorced risk from lending.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

if it could be shown that skin colour could be correlated with car accidents, they wouldn't be allowed discriminate.

If you can provide actuarial proof, as they do with age and sex, then why not?

MrP

Dades

magicbastarder wrote: »

if it could be shown that skin colour could be correlated with car accidents, they wouldn't be allowed discriminate. society has chosen that age is a factor you can discriminate on, skin colour not.
you could argue about it all day long.

So gender discrimination is off the menu but ageism is Kool and the Gang? :pac:

ShooterSF

First time I've ever said this but, yay Go Lisbon treaty (Sam I'm sure you're delighted)!

Next is to remove ageism and start treating each person equally UNTIL they mess up.

magicbastarder

MrPudding wrote: »

If you can provide actuarial proof, as they do with age and sex, then why not?

MrP

it'd be interesting to see someone try.

MrPudding

ShooterSF wrote: »

Next is to remove ageism and start treating each person equally UNTIL they mess up.

Except that is not how it will work... They will treat everyone equally, with the highest risk being the baseline.

MrP

magicbastarder

ShooterSF wrote: »

Next is to remove ageism and start treating each person equally UNTIL they mess up.

well, health insurance is loaded so younger people pay a similar amount to older people.

ShooterSF

MrPudding wrote: »

Except that is not how it will work... They will treat everyone equally, with the highest risk being the baseline.

MrP

I disagree. If that happened profits would be huge and capitalism's undercutting to take market share would kick in.

ShooterSF

MrPudding wrote: »

If you can provide actuarial proof, as they do with age and sex, then why not?

MrP

Asked this in motors but I'll ask the same of yourself,

So, any idea why no insurance company asks the colour of your skin, when applying for insurance, so they could compile such statistics?