No gays allowed

floggg

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.

What exactly do we disagree on here? My right to exist?

Or just my right to live my life and have relationships?

floggg

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

Irrational from whose perpective ? Yours!
From their perspective I would assume they are quiet rational in their opinion of homosexuality.
As for disagreeing with homosexuality. One can disagree with the premis that a person is born homosexual.
One can disagree with it from a moral/religious standpoint and believe it is wrong.
Its also possible to believe all the above and not dislike or hate homosexual people...but it makes good press to brand everyone who has a different viewpoint as being homosexual.
Its nothing but bullying a segment of the population in changing their opinion and abandoning their beliefs. Lets out them and call them homophobic. What happened to their "equal rights"?

Irrational from the perspective of both heterosexual or homosexual people. Neither homosexual ir heterosexual people ever chose their sexual orientation. In fact, they are thoroughly incapable of attraction to the opposite sex (in the case of homosexuals) of the same sex (in the case of heterosexuals), so there is no possibility of a choice.

Bisexual however are capable of attraction to either sex to some degree, and so cam conceivably make a choice.


Therefore, if you think you are capable of choosing your sexual orientation, I can only conclude you gave some degree of attraction to both genders yourself - and are therefore bisexual.

So in that case, guess I'll see you at Pride next year. Yay.


PS - you have the same right not to be discriminated against as we do, so it is very much equal rights. But don't let the facts get in the way of good rant.

SpaceTime

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.

So basically what you're saying is that you'll tolerate her as long as she "sits at the back of the bus".

As for " imposing her choices on" you.
1. It's as much of a choice as being Irish, blue eyed, black, tall etc
2. I'm quite sure she's not going to force you to be a lesbian.

This is like saying you don't agree with your red head cousin's choice of lifestyle and that you're fine with her as long as she doesn't impose her gingerness on you.

Sorry, but you're just attempting to justify bigoted attitudes.

You can't 'disagree' with a personal attribute of a person that they're born with. It's exactly the same as saying your disagree with a particular skin colour, race, ethnic group etc.

Would you disagree with a Chinese person for their choice of lifestyle for being Asian for example?

seanbmc

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.:)

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.

Kehlani Cold Trek wrote: »

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

The more you post on this thread, the more ignorant and bigoted you seem.

floggg

LorMal wrote: »

And Gay people would want to stay in a house where they are not welcome?

Look, I have no problem with you disagreeing with discrimination on grounds of sexual preference, but at least apply your reasoning consistently is you want to be taken seriously. If you disagree with a place not welcoming gays, then you should also disagree with a place not welcoming straights

In fairness though, you need to consider both the purpose and effect of a rule before you can determine (as a matter of law) whether something is discriminatory.

Sometimes rules which may appear to be discriminatory can be allowed if in reality their purposes is not to exclude certain groups but to meet a particular need of another group (e.g. A divorced fathers group likely wouldn't be discriminating illegally if it allowed married women into the group).

Other times a rule which doesn't on the face of it appear discriminatory will in fact constitue illegal discrimination in practice (e.g. Applying a minimum height requirement for applicants for a desk job could constitute illegal discrimination against women, as the rule serves no real purpose and will disproportionately affect women, who are shorter on average than men).

So it's really not as simple as you make it out to be. Equality laws would be both unworkable (in cases of direct discrimination) or ineffective (in cases of indirect discrimination) it they applied in the black and white manner you suggest.

While we haven't heard from the owners of the villa, I would be very surprised if that rule excluding gay couples served any purpose other than excluding gay couples.

But whether you agree it's acceptable or not, there are at least non-discriminatory reasons why a place marketed as gay mens resort might like to keep other groups away, such as a desire to create a certain kind of sleazy party atmosphere.

I imagine if a tour bus of elderly German tourists arrived to one of these resorts and parked up by the pool for the day it might change the uninhibited party vibe a little.

Tombo2001

scudzilla wrote: »

Can't see the problem with this, it's their home, their choice. Maybe religious grounds are the reason.

