Homosexual couple sue Christian hotel owners for refusing them a double room - Page 4

danielf · 24-03-2009, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

...in the hoteliers OWN property.

Yes, and there are laws on how they can and cannot run their business in their OWN property.

Russ · 24-03-2009, 10:49

Well we shall see what the law thinks of that.

Kymmy · 24-03-2009, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

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

Now that is the right question... It'll be interesting to see if it will stand up in court..you do have to witnesses to the fact that it has been said (albiet an unmarried couple) but in dicrimination cases sometimes one witness is enough..

Yes it could be sour grapes on the gay couple and I do know a few who like to toss in the anti-gay comments as being said even when they weren't... Or it could be an actual slip of the hoteliers stating something in thier mind at the time which shouldn't have but was said...

**Chris** · 24-03-2009, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, you do. This couple are running a business though and not inviting people into a private home. I believe their are laws in providing services as a business 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.

Why shouldn't they have a hotel? Restricting the sorts of business people can have based on their religion is a very, very dangerous road to travel. I think it's also likely that they had the hotel before the introduction of the law that is now being waved at them.

Your use of 'impose' is interesting. Given that this is not a State service, providing things the couple couldn't reasonably obtain somewhere else (such as free healthcare, benefits, etc etc), how exactly is the double room policy and imposition?

When this gets to court, it is going to be a straight fist-fight between the discrimination laws quoted by Stonewall, and the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religious expression. The court will have to decide which has primacy.

rogerdraig · 24-03-2009, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

If they rejected the couple of sexual orientation then in simple terms the hotel was wrong to refuse the rooms based on the current laws... If they don't like the current laws then they have a simple right to set up a hotel elsewhere that doesn't have the laws or start up a business which doesn't have such laws..

The warning on the website is that it states 'a marraige between Man & a Women'..It doesn't then give any scope for civil partnerships (even once performed in a church) nor does it give leeway for foriegn single sex marraiges..

It's not as if it's a brand new law and has been in force a couple of years now..

If it was based on Christianity then why also doesn't it restrict against thost married in a registry office...or perhaps unbaptized individuals

because Christians recognise state marriages ( there isnt really any need to get married in a church ( except maybe for Catholics ) as there is no bible section on how to get married )

there is however a European law that says they are allowed to manifest thier faith the way they see fit

see hear where this was upheld when a greak court went against the convention

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...3-1492004.html

there are too competing freedoms here and if this was about refusing to let them in it would one thing ( thats to do with the black coment on refusing service ) but this is not its about what they want going on under thier roof

if they had seperate rooms just as would have been asked of them as an unmarried couple they could have staid

Kymmy · 24-03-2009, 10:52

As far as though thier own property as soon as they opened the building up as fee paying accomodation they do come under discrimination laws as well as a load of other laws so not the same as it being thier own private property and able to say/do what they like as there's now no inferrence of privacy especially within the communial areas like reception..

Russ · 24-03-2009, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogermevans

because Christians recognise state marriages ( there isnt really any need to get married in a church ( except maybe for Catholics ) as there is no bible section on how to get married )

Just an amendment - for a marriage to be recognised by God it has to take place in His presence at a place of worship, so a state marriage is not legitimate in God's eye.

danielf · 24-03-2009, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Just an amendment - for a marriage to be recognised by God it has to take place in His presence at a place of worship, so a state marriage is not legitimate in God's eye.

Out of interest, does it say so anywhere in the bible?

Kymmy · 24-03-2009, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Just an amendment - for a marriage to be recognised by God it has to take place in His presence at a place of worship, so a state marriage is not legitimate in God's eye.

So says god or the rules set down by human beings some 1800 years ago?? But then that is a whole nother argument for yet another religious thread

Russ · 24-03-2009, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Out of interest, does it say so anywhere in the bible?

Yes, although I haven't got the passage to hand.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

So says god or the rules set down by human beings some 1800 years ago?? But then that is a whole nother argument for yet another religious thread

A slightly unfair, pointless and as you suggest, off-topic dig....

danielf · 24-03-2009, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Yes, although I haven't got the passage to hand.

Slacker!

**Chris** · 24-03-2009, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kymmy

So says god or the rules set down by human beings some 1800 years ago?? But then that is a whole nother argument for yet another religious thread

In the context of this thread it doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether anyone other than the hoteliers believe in the religion or not. It is a religion, and that invokes the human rights act, the other relevant piece of legislation in this situation that you've been carefully ignoring up to now.

Stuart · 24-03-2009, 11:05

There are two sides to this.

The hotel owners do have the right to say who they want to have as guests. However, how far do you allow that? OK, so they are only saying that unmarried couples can't sleep together, and defining a married couple as being a man and a woman.

But, saying that *is* discrimination. People don't' seem too bothered that two Homosexuals are not allowed to sleep together, but would they feel the same if the hotel had said "No Black Couples"? OK, so that's a little extreme, but the concept is the same. You are refusing to allow people to sleep together based purely on some biological condition that they have no control over.

Having said that, I still think the way the Homosexual couple has acted is wrong. The hotel's rules are *clearly* stated, so they should have picked another hotel.

Russ · 24-03-2009, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Slacker!

There are lots of passages in the bible you know

In any case from what I remember, it's more a case of marriages requiring the church's blessing. A marriage in a registry office or whatever is usually done because those involved don't want religion to play a part in it, so you could understand that not getting the blessing.

But that's not the subject of the thread and for this week's session of religion-bashing I believe there is already an established thread (from which I unsubscribed days ago...).

Kymmy · 24-03-2009, 11:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

In the context of this thread it doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether anyone other than the hoteliers believe in the religion or not. It is a religion, and that invokes the human rights act, the other relevant piece of legislation in this situation that you've been carefully ignoring up to now.

HRA though is so overused and could be twisted in mosts groups favor... It does though beg the question as to how far do you go...If the discrimination laws covering this are agianst the true spirit of the HRA then surely the laws would never have been passed especially in such a modern world...

Also then surely non-religious people within the HRA have a right not to be dictated to by religious people.... If the HRA comes into it then this argument will go backwards/forwards forever and ever..

Perhaps in this case then there's been failures on both sides...the patrons should have perhaps queried the "no unmarried couples" rule and the hoteliers should have queried the patrons request more suitably..

All this arguement is I think do to one word "HETROSEXUAL" that may or may not have bbeen said....

It is going to make an intersting court case....if it ever gets that far