ForumGarden

Bryn Mawr;1298689 wrote: How's about including the relevant data instead of this outragious selective quoting?






How Odd that It is 'Outragous selective quoting' when the parts of the article I have quoted do not suit you.

I think the matter is a grey area. She can claim religious grounds excatly the same as a Muslim would in the same situation.

I have a feeling here Bryn that If It were indeed a Muslim who had objected, you would be agreeing with him.

oscar;1298648 wrote: If the Wikki Is correct, then the discrimination act does not include on religious grounds. There-fore, she must be entitled to claim her religious beliefs for not allowing them to sleep together.

How about the pair have the brains to phone ahead and ask if there was any rules on two men sleeping In the same bed before they booked? Could have saved them alot of trouble.


I'm coming to think that you truly cannot see what does not fit your preconceived ideas. From that self same Wiki article :-

The Equality Act 2006 (c.3) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom covering the United Kingdom, and covers the following areas: the creation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), replacing the current equality commissions, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission, the outlawing of discrimination on goods and services on the grounds of religion and belief (subject to certain exemptions)

Bryn Mawr;1298698 wrote: I'm coming to think that you truly cannot see what does not fit your preconceived ideas. From that self same Wiki article :-I was going to point that out earlier but decided not to bother wasting my time.

Nice to see you, Bryn - where the hell have you been?

oscar;1298696 wrote: How Odd that It is 'Outragous selective quoting' when the parts of the article I have quoted do not suit you.

I think the matter is a grey area. She can claim religious grounds excatly the same as a Muslim would in the same situation.

I have a feeling here Bryn that If It were indeed a Muslim who had objected, you would be agreeing with him.


It's outrageous selective quoting when you quote a section that relates to the situation before the election and claim that it is the situation today when the very next sentence says that, immediately after the election the situation changed and laid out what the current situation is.

It is not a grey area - as the original article clearly stated, it is illegal.

That's the second time you've attempted to divert the discussion by bringing in the Muslims to muddy the water. Sorry, won't work.

Ahso!;1298699 wrote: I was going to point that out earlier but decided not to bother wasting my time.

Nice to see you, Bryn - where the hell have you been?


The boat was calling me and dragged me off down the river :-6

Is it wrong to refuse them a room due to them being gay = yes.

Should she have compensated in some way = yes.

However, what if the customer turned up and was a well known rapist or similar?

Refusing him a room would also be discrimination but could you blame her?

It may well be acceptable to all us that they are gay but does that mean we disrespect the rights of people who are horrified by it?

As Asho said earlier this is probably a good time for her to consider if B & B is the right trade for her to be in given the present law.

buttercup;1298712 wrote: Is it wrong to refuse them a room due to them being gay = yes.

Should she have compensated in some way = yes.

However, what if the customer turned up and was a well known rapist or similar?

Refusing him a room would also be discrimination but could you blame her?

It may well be acceptable to all us that they are gay but does that mean we disrespect the rights of people who are horrified by it?

As Asho said earlier this is probably a good time for her to consider if B & B is the right trade for her to be in given the present law.


Difference is, turning away a well known rapist would not be illegal, indeed, most would class it a sensible.

Ahso!;1298699 wrote: I was going to point that out earlier but decided not to bother wasting my time.

Nice to see you, Bryn - where the hell have you been?


me to Ahso, no point in wasting my time either.

Welcome back Bryn!

yes, where have you been hiding now?:sneaky::yh_rotfl

Bryn Mawr;1298713 wrote: Difference is, turning away a well known rapist would not be illegal, indeed, most would class it a sensible.


If he's served his time and is rehabilitated in the eyes of the law then its discrimination to turn him away.

buttercup;1298712 wrote: Is it wrong to refuse them a room due to them being gay = yes.

Should she have compensated in some way = yes.

However, what if the customer turned up and was a well known rapist or similar?

Refusing him a room would also be discrimination but could you blame her?

It may well be acceptable to all us that they are gay but does that mean we disrespect the rights of people who are horrified by it?

As Asho said earlier this is probably a good time for her to consider if B & B is the right trade for her to be in given the present law.I believe she can refuse a person with a certain type of criminal record (felony) if she wants to. Thats not discrimination. People are listed with felony records for that reason - it means they have forfeited certain rights. But I need to check into that further as I'm not 100% sure about it.

Ahso you might have missed my last post as i done it at the same time of your reply.



If he's served his time and is rehabilitated in the eyes of the law then its discrimination to turn him away

buttercup;1298717 wrote: If he's served his time and is rehabilitated in the eyes of the law then its discrimination to turn him away.


But how would anybody know that they had been rehabilitated, when you've just answered a knock at your door by somebody asking for a room? The only way this woman knew that the two men were gay, was that they had booked a double room with a double bed. She put two and two together and assumed the worst scenario.

She was discriminating.

Hi Gill

The law states the rapist has been rehabilitated and set him free, of course we all know people re-offend but some don't, its the chance you take.

I'm agreeing with you that she discriminated against the gay couple, i'm just also throwing a spanner in the works by saying we all discriminate, just about different things.

Ahso!;1298720 wrote: I believe she can refuse a person with a certain type of criminal record (felony) if she wants to. Thats not discrimination. People are listed with felony records for that reason - it means they have forfeited certain rights. But I need to check into that further as I'm not 100% sure about it.


Its different here in the U.K Ahso. If someone has a criminal record its not supposed to reflect on the new crime, it would be stated in court during a new trial that the person had criminal convictions but not necessarily what they were for, especially if they had served time for them so the judge did not discriminate against them :rolleyes:

buttercup;1298717 wrote: If he's served his time and is rehabilitated in the eyes of the law then its discrimination to turn him away.


Morally? Possibly.

Legally? No - not included as a banned form of discrimination in any of the Acts.

buttercup;1298546 wrote: its certainly a tricky one, how far do you go to screen guests?


no shoes

no shirt

no service

no anal sex

If discriminating against B&B guests due to their sexual orientation was permissible, then a B&B owner would also be free to refuse a room to unmarried couples, mixed race couples, or mixed faith couples, and these signs from yesteryear would still be allowed to be posted on establishments and businesses:

Attached files

Some people are so stupid! You just do not say "I am not letting you stay because you are gay" that would be discrimination!

You simply say that all rooms are full and send them on their way, sometimes I think people do these things just to get into the paper. Bunch of dum-dums.