Same as the cake shop up North really, but i suppose the gay brigade will be all over this too

Yep, but if it said 'No Irish' you wouldn't feel quite quite the same way.

floggg

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.

Because if we allowed business to discriminate at will, we would find that certain minorities might have nowhere to go to do business at all.

TheMilkyPirate

jobbridge4life wrote: »

In the first instance this thread was started by a lesbian so the need to single out gay men is perplexing.

Secondly, the cake thing is a frustratingly trivial but refusal of service over sexual orientation is discrimination.

I'm not a lesbian. Last time I checked I wasn't a woman either.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Probably from a previous bad experience. The previous same sex couple probably had a party and left the place in a state

Yes. I was once almost robbed by some black men in Paris myself, so now I fear all black men I encounter.

Black people are all the same aren't they?

floggg

reprise wrote: »

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.

Why would it be am insult? I just find the idea of somebody who clearly doesn't like the "gay agenda" sitting googling gay resorts highly amusing. I would have thought it a questionable use of their time.

I'm good on the advice front, thanks. You might want to have a word with certain straight posters who can't get over my sexuality though.

SpaceTime

I'm just amazed the advert is still up!

TheMilkyPirate

To the person who said I must be someone who gets easily offended, I'm really not.

Very little offends me and I find people who get offended over the slightest things to be idiots.

But discrimination and racism are different. I won't tolerate either.

RWCNT

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

To the person who said I must be someone who gets easily offended, I'm really not.

Very little offends me and I find people who get offended over the slightest things to be idiots.

But discrimination and racism are different. I won't tolerate either.

Anyone who isn't offended by harmful discrimination and racism is an idiot.

SpaceTime

the T&Cs on the site are pretty clear:

"(4) Owners are responsible for ensuring that their Listings do not infringe the law or the rights of any person or entity. "

I'm just surprised it's taking them so long to moderate the ad.

floggg

SpaceTime wrote: »

There aren't.

See here from our own Equal Status Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0006.html#sec6

Not sure if this has been amended, or how accommodation is interpreted in practice (and whether it would include short term holiday rentals for example) but it is conceivable that there would be something similar under UK/Spanish law.

Egginacup

eviltwin wrote: »

Their house, their rules. As a parent I wouldn't get offended by a villa with a 'no kid's' policy. You have to wonder what the problem is though.

Are you for real?
Would you have a problem with it if the notice read "Whites only. No blacks."?

And the "it's their house, their rules" does not wash.
A no kids policy is not discriminating against kids. Being a kid is a temporary state of affairs. Being black or gay or disabled is permanent and it is discrimination to prohibit them.

bjork

Egginacup wrote: »

Are you for real?
Would you have a problem with it if the notice read "Whites only. No blacks."?

And the "it's their house, their rules" does not wash.
A no kids policy is not discriminating against kids. Being a kid is a temporary state of affairs. Being black or gay or disabled is permanent and it is discrimination to prohibit them.

How about being a woman - is that temporary or permanent?


If the women promise not to draw on the walls, will they be allowed stay?

Egginacup

eviltwin wrote: »

It's their home. I don't agree with them but if they have issues with it that's their right to refuse it.

No, it's a business. It's a house that they happen to own but rent out as holiday accommodation. My friend owns a hotel. Are you going to tell me that if he had a "no gays" policy you would think that "it's his hotel, his rules" would wash? Because it wouldn't cut muster with a judge, I can tell you that much.

old_aussie

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

Why would you it's perfectly understandable, Kids draw on walls; break things. Gays however are the same as any other couple and it's nothing but pure discrimination to not allow them in your villa because of their sexual orientation.

We boogied in the kitchen, we boogied in the hall, I got some on my finger so I wiped it on the wall.

SpaceTime

floggg wrote: »

See here from our own Equal Status Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0006.html#sec6

Not sure if this has been amended, or how accommodation is interpreted in practice (and whether it would include short term holiday rentals for example) but it is conceivable that there would be something similar under UK/Spanish law.

