Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

No gays allowed

1…457910…18

Comments

  • #182
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    bjork wrote: »
    :P



    So,are "Men Only" resorts discrimination?

    See here:
    floggg wrote: »
    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.


    We would need to consider the nature, purpose and operational nature of those resorts before reaching any conclusion. If allowing women in would undermine a legitimate purpose maybe not - but simply being a woman free zone isn't a legitimate purpose.


  • #183
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


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

    Teachers used to beat you up for using the "sinister hand" until relatively recently!

    Narrow mindedness is pretty shocking sometimes.


  • #184
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Probably from a previous bad experience. The previous same sex couple probably had a party and left the place in a state

    And heteros never throw parties?


  • #185
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    bjork wrote: »
    :P



    So,are "Men Only" resorts discrimination?

    As an addendum to Floggs reply - many of the Gay / Men resorts lists themselves as straight /hetro friendly. Meaning that they won't turn away custom but are making the public aware of resort ethos. A bit like club 19 - 30 or whatever it was called. A senior citizen booking such a 19-30 club holiday would know that regular group booze ups and adult games would be likley fare and not be surprised on arrival ...


  • #186
    Brendan Flowers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,391 ✭✭✭Brendan Flowers


    To all those who are offended and outraged by the advertisement, what would your opinions be on this thread?

    Basically a girls only night was organised in the Ladies Lounge. One guy seemed to take particular offence to this, throwing his toys out of the pram and kicking up a fuss just because he couldnt go. Do you not think that was a bit pathetic? Do you not think the girls were entitled to organise a 'ladies night'?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    floggg wrote: »
    See here:




    We would need to consider the nature, purpose and operational nature of those resorts before reaching any conclusion. If allowing women in would undermine a legitimate purpose maybe not - but simply being a woman free zone isn't a legitimate purpose.

    For a section of society that have been marginalised for so long, it appears they are determined to keep the segregation going, but on the other hand complain if anyone segregates them in any way. Some proclaim to be liberal and it should be live and let live, but are the loudest to shout when someone does something that is not in line with their thinking - some Liberals (gay or not) are the most narrow minded people I know.

    If you start from the position that all "straight" people are bigoted, then yes a gay only resort could be justified
    or all women are bigoted - justify men only
    or use stereotypes that all gay men are sleazy
    or Germans have no party spirit
    What if a group of gay men turned up at a old peoples Holiday and were excluded?
    Market anyway you like, but if you're exclusive, don't complain if others are


  • #188
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Brendan Flowers wrote: »
    To all those who are offended and outraged by the advertisement, what would your opinions be on this thread?

    Basically a girls only night was organised in the Ladies Lounge. One guy seemed to take particular offence to this, throwing his toys out of the pram and kicking up a fuss just because he couldnt go. Do you not think that was a bit pathetic? Do you not think the girls were entitled to organise a 'ladies night'?

    Its a private social gathering. Equality law does not apply.

    Nobody is arguing that homophobes have to invite gay people on nights out with them.

    If it was being run as a business, you might have an argument - but again it would depend on the nature and purpose of the night, and the exclusion.


  • #189
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Brendan Flowers wrote: »
    To all those who are offended and outraged by the advertisement, what would your opinions be on this thread?

    Hiya Degsy :)

    5 years and you still can't let it go :)


  • #190
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    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?

    What are you on about
    obviously they shouldnt be allowed to say women can't stay there either


  • #191
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


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

    It's not "age discrimination" to prohibit infants and toddlers into a bar. Age discrimination for the most part applies to adults.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    eviltwin wrote: »
    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.

    You're opening your home as a business. If I opened a bakery in my garden shed and said no gays allowed that wouldn't be allowed either.


  • #193
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    What are you on about
    obviously they shouldnt be allowed to say women can't stay there either

    If I have time later, I'll start drafting a strongly worded email



    http://www.caffmoscommunity.com/cd_prev_cottage.asp?cid=248
    HAMILTON HALL MEN ONLY HOTEL, Bournemouth

    HAMILTON HALL - MEN ONLY HOTEL - CLOTHING OPTIONAL -
    As seen on Channel 4's TV programme - '3IN A BED' to HUGE ACCLAIM


  • #194
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    bjork wrote: »
    For a section of society that have been marginalised for so long, it appears they are determined to keep the segregation going, but on the other hand complain if anyone segregates them in any way. Some proclaim to be liberal and it should be live and let live, but are the loudest to shout when someone does something that is not in line with their thinking - some Liberals (gay or not) are the most narrow minded people I know.

    If you start from the position that all "straight" people are bigoted, then yes a gay only resort could be justified
    or all women are bigoted - justify men only
    or use stereotypes that all gay men are sleazy
    or Germans have no party spirit
    What if a group of gay men turned up at a old peoples Holiday and were excluded?
    Market anyway you like, but if you're exclusive, don't complain if others are

    You are clearly determined to read my post in a particular way.

