Gay couple turned away from B&B

Doop

I think there may have been a thread on it at the time.. which I cant find, but the owners of that B&B who turned away a gay couple, have lost their appeal.

I know theres an argument that a B&B is someones home so they have the right to refuse people. But by definiation operating a B&B involves opening your home to the public.. and shock horror there are gays out there amongst the public!:rolleyes: If you dont want certain people in your home dont run a B&B!

Glad to see a clear message being sent.

Christian hotel owners lose gay couple appeal

Mr and Mrs Bull said they did not believe unmarried couples should share rooms

Two Christian guesthouse owners who refused to allow a gay couple to stay in a double room have lost their appeal against a ruling they acted unlawfully.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull, from Cornwall, took their case to the Court of Appeal.

The couple had refused to allow civil partners Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, from Bristol, the room at Chymorvah House in 2008.

They were ordered in January 2011 to pay £3,600 in damages.

The challenge by the couple, whose guesthouse is in Marazion, was rejected by three judges in London.

They had appealed against a conclusion by a judge at Bristol County Court that they acted unlawfully when they turned the couple away.

Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled last year that the Bulls had breached equality legislation.

The appeal judges heard that the Bulls thought any sex outside marriage was a "sin", but denied they had discriminated against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy.

Mr Bull, 72, and Mrs Bull, who is in her late 60s, were not in court for the ruling.

Full story.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15811223

blueruin

I would have thought you'd have rights of admission when it comes to taking people into your home. What if they were a couple of satanists or something, instead of just being gay?

Dark Chocolate

I remember reading about this last year and a couple of things came to mind.

They can't be so naive to think that every couple staying at their B&B are married.

If so, do they ask for proof that a couple are married? Signing in as 'Mr & Mrs Smith' does not a married couple make!

paulmorro

blueruin wrote: »

I would have thought you'd have rights of admission when it comes to taking people into your home. What if they were a couple of satanists or something, instead of just being gay?

If the Satanists were engaged in something legal then that'd be fine. They're operating their home as a business and so should be subject to equality laws.

Pacifist Pigeon

Even though I am gay and I deplore the opinions of that "Christian" couple who owned the B&B, I still respect their right (as owners of private property) to discriminate with respect to their clientele. You should have every right to turn away people who you don't want on your property. In all technicality, in a B&B you aren't "opening up your home to the public", but rather allow people into your home at your behest. If people start imposing on people's property like this, the hold nature of property will enter a state of disrepute.

An exchange of services (i.e., money in exchange for a room for the night) is not a compulsory contract; it is a mutual agreement - any individual in the exchange can pull out whenever they want (so long as a service isn't transferred) for whatever reason. Private business owners should never be forced to offer a service to anyone so longs as a service isn't transferred or a debt isn't owed; it breaks the concept of trade being based on mutual agreements.

I firmly believe that there is a better way for the public, and especially the gay community, to fight homophobia like this in a more proactive way, without infringing on fundamental rights of ownership and private trade.

smcgiff

Psychic smcgiff sees this couple coming into a significant sum of money.

foggy_lad

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Even though I am gay and I deplore the opinions of that "Christian" couple who owned the B&B, I still respect their right (as owners of private property) to discriminate with respect to their clientele. You should have every right to turn away people who you don't want on your property. In all technicality, in a B&B you aren't "opening up your home to the public", but rather allow people into your home at your behest. If people start imposing on people's property like this, the hold nature of property will enter a state of disrepute.

An exchange of services (i.e., money in exchange for a room for the night) is not a compulsory contract; it is a mutual agreement - any individual in the exchange can pull out whenever they want (so long as a service isn't transferred) for whatever reason. Private business owners should never be forced to offer a service to anyone so longs as a service isn't transferred or a debt isn't owed; it breaks the concept of trade being based on mutual agreements.

I firmly believe that there is a better way for the public, and especially the gay community, to fight homophobia like this in a more proactive way, without infringing on fundamental rights of ownership and private trade.

Ownership does come into it because by renting out a room to someone they are giving that person ownership of the room for a defined period. if you open to one you must open to all! obviously you don't have to rent to people who are drunk, mucky, loud and foul-mouthed, dirty etc but you are not allowed discriminate on the grounds of race gender sexual orientation etc etc. they would have got the same treatment if they had refused two travellers or indian or american or african people

Pacifist Pigeon

foggy_lad wrote: »

Ownership does come into it because by renting out a room to someone they are giving that person ownership of the room for a defined period.