It's most likely under English Law and the Equality Act 2000. That's very, very comprehensive. There was some issue with an Isle of Man guesthouse refusing a gay couple a few years ago which turned out to be legal due to the island being in a 1950s legal timewarp and not adopting the UK legislation.
However, given the advertising website is in the UK, I would guess (but I'm not sure) the British law around ads applies.

The contract may well be covered by Spanish national or Canary Islands regional law. They're generally very progressive on gay rights in Spain though. They're a good decade ahead of Ireland. I would be shocked if this wasn't covered by anti discrimination law there.

eviltwin

Egginacup wrote: »

No, it's a business. It's a house that they happen to own but rent out as holiday accommodation. My friend owns a hotel. Are you going to tell me that if he had a "no gays" policy you would think that "it's his hotel, his rules" would wash? Because it wouldn't cut muster with a judge, I can tell you that much.

Your home is a bit different to a commercial enterprise don't you think. I'm not supporting their point of view but people are entitled to allow who they want into their home. If it bothers you that much report it to the site owner.

SpaceTime

The Equality Authority provides a fairly comprehensive guide.

From what I can see it's only where accommodation is provided in your own home while you're actually living there that you've some exemptions and they're pretty limited.

Commercially let holiday accommodation doesn't appear to be exempt.

http://www.equality.ie/en/Publications/Information-Publications/Your-Equal-Status-Rights-Explained.html

Egginacup

Tugboats wrote: »

On a serious note what are the issues that some accommodations have with gay couples? Obviously with a male couple the concern surrounds the high probability of Anal sex and the resulting sh!t on the bedsheets.

"on a serious note"?
Thanks for that piece of brilliance.
Then why not put in the note: "No same sex couples. And if you are a straight couple, NO BUTTFUCKING, at least not on the bed!"

:rolleyes:

old_aussie

Maybe the owners are muslim.

floggg

bjork wrote: »

How about being a woman - is that temporary or permanent?


If the women promise not to draw on the walls, will they be allowed stay?

Not all women are as cray-cray as you Bjork

SpaceTime

Bear in mind that a Spanish gay couple could be celebrating their 10-year wedding anniversary at this stage.

Spain's very, very progressive on gay rights issues. It would be interesting to see what the levels of protections in Spanish and Canneries law are.

bjork

floggg wrote: »

Not all women are as cray-cray as you Bjork

:P



So,are "Men Only" resorts discrimination?

floggg

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's most likely under English Law and the Equality Act 2000. That's very, very comprehensive. There was some issue with an Isle of Man guesthouse refusing a gay couple a few years ago which turned out to be legal due to the island being in a 1950s legal timewarp and not adopting the UK legislation.
However, given the advertising website is in the UK, I would guess (but I'm not sure) the British law around ads applies.

The contract may well be covered by Spanish national or Canary Islands regional law. They're generally very progressive on gay rights in Spain though. They're a good decade ahead of Ireland. I would be shocked if this wasn't covered by anti discrimination law there.

Equality law is harmonised to some degree across the EU, so it is likely that similar rules apply.

And Irish Equality law is actually fairly progressive, and I believe we were amongst the first countries in Europe to enact many of the protections now provided for under EU law.

Even Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act isn't actually out of sync with Europe, its just our education system is unusual in that's its predominately RCC schools.

Egginacup

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.

How can you "disagree" with homosexuality anymore than you can disagree with blue eyes or left-handedness or being Oriental ?

SpaceTime

Our education "system" is pretty much a 19th century setup that somehow survived largely unchanged.

Ireland sort of missed the post-war enlightenment period that most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ went though.

We sort of had a compressed version of the 1950s to 1990s in the mid to late 90s really.

Spain's similar. Franco until the 70s followed by rapid social change and progressive policies. Much like our selves, I don't think the Spanish population were conservative, they were under the thumb of a right wing dictatorship and establishment.