No gays allowed

Hibernosaur wrote: »

That's not true and I can demonstrate it; I can choose to be Gay right now if I liked. I can't choose to be a an African American.

You can Say you're gay, I think you mean.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Yup. Sure why bother?

Rosa Parks probably should have just got a taxi and sure wasn't voting such a big fuss about nothing for women and before that Catholics.

This stuff is a BIG issue.

How would you react if there was a little polite note up like "No Catholics!"

Or "No Irish"

?

If people accept crap like this it never changes.

Sometimes you have to get put out by these things and make some noise.

Exactly. The people saying to just go find some other place to stay instead piss me off no end :mad: This stupid BS shouldn't be tolerated in the first instance.

reprise wrote: »

From that:



So you do believe in the right to discriminate. So long as it's straight people taking the hit.

We both know I never said any such thing.

reprise wrote: »

What am I missing?

reprise wrote: »

This?



Family villa - No discrimination!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You selectively quoted my post, and tried to infer some non-existent double standard into it.

I note in particular you ignored the example given of divorced men excluding married women from the group - that would likely have undermined your attempt to suggest I was happy with discrimination against straight people (since divorce relates to opposite sex marriages only at present, and therefore the men's group would be predominantly, if not exclusively heterosexual).

Nor did I say rules barring women from gay resorts was discrimination - I didn't take a view either way, but just stated you could have non-discriminatory reasons for excluding them.

Different treatment or unequal access will not always be discrimination - e.g. there is not discriminatory about gendered sports teams or changing rooms, and only a fool would try to argue there was.

As to whether it being a "family villa" is any defence or reason why an objectively discriminatory policy (no legitimate or objectively justifiable purpose could be put forward for the rule, unlike gendered sports teams etc) would not be unlawful remains to be established.

It may well avail from an exemption from the applicable UK and/or Spanish equality legislation due to the size of the premises, part-time nature of the rental activity or if it is used partially as the residence of the owner - but I would imagine that in each of those cases it would still be discriminatory but just excluded from the scope of the prohibition on discrimination when providing services contained in the Act.

reprise wrote: »

By who? you are still talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Has anybody here determined whether English law, Spanish law (or local Canary Island law if different from Spanish law) applies? Or both?

Has anybody here determined what the equality legislation in either country says? Or what exemptions from the equality legislation says?

So, yea, I would say it remains to be determined by all of us whether or not is it is unlawful discrimination. I certainly am not going to make a call either way, and it would be foolish of anybody to do so without first being familiar with the equality laws in each jurisdiction and forming a view as to the governing law of the contract.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You said a stag do, which almost always means party/drinking/clubs etc

This post has been deleted.

The outrage about this villa that is privately owned is gas.

Go somewhere else. I choose a child free zone every holiday, and pay for the privilege.

Is that against the law now too?

Adult only hotels are very popular. And appear not to be against the childer's rights! Rights for children, discrimination against kids, is that next?.

It's a choice.

And I am delighted to see "Gay Friendly" on a website for hotels and the like, because I would prefer not to stay there, not because I have anything against Gays, but because if I don't stay there, the gays have more rooms to book!

Look, it's all about what you want in a holiday.

No need for vitriol and high blood pressure over it.

Live and let live. And if my adult only resorts are ever the subject of a challenge under whatever legislation, I will stay in my own back garden. Child free, but the weather can be a bit unpredictable, and with the price of alcohol going up, huh, I suppose I'll just have to live with it!

floggg wrote: »

tell me, if hotels and other accommodation providers were allowed discriminate against lgbt people, and a large percentage of them decided to do so, how would gay people ever actually be allowed go where they wanted on holidays?

They'd only be able to go where they were allowed to go.

Believe it or not, some gay people would prefer not to be ghettoised in gay friendly accommodation.

It's hard to live and let live when you can only live yourself on other people's terms.

And the idea that gay couples could face difficulty getting accommodation isn't unfortunately an absurd hypothetical - one of the reasons gay resorts and hotels developed in the first place was because gay people and couples weren't generally accepted in mainstream accommodation in the first place.

Apart from this case in the OP, and the Christian case in the UK B+B, I do not recall any discrimination against gays in hotels or elsewhere.

But maybe you might be able to point it out to me.

This is a storm in a teacup. Designed to get people fired up, and it has.

Gay friendly resorts and hotels are there for gays. Other accommodation is available to them too on a non discriminatory basis. This villa is privately owned, and the owner can choose whom they wish to occupy it.

Gays can be their own worst enemies sometimes by highlighting discrimination that does not exist in the business world. Private lettings, maybe, but that is their right.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Apart from this case in the OP, and the Christian case in the UK B+B, I do not recall any discrimination against gays in hotels or elsewhere.

But maybe you might be able to point it out to me.

This is a storm in a teacup. Designed to get people fired up, and it has.

Gay friendly resorts and hotels are there for gays. Other accommodation is available to them too on a non discriminatory basis. This villa is privately owned, and the owner can choose whom they wish to occupy it.

Gays can be their own worst enemies sometimes by highlighting discrimination that does not exist in the business world. Private lettings, maybe, but that is their right.

In all fairness, I have heard the usual "not suitable for kids" or "no kids permitted" argument by property owners and that is usually based on two things.

1. The property is not suitable for kids of a certain age on safety grounds.

or

2. Kids of a certain age can potentially have a destructive influence on the property such as drawing on walls and breaking stuff.

But I do not comprehend the reasons for not permitting gay people to rent the property beyond blatant homophobia.

The only exception I can contemplate is that the owner previously rented to gay people and they cavorted in the pool and behaved in a manner that was offensive to neighbours. But that can happen with straight people too.