Yes, but only if each party agrees to it. If it were the case that the gay couple had already paid for the room, yet they were thrown out, then they'd have a case - otherwise no. You can't force someone to offer you a service in exchange for money - it's a mutual agreement, as I said.

foggy_lad wrote: »

if you open to one you must open to all! obviously you don't have to rent to people who are drunk, mucky, loud and foul-mouthed, dirty etc but you are not allowed discriminate on the grounds of race gender sexual orientation etc etc. they would have got the same treatment if they had refused two travellers or indian or american or african people

As far as I'm aware, you don't have to open to all. A private business owner isn't obliged to offer his/her services to everyone or anyone - he/she can choose his/her clientele, as I said. You are allowed to discriminate in anyway you please on private grounds when it comes to offering a service. Personally, I think that that right should be upheld. It's different, however, if we're talking about something in the public domain or preexisting employment.

Conor30

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Even though I am gay and I deplore the opinions of that "Christian" couple who owned the B&B, I still respect their right (as owners of private property) to discriminate with respect to their clientele.

I'm inclined to agree. While, in theory, we should never discriminate against anybody...it must be a nightmare owning a guesthouse and having to let some certain people in. Not everyone is respectful, respectable and discreet. I have seen signs in some places saying 'no stag parties may stay here' etc...and have sometimes wondered at the legality of that too. Of course, the owners just don't want their premises (potentially) trashed and other paying guests annoyed.

foggy_lad

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Yes, but only if each party agrees to it. If it were the case that the gay couple had already paid for the room, yet they were thrown out, then they'd have a case - otherwise no. You can't force someone to offer you a service in exchange for money - it's a mutual agreement, as I said.



As far as I'm aware, you don't have to open to all. A private business owner isn't obliged to offer his/her services to everyone or anyone - he/she can choose his/her clientele, as I said. You are allowed to discriminate in anyway you please on private grounds when it comes to offering a service. Personally, I think that that right should be upheld. It's different, however, if we're talking about something in the public domain or preexisting employment.

The way I see it they have no grounds to refuse as they are offering a service to the public through advertising and allowing people call to the door and taking them into the hall where they presumably have a little chat that lets the owners know if they are respectable and honest and will respect their home.

Asking two men or women if they are gay or finding out their sexual orientation is no reason to deny them a double room that would otherwise have been open to them!

Would the same religious fanatics deny a room to two brothers or sisters just in case they had some incestuous liaison in the room?

AodhDub

Conor30 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree. While, in theory, we should never discriminate against anybody...it must be a nightmare owning a guesthouse and having to let some certain people in. Not everyone is respectful, respectable and discreet. I have seen signs in some places saying 'no stag parties may stay here' etc...and have sometimes wondered at the legality of that too. Of course, the owners just don't want their premises (potentially) trashed and other paying guests annoyed.

I think we have to make a distinction between deciding not to admit individuals who may be disrespectful to you or your property or whatever, but rejecting an entire class of people out of your own personal beliefs - or let's be honest, prejudice - is another storey. The former being perfectly understandable but when it comes to the latter I'd have to agree with Doop, it just comes with the job.

Annasopra

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

A private business owner isn't obliged to offer his/her services to everyone or anyone - he/she can choose his/her clientele, as I said.

They can't in Ireland. An owner cannot refuse to sell someone a good or service based on their; gender, civil (marital) status, family status, age, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, membership of the Traveller community

mikemac1

Their mistake was giving a reason

Should have done what hotels do with traveller weddings

Sorry Sir, we've messed up and are double-booked
You'll have to give a refund, you'll have an angry customer but you won't have a court case

At all times, say as little as possible

Annasopra

mikemac1 wrote: »

Their mistake was giving a reason

Should have done what hotels do with traveller weddings

Sorry Sir, we've messed up and are double-booked
You'll have to give a refund, you'll have an angry customer but you won't have a court case

At all times, say as little as possible

It's not appropriate in this forum to encourage discrimination against travellers or LGBT people.

mikemac1

I should not have typed "should have done"
I should have typed something else

I wasn't encouraging anything, I don't have the power to influence any business

Sorry mods

Pacifist Pigeon

mango salsa wrote: »

It's not appropriate in this forum to encourage discrimination against travellers or LGBT people.

