Christian B&B owners lose appeal....

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Salu

I struggle to get my head around why there is so much support for gay people these days yet so little support for religious expression citing it as outdated etc. Surely if you support people's rights to express themselves sexually then you should also support people's rights for religious expression?

It's got nothing to with 'Gay Rights' as such, it's about equality.

The B&B owners said they didn't allow unmarried couples to share a double bed which personally wouldn't fall foul of any laws as long as you apply it equally - however the gay couple were civil partners, which currently is as close as you can get in the UK to marriage for same sex couples. As far as I understand it, because they were then treated differently, that was the issue.

Should bouncers allow anyone in to their nightclubs? Should the gents be open to ladies?

Bouncers can't discrimitate by sexuality, age, or colour, so why should a B&B. Also quite a lot of clubs and other venues these days operate mixed toilet facilities

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Salu

I struggle to get my head around why there is so much support for gay people these days yet so little support for religious expression citing it as outdated etc. Surely if you support people's rights to express themselves sexually then you should also support people's rights for religious expression?

Obviously there will be people who support both but there is a vocal bias towards this even on this site.

I don't know the details of the above case but if someone wishes to not allow potential customers into their own home for a reason that conflicts with their own values then I fully understand them. Just like I would if they didn't allow teenage drunks or smokers or "no dogs" etc.

The thing I don't agree with is persecuting those individuals for their lifestyles.

Should bouncers allow anyone in to their nightclubs? Should the gents be open to ladies?

It's not about support for any group, because that would be saying that they were different. It's about not discriminating against any group due to race, religion, sex, sexuallity, or disability.

If you advocate discriminating on religious grounds because that person doesn't have the same beliefs as you, then that makes you just ad prejudice as the people with the B&B.

If you are prejudice, then don't run a business where people from all all walks of life will want to visit.

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

From my personal viewpoint, I am not supporting gay rights, I am supporting equal rights.

People should not be discriminated against for their gender, sexuality, race, disability, or religion - this should not be confused/conflated with not allowing drunken troublemakers into a nightclub.

If someone stated that I, as a member of the CofE, was not allowed into a hotel because of my beliefs, I bet there would be outrage because of that - there should (imho) the same outrage if people are not allowed in due to their sexuality, gender, etc etc.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Bouncers can't discrimitate by sexuality, age, or colour, so why should a B&B. Also quite a lot of clubs and other venues these days operate mixed toilet facilities

No they just make up any excuse to stop you entering.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

No they just make up any excuse to stop you entering.

But that's a different thing, and still if you could prove that their justification was hiding a different reason you might still have a case

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I'm sure that even if/when gay marriage becomes a reality these bigots would still refuse to let them stay in the same room. Religeon is just a convenient cover for their own prejudices.

To be fair to the couple, you don't know that. And in some respects, that statement itself is prejudiced

Originally Posted by Hom3r

What puzzles me is a shop or club can refuse to serve you or let you enter, and you cannot do squat.

But a B&B cannot.

A B&B most certainly can. We are a B&B. We don't get many walk-up guests because we're normally full with pre-booked ones, but on the odd occasion when someone just turns up on our doorstep we can, and do, make a decision on whether to let them in based not just on the number of empty rooms available.

I should add, we don't make that decision based on whether they look gay or not. It would have more to do with the possible use of alcohol and, most of all, how late at night it is (we live in a remote spot and have no guarantee that we can discover the identity and home address of someone who just turns up on our doorstep, so are quite likely to have a blanket 'no availability' for people who arrive at 10pm, or young couples who have tried camping in their car, are fed up of it, but then want to haggle over the room rate on the doorstep. Basically, if we have reason to believe they're not going to cherish our lovely room and appreciate everything that makes it worth the price, they're not likely to get a foot in the door).

The Christian couple in question here made the cardinal error of telling the gay couple, truthfully, why they were being refused entry. They gave the couple an avenue for legal redress, because the reason they were given was one disallowed by law. They could simply have refused admission and would have been under no obligation to give any reason whatsoever. The guests might have had a civil claim for expenses suffered as a result of this but given that this sort of thing happens all the time without people going to court I can't see it having ended up this way under those circumstances.

Now, despite pointing all that out, I'm not saying the couple should have lied. That would have been somewhat dodgy from a faith point of view IMO. I also happen to think it is dodgy from a faith point of view that they are rejecting people who do not live a Christian life. That's no way to reach out to a fallen world and it's not the way Jesus operated.