    My post is an explanation of how equality law actually works - something which you have ignored. Certain exclusions can be justified, but it would depend on the circumstances.

    For you to ignore the context in each cases shows a disregard for or lack of understanding for the realities of equality law and discrimination.

    And I never said all gay men were sleazy (I don't think I am for one). I said that was the atmosphere a gay mens only resort might want to create (never been to one, but would assume it would be like any other package holiday resort type vibe - a sleazy party vibe).

    And I never said German's didn't party either - I was actually thinking of the up early to put the towels out stereotype, and that's mainly because the only German I ever holidayed with was an extraordinarily early riser. Not all stereotype based jokes are offensive, but I thought I would leave it out to avoid this type of response - just never deleted the German bit.

    By all accounts Germans very much know how to party when they want to.


  • #195
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Brendan Flowers wrote: »
    To all those who are offended and outraged by the advertisement, what would your opinions be on this thread?

    Basically a girls only night was organised in the Ladies Lounge. One guy seemed to take particular offence to this, throwing his toys out of the pram and kicking up a fuss just because he couldnt go. Do you not think that was a bit pathetic? Do you not think the girls were entitled to organise a 'ladies night'?

    The night was not planned with the specific exclusion of men from the event. The house owners specifically excluded gay people from their home. Its not the same thing at all.


  • #196
    Brendan Flowers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,391 ✭✭✭Brendan Flowers


    catallus wrote: »
    Hiya Degsy :)

    5 years and you still can't let it go :)

    You might want to re-read my post, I'm on the Ladies' side in that situation and thought it was pathetic and embarrassing the way that guy tried to stop them having a girls only night!
    :)


  • #197
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    bjork wrote: »
    If I have time later, I'll start drafting a strongly worded email



    http://www.caffmoscommunity.com/cd_prev_cottage.asp?cid=248
    HAMILTON HALL MEN ONLY HOTEL, Bournemouth

    HAMILTON HALL - MEN ONLY HOTEL - CLOTHING OPTIONAL -
    As seen on Channel 4's TV programme - '3IN A BED' to HUGE ACCLAIM

    Ok. I dont agree with it, a hotel that excludes straight men and women is a stupid idea. What do you want me to say?


  • #198
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    You're opening your home as a business. If I opened a bakery in my garden shed and said no gays allowed that wouldn't be allowed either.

    I don't think its the same and while I don't agree with the owners I defend their right to make choices about who or what they will accept in their home. This is not a commercial business like a hotel or a shop, its their own home so I think they are entitled to be as fussy as they wish to be. Its their choice. What do people want? Do they want them to accept gay couples or to be removed from the site or what? Can people not just accept that there are going to be others who don't agree with your lifestyle or the choices you make, just move on and rent somewhere else.


  • #199
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,971 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't think its the same and while I don't agree with the owners I defend their right to make choices about who or what they will accept in their home. This is not a commercial business like a hotel or a shop, its their own home so I think they are entitled to be as fussy as they wish to be. Its their choice. What do people want? Do they want them to accept gay couples or to be removed from the site or what? Can people not just accept that there are going to be others who don't agree with your lifestyle or the choices you make, just move on and rent somewhere else.


    If they would rather not accept gay couples into their home, maybe they should not start a business which revolves around accepting couples into their home.

    They are entitled to be as fussy as they want to be as long as they are not breaking the law.

    I would speculate that they are.


  • #200
    Nollog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,858 ✭✭✭Nollog


    floggg wrote: »
    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).

    For example, males who don't want to live in a house after a gay couple for whatever reason that may be, moral or not.


  • #201
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    osarusan wrote: »
    If you would rather not accept gay couples into their home, maybe they should not start a business which revolves around accepting couples into their home.

    They are entitled to be as fussy as they want to be as long as they are not breaking the law.

    I would speculate that they are.

    I would imagine your home is treated in a different way than a business when you're talking legal issues such as this. This couple are clearly bigoted in their views but they aren't alone. I'm more annoyed with the site itself allowing such ads to run given the nature of it, I wouldn't book a holiday from such a site.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    bjork wrote: »
    If I have time later, I'll start drafting a strongly worded email

    http://www.caffmoscommunity.com/cd_prev_cottage.asp?cid=248
    HAMILTON HALL MEN ONLY HOTEL, Bournemouth

    HAMILTON HALL - MEN ONLY HOTEL - CLOTHING OPTIONAL -
    As seen on Channel 4's TV programme - '3IN A BED' to HUGE ACCLAIM

    Check that site again - there is an adendum
    A NOT FOR PROFIT VENUE

    If it's not a business in the traditional sense, the setup may be perfectly legal, however I am not an expert in UK law but by stating the type of activities they are letting any potential punters that all the activities may not be their ball park so to speak ...