I don't think he/she was. He was merely pointing out that it shouldn't be illegal to choose who you want to do business with - he wasn't encouraging discrimination against Irish travelers, merely using a case involving travelers.

paddyandy

blueruin wrote: »

I would have thought you'd have rights of admission when it comes to taking people into your home. What if they were a couple of satanists or something, instead of just being gay?

Freedom becomes a Tyranny sometimes !

Slang_Tang

mango salsa wrote: »

They can't in Ireland. An owner cannot refuse to sell someone a good or service based on their; gender, civil (marital) status, family status, age, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, membership of the Traveller community

It's the same in the UK. This gay couple were protected by the Equality Act 2010.

blueruin wrote: »

I would have thought you'd have rights of admission when it comes to taking people into your home. What if they were a couple of satanists or something, instead of just being gay?

It's not a home; it's a business. As for the business being allowed to choose its clientèle debate, I think that these issues were discussed a couple of years ago when this case first appeared. Saying that businesses should be allowed to deicide to whom they provide their services is a very slippery slope. Besides, if anyone wants some of that depressing libertarian nonsense, try the top-rated comments here.

Pacifist Pigeon

Slang_Tang wrote: »

It's not a home; it's a business. As for the business being allowed to choose its clientèle debate, I think that these issues were discussed a couple of years ago when this case first appeared. Saying that businesses should be allowed to deicide to whom they provide their services is a very slippery slope. Besides, if anyone wants some of that depressing libertarian nonsense, try the top-rated comments here.

I understand the George have been turning away people because they are straight (or assumed to be). Are the people who advice the bouncers at the George in violation of the 2010 Equality Act?

Annasopra

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I understand the George have been turning away people because they are straight (or assumed to be). Are the people who advice the bouncers at the George in violation of the 2010 Equality Act?

They would be almost certainly in violation of the equal status acts 2000 2004 if it was proven they were refusing people because they were straight. Not quite sure about the UK law.

bonarboi

Dam gays i would have told those shagbags to f off and get tested for aids

baby and crumble

bonarboi wrote: »

Dam gays i would have told those shagbags to f off and get tested for aids

Delightful. Bye now.

floggg

I think people are over egging the private home thing. These people chose to open their home to paying guests which makes those parts of the building available to guests a business rather than a home.

In the same way that a pub landlord living above the bar isn't entitled to discriminate against patrons neither should these lot.

Now, as to whether they should be allowed discriminate, read any of the articles where it's reported and replace the word "gay" with "black" or "Chinese". Would many argue in their favour then?

Aurongroove

Devil's advocate:
But these guys are an old couple. They probably havn't the first clue about regulations or unfair refusal of services. They're probably homophobic because of how they were raised and may not have encountered a situation where their views needed changing.


In the scenario of me booking a double room for a boyfriend and myself for example, the first thing I think I would mention on the phone/in person is that yes we are a gay couple, and would they be comfortable boarding us, not that they're legally obliged; would they feel comfortable. Not everybody in the state changes their views simultaneously. It takes time, maybe even generations.


I think it's wrong to force 'understanding' on people by legal (or physical, or psychological) bullying.

it;s the equivalent of an adult seeing a child being mean to another child and then the adult gets up, strikes the child and screams "BE NICE OR I'L HIT YOU AGAIN"
the child is forced to 'be nice' without understanding why or not knowing what 'being nice' curtails. All they know is not to do precisely what they just did or they'll be hit again.

This couple have been sued into accepting gay people, probably without understanding why morally. This is just going to make them more homophobic as well as distrusting of the state. They probably now just assume they live in the world where 'evil people' are legally allowed into their BnB with the threat of being sued by their own country.

Aurongroove

Aurongroove wrote: »

Devil's advocate:
But these guys are an old couple. They probably havn't the first clue about regulations or unfair refusal of services. They're probably homophobic because of how they were raised and may not have encountered a situation where their views needed changing.

This is not an excuse. You run a business then you should know the rules of said business.

The couple stated that they could not permit unmarried couples to share a room. What if the couple had "civilly partnered" one and other. Would they have allowed them in then? I doubt it.

Someone already pointed it out but I think it's a very valid argument, would anyone have been understanding if they had refused a black couple? I doubt it.

