15 replies to this topic

[Ungodly]

Despite their right to believe in idiotic and inhumane vicious ancient cult superstitions, when Jeebus bigots choose to open a business that deals directly with the public they become obligated to treat all persons according to the law.

Even homophobic assholes have to obey the law, and claiming that Jeebus told them to act like bastards just does not cut it.

(source)

[Storybook]

[The White Coyote]

I have to say I have mixed feelings about this. My first thought is that this is a privately owned business and that these people have the right to refuse service to anyone they so desire. It may be discrimination or bigotry or whatever you want to call it but, it is a privately owned business and I don't believe the government has the right to tell them, or me for that matter, whom I must allow into my place of business.

Having said that, I think the larger picture here is how did they know these men were a gay couple? Couldn't they have been just a couple of guys trying to save a buck by sharing a bed? If the room was designated double occupancy and had a two person bed, then there should be no problem in allowing these guys to bunk together. The same goes for a straight couple. How do you tell if two people are married simply by looking at them? Do the owners of this flop house ask for a marriage certificate from every couple that walks into the lobby?

Yes, these people are idiot assholes and I hope this publicity runs their business into the ground, but as far as the law saying who me, you, or any other business has to serve I am dead against it.

[Ungodly]

Quote

Yes, these people are idiot assholes and I hope this publicity runs their business into the ground, but as far as the law saying who me, you, or any other business has to serve I am dead against it.

You make a valid point.  I don't know the specifics of UK law as it might apply to this case, but I do know that in California a hotelier may not deny accomodations to a person based on certain immutable characteristics such as their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

I agree that the owner of a hotel should be able to decline guests he chooses not to serve, but our society has determined that to do so based on these specific criteria is not OK.

[The White Coyote]

And that is what I see as the real problem. It's wrong to discriminate for any reason, but where does the line exist between a business owners rights and the rights of the public? If a hotel owner sees a group of hardcore strungout bikers pull up drunk in front of his hotel, doesn't he have the right, based on his fear of damage, to refuse them service? That too is discrimination but based on his own experience maybe. It's such a slippery slope when you talk about discrimination. Even the fact that the government has chosen race, sexual orientation and disability as legitimate reasons NOT to discriminate, is a form of discrimination.

[Ungodly]

In the case of the hotel industry, I think you cross the Rubicon when you apply for a license to operate a hotel. By doing so you must agree to a certain set of rules.

I do agree a hotel owner should be free to reject a bunch of scruffy looking bikers, but because they look like thugs.

If they were scruffy looking gay bikers he should be free to reject them because he fears they will damage his property.

[The White Coyote]

Scruffy looking gay bikers are so hard to find. I've looked and looked but they are just so elusive. 

I still think any privately owned business should be able to refuse service. I know it's not right for them to do so for the obvious reasons of discrimination but  I just don't like the idea of the government having control over private enterprise.

[Ungodly]

If the government exercises no control over private enterprise then it seems we end up with laissez faire capitalism, a precursor of fascism in some cases.

When George Warcriminal Bush and the Party of Jesus succeeded in rolling back government regulation of the financial industry we ended up with the Second Great Depression which is still getting warmed up now.

Unbridled greed will inevitably lead to victimization of innocent people because we live in a world where Republicans exist.

I understand your reluctance to have government interfering with entrepreneurs, and generally the  need for government vigilance might be proportional to the size of a business.

Small businessmen are very, very often good and decent folks, but as the size of a business grows or as the owner's religious delusions increase businesses do tend to become more evil.

[The White Coyote]

AY matey! Then we have an accord!

[Ungodly]

It has been nearly two years since we last visited this case of the gay couple in the UK who were denied a room with one bed at a hotel in Cornwall UK.

Just to refresh: A gay British couple went to Cornwall, a popular resort region in the extreme southwest corner of Britain. They had reservations for a room at a hotel that is owned by a couple afflicted with ridiculous ancient superstitions used to justify bigotry and intolerance.

When the owners realized that a gay couple wanted a room fitted with only one bed (RUN AWAY!) they invoked the Sanctity of Bigotry in order to justify refusing the desired accommodations.

Under UK law it is illegal to deny services offered to the general public to any person or group because of innate characteristics such as their ethnicity, race, gender or sexual orientation. Under the law when a person chooses to open a business that provides services to the general public they must agree to refrain from doing so in a prejudicial way.

No doubt the Jeebustard couple who own this hotel would not refuse accommodations to a black man, a Hindu couple, or an atheist. But in the modern Jeebus industry there is a knee jerk obsessive-compulsive need to constantly demean, demonize, slander, hound, persecute and otherwise treat badly any person who is attracted to members of the same gender.

