Tony Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 From the reports that I've seen they were declined a double bed, not accommodation at the B&B. On a separate note, who informed the press and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 what would the policy of a posh hotel be if they thought a couple had booked a room for a bit of lunch-time shenanigans. do people still having trouble 'booking under assumed names' ? and if they do, is it also a form of discrimination? (and the idea of a criminal offence along the lines of Incitement to Mince is going to keep me amused for the rest of the day. "The defendant wilfully and deliberately stroked my arm, called me 'dearie' in an aggressive manner, then threatened to air kiss me before escaping in what can only be described as a 'huff' " lol.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 From the reports that I've seen they were declined a double bed, not accommodation at the B&B. On a separate note, who informed the press and why? So this even more of a none story then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 But in both those examples jeremy, the individuals are refused entry because of their behaviour-nobody has an issue with that and Muslims or gays have no special dispensation for the excesses of inappropriate behaviour. The difference in the OP and where it troubles the law, is that the individuals behaviour is irrelevant, they are refused entry because of who they are and the B&B owner states that as his reason. I think homophobia/racism are abhorrent, but accept that people are entitled to hold those views but I agree with others-if you're unable to operate a B&B within the law, then it would be daft to be involved in that sector, the law on discrimination is hardly new or a discrete part of legislation. exactly, boyfriday:- If you as a fellow human, have the right to receive goods and services without me saying "No I'm not serving you, you are an *insert the favourite racist epithet from Love Thy Neighbour here..." then why is it a fellow human who happens to be gay can be told "No I'm not serving you, you're a 'queer'!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetItDone Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 In the public sector there should be no discrimination at all because the public services are paid for by us all, so we all are entitled work for, and use them. But i think that people who own and run their own private companies shouldn't be criminalized for being discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 exactly, boyfriday:- If you as a fellow human, have the right to receive goods and services without me saying "No I'm not serving you, you are an *insert the favourite racist epithet from Love Thy Neighbour here..." then why is it a fellow human who happens to be gay can be told "No I'm not serving you, you're a 'queer'!" But that dramatic version of events didn't actually happen did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 Or you can accept that this may be a personal opinion, one that many will disagree with, me included. I'm getting a bit worried about you serapis, I've always believed you to be a true Tory supporter but over the last couple of weeks I've read you agree that it is wrong to stop building new schools whilst giving Cameron and his friends pot loads of money, I've seen you acknowledge the principles of Communism look good on paper and now you agree with me that the personal opinion of this person on this issue is wrong. You are starting to sound more left-wing than me these days! Anyway, back to the thread and another post you made, this guy holds probably the third highest ranking position in the Party, if the Tories are elected he is responsible for ensuring there is no discrimantion against Gay people when it is clear he doesn't support this bit of legislation, why should anyone believe that this bigoted viewpoint doesn't stretch to other groups. As an aside, we are about to hold the Olympics in a couple of years and hopefully the World Cup in the future, what will he put in the advertising literature for Bed and Breakfast accommodation, everyone welcome except Gays. It's a bigoted opinion and Cameron should do the honourable thing and replace him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 In the public sector there should be no discrimination at all because the public services are paid for by us all, so we all are entitled work for, and use them. But i think that people who own and run their own private companies shouldn't be criminalized for being discriminatory. So you think certain types of people should be denied the services of private companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jethete Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 It's a bigoted opinion and Cameron should do the honourable thing and replace him. What with another bigot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 So this even more of a none story then A lot of the news websites seemed to carry it as the main story yesterday, so a bit more than a non-story I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.