I'm all for the "we reserve the right to refuse admission" side of things, if you look like trouble then you won't be let in etc. But when you are racially, sexually, religiously, discriminating against someone, you need to be pulled up on it.

floggg

Ignorance of the law is never a defence in court proceedings. Rightly so.

These people run a business. It's a career choice - they aren't forced into it.

I can appreciate certain people have particular views and you can't force them to change. But if their views are going to prevent them offering a service in a non discriminatory manner they should decline to provide that service. To everybody.

It's their views which are contrary to the law and basic human decency not mine. Why should I have to live my life worrying about whether just being myself will make other people uncomfortable because they have certai views which they choose to place above my right to be treated equally.

I don't agree with gay people going around picking fights for the sake of it. But under no circumstances should we be forced to make apologies or compromises to facilitate other peoples intolerance.

Aurongroove

Sorry but it is an excuse. It's not a legal excuse, but it is an excuse.

Do you read the terms and conditions on every DVD you buy or software upgrade? you're probably breaking hundreds of laws just walking down the street with a bag of crisps. And whats you're excuse? that you didn't know the laws? pah! lock him up and throw away the key!

It sickens me when people are willing to except the law being bent in their favour, "here's a drink on the house, dont tell the boss" "I'll perform at your reception if you mention me in your paper" "I'll build your extension for cash in hand" but as soon as somebody gets offended they're immediately brave champions of the law and the social bubble gets thrown away, baby and all. It's a double standard in dealing with people, and I find it abusive when people don't admit that it swings both ways.

I've met landlords who didnt know tenants rights, shop owners who didn't know consumers rights.
And I've dealt with them on a social level. Not by quoting sections of law to them at every turn, I dealt with them in the context they deal with me.

The couple probably didn't know they weren't allowed refuse homosexuals by right because the culture they were raised in strongly suggests that it is a given.
Let sue them! that'll help bridge an understanding.
They'll welcome gays with open arms and in full sincerity after they've been sued.

28064212

Deleted User wrote: »

The couple stated that they could not permit unmarried couples to share a room. What if the couple had "civilly partnered" one and other. Would they have allowed them in then? I doubt it.

The couple were civil partners. Which is why they lost the case. They offered a service to married couples (i.e. a double room). They denied that same service to a couple who were civil partners. Under UK law, that is illegal

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

The couple were civil partners. Which is why they lost the case. They offered a service to married couples (i.e. a double room). They denied that same service to a couple who were civil partners. Under UK law, that is illegal

Apologies, totally missed that part. Point proven then I guess, one rule for them and all that

Aurongroove

earlier point standing, I just wanna add that on the legal side of things it is nice to see the civil union is able to do SOMETHING for gay rights.

28064212

Aurongroove wrote: »

earlier point standing, I just wanna add that on the legal side of things it is nice to see the civil union is able to do SOMETHING for gay rights.

Out of curiosity, what do you think would have been a positive outcome from this case? From the point that they refused a service to gay people that they offered to straight people, how should it have been handled?

Aurongroove

the current outcome was positive and the case itself was handled well.

where I diverge is, I think the case shouldn't have happened.

floggg

It's not an excuse.

If I don't read the software license and breach it, Microsoft can still sue me if I pirate it. And win.

If I rent out a flat without looking into landlord and tenant law and breach some provision or other my tenant can sue me. And win.

If they voluntarily enter into a business venture they have a duty to educate themselves as to the standards required of them and comply with same or else accept liability for the consequences.

Again, if the word black not gay was being used there would be no debate and certainly nobody would advocate appeasement.

Equality is a right. It's not a special privilege or a reward for good behaviour. It's not something you have to ask for or wait to be handed out. It's something you are entitled to.

Malcom X once said something along the lines of "Freedom is somethinh you have to do for yourself. anytime you beg another man to set you free you'll never be free".

I'm not advocating armed uprising or anything but I don't think that we have anything whatsoever to apologise for and certainly we shouldn't have to ask politely to be treated as equals in a free democratic society.

Do you think Rosa Parks was wrong to take a stand and refuse to give up her seat rather than politely waiting till the white men saw fit to let her have it?

Or should David Norris have refrained from private sexual activities between consensual adults until such time as the country no longer found it reprehensible.

Positive political engagement is hugely important and a lot of progress has been made this way. But unfortunately more often than not minority groups have had to resort to the courts to ensure their legal rights were respected. And in no way should they ever apologise for doing so.

