Discrimination: gay couples, Christian guesthouse, gay hotels, & heterosexual couples
Gay hotels are now being investigated for breaching equality laws. Hotels that only accept homosexuals are being investigated by a government-funded watchdog for discriminating against heterosexual couples. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is examining whether "gay-only" guesthouses breach new laws designed to prevent people being treated unfairly in the provision of goods or services.
Last month, Christian owners of a guesthouse in Cornwall became the first to be found guilty of discrimination under equality laws after they refused to let a homosexual couple stay in a double room, in a legal action supported by the EHRC. Now, the watchdog says it must establish an "objective balance" by considering if gays-only accommodation also defies the legislation.
Now, I don't have a problem with the objective balance that the EHRC are trying to seek. But this issue is a double-edged sword. Whilst I appreciate it may seem controversial, I think it makes a lot more sense that we allow the owner of the guest house to decide which customers to serve. I'm now dismayed, though not at all surprised, that gay owners of guesthouses may be sued for discrimination for turning away straight couples. I think the gay community should be allowed to have places exclusively for gay people. Likewise Christian owners should be allowed to refuse a double bed to a gay couple.
This equality law probably won't achieve anything at all except more hostility. One thing for sure is that it most certainly doesn't achieve equality. To the contrary, the law actually gives homosexual couples better rights than heterosexual couples: if the guesthouse owner doesn’t believe in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, there is no problem to refuse business to an unmarried straight couple; however, the B&B owner can be sued for indirect discrimination if the same reason were to be given to a gay couple.
But let's return to the revelation that gay hotels are now being investigated for breaching equality laws. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Last month, Christian owners of a guesthouse in Cornwall became the first to be found guilty of discrimination under equality laws after they refused to let a homosexual couple stay in a double room, in a legal action supported by the EHRC. Now, the watchdog says it must establish an "objective balance" by considering if gays-only accommodation also defies the legislation.
Now, I don't have a problem with the objective balance that the EHRC are trying to seek. But this issue is a double-edged sword. Whilst I appreciate it may seem controversial, I think it makes a lot more sense that we allow the owner of the guest house to decide which customers to serve. I'm now dismayed, though not at all surprised, that gay owners of guesthouses may be sued for discrimination for turning away straight couples. I think the gay community should be allowed to have places exclusively for gay people. Likewise Christian owners should be allowed to refuse a double bed to a gay couple.
This equality law probably won't achieve anything at all except more hostility. One thing for sure is that it most certainly doesn't achieve equality. To the contrary, the law actually gives homosexual couples better rights than heterosexual couples: if the guesthouse owner doesn’t believe in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, there is no problem to refuse business to an unmarried straight couple; however, the B&B owner can be sued for indirect discrimination if the same reason were to be given to a gay couple.
But let's return to the revelation that gay hotels are now being investigated for breaching equality laws. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Scroll to see replies
Works both ways I'm afraid. If the christians had to let gays into the inn, then the gays have to let straight people in as well. You can't have rules for one group of people and not for everyone else.
Original post by Lewroll
Works both ways I'm afraid. If the christians had to let gays into the inn, then the gays have to let straight people in as well. You can't have rules for one group of people and not for everyone else.
This basically. Ether everyone can discriminate or no one can
Wait - but do these "Gay" Hotels make clear that they are only for homosexual people? Should this not be illegal? It is like having a "White Hotel"....
Agreed with all above. No discrimination, please.
You can have a hotel which is designed for a certain group, eg. you might design a hotel with all the customs of muslims, or indian with indian-only food, but you would have to allow all races and religions in.
So you can make a hotel which is very 'gay'.. I don't know, hang some rainbow flags up? but everyone would have to be allowed in.
You can have a hotel which is designed for a certain group, eg. you might design a hotel with all the customs of muslims, or indian with indian-only food, but you would have to allow all races and religions in.
So you can make a hotel which is very 'gay'.. I don't know, hang some rainbow flags up? but everyone would have to be allowed in.
But what is important surely isn't necessarily the discrimination but the motivation behind the discrimination.
Surely the idea that gay clubs and hotels restrict clientele as some do in order to protect the safety and comfort of their patrons is entirely different that banning a group out of a personal prejudice.
It's like nightclubs who reserve the right to restrict access to a group of young men if they feel there is potential for trouble. You could not really compare that to people being refused a service based on their race or sexuality, could you?
Surely the idea that gay clubs and hotels restrict clientele as some do in order to protect the safety and comfort of their patrons is entirely different that banning a group out of a personal prejudice.
It's like nightclubs who reserve the right to restrict access to a group of young men if they feel there is potential for trouble. You could not really compare that to people being refused a service based on their race or sexuality, could you?
