Does anyone feel sorry for this couple?

They didn't refuse the couple service, they offered them single rooms instead of a double bed. The gay couple should have either accepted or found a gay friendly hotel. I often see 'gay friendly' listed in hotel descriptions.

Secondly it is their own private residence too, they live there so the shop owner analogy doesn't apply. They should be able to state what rules guests abide by.

YES I do feel very sorry for this couple.

I find their views pretty horrible, but I think they have the right to express it. If they don't want gay guests then they should be allowed to mandate that.

It's still discrimination there are no such things as 'gay friendly' hotels, there are just hotels.

No it's not a private residence it's a B&B and as such has to comply with the Law as they offer a service.

you shouldn't

It's still discrimination there are no such things as 'gay friendly' hotels, there are just hotels.

No it's not a private residence it's a B&B and as such has to comply with the Law as they offer a service.

you shouldn't

Just stating what I often see on hotel descriptions. I have often come across B&B's stating double beds only offered to married couples. Meh just find another.

Different considerations should be given to those running B&B's from their private residences as it is still the owner's home afterall.

But the free market would dictate that 99% of businesses would not discriminate.

I guess you're a little young to remember the days of "no blacks, no Irish". Minorities get discriminated against all the time in businesses around the world, even if it's counter to financial interest.

These hotel owners make me embarrassed to be Christian.

I guess you're a little young to remember the days of "no blacks, no Irish". Minorities get discriminated against all the time in businesses around the world, even if it's counter to financial interest.

These hotel owners make me embarrassed to be Christian.

It's sad that you think like that, because you actually do. It's not the same as dictating who you can have in your house at all. You open a business with the knowledge that people from all walks of like are going to want to walk into your shop. Honestly, if you open a corner shop with the attitude that "I'm going to serve everyone here...except anyone that's not white, straight and male" you don't deserve to be a part of the local community in the first place, and by allowing it, you send a message to the wider community that it's OK to have this attitude.

How about if they don't want black guest?

Or disabled Guests?

where would YOU draw the line?

You clearly have no respect for the concept of privacy so I will cease to continue debating with you.

Why is that? They didn't refuse them because they were gay.

it is difficult to see how
discriminating in this way against a same sex couple in a civil partnership could
ever be justified. But it goes further than that. Parliament has created the institution
of civil partnership in order that same sex partners can enjoy the same legal rights
as partners of the opposite sex. They are also worthy of the same respect and
esteem. The rights and obligations entailed in both marriage and civil partnership
exist both to recognise and to encourage stable, committed, long-term
relationships. It is very much in the public interest that intimate relationships be
conducted in this way. Now that, at long last, same sex couples can enter into a
mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods,
facilities and services should treat them in the same way.

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

I wouldn't. I would find anyone deciding to ban gay, black or disabled guests disturbing, but provided they own the place they can do what they want.

It seems pretty easy to support the owners if you're a straight white guy... Who gives a rat's ass about discrimination when we're not going to be the ones discriminated against?

It'd be interesting to see if any non-Christians (for obvious biased reasons) who don't fulfil the aforementioned criteria would come in defence of the owners here...

Well, so they say. We'll never know until gay marriage becomes law. I basically agree with Lady Hale's judgment. Without quoting the whole thing:



This is actually a very good argument as to why gay marriage should be legal: so people cannot use a legal definition loophole to discriminate against them.

Besides, what did Jesus do?
(Mark 2)

The law should accommodate people's religious beliefs. Economically, it would be cheaper to force Muslim prisoners to eat pork, yet their religious beliefs are taken into account.

I'd agree that large hotel chains shouldn't do this, but they'd be mad to. However a small family run business should be able to operate how they feel.

And you clearly have no respect for yourself if you think it's ok for people to discriminate against you for reasons beyond your control.