If David Norris hadn't taken legal action gay sex could still be illegal.

floggg

floggg wrote: »

Equality is a right. It's not a special privilege or a reward for good behaviour. It's not something you have to ask for or wait to be handed out. It's something you are entitled to.

28064212

Aurongroove wrote: »

the current outcome was positive and the case itself was handled well.

where I diverge is, I think the case shouldn't have happened.

Sorry, I didn't mean the case in the legal sense of the word, just the general situation. From the moment in time where the gay couple were turned away, what would be the most postive outcome in your opinion? Do you think the B&B owners should have been allowed to continue breaking the law and the couple should just have left well enough alone?

Slang_Tang

Aurongroove wrote: »

In the scenario of me booking a double room for a boyfriend and myself for example, the first thing I think I would mention on the phone/in person is that yes we are a gay couple, and would they be comfortable boarding us, not that they're legally obliged; would they feel comfortable. Not everybody in the state changes their views simultaneously. It takes time, maybe even generations.

Seriously? What about booking a table in a restaurant for you and your partner? Would you mention it then, too, just in case the restaurant owner is uncomfortable with you at the table? Would you ask to sit in the gay section at the cinema?

Aurongroove wrote: »

This couple have been sued into accepting gay people, probably without understanding why morally. This is just going to make them more homophobic as well as distrusting of the state. They probably now just assume they live in the world where 'evil people' are legally allowed into their BnB with the threat of being sued by their own country

But they haven't been sued into "accepting" gay people. They still don't. And they didn't accept them before. The point is, they didn't have to accept homosexuality. They just had to tolerate two civil partners sharing a room in their B and B.

LittleLady25

Deleted User wrote: »

This is not an excuse. You run a business then you should know the rules of said business.

The couple stated that they could not permit unmarried couples to share a room. What if the couple had "civilly partnered" one and other. Would they have allowed them in then? I doubt it.

Someone already pointed it out but I think it's a very valid argument, would anyone have been understanding if they had refused a black couple? I doubt it.

I'm all for the "we reserve the right to refuse admission" side of things, if you look like trouble then you won't be let in etc. But when you are racially, sexually, religiously, discriminating against someone, you need to be pulled up on it.

Great point.
Regardless of anything you can not discriminate against people.

Pacifist Pigeon

I'm going to start a rant on the right of property, business and the true nature of equal rights, but I'm too tired ... stay tuned though (I'll be back).

Aurongroove

Slang_Tang wrote: »

Seriously? What about booking a table in a restaurant for you and your partner? Would you mention it then, too, just in case the restaurant owner is uncomfortable with you at the table? Would you ask to sit in the gay section at the cinema?

a gay section at the cinema? you're using sarcasm to try drive a point.
To answer your question, For a restaurant, cinema, etc I would imagine that any sort of homophobia met could be dealt with by talking to a manager, or walking out. I can't think of a scenario bad enough short of physical abuse in which I would sue a business for homophobia understanding as I do that suing dosn't change people's belief, it only suppresses them from expressing them publicly.
If anything I'd rather homophobic business manager stuck to their guns and did so publicly. It would be easier for me to give my business to institutions who are genuinely gay friendly, not those who are forced to be so by law.
I shudder when i think of a country full of workers standing there, with a legal shot gun held at their back, smiling at you and talking your money, while secretly thinking you're an evil person and relishing the though of strangling you.

But they haven't been sued into "accepting" gay people. They still don't. And they didn't accept them before. The point is, they didn't have to accept homosexuality. They just had to tolerate two civil partners sharing a room in their B and B.

Yes! nail on head!
Tolerance of homosexuality, for me, is the greatest of bull****.
Tolerance is what you have for street crime and high prices in convenience stores.

Homosexuality isn't a thing one should 'tolerate' legally or other wise. It isn't a cult, or a strange religion, or spiritual belief. Homosexuality is a fact of nature and all efforts in gay rights, homosexuality in culture and social stature in my opinion should be aimed with pin prick accuracy toward gaining acceptance, and not something as phenomenologically worthless as tolerance.

