No gays allowed

Gummy Panda

Lads does the villa have a pool?

Maybe they banned gay people to caution on the safe side after what happen with Michael Barrymore

uck51js9zml2yt

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

When they decide to foist their opinions/beliefs into the public domain and it results in people being discriminated against . That's when their beliefs are a problem.

So its OK for homosexuals ton"foist"their opinions on someone else.
I love equality, its so unequal.

Kiwi in IE

To Elland Back wrote: »

So you wrote a review (or whatever you want to call it) giving your opinion of a place you have never been to and now you intend to TELL your friends not to stay there.

No I wrote a message to the company on the review page (all reviews on such websites are moderated before posted to site) telling the company that I would not stay there and that I have posted it on my Facebook page highlighting the 'no same sex couples'.

I did not say a thing about the property itself or pretend I had stayed there when I hadn't.

I probably should have written a proper complaint to the company because then they would have to respond.

Kiwi in IE

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

So its OK for homosexuals ton"foist"their opinions on someone else.

How are they 'foisting' their opinions on someone else exactly? By having relationships with people of the same sex when homophobes 'disagree' that they should?

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

I love equality, its so unequal.

I love catch phrases like this made in the context that it's not fair that oppressors can't oppress anymore.

qt3.14

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

What does the northern Ireland cake case have to do with this? The couple in the cake case were not refused service because they were gay - the bakery just refused to put their message on a cake. If they wanted to walk in and purchase a generic cake, or a cake with "Congratulations" on it, they would have been served no problem

In this case the guest house is refusing gays solely because they are gay.

There is a difference.

FWIW, I don't agree with the business, but why not just move on and give your money to someone who is happy to accept it. Life is too short........

Yep, different situations.

uck51js9zml2yt

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you able to give an example of a rational reason why a rental property owner would want to ban gay couples from renting the property?


One can disagree that water is wet too if one wishes.


One can certainly believe it is 'wrong'. That would however make one homophobic.


One may be able to believe the above and not dislike or hate individual gay people, however to believe all of the above indicates a prejudice against them, so one is still covered by the definition of homophobia!



I think you meant homophobic? People with the above viewpoints are homophobic! See definition.


I love this! "My beliefs tell me I should bully and discriminate and if you try to prevent me you are bullying and discriminating against me!"


How are people who are prejudice against gay people having their equal rights violated by being described as the correct term for a person who is prejudice against gay people?

The thread that keeps on giving I'll just answer the last point as I'm on my phone.
I have a right to not accept homosexuality as normal behaviour. That doesn't necessarily make me prejudiced against the person. I can still accept the person without accepting the act but it suits the propaganda machine to say I'm prejudiced and against homosexuals.

As for the property owner, we don't know the reason. Maybe as was said, they had a bad previous experience and jus didnt want the hassle anymore.:)

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I always think its funny how much times the words "gay" must come up in the google search history of some people who look disfavourably on anything to do with gay people.

Still, as long as its for research purposes, eh?
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0009.html#sec9

oh FFS, grow up. One minute you are calling people homophobes as an insult, the next you are trying to imply they are homosexual as an insult. Get over your bloody sexuality and start acting like you are more than it.

Deranged96

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

The thread that keeps on giving I'll just answer the last point as I'm on my phone.
I have a right to not accept homosexuality as normal behaviour. That doesn't necessarily make me prejudiced against the person. I can still accept the person without accepting the act but it suits the propaganda machine to say I'm prejudiced and against homosexuals.

As for the property owner, we don't know the reason. Maybe as was said, they had a bad previous experience and jus didnt want the hassle anymore.:)

I'd just be interested to know the genesis of your non-acceptance of homosexual behaviour?
If you don't mind.

bb1234567

reprise wrote: »

And this one isn't?

http://www.travelgayeurope.com/gran-canaria-gay-hotels/

Do explain.

It clearly says X is a gay (straight friendly) hotel etc...

bb1234567

eviltwin wrote: »

It is bigotry and I wouldn't book this villa for my holiday in light of that but I believe people should be free to decide who stays in their home.

