Homosexual couple sue Christian hotel owners for refusing them a double room

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Possibly to set a difference between marriage and 'civil partnerships'?

But hetrosexual couples have the option of a civil partnership... there's no way the term "married hetrosexual couples" can mean anything but discrimination in this context...

Originally Posted by Damien

I can't see how it is dangerous in this context? Especially when your comparison was with something with is certifiably dangerous...

Russ is alluding to metaphysical danger.

Personally I think that's a bit of a red herring. The law is in danger of swinging too far in favour of one set of rights over another here, and shouldn't be used to enforce one person's morality over another. Whether that has happened in this case has not been established yet. A court will decide how the discrimination laws apply (or whether they do at all).

However, this couple run a business on private premises and should be entitled to decide what is and is not allowed under their own roof. If some people aren't happy with the restrictions, there are countless other hotels they can stay at.

Wind the clock forward a few months, and assume that the court rules in favour of the gay couple. What are the hoteliers supposed to do then? Wind up their livelihood because the way they choose to live their lives, within the confines of their own private property, is unacceptable to two people who didn't even want to stay there anyway?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

But hetrosexual couples have the option of a civil partnership...

And a civil partnered hetro couple would be in the same situation too - they would be discouraged from taking a double bedded room too.

As mentioned earlier this is a clash of religious views against lifestyle and in this PC world of "let's not offend the minorities" I hazard a guess of how this one will go.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

But hetrosexual couples have the option of a civil partnership... there's no way the term "married hetrosexual couples" can mean anything but discrimination in this context...

Kymmy, you're using the fact that the British Government has chosen to make marriage/partnership a more complex legal issue than it ever has been before to muddy the waters here.

Every man and woman on the street has a clear idea of what you mean when you say 'married' and 'heterosexual'.

Originally Posted by Russ B

You don't see how it is considered 'dangerous' to the hoteliers because you don't share those Christian views.

I don't think when it comes to other people that someone should discriminate based on that their religious views consider dangerous. They need to accept not everyone shares their views and in the absence of evidence they should tolerate peoples choices. Drug use has actual harm, Homosexuality does not.

I still don't understand how it is dangerous to other people? Does the Bible say that offering shelter or friendship to homosexuals is a sin?

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think when it comes to other people that someone should discriminate based on that their religious views consider dangerous. They need to accept not everyone shares their views and in the absence of evidence they should tolerate peoples choices.

Damien, do you believe you should be allowed to decide what behaviour is acceptable on your own private property, or do you not?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

I still don't understand how it is dangerous to other people? Does the Bible say that offering shelter or friendship to homosexuals is a sin?

The hoteliers aren't turning the gay couple away, they'd be welcome to stay there, just not in a room with a double bed.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Using an extreme example to illustrate a point here, I'm sure a lot of people would be uncomfortable offering a room to a heroin user. Before any of the PC guys have a go at me, I'm not saying homosexuality is (or should be) as illegal as taking heroin, but some people clearly are uncomfortable with the drug use lifestyle (regardless of it being illegal) and would not want to promote it.

Yes, but there are no laws against discrimination on the grounds of the use of illicit substances are there? There are laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which is the issue here.

We've just booked accomodation for a short getaway, and the website stated that if you wanted to book the place for an all male or all female party you should call ahead to discuss terms. I presume this is because they don't want stag/hen parties. As far as I'm aware the people running the place are within their rights to do this. They just can't do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, but there are no laws against discrimination on the grounds of the use of illicit substances are there? There are laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation which is the issue here.

We've just booked accomodation for a short getaway, and the website stated that if you wanted to book the place for an all male or all female party you should call ahead to discuss terms. I presume this is because they don't want stag/hen parties. As far as I'm aware the people running the place are within their rights to do this. They just can't do it on the basis of sexual orientation.

It's been made clear several times now that the hotel does not have a 'no gays' policy. Homosexual couples are welcome to stay there just like anyone is.

I'm sure some parts of the media are painting this as "nasty Christian hoteliers ban gays from staying" but as usual, that isn't the case. The gay couple chose not to stay there.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Russ B

The hoteliers aren't turning the gay couple away, they'd be welcome to stay there, just not in a room with a double bed.

They are refusing them services...

[Kymmy]

LOL, everyones grabbing at the "civil partnership" side of my quotes when the most relevant word is "Hetrosexual" My argument is (and that's why I brought in that civil partnerships is not jus same sex to guide people AWAY from the marraige/single/partnership issue) that yes it would have been OK if the couple had stuck to thier website wording and restricted "unmarried couples" Instead the reason for rejection for this couple was as in the article as

but when they arrived were told that only married heterosexual couples could stay in the same room

By that quote they are discriminating against a couple sexuality

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

They are refusing them services...

...in the hoteliers OWN property.

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, do you believe you should be allowed to decide what behaviour is acceptable on your own private property, or do you not?

Yes, you do. This couple are running a business though and not inviting people into a private home. I believe there are laws in providing services and discrimination. However, I do not think they should be sued as there were plenty of hotels around and they were aware of the policy. Why not just accept it instead of looking for a pointless battle?

My main interest in this topic is why the couple have a hotel if they wish to have these policies? As well as questioning the extent to which you can impose your personal beliefs on others when providing a service.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'd say that's not been established yet. Let's wait to hear what the court says before we start using phrases like 'illegal policy', eh?

Yes, fair enough. It's still only a civil case though isn't it?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

By that quote they are discriminating against a couple sexuality

Do we know that quote came from the hoteliers? Or do we just have the word of the homosexual couple to go on?