Tolerence is for moody teenagers, Staunch spiritualists, or I dunno, Old people running B and Bs. And 100 times I rather give my money to a business who's staff I see eye to eye with and not those "legally obliged not to refuse me" which is a shallow prize and on several levels, is not worth a court battle.

floggg

Aurongroove wrote: »

Slang_Tang wrote: »

Seriously? What about booking a table in a restaurant for you and your partner? Would you mention it then, too, just in case the restaurant owner is uncomfortable with you at the table? Would you ask to sit in the gay section at the cinema?

a gay section at the cinema? you're using sarcasm to try drive a point.
To answer your question, For a restaurant, cinema, etc I would imagine that any sort of homophobia met could be dealt with by talking to a manager, or walking out. I can't think of a scenario bad enough short of physical abuse in which I would sue a business for homophobia understanding as I do that suing dosn't change people's belief, it only suppresses them from expressing them publicly.
If anything I'd rather homophobic business manager stuck to their guns and did so publicly. It would be easier for me to give my business to institutions who are genuinely gay friendly, not those who are forced to be so by law.
I shudder when i think of a country full of workers standing there, with a legal shot gun held at their back, smiling at you and talking your money, while secretly thinking you're an evil person and relishing the though of strangling you.

But they haven't been sued into "accepting" gay people. They still don't. And they didn't accept them before. The point is, they didn't have to accept homosexuality. They just had to tolerate two civil partners sharing a room in their B and B.

Yes! nail on head!
Tolerance of homosexuality, for me, is the greatest of bull****.
Tolerance is what you have for street crime and high prices in convenience stores.

Homosexuality isn't a thing one should 'tolerate' legally or other wise. It isn't a cult, or a strange religion, or spiritual belief. Homosexuality is a fact of nature and all efforts in gay rights, homosexuality in culture and social stature in my opinion should be aimed with pin prick accuracy toward gaining acceptance, and not something as phenomenologically worthless as tolerance.

Tolerence is for moody teenagers, Staunch spiritualists, or I dunno, Old people running B and Bs. And 100 times I rather give my money to a business who's staff I see eye to eye with and not those "legally obliged not to refuse me" which is a shallow prize and on several levels, is not worth a court battle.

Again, in all your examples replace the word gay with black.

Do you think civil rights activists in southern USA were wrong to stage sit ins at diners or go to court to seek integration of schools? Shouldn't they have just given their custom to the black friendly restaurants and schools happy to take them? And how long would it have taken Alabama to integrate of its own accord.

Should a black man take it lying down if he is refused service just because he's black?

Sometimes the world doesn't come around to being tolerant until its made to. And minority groups should have to avoid certain places until they do.

That's the point of these laws. To say that whatever views you might hold there is a minimum standard of tolerance which we expect of you in doing business in our society. If nobody takes a stand and enforces them then you get nowhere. Look at the thread about the George refusing straight people. The silent boycott hasn't changed their attitude. An equality claim would.

And so what if it doesn't change their private attitude, only their public behaviour. That still has a powerful effect. If society tells them that they can't publicly discriminate it sends a powerful message that discrimination isn't acceptable. It discourages that sort of behaviour and forces people to reconsider their stances. Where a society says discrimination wont be tolerated legally any more public attitudes aren't too far behind in following suit.

Of course people are entitled to their views and if you can honestly say you think the same should apply to blacks, Chinese, women or Sikhs who are denied service because of their ethnicity, sex or religion then I'll happily disagree with you.

I hope though you wouldn't expect gays to show tolerance of bigotry in circumstances where those groups weren't. The intolerance is just the same in each case.

Edit - actually even if you thought the same rules should apply to all minorities I still couldn't disagree. Telling a Chinese person they should take it on the chin if they are refused service on grounds of their race would be outrageous. Equality laws are there to protect against such intolerance.

I also think you underestimate the impact this sort of thing would have on people experiencing it. I imagine it would leave you feel pretty small, weak and helpless if this were to happen to you in this day and age.

It's not something you can just brush off and move along. Without having some sort of remedy this sort of thing could have a lasting impact.

And to conclude my early morning rant, tolerance is the price we pay for living in a free democratic society. Their intolerant bigoted views are protected under our laws, and rightly so. We ensure that they can practice their faith freely and peacefully. But in return they most show us the some courtesy.

Aurongroove

I see your point.

I think the difference, if I could try sum it up is that some see legally enforced tolerance as preceding acceptance.

where as I see it as A: not worth anything socially/culturally as I believe it amasses to a personal excuse for the guiltless letting of 'wrong people' remain clueless for the cost of them behaving in contrast to their natural behavior. (like having a dog wear a muzzle)

B: something which hinders acceptance since it acts as a false social stepping stone (as gone into detail about in previous posts).

