gftChris Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158 This story has been knocking around for a while now. The chain of events went something like this: Mr H books a nice weekend away in a B&B B&B accepts booking Mr H turns up with his 'civil partner' - another bloke Mr & Mrs B&B owner turn the guys away because they 'disagree' with their sexuality The gay couple sues for damages, discrimination etc They win The B&B owners go to court of appeal Appeal rejected Go to supreme court Appeal rejected Personally, I'm torn on this. The guys should of course be able to enjoy a weekend away together, as any other couple should. They're legally entitled to do so. BUT, the B&B a) should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at their discretion and should not be forced to take in customers whose way of life offends them. You wouldn't expect a Jewish run hotel to host the world hog roasting championships now, would you? What do we think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 It's a private establishment and should be able to accept or reject anyone it pleases. If it were government run it would be a different story, at least in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 Private businesses are under no obligation to serve anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 I don't agree with the reasoning, but they should be allowed to refuse service. Good lord this is turning into a fucking stupid country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 I think you should be able to run your private property and or business the way you see fit. I have enough libertarian in me to think people should be free to do things that many of us might feel are fucked up. in this particular case, however, I believe the gay couple has a cause of action because they had already paid their deposit and been accepted as guests. They were refused service after the fact and therefore entitled to damages for the inconvenience. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 Put it in other contexts and see how you feel, maybe: A white couple refuses a black couple because they don't like black people A black couple refuses a white couple because they don't like white people A gay couple refuses a religious couple because they don't like religion A young couple refuses an old couple because...they might spoil the buzz? An old couple refuses a young (think gangsta or punk) couple because they might ruin the atmosphere and make people nervous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 They should have just said they were brothers and then there would be no big dramatic waste of the courts time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 Yes Chris in each and every one of your examples someone is likely to feel offended. And I would think that in almost all of those cases there's been some sort of an asshole-ish behavior afoot. Still the owners are the ones that bought the property fix the property pay the taxes and upkeep on the property, you know what I mean. So even if I disagree with their prejudices or their behavior it's theirs. If freedom means anything to any of us keep in mind that you should be free to be an asshole if you feel like it. As I said before changing the rules after you accept the reservation certainly merits compensation. You should let your patrons know up front. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted November 27, 2013 Report Share Posted November 27, 2013 If he turns away gays he probably will receive some backlash (but, sadly, a bunch of people will also support him even more then and bring him chick-fil-a) But I think it was definitely a court issue since they already paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I think part of the fallacy here is treating homosexuality like its a choice, and therefore justifying the refusal service as a rejection of a decision someone made. I don't believe gays choose to be gay anymore than straight people choose to be straight. It's biology and I don't think it's right to treat them any differently than anyone else. I'm glad the courts ruled as they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 If you ran a B&B, would you make a reservation, then refuse two drugged up bikers with guns, who are traveling with a group of bikers... figuring they would all stay in one room? Back to this scenario... would a B&B want all of their current guests to leave, and word get around that the B&B is a place to avoid for normal, decent folks? And go out of business? It's stupid, and the court ruled based on political expediency. Activist court judges. If you were a staunch member of PETA, should you be required to rent your B&B rooms to a bunch of hunters in town for hunting season ? It's a private business. Without gov funds subsidizing it, the court is out of line. And the belligerent gay crashing businesses is a bunch of social engineering. There will be a lot of backlash over time. And the courts with be responsible. If you were a Christian couple, should you be forced to rent a family with children oriented B&B room to an outwardly obvious pedophile? After all, it's "biology". They didn't "choose" to be pedophiles.... After all, "they have no choice" ....? Just making a point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I think part of the fallacy here is treating homosexuality like its a choice, and therefore justifying the refusal service as a rejection of a decision someone made. I don't believe gays choose to be gay anymore than straight people choose to be straight. It's biology and I don't think it's right to treat them any differently than anyone else. I'm glad the courts ruled as they did. Well, it was in the UK, not the USA so I don't care really. It would never have happened in the US unless the Bed And Breakfast was government owned or subsidized. Just two fags out to make trouble Imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Put it in other contexts and see how you feel, maybe: A white couple refuses a black couple because they don't like black people A black couple refuses a white couple because they don't like white people A gay couple refuses a religious couple because they don't like religion A young couple refuses an old couple because...they might spoil the buzz? An old couple refuses a young (think gangsta or punk) couple because they might ruin the