So most have made it clear that the law should be applied consistently and of course I agree. This is not something that is particular contradictory to my initial post.
I know what it's like to be discriminated against, but I'm really not convinced that the best way to deal with the issue is through equality law. It's not an effective way to bring about equality and, incidentally, makes certain unprotected categories of people in society less equal than those categories that do receive special protection.
I know what it's like to be discriminated against, but I'm really not convinced that the best way to deal with the issue is through equality law. It's not an effective way to bring about equality and, incidentally, makes certain unprotected categories of people in society less equal than those categories that do receive special protection.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Lewroll
Works both ways I'm afraid. If the christians had to let gays into the inn, then the gays have to let straight people in as well. You can't have rules for one group of people and not for everyone else.
I don't think any private business owner should *have* to let anyone in they don't want to.
Original post by Revd. Mike
I don't think any private business owner should *have* to let anyone in they don't want to.
But that means you're also legislating for a shop keeper to refuse to sell goods to those based on the colour of their skin.
Original post by AaronG
Original post by AaronG
But that means you're also legislating for a shop keeper to refuse to sell goods to those based on the colour of their skin.
I'm not legislating, what I'm proposing is less legislation in fact
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
Original post by Revd. Mike
I'm not legislating, what I'm proposing is less legislation in fact
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
This basically; i see no point in forcing people (however morally wrong it may be) to house people they don't want to, all that is going to do is create more hostility, and in all honesty, i don't know why guests would want to stay in a hostile environment in any case, so its pointless to force owners to take them in
Original post by Revd. Mike
I'm not legislating, what I'm proposing is less legislation in fact
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
This seems cruel to me. If I wanted to grab a bottle of water from the local service station, I'd be pretty annoyed if I was turned away for being black/lesbian/blind. I think surely some discretion should be encouraged, that is, if someone clearly poses a threat they can be turned away, but I just can't see how allowing people to act on ill-founded prejudices will allow said prejudices to do anything but fester.
Original post by Revd. Mike
I'm not legislating, what I'm proposing is less legislation in fact
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
And if a business owner wants to deny their service to blacks, jews, gays, muslims, women, red heads, Irish, people without shirts or shoes, people they don't like the look of, etc., then they should be free to do so. However, it's only going to end up hurting their business, as they cut out a chunk of their potential profits by barring a section of the public. Not to mention that if people not directly affected by their policy disagree with it, then they won't patronise the business and it goes bust.
Problem solved, legislation not required.
Original post by Rational Paradox
This basically; i see no point in forcing people (however morally wrong it may be) to house people they don't want to, all that is going to do is create more hostility, and in all honesty, i don't know why guests would want to stay in a hostile environment in any case, so its pointless to force owners to take them in
With all due respect these have to be the most shortsighted comments I have read in a while. Minorities have had to fight, bleed, beg, die and march to be allowed to use their local shops without fear. To enter a bar without being spat on or beaten up because of their skin colour. To not feel like a alien in their own homeland. Yet you two think its moral acceptable to even let one person be told to go away due to who they are? You seem to believe laws can be rolled back and all will be solved by businesses going bust or losing money? we've been there before. It didn't work. Really it didn't.
The private and public spheres have to be balanced and respected, I agree. But by rolling back said laws that protect individuals, you will be denying their rights to be served. Businesses operate within the public sphere and not in isolation. They have a duty to the community they serve. I strongly believe the public's right to access services out way business owners the right to impose their discrimination on anyone.
We already deregulated the banks and look where it got us. The idea that by deregulating business discrimination laws will achieve a happy medium is so unfounded. There was a reason why these laws came in the first place. Yet even with these laws you still have people discriminating. You talk of these laws creating hostility, yet you believe allowing black, jews, gingers, Irish and gays to be told to piss off will improve hostility? right.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Reformed2010
Problem solved?!
With all due respect these have to be the most shortsighted comments I have read in a while. Minorities have had to fight, bleed, beg, die and march to be allowed to use their local shops without fear. To enter a bar without being spat on or beaten up because of their skin colour. To not feel like a alien in their own homeland. Yet you two think its moral acceptable to even let one person be told to go away due to who they are? You seem to believe laws can be rolled back and all will be solved by businesses going bust or losing money? we've been there before. It didn't work. Really it didn't.
The private and public spheres have to be balanced and respected, I agree. But by rolling back said laws that protect individuals, you will be denying their rights to be served. Businesses operate within the public sphere and not in isolation. They have a duty to the community they serve. I strongly believe the public's right to access services out way business owners the right to impose their discrimination on anyone.
We already deregulated the banks and look where it got us. The idea that by deregulation business discrimination laws will achieve a happy medium is so unfounded.