C: giving small minorities of hardcore haters further fuel ("the gays/blacks/chinese have infiltrated the government!, let's riot, or go on a killing spree") instead of rooting out the hard truth: that these people's beliefs are at odds with current enlightened reason.

They shouldn't have to behave accepting or else we'll bring them to court, they should be accepting and if they're not why aren't they?

28064212

Aurongroove wrote: »

They shouldn't have to behave accepting or else we'll bring them to court, they should be accepting and if they're not why aren't they?

You haven't said what you would like to have seen happen. Yes, in a perfect world, the couple wouldn't have been prejudiced in the first place.

But they are. So what do you propose should have happened after they discriminated against the gay couple? Should they have had to sit in on sensitivity training classes or something?

floggg

Without recourse to legal sanction they wouldn't be forced to do anything or in any way change their ways.

Forces tolerance does make a difference though. Sure there are still problems but do you not think Alabama and Mississippi are more tolerant places for blacks now than before integration? That was done by court order.

Moreover if people are prohibited from excluding gays from their premises it means they are forced to deal with real live gays in the flesh. And then they see we aren't monsters or depraved sadists. We're normal and sometimes slightly boring human beings. And once they see that the myths aren't true in the majority of cases the prejudices will disappear. And those that refuse to change shouldn't be facilitated in their stubborn ignorance by the rest of us.

Just wondering have you ever suffered that sort of overt discrimination on grounds of sexuality or otherwise?

Thankfully I haven't but I would imagine I'd find it hard to brush off too easily. I only hope I'd have the courage to stand up to whoever did it if I did though.

Aurongroove

(this was written before I red flogggs last post)
@2806
I believe, sticking to my guns, what would have happened is nothing:
The old couple discriminate, the gay couple argue, if they couple still hold fast and discriminate, the gay couple leave, feeling sorry the old couple felt that way.

It sounds miserable, and protest in this fashion rarely seems to quite work out in real life. it's a bit like protesting that people shouldn't steal cars, by sticking to your guns and leaving you car unlocked and the keys still in: the problem is people DO steal cars.

So while I very much doubt there would've been a way of actually arguing the old couple out of the stance with a "sorry lady; science, moral philosophy and human reasoning have all but proved your spiritual beliefs are unfounded and that gay people are as natural as gooseberries, now let us stay in your B'n'B"

but the passive act of not letting something as horrible as being denied business de-rail the master plan is still alluring (at least to me).
Imagine a culture in which homophobia dosn't exist because it is plainly accepted, instead of one one where it only doesn't exist publicly, because it is prohibited.

28064212

Aurongroove wrote: »

(this was written before I red flogggs last post)
@2806
I believe, sticking to my guns, what would have happened is nothing:
The old couple discriminate, the gay couple argue, if they couple still hold fast and discriminate, the gay couple leave, feeling sorry the old couple felt that way.

And nothing ever changes. Homophobes, racists, sexists all get to be homophobic, racist and sexist without the slightest fear that there will ever be consequences for their actions. People get blocked from using services or goods because the provider doesn't like their sexual orientation, skin colour or gender, and have to just walk away

Aurongroove wrote: »

Imagine a culture in which homophobia dosn't exist because it is plainly accepted, instead of one one where it only doesn't exist publicly, because it is prohibited.

Very much a fantasy. Why should people be denied access while we're waiting for this utopian society?

Aurongroove

@floggg
not directly, But I've seen it from the closet a few times. I think partially one of the reasons why I am so adamant about people hating>>accepting gay people rather then hating>>tolerating>>accepting is because for me, (someone who works on an almost autistic levels of honesty), I was worried that from then on, once out, people would begin 'humoring' me like I've seen people humoring other gay people while I was still in the closet and that my meeting them and interacting with them every day afterward would be under the pretext of "act nice to the gay, homophobia is prohibited after all"

sure you can hold out until something happens under the cease fire of tolerance; maybe you do someone an unexpected favor and you change their perception, but it could also fall the other way, some throw away gesture could be adding to the 'snowball' of prejudice this person is developing, and all of a sudden you've got hate crimes and drunken attacks.