I suppose but if they said 'no blacks or muslims' we would be hearing all about it

bjork

bb1234567 wrote: »

I suppose but if they said 'no blacks or muslims' we would be hearing all about it

or no women!!







they'll may possibly draw on the walls

Kiwi in IE

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

I have a right to not accept homosexuality as normal behaviour.

It is normal behaviour for people who are homosexual whether you accept that it is or not. And if you are specifically to bum sex then I am sure you are aware that this is not exclusive to gay couples?

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

That doesn't necessarily make me prejudiced against the person.

If you are judging their 'behaviour' on your own norms and then saying that it is abnormal then yes, I think that is prejudice. Kind of like saying that speaking Greek is abnormal behaviour because you don't speak Greek.

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

I can still accept the person without accepting the act

No one expects you to accept 'the act' now! I wouldn't accept 'the act' myself if it was offered

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

As for the property owner, we don't know the reason. Maybe as was said, they had a bad previous experience and jus didnt want the hassle anymore.:)

And if they had a previous bad experience with black people it would be ok if they requested 'no black people' on their ad?

bb1234567

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

The thread that keeps on giving I'll just answer the last point as I'm on my phone.
I have a right to not accept homosexuality as normal behaviour. That doesn't necessarily make me prejudiced against the person. I can still accept the person without accepting the act but it suits the propaganda machine to say I'm prejudiced and against homosexuals.

As for the property owner, we don't know the reason. Maybe as was said, they had a bad previous experience and jus didnt want the hassle anymore.:)

Can you stop trying to justify bigotry ?

gozunda

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

[1]What does the northern Ireland cake case have to do with this? [2]The couple in the cake case were not refused service because they were gay - the bakery just refused to put their message on a cake. If they wanted to walk in and purchase a generic cake, or a cake with "Congratulations" on it, they would have been served no problem

In this case the guest house is refusing gays solely because they are gay.

There is a difference.

FWIW, I don't agree with the business, but why not just move on and give your money to someone who is happy to accept it. Life is too short........

Well to answer you question [1] correctly
It's referred to as 'Discrimination' and is illegal under UK, ROI and EU legislation. As for point [2] that is your opinion and supposition. The relevant NI anti discrimination authority do not agree with you I'm afraid.

gozunda

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

So in the world of homosexuality people are not allowed have differing opinions and a different morality.
Why is it homosexuals always want their rights while stamping on the rights others.
Every time I see a dose of pink outrage I hear the words homophobic being bandied about in the same sentence.
Just because someone disagrees with homosexuality does not automatically make them afraid of homosexuals.

For the record I have a homosexual family member whom I treat no differently to any other member of my family but she knows I disagree with her lifestyle and accepts that. She doesn't impose her choices on me and visa versa.

I really have to make a call on this. - "homosexuals always want their rights while stamping on the rights of others"
Seriously - homosexuals stamping on others rights? Really? Do keep going. This is fascinating ...

bjork

gozunda wrote: »

Well to answer you question [1] correctly
It's referred to as 'Discrimination' and is illegal under UK, ROI and EU legislation. As for point [2] that is your opinion and supposition. The relevant NI anti discrimination authority do not agree with you I'm afraid.

Discrimination because of Age and gender are also not allowed

Remind me which group said "Men only" and "No children" and "Exclusively gay"

Pumpkinseeds

BehindTheScenes wrote: »

Actually it's not, there are certain circumstances where discrimination is legal. Take the Orange Order for instance perfectly allowed to discriminate against Catholics.

Do I think this is right, no, would I want to join, no.

Why would people want to go somewhere that they're not welcome. Case in point is the many universities in the United States that are predominantly black because they were not welcome, allowed in many cases, to enrol at other universities. They set up institutions that were equal or better than other institutions.

Why would a gay person want to go to a place where they're discriminated against when there are many more places where they are welcome and offer a superior experience.

The situations you describe shouldn't exist because they shouldn't be allowed to exist. They exist because it's tolerated.

uck51js9zml2yt

gozunda wrote: »

I really have to make a call on this. - "homosexuals always want their rights while stamping on the rights of others"
Seriously - homosexuals stamping on others rights? Really? Do keep going. This is fascinating ...

Let's not gets in the way of indignation or is that only the domain of the pink brigade.

Deranged96

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

Let's not gets in the way of indignation or is that only the domain of the pink brigade.