atmosphere and make people nervous? I was going to say the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 If you ran a B&B, would you make a reservation, then refuse twodrugged up bikers with guns, who are traveling with a group of bikers...figuring they would all stay in one room?Back to this scenario... would a B&B want all of their current guests to leave, andword get around that the B&B is a place to avoid for normal, decent folks?And go out of business?It's stupid, and the court ruled based on political expediency. Activist court judges.If you were a staunch member of PETA, should you be required to rent your B&B rooms to a bunchof hunters in town for hunting season ?It's a private business. Without gov funds subsidizing it, the court is out of line.And the belligerent gay crashing businesses is a bunch of social engineering.There will be a lot of backlash over time. And the courts with be responsible.If you were a Christian couple, should you be forced to rent a family with children oriented B&B room to an outwardly obvious pedophile? After all, it's "biology". They didn't "choose" to be pedophiles....After all, "they have no choice" ....?Just making a point... Your point fails on the fact that a pedophile is hurting someone with their actions, the gay couple is not. As for your other examples, hunters, bikers, druggies, etc have all made those choices, so if they were refused, it is based on choices not biology. As was mentioned In the other post, I don't see it as any different than refusing someone based on the color of their skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 "Colored people served at the back door." See how that sign would fly at the local Bob Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Your point fails on the fact that a pedophile is hurting someone with their actions, the gay couple is not. As for your other examples, hunters, bikers, druggies, etc have all made those choices, so if they were refused, it is based on choices not biology. As was mentioned In the other post, I don't see it as any different than refusing someone based on the color of their skin. Os **************************** Good point. But the gay couple hurts others, too. A lot of folks don't want their kids exposed to that perversion, especially overtly, and it would hurt the business. But hunters - it's not by choice. It's instinct - innate in nature. Even in prehistoric times, men were the hunters. They can't help it, and should not be discriminated against, either. I have to go check on my pumpkin pies.... HAPPY THANKSGIVING ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Actually pedophilia is just as normal and natural as homosexuality. Not only that but it is not something you choose. Now you make argue that taking action to satisfy your desires should be against the law but again there is nothing that person can do to change himself. Just keep that in mind when the justification for anything is irresistible urge. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Your point fails on the fact that a pedophile is hurting someone with their actions, the gay couple is not. As for your other examples, hunters, bikers, druggies, etc have all made those choices, so if they were refused, it is based on choices not biology. As was mentioned In the other post, I don't see it as any different than refusing someone based on the color of their skin. Os****************************Good point. But the gay couple hurts others, too. A lot of folks don't want their kidsexposed to that perversion, especially overtly, and it would hurt the business.But hunters - it's not by choice. It's instinct - innate in nature. Even in prehistorictimes, men were the hunters.They can't help it, and should not be discriminated against, either.I have to go check on my pumpkin pies.... HAPPY THANKSGIVING ! If the gay couple is engaging in public displays of affection in your establishment beyond hand-holding I can see a problem (one I would have with a straight couple, too), but no one is being subjected to anything by two men showing up and staying together. No one would have issues with two brothers doing so. Happy turkey day to you, too. My fav of all holidays. Actually pedophilia is just as normal and natural as homosexuality. Not only that but it is not something you choose. Now you make argue that taking action to satisfy your desires should be against the law but again there is nothing that person can do to change himself. Just keep that in mind when the justification for anything is irresistible urge. WSS The key point again is what harm is being done. Pedophiles are directly harming innocent children, while the gay couples are choosing to be together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Your point fails on the fact that a pedophile is hurting someone with their actions, the gay couple is not. As for your other examples, hunters, bikers, druggies, etc have all made those choices, so if they were refused, it is based on choices not biology. As was mentioned In the other post, I don't see it as any different than refusing someone based on the color of their skin. Os **************************** Good point. But the gay couple hurts others, too. A lot of folks don't want their kids exposed to that perversion, especially overtly, and it would hurt the business. But hunters - it's not by choice. It's instinct - innate in nature. Even in prehistoric times, men were the hunters. They can't help it, and should not be discriminated against, either. I have to go check on my pumpkin pies.... HAPPY THANKSGIVING ! These folks probably need to reconsider what exactly is a perversion. And besides, it's not like they're going to go around giving lectures to kids on the merits of being gay, followed by an oiled up orgy in the communal areas of the B&B. You might get them holding hands (big deal) or kissing. I'm sure two guys kissing would make people feel uncomfortable - a moment to reflect on the hypocrisy of a society that victimises two guys kissing, but jerks off to two girls kissing - but it's not as if that's going to make the kids gay. They might ask a question like "mummy, why is that man kissing that other man?" This can probably be answered by one of the following: a) I don't know, but it's weird because the two men love each other c) because they're perverted and going to hell And for what it's worth, since the dawn of society men have been having sex with men, from ancient greece to renaissance italy. It's only religions that would decry it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Chris I think it's a cop out to blame anti gay Prejudice on religion. I think the reason for it is the simple fact that each and everyone of us here on the board will feel a natural violent revulsion to the idea of performing any type of gay act. Whether they are Muslim fundamentalist Christian or atheist. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Chris I think it's a cop out to blame anti gay Prejudice on religion. I think the reason for it is the simple fact that each and everyone of us here on the board will feel a natural violent revulsion to the idea of performing any type of gay act. Whether they are Muslim fundamentalist Christian or atheist. WSS I'm not gay, and so I wouldn't be particularly enthusiastic about performing a gay act, I'll grant that. Violent revulsion? Meh. Kiss another guy or die? You know what, it's not that big a deal. While we're at it, with all the members on this board, can you be sure that nobody is gay? I mean, it's not exactly a gay friendly atmosphere for someone to come out! Anyway, just because I wouldn't want to do it, doesn't mean I want to criminalise/persecute people who do. There are plenty of things that I don't want to do. I feel physically sick when thinking about eating things like oysters and sea urchin - does that mean that I should seek to criminalise it? When I drink whisky, I throw up - instantly, it's not even a drunk thing - but does that make it illegal? No. So is there some critical mass that if a certain percentage of people wouldn't do something it becomes immoral and illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Come now, figuratively of course, let's not be coy. We're not talking about a little kiss, which would probably be creepy, but burying your face in somebody's crotch for instance. Its just natural. Let's admit it. I don't hate them I don't want to deprive any rights but it is what it is. we tend to freak out over anything dirty sex. Conversely I doubt if any of the straight men here would have any type of natural revulsion to sex with a hot 13 or 14 year old girl I assume we would with an 8 or 9 year old boy. But no matter what it ain't scripture that makes you feel that way. WSS by the way, even though many may deny it, I think it's perfectly natural to find some men more attractive than others. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Of course, I'm not about to blow a guy, that would be creepy. But ask a gay guy to eat some beaver and he'll have the same reaction. So who's right? OK, you can argue that straight is the default position because it's needed for reproduction, but it's not like there's no gay animals out there, there are plenty. Again, historically, there was nothing wrong with a grown man having sex with his wife of 13, as long as she's 'flowered' - it's only modern society, where marriage is based on love rather than family arrangements, that this has become unacceptable. So yes, of course any straight man would rather sleep with a 14 year old girl than a 9 year old boy. I'm not saying that scripture makes you feel that way - I'm saying that people have used scripture to criminalise it. I mean really, so what if you wouldn't do it? Make it illegal? And yes, you'd find Johnny Depp/Ryan Reynolds much more attractive than George RR Martin. Nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 And I realize you want to take because her section in a different direction but remember I have never said I wanted any of it criminalized. I'm just saying mostly you are wrong to blame religion. It is human nature. But I know how much fun it is to be ream Christians for being prejudiced. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 Speaking of the age thing it wasn't until the 18 hundreds that they changed the age of consent from 10 to 16. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 My point is not so much about what people think on a personal level, more what the powers have be decided should be illegal. I'm sure if you ask most people that aren't religious how they feel, you'd get a response of "two people who love each other can do what the hell they like as long as it's not hurting anyone" and "no way in hell would I blow another guy" - the two things are not mutually exclusive. You yourself have basically just said the same thing, after all! So what we come back to is, why should people care if other people are gay? It's not going to make other people gay, it's not a disease you catch, it's not a choice you make - who in their right mind would choose to subject themselves to that kind of abuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't know why the hell anyone would waste their time getting a women's studies degree. It makes very little sense to me. But I'm not going to ban that degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 28, 2013 Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 And yes, you'd find Johnny Depp/Ryan Reynolds much more attractive than George RR Martin. Nothing wrong with that. More's the pity for us old fat bearded guys... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted November 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't know why the hell anyone would waste their time getting a women's studies degree. It makes very little sense to me. But I'm not going to ban that degree. Nice try, but not quite. The women's studies degree is not something that you would find physically repulsive - I'm sure if you had to you could sit through an hour of it, but you couldn't sit through an hour of sucking dick. More's the pity for us old fat bearded guys... WSS Not a problem for us Johnny Depp look-a-likes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted November 29, 2013 Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 I couldn't sit through an hour of drinking milk. I think its awful. I'm not gonna ban it. I've got shitty allergies. I'm not going to ban flowers or fucking cottonwood trees... Really, I'm not expecting a logical debate on this from you. Remember, you don't believe in evolution, and you think the anti Christ is real. If you think the Bible is telling you gaya are bad then there's no getting to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.