2806, basically i see tolerance as a ceasefire and acceptance as a peace treaty.
I prefer people to be allowed express their beliefs in the hope that they will follow their beliefs to their natural conclusion, and that that conclusion is acceptance and not to suppress this process.

28064212

Aurongroove wrote: »

2806, basically i see tolerance as a ceasefire and acceptance as a peace treaty.
I prefer people to be allowed express their beliefs in the hope that they will follow their beliefs to their natural conclusion, and that that conclusion is acceptance and not to suppress this process.

But you're back to fantasy land again. Take that approach to other crimes and see where it goes. We don't need drink-driving laws, people will know what the right thing to do is. We don't need theft laws, if you get burgled, you can just feel sorry that the thief felt it was ok to steal.

People aren't inherently 'good', it's not true that if only they sat down and thought a bit, they'd magically become accepting of everyone. Allowing people to practice racism, homophobia and sexism without fear of consequences doesn't lead anywhere positive.

Nyan Cat

Like anything there is resistance to change and there is/would be resistance to forced acceptance. But if you don't force it there won't be acceptance. Black people are accepted now because our grandparents/great grand parents maybe were forced to start treating them differently. And with each generation the 'forced' bit becomes less and less a part of it. They just accept because by then it's the norm.

Annasopra

Aurongroove wrote: »

(this was written before I red flogggs last post)
@2806
I believe, sticking to my guns, what would have happened is nothing:
The old couple discriminate, the gay couple argue, if they couple still hold fast and discriminate, the gay couple leave, feeling sorry the old couple felt that way.

It sounds miserable, and protest in this fashion rarely seems to quite work out in real life. it's a bit like protesting that people shouldn't steal cars, by sticking to your guns and leaving you car unlocked and the keys still in: the problem is people DO steal cars.

So while I very much doubt there would've been a way of actually arguing the old couple out of the stance with a "sorry lady; science, moral philosophy and human reasoning have all but proved your spiritual beliefs are unfounded and that gay people are as natural as gooseberries, now let us stay in your B'n'B"

but the passive act of not letting something as horrible as being denied business de-rail the master plan is still alluring (at least to me).
Imagine a culture in which homophobia dosn't exist because it is plainly accepted, instead of one one where it only doesn't exist publicly, because it is prohibited.

Isn't that the problem though - passivity means acceptance of discrimination and consequently legalised bigotry - I mean if every social movement was passive in accepting things as they are women wouldn't have votes or seats in parliament and there would probably still be apartheid in South Africa.

floggg

Aurongroove - just wondering, how do you think we could promote acceptance in the meantime? We can't just wait for it to happen.

I can understand your thinking but I don't think it's realistic. Nothing would change unless the issue is forced. And in the meantime isn't it better that we can go about our business unmolested?

If you were to ask a Ugandan gay would they prefer to live in a society where people were forced to tolerate them even if they didn't accept them or allow discrimination to continue until attitudes changed I don't doubt for a second which they'd choose.

Maybe because we live in a place where overt discrimination isn't a significant feature of our every day life that makes it easier to have a live and let live attitude. But I don't think any discrimination should be tolerated at all.

I'm not saying this to you, but I think sometimes gay people can be too afraid of causing upset. I don't think any minority should ever be afraid to be seen to stand up for it self. I think turning the other cheek sends out sends out a far worse message than taking a reasoned stand.

Also, taking a stand against discrimination doesn't derail the master plan. It furthers it.

A child learning of the incident can take one of two things from it depending on the outcome - (a) it's ok to discriminate against somebody else because they are different to you or (b) every person is equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and the mere fact that somebody is different to you doesn't mean they don't deserve the same treatment.

Which message helps further acceptance do you think?

Aurongroove

28064212 wrote: »

People aren't inherently 'good'

That's were we differ.


@ 2806, mango and floggg. sorry, you guys are asking great questions to which I'd enjoy nothing more then to address, but it's starting to look like I would need thriller size posts for all the little intricate rebuttals. the post lengths and time are already so vast that I;m having to re-log in when I've finished one. What's more, like the above quote, we've reached a stage where we're developing the need to establish precepts to carry on further down. this would lead to the thread being pulled further off topic then it already is. If this were a chat around drinks we could by another round and I'd tell people to check their bus timetables, but since it's an online forum, I don't I can solider on without moving it to chat room or something.

can we leave it at 'to be continued' ?