The UK has studied this fact, and they have chosen to outlaw discrimination for certain public services based on various factors, including sexual orientation.

It is the responsibility of a business owner to be aware of the laws relating to their operation and to comply with those laws.

Quote

UK gay couple wins hotel case
Posted Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:41am AEDT

A British court has awarded a gay couple around six-thousand dollars in a lawsuit against Christian hotel owners who refused to let them stay in a double room.

A judge ruled that the hoteliers were breaking the law when they denied the couple a room at their hotel in Cornwall in southwest England in September 2008.

The judge said he accepted that the hotel's owners hold a perfectly orthodox Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage, but said their views were out of date.

The owners denied discriminating against the couple because they were gay, saying they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples from sharing a bed.

Should a bus company owned buy a Christian be permitted to refuse service to Buddhists?

Should a restaurant at a highway service area be permitted to post a sign "No Jews"?

What if a small regional airline was owned by a Jeebustard, would they be entitled to ask every potential passenger to swear that they love Jeebus before boarding their flight?

Certainly a hotelier, bus driver, restaurant or airline should be, and is, perfectly free to refuse service to anyone based on their actual behavior. If some jerk is high and is bothering people throw the bum out. But in a civilized nation the fact that someone belongs to a minority you do not like does not entitle you to ignore their legal right to equal justice.

Many western societies, the ones where religious leaders do NOT make the laws, have chosen to create a level playing field for all races, creeds, nationalities, genders and sexual orientations. This is the way in which a society demonstrates and guarantees equal justice under the law to all.

By putting the Sanctity of Bigotry above the law of the land these Jeebustards spit in the eye of the social contract. They claim that because they are malicious bigoted idiots they should be entitled to ignore laws that would require them to treat homos like anyone else.

They lost. Justice won.

[Storybook]

It's too bad that it took two years for a decision to be made but I'm pleased to hear the judge's ruling.

Quote

The owners denied discriminating against the couple because they were gay, saying they have a long-standing policy of banning all unmarried couples from sharing a bed.

That is pure B.S. How do they know if a couple is married? Do they require all couples to show their marriage license? Also, what if a gay couple is married and shows their marriage license? Would they have then let the gay married couple stay in their hotel? I think not!

[Ungodly]

Storybook, on 23 January 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Do they require all couples to show their marriage license? Also, what if a gay couple is married and shows their marriage license? Would they have then let the gay married couple stay in their hotel? I think not!

Excellent questions, I expect you have guessed correctly about how they would behave.

Unfortunately the husband who is one of the owners was in hospital having triple bypass surgery on the day the judge ruled. I hope he recovers and does not suffer too much, but I imagine they will prolly sell the place and retire because of his health.

If you are not prepared to obey the laws of a regulated industry you should not go into such a business. The hotel industry is one of the most regulated because there are so many opportunities for dishonest or unethical guests and innkeepers to rip each other off. Guests skip out without paying, or smash up rooms while high/drunk.

[kingalbrect79]

This case was pretty cut-and-dry. When the couple walked in the buisness owner could have just refused service without stating a purpose; simply, "I'm sorry, but I don't have a room for you folks at the moment." The moment that he said "only married couples...blah blah, THAT is the moment he violated the law and deserved to pay for it. He has the right to refuse service, he just has to keep his reason to himself.

Interesting case. Too bad I didn't see this sooner or I would have gotten in on the conversation.

King

[Ungodly]

Well the couple are now appealing the decision, so it might come around again soon.

Your analysis of when and how they went wrong is spot on. I think the hoteliers felt a powerful compulsion to flaunt their intolerance but they failed to look at the price tag first.

[Joe Bloe]

Ungodly, on 01 February 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Well the couple are now appealing the decision, so it might come around again soon.

UPDATE one year later:

Quote

A British court rejected an appeal Friday from two Christian hotel owners who were sued after turning away a gay couple from their establishment because of their beliefs regarding pre-marital sex.

http://www.christian...y-couple-69171/

[Ungodly]

At least now they can rest secure in the warm, steady glow of their successful martyrdom. For Christians losing is still winning if they have an alleged oppressor they can point to while yelling "Help! I'm being repressed."

And of course the Jesus industry will happily misrepresent the facts of the matter, claiming crap like 'Court Outlaws Family Values', always painting their bigotry itself as divinely inspired in order to skim over the real reasons why they are full of hate: they're assholes.