    Floggs has already covered something similar in the thread
    floggg wrote: »
    Its a private social gathering. Equality law does not apply.

    Nobody is arguing that homophobes have to invite gay people on nights out with them.

    If it was being run as a business, you might have an argument - but again it would depend on the nature and purpose of the night, and the exclusion.


  • #203
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,971 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I would imagine your home is treated in a different way than a business when you're talking legal issues such as this.
    Maybe, but I'd guess that they've basically turned their home into a place of business when there are paying guests staying there.

    Flogg earlier suggested that there may be the kind of difference/exemption you are talking about though.


  • #204
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    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?

    Bjork, I understand that you're going out of your way to try and find a rare exception and then use it to justify bigotry and discrimination but I'm not interested in that tired little game. Crap like banging on about a girl not being able to attend an all-boys school etc is not where I wish to waste my time.


  • #205
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Bjork, I understand that you're going out of your way to try and find a rare exception and then use it to justify bigotry and discrimination but I'm not interested in that tired little game. Crap like banging on about a girl not being able to attend an all-boys school etc is not where I wish to waste my time.

    I'd argue a child being unable to attend a school is a much bigger deal than a gay couple being unable to book one specific villa in Spain.


  • #206
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    eviltwin wrote: »
    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.

    But it ISN'T their home. It's a property that they own and rent out. They don't live there. And the people who pay to stay there aren't people they invite around for tea and have the right to refuse entry to "their home"

    If I own a fleet of vans and rent them out to whoever needs them and I refuse to rent one to a gay because I'm a bigoted asshole are you going to say that I "have the right as to who gets to sit in my car/van"?


  • #207
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Bjork, I understand that you're going out of your way to try and find a rare exception and then use it to justify bigotry and discrimination but I'm not interested in that tired little game. Crap like banging on about a girl not being able to attend an all-boys school etc is not where I wish to waste my time.

    The rare exception in this instance is the "No gays allowed"


    If you use google, you will find numerous "men only" villas

    Tenesoya Bungalows (MEN ONLY) 1-3
    Gran Canaria
    http://www.outlet4spain.com/gran-canaria-accommodation/apartment/tenesoya-bungalows-1-3




    BEACH BOYS BOUTIQUE RESORT (MEN ONLY)
    Gran Canaria

    This men only resort consists of 12 bungalows with bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. Swimming pool. WiFi.
    http://www.outlet4spain.com/gran-canaria-accommodation/apartment/beach-boys-boutique

    etc

    http://www.outlet4spain.com/gran-canaria/apartments


  • #208
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Egginacup wrote: »
    But it ISN'T their home. It's a property that they own and rent out. They don't live there. And the people who pay to stay there aren't people they invite around for tea and have the right to refuse entry to "their home"

    If I own a fleet of vans and rent them out to whoever needs them and I refuse to rent one to a gay because I'm a bigoted asshole are you going to say that I "have the right as to who gets to sit in my car/van"?

    Are you operating a van rental business? Or do you just happen to have vans you rent out now and then as you feel like it? In the first case if you have a business you shouldn't discriminate but if you have a casual arrangement with people you can do what you like. I would say lots of times people make decisions not to deal with certain people for all sorts of reasons and just lie and say they are busy or whatever and no one ever knows. This couple aren't operating a business in the traditional sense, they can rent out what they want to who they want then.


  • #209
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't think its the same and while I don't agree with the owners I defend their right to make choices about who or what they will accept in their home. This is not a commercial business like a hotel or a shop, its their own home so I think they are entitled to be as fussy as they wish to be. Its their choice. What do people want? Do they want them to accept gay couples or to be removed from the site or what? Can people not just accept that there are going to be others who don't agree with your lifestyle or the choices you make, just move on and rent somewhere else.

    I was sort of with you on the private home bit until the bold part.

    What choices or lifestyle? And all we expect is to be able to participate in society on equal terms - including in relation to the purchase of goods and services.

    People are free to discriminate as much as they want in the private realm but discrimination in the public realm is not a acceptable.


  • #210
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    /\/ollog wrote: »
    For example, males who don't want to live in a house after a gay couple for whatever reason that may be, moral or not.

    Well if you just won't stay somewhere if a gay couple stated there before you it's not discrimination - it's stupidity.

    You won't catch gay off the walls, and presumably they change the sheets.

    If you are saying refuse to allow the gay couple stay in the first place, then yes that's a very good example of direct, and likely illegal, discrimination as it serves no legitimate purpose and is objectively discriminatory.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'd argue a child being unable to attend a school is a much bigger deal than a gay couple being unable to book one specific villa in Spain.

    But I would imagine a girl not being allowed attend a boys school is entirely permissible.

    Again, the exclusion is intended to achieve a non-discriminatory purpose relating to educational outcomes (though I don't see any benefit to gendered schools but it's a matter of opinion presumably).


Advertisement