There was a lot of argument when this case was first aired (and another similar to it) over whether the HRA was being used to over-ride someone's right to religious freedom or family life. We got into a lot of detail over whether a small B&B, which for fire and food safety purposes is not treated as business purposes, was therefore a private dwelling where the owner's religious preferences are sacrosanct. Clearly, the court and the appeal court have determined that a B&B, guest house or inn, no matter how small, is operating as a business and therefore has to follow anti-discrimination laws just as any other business does.

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I'm sure that even if/when gay marriage becomes a reality these bigots would still refuse to let them stay in the same room. Religeon is just a convenient cover for their own prejudices.

Don't put the cart before the horse. Everybody is brought up with a certain moral code. Religion isn't a cover for prejudice, it's the source of morality for a great many people, and not just those that actively practice the religion.

People don't think, "I don't like that, and I can use my religion as an excuse for not liking it". They think, "My religion teaches me that this is wrong - therefore I don't like it".

This is not a semantic difference, it's a crucial one. It's all very well railing against religious people from the safety of your keyboard, especially on a forum where you feel comfortable that the majority will agree with you, but the fact is, we all need to get along out there in the big wide world, yet the view you have expressed here, IMO, is not just prejudice but teetering on the brink of outright intolerance.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The Christian couple in question here made the cardinal error of telling the gay couple, truthfully, why they were being refused entry. They gave the couple an avenue for legal redress, because the reason they were given was one disallowed by law. They could simply have refused admission and would have been under no obligation to give any reason whatsoever. The guests might have had a civil claim for expenses suffered as a result of this but given that this sort of thing happens all the time without people going to court I can't see it having ended up this way under those circumstances.

Didn't they also have a notice on their website saying that they only allowed married couples, or am I confusing this case with something else?

There were a couple of similar cases around at the same time, I don't remember which one this was. They may well have done, and in one of the cases there was some suggestion that this was a 'sting' operation by a gay rights group which planned to fund a civil court action if, as they expected, the couple were turned away.

Despite any and all of this, I simply point out that Jesus never erected a banner over his pitch, whenever he stopped to preach or to heal, insisting that only people whose morals he approved of could stop by.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

Despite any and all of this, I simply point out that Jesus never erected a banner over his pitch, whenever he stopped to preach or to heal, insisting that only people whose morals he approved of could stop by.

He just got his disciples to mingle and usher them away without attracting too much attention

Have you ever turned away a known gay couple due to other reasons?

Originally Posted by Gary L

(Pointless nonsense snipped)

Have you ever turned away a known gay couple due to other reasons?

As of right now, we have only got a double room. We have had people stay who we knew to be gay and it never occurred to us to turn them away.

We have also had Mormons, Jews and Muslims. We never turned any of them away either. Why would we?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

As of right now, we have only got a double room. We have had people stay who we knew to be gay and it never occurred to us to turn them away.

We have also had Mormons, Jews and Muslims. We never turned any of them away either. Why would we?

Because you said this earlier.

we can, and do, make a decision on whether to let them in

Was there any gay people when Jesus was alive?

Originally Posted by Gary L

Because you said this earlier.

I also said, in the very next paragraph:

Originally Posted by Chris

I should add, we don't make that decision based on whether they look gay or not. It would have more to do with the possible use of alcohol and, most of all, how late at night it is ... Basically, if we have reason to believe they're not going to cherish our lovely room and appreciate everything that makes it worth the price, they're not likely to get a foot in the door).

... though I appreciate that post may have had too many words in it for you to read to the end.

Was there any gay people when Jesus was alive?

Yes.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

I also said, in the very next paragraph:



... though I appreciate that post may have had too many words in it for you to read to the end.

So I'll ask again, and so we don't go backwards and forwards.. you said you can and do. so have you ever turned away a gay couple for any of the reasons you say you can and do turn people away for?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

So I'll ask again, and so we don't go backwards and forwards.. you said you can and do. so have you ever turned away a gay couple for any of the reasons you say you can and do turn people away for?

Does it matter if they were not turned away for being gay but for one of the other mentioned reasons?

I have absolutely no idea whether any of the people we have declined to put up in our B&B were gay ... had we known, it would have made no difference to our decision one way or the other. We turn people away if they arrive too late at night, if they look like they might cause trouble, or if they try to haggle the room rate (because we're not a commodity - we're only interested in having people here who want to be here, not people who are just looking for a cheap bed for the night).