Griffin accused of bullying

[taxman]

Can someone explain the apparent discrepancy in the Recorder's summing up of the original case.

 

On Thursday, recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".

 

However, the recorder accepted that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.

 

If she's stopped both homosexual and heterosexual un-married couples from sharing a double bed how has she discriminated?

[quisquose]

If she's stopped both homosexual and heterosexual un-married couples from sharing a double bed how has she discriminated?

 

Interesting question ... and the answer is possibly not, but likely yes as the court decided.

 

Assuming she's not lying, which I doubt.

 

1. How is she verifying the married status of her guests? Is she using the same standard of proof in determining that heterosexual guests are married? Is she even asking them? I've never been asked.

 

2. Does she even consider a same sex "marriage" to be possible?

 

 

Edit:

 

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2012/10/19/gay-couples-bed-breakfast-and-human-rights/

 

As I suspected ... lying.

 

She might refuse an unmarried heterosexual couple a double bed, but an unmarried gay couple don't even get a room. In her opinion a civil partnership is not equivalent to marriage, so a gay couple can never be married. I doubt that she agrees with the concept of gay marriage at all. Catch 22.

 

Why can't people just accept that running a business means you have to temporarily drop any prejudices that you are allowed to hold, when dealing with the public? Once she opened her home to a paying public, it stopped being just a family home. If a gay couple fronted up to me & asked to spend the night in my house, I'd tell 'em to naff off, and that would be just fine, because it is just a family home. But if I'm running a business, then I'm running a business, not just a family home. Mrs Wilkinson needs to understand that distinction - family home / business. They're not even close in terms of spelling.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Lets face it the left are apologists for Muslims conservative attitudes

Don't understand this. Griffin did the same thing. Always this endless reference back to Islam.

 

Secondly, not that I consider myself part of "the left" anymore, but people do attack conservative Muslim attitudes. (Example A).

 

Why would this bother Griffin anyway? He agrees with conservative Muslim attitudes. They partly share the same values.

[maxmaximus]

As far as I'm aware you can promote yourself as a gay friendly business, as a gay club, whatever. What you can't do is actually discriminate against people that are not gay.

 

Same rules that apply for sexuality also apply to sex, disability, race, age and religion.

 

This seems totally reasonable to me. If you want to do business with the public, you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against the bits of the public you don't like.

 

If you don't want gay sex in your B&B, advertise it as a "Christian friendly B&B" with no double beds provided in any rooms. If you don't want Muslims in your B&B, advertise it as a "dog friendly B&B". That might keep some of the people you don't like away, or encourage the people you do like to turn up. What you can't do is turn them away if they do turn up.

 

I know which is why I said this.

 

This is legislation gone mad.

 

I take it I'm still entitled to an opinion, even though its not popular.

 

I don’t have a problem with,

Women only swimming.

Muslim only swimming.

Everyone welcome swimming

Gay only clubs.

Or businesses run by religious people that want to ban the activities they find morally wrong.

I don't expect to buy non Halal meat from a Muslim restaurant, take away or butcher because I respect their religion and if I want something they don’t offer then I will just go and get it somewhere else.

 

I don’t see it as discrimination I see it as choice.

And a business should have the choice to do business with whomever they want.

 

I imagine though that any business that chose to ban a section of society probably wouldn’t last very long, but they should have the choice.

[mikem8634]

Why? What does it achieve?

 

Erm... Equality?

[Moosey]

I could have got this wrong but isn't one of the main points about this case the fact that she accepted their booking, took their deposit, and then on the day they arrived, told them her rules?

 

Playing devil's advocate, I wonder what the response would have been had the conversation been:-

 

"Hi, I'm Mr Black. I'd like to book a room with my friend Mr Whateverhisnamewas".

"Ok, can I just check, are you friends or a couple?"

"We're a couple, why do you ask?"

"Because I don't allow same sex couples to share a bed"

 

Would they have gone elsewhere, reported her, booked? Who knows.

 

I think the couple are stupid, as a side note, and entirely in the wrong. If someone wants to book a room, as long as they pay, you take the booking. You don't let your belief in a fictional character stop you accepting business, particularly in a recession. It's rightly outlawed by the Equality Act, as it should be.

[quisquose]

I imagine though that any business that chose to ban a section of society probably wouldn’t last very long, but they should have the choice.

 

Ah, I see, it's really about choice. Silly me.

 

Great, so a business can now stop serving black people because it is actually increasing their choices. They will now have the choice of taking their custom to a business that will serve them, or being refused by another. That's extra choice, for which they should be grateful.

 

Who wants to treated fairly by every business that chooses to deal with the public, when they could have the choice of being refused by some?

 

[mikem8634]

Ah, I see, it's really about choice. Silly me.

 

Great, so a business can now stop serving black people because it is actually increasing their choices. They will now have the choice of taking their custom to a business that will serve them, or being refused by another. That's extra choice, for which they should be grateful.

 

Who wants to treated fairly by every business that chooses to deal with the public, when they could have the choice of being refused by some?

 

 

Good example qq - I don't think anyone could, or would even dare try (watch someone prove me wrong now!) justify the B&B couples' position if they had refused a room to a black couple.

 

I think the rational majority have largely come to terms with racism. It still exists, obviously, but I would certainly hope it is only at the fringes and underground. (Still got to be vigilant though).

 

Gay rights, however, still seems to lag way behind in public perception and acceptance.

[boyfriday]

Good example qq - I don't think anyone could, or would even dare try (watch someone prove me wrong now!) justify the B&B couples' position if they had refused a room to a black couple.

 

I think the rational majority have largely come to terms with racism. It still exists, obviously, but I would certainly hope it is only at the fringes and underground. (Still got to be vigilant though).

 

Gay rights, however, still seems to lag way behind in public perception and acceptance.

 

It is a good example but I think the detractors will say it's an issue of choice to discriminate rather than the discrimination subject itself. This thread could quite easily dovetail alongside the freedom of speech debate that you've participated so eloquently in.

[mikem8634]

It is a good example but I think the detractors will say it's an issue of choice to discriminate rather than the discrimination subject itself. This could thread could quite easily dovetail alongside the freedom of speech debate that you've participated so eloquently in.

 

Thanks again. I thought the threads were similar too, both part of the wider discrimination debate. I wonder if the detractors are aware of the legislation involved. We'll see i suppose.

 

Love the Twain quote by the way.