With all due respect these have to be the most shortsighted comments I have read in a while. Minorities have had to fight, bleed, beg, die and march to be allowed to use their local shops without fear. To enter a bar without being spat on or beaten up because of their skin colour. To not feel like a alien in their own homeland. Yet you two think its moral acceptable to even let one person be told to go away due to who they are? You seem to believe laws can be rolled back and all will be solved by businesses going bust or losing money? we've been there before. It didn't work. Really it didn't.
The private and public spheres have to be balanced and respected, I agree. But by rolling back said laws that protect individuals, you will be denying their rights to be served. Businesses operate within the public sphere and not in isolation. They have a duty to the community they serve. I strongly believe the public's right to access services out way business owners the right to impose their discrimination on anyone.
We already deregulated the banks and look where it got us. The idea that by deregulation business discrimination laws will achieve a happy medium is so unfounded.
I don't necessarily think its a problem solved case (and almost certainly not morally acceptable), but more of a "better alternative" case if you will, on the basis that forcing people to accept people they don't want will do nothing to help alleviate tensions or change opinions, but do the opposite...
Of course, a certain limitation to my argument is the readiness of competitors they can turn to, but otherwise, i see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to deny who they want - in the end, it only hurts themselves and their reputation, and hence most businesses would be very unlikely to reject customers, especially if the customers could simply go to another competing business (Also, i have to question how many people still hold these kind of beliefs - its not fair to compare a relatively modern time to a time when they actually had to struggle to gain said rights, and occasions like these seem to be extremely rare)
You cannot delegate this entirely to the private sector as there would be no protection for minority groups. You could conceivably pending a situation of widespread denomination of a particular group, with vast areas of towns and cities being declared no-go areas for people of a certain faith. Anti-semitism as one example. The idea that business that restrict trade to the minority groups will be the ones who suffer as the minority groups will take their business elsewhere is fanciful. All that'll happen is the ghettoisation of the high street. It's an ignorance to pretend that this situation could work. As if Rosa Parks should have said 'Well, I don't kind being told to sit at the back of the bus on this ride as I can go to another company happy to provide me with the service I want from my local transport network, no need for legislation"
Original post by AaronG
You cannot delegate this entirely to the private sector as there would be no protection for minority groups.
Why do minority groups need 'protection' from not being given things on demand? People should be praised for starting businesses, not have their former rights to associate (or not associate) with whomsoever they may please removed simply because they happen to trade things for money.
If I open a shop in a village, I feel that I'm doing something positive, but I am doing it voluntarily. Why not equally suggest the majority should be similarly 'protected' by preventing me from closing my shop, even if I should want to?
As if Rosa Parks should have said 'Well, I don't kind being told to sit at the back of the bus on this ride as I can go to another company happy to provide me with the service I want from my local transport network, no need for legislation"
Kindly remember that it was state legislation which furthered segregation and racial discrimination in the South during this time.
Indeed, I'm rather more fearful of the state introducing legislation in this area - when they have historically been the worst culprits in racial discrimination - than a few businesses choosing to do what they please with their time and assets. At least when people have the choice to discriminate, those discriminated against can go elsewhere; when the state has the choice to discriminate, and to reject the private property rights of the many, those discriminated against often have no choice in the matter.
The state should not (and does not, legitimately, to my mind) have the power to instruct others to render or withhold services to certain people with the threat of force and violence to back it up. You cannot create tolerance at gunpoint.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Reformed2010
But by rolling back said laws that protect individuals, you will be denying their rights to be served.
There's a word for that 'right': slavery.
Businesses operate within the public sphere and not in isolation. They have a duty to the community they serve.
**** that ****. You seem to believe that people who dare to start a business should constantly apologise for daring to do something quite so inhumane, and should accordingly be deprived of the most basic rights they have. It's an odd anti-Capitalist version of Original Sin.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Husband has never been physically intimate with me
- Gay relationships in sixth form/college
- Ask someone out in uni
- Why is religion against sex?
- Can a camp man be straight?
- Im gay but a christian
- couple having loud sex next door to me in halls
- How is the gay scence at Aber University?
- Am I gay
- Does my best friend fancy me ?
- I am I gay or straight
- Would guys like a girl using a strap-on?
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- LGBTQ at Hull uni
- Trip to Germany as a 17 year old
- Have a gf but not sure if I’m gay or not
- Intrusive thoughts.
- I’m worried I’m going to be outed
- can you put in your own earring straight after it has been pierced
- gay/bi muslims
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
PWC Flying Start Degree Apprenticeships 2024!Last reply 6 minutes ago
Google level 4 software development apprenticeshipLast reply 8 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official: University of Cardiff A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 13 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 10 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 10 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