Where did this ridiculous phrase come from?

Kiwi in IE

Deranged96 wrote: »

Where did this ridiculous phrase come from?

Makes me think of the girls in my sons senior infant class. Have no idea what it has to do with gay people.

gozunda

bjork wrote: »

Discrimination because of Age and gender are also not allowed

If you wish to line up your ducks, please do - one at a time. Other threads - > that away.

bjork wrote: »

Remind me which group said "Men only" and "No children" and "Exclusively gay"

'Group'? As in all gay people or some businesses exploiting tourist euro opportunities?

Getaway with ya

gozunda

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

Let's not gets in the way of indignation or is that only the domain of the pink brigade.

When did anti gay opinion become do blatantly bitchy?

Back to the question I asked -

You said - "homosexuals always want their rights while stamping on the rights of others"
Seriously - homosexuals stamping on others rights? Really? Do keep going. This is fascinating ...

Manach

Basically some rights now trump others, as imposed thanks to the commissioners of the left PC brigade where one conforms to the approval of immoral practices or else the loss one's live-hood. Liberal tolerance at its finest in the Penal Laws Mark II.

gozunda

Manach wrote: »

Basically some rights now trump others, as imposed thanks to the commissioners of the left PC brigade where one conforms to the approval of immoral practices or else the loss one's live-hood. Liberal tolerance at its finest in the Penal Laws Mark II.

Was that in answer to the questioned I asked? Either way I am interested in your assertion that 'some rights trump others"

They do? How? What are 'immoral practices'!

suicide_circus

bjork wrote: »

Discrimination because of Age and gender are also not allowed

Remind me which group said "Men only" and "No children" and "Exclusively gay"

I was looking at places advertised on airbnb, plenty of places discriminating on the basis of age.

ToddyDoody

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

Me and the GF are looking for a villa in the canaries atm for a holiday in April, Trawling through the usual sites including owners-direct when I stumbled upon this gem today:

http://www.ownersdirect.co.uk/accommodation/p8054482

Nice villa nothing to untoward until you get to the notes on accommodation where it states

"Please do not smoke within any rooms in the villa ash trays are provided outside at the patio areas. families and couples only, no same sex couples"

Aside from being highly immoral is this legal?

Immoral? Id imagine he was trying to protect the morality of the place.. Might be a bit misguided though

floggg

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's very illegal in both Spain and the UK.
Not sure which jurisdiction it would fall under.

There may well be exceptions in the law for accomodation in smaller or private residences - which is probably fair on balance.

People should probably have a right to be bigoted in their own homes, and when not really renting in any professional or significant capacity.

RWCNT

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

I love equality, its so unequal.

YES. Well done, I think you're starting to get it now.

If you still don't get it here's a picture that might help your brain understand this concept better.

http://lolsnaps.com/upload_pic/EqualityisntalwaysJustice-19322.jpg

floggg

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

Maybe I have too much of a relaxed attitude but I cant really understand why people get so offended by these sort of things. If I was looking to book accommodation and found somewhere that stated "No Irish"...feck it I'd just move on and find a different place. I dont see the point of getting 'outraged' and to be honest I'd be happier not staying in a place like that anyways.

As long as these are isolated incidents, that's an easy attitude to adopt.

But if refusing gay people accomodation or services was a wide spread phenomenon, it wouldn't be so easy to adopt a relaxed attitude about it.

It would be difficult for gay people, or any minority, to engage in society fully and equally if they knew they were liable to refused service for no other cause than just being gay.

It would mean they would either have a substantially restricted choice of suppliers or have to hide who they are.

That would be detrimental not just for the minorities concerned, but society as a whole. It would be harmful to social cohesion, raise lots of unnecessary tensions between minority groups and others, and lead to a very fragmented society.

So if you look at it as an isolated case it may not be that big a deal, but the issue as a whole is a very big deal.

Is also hazard a guess you've never really been on the receiving end of much discrimination for being Irish. I'd imagine if you were, it might be harder to be as relaxed about it.

SpaceTime

floggg wrote: »

There may well be exceptions in the law for accomodation in smaller or private residences - which is probably fair on balance.

People should probably have a right to be bigoted in their own homes, and when not really renting in any professional or significant capacity.

There aren't.