Hotel Owners considering taking their case to the Supreme Court.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:01 am

BBC News - Christian hotel owners consider gay couple appeal at Supreme Court

Is it time to give up? I can't see that they're going to win this case at all.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:10 am

It seems they've made up their minds...

Gay-ban B&B couple: We'll fight court ruling all way to Brussels | This is Cornwall

"We are not against homosexuals, everything we have done is in defence of marriage.

We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and is for life. It is what the Bible teaches."

If they believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman, according to the bible, then yes they are against homosexuals aren't they.

They've been witnessing damage to their property since the case and their bookings have gone down, I'd say it's time to give up the fight, and the hotel.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:52 am

Seems that citizens in both the US and UK give up ownership of the property they paid for the instant they use it for business purposes. Sad.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:00 am

Accountable;1387381 wrote: Seems that citizens in both the US and UK give up ownership of the property they paid for the instant they use it for business purposes. Sad.

But it is a business at the end of the day and that business is now flagging. People are avoiding booking there. That alone speaks volumes. If the Christian Community is fully behind this move then why isn't the hotel booked solidly with married Christians wanting to spend their holiday times in a setting they approve of?

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:45 pm

I'm sure I read somewhere that the Christian couple were quite clear in their advertising that they accepted only married couples as guests. If this is so, why on earth would the gay couple even consider staying there?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:01 pm

theia;1387384 wrote: I'm sure I read somewhere that the Christian couple were quite clear in their advertising that they accepted only married couples as guests. If this is so, why on earth would the gay couple even consider staying there?

Their website says nothing, it say's other things I've just giggled over, like the fact you can have a 'cornish pasty with optional clotted cream' :yh_sick and also that apparently

'there are no petty restrictions; you can come and go as you like' :sneaky:

Chymorvah Private Hotel Marazion Cornwall: seaside family hotel accommodation in UK - children, pets, families welcome. Self catering available

Anyway, I'm not sure they would be allowed to actually say such things in their advertising, it's discrimination.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:12 pm

Betty Boop;1387387 wrote: Their website says nothing, it say's other things I've just giggled over, like the fact you can have a 'cornish pasty with optional clotted cream' :yh_sick and also that apparently

'there are no petty restrictions; you can come and go as you like' :sneaky:

Chymorvah Private Hotel Marazion Cornwall: seaside family hotel accommodation in UK - children, pets, families welcome. Self catering available

Anyway, I'm not sure they would be allowed to actually say such things in their advertising, it's discrimination.

Christian hoteliers appeal against ruling on gay couple sharing a room | World news | guardian.co.uk

I'm a very inexperienced linker so the above may not work but in the article it says that they made it clear, because of their beliefs, that they could not allow unmarried couples to share a room. That's what made me wonder why the gay couple would have bothered to book there

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:16 pm

theia;1387398 wrote: Christian hoteliers appeal against ruling on gay couple sharing a room | World news | guardian.co.uk

I'm a very inexperienced linker so the above may not work but in the article it says that they made it clear, because of their beliefs, that they could not allow unmarried couples to share a room. That's what made me wonder why the gay couple would have bothered to book there

I can't see that statement there now, maybe I'm missing it.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:17 pm

Betty Boop;1387400 wrote: I can't see that statement there now, maybe I'm missing it.

It's right at the end of the article

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:20 pm

Mr and Mrs Smith must use this hotel often. Why are these people in hospitality?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:21 pm

theia;1387402 wrote: It's right at the end of the article

Sorry, yes I saw it in the article, but if you go to their website I can't see that statement at all.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:22 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387403 wrote: Mr and Mrs Smith must use this hotel often. Why are these people in hospitality?

That's what I was wondering :-3

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:31 pm

Betty Boop;1387405 wrote: Sorry, yes I saw it in the article, but if you go to their website I can't see that statement at all.

Well they are not allowed to use that statement now presumably and yet, I don't see it as discriminating against gay people but stating that they believe in marriage and that they cannot allow unmarried people to stay in the same room. It may sound archaic but I think they have a right to request it.

And I'm still puzzled why, after reading that statment, the gay couple would have wanted to book in there in a double room. I know that if I was choosing a weekend break and I was part of an unmarried couple, I wouldn't even give that hotel a second glance.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:37 pm

theia;1387411 wrote: Well they are not allowed to use that statement now presumably and yet, I don't see it as discriminating against gay people but stating that they believe in marriage and that they cannot allow unmarried people to stay in the same room. It may sound archaic but I think they have a right to request it.

And I'm still puzzled why, after reading that statment, the gay couple would have wanted to book in there in a double room. I know that if I was choosing a weekend break and I was part of an unmarried couple, I wouldn't even give that hotel a second glance.

This is all I could find, I was assuming they'd maybe just driven up to the hotel on the off chance:

Mr Preddy told the court he had booked a room over the phone after looking at the hotel's website and had not seen its room policy, which was displayed only on its booking form.

When he and Mr Hall arrived at the hotel he said they did not see any prominent Christian tapestry in the hallway.

"When we arrived we spoke to a lady and she got Bernie Quinn [a worker at the hotel] to come and talk to us and explain the hotel's policy," he said.

"I would say the body language wasn't great and it was clear we were not welcome in the hotel," Mr Preddy added.

BBC News - Gay couple challenge Cornwall B&B accommodation refusal

Ah, it seems the rule is on the online booking form, so seeing as he rang to book the room he didn't see it.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:39 pm

Gosh, it's still there!

Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).

Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples. Thank you.

Chymorvah Private Hotel Marazion Cornwall: Booking form - seaside family hotel accommodation in UK - children, pets, families welcome. Self catering available

Looks like you'd also be turned away if you're on a second or third marriage.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:28 pm

What do they consider a 'marriage'? Civic or only religious marriages? and how do they expect to identify if you are married or not? I didn't take on my ex husbands surname. And there is no Christian stipulation to do so.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:17 pm

Betty Boop;1387382 wrote: But it is a business at the end of the day and that business is now flagging. People are avoiding booking there. That alone speaks volumes. If the Christian Community is fully behind this move then why isn't the hotel booked solidly with married Christians wanting to spend their holiday times in a setting they approve of?
That's the reaction I would expect and hope for. Taking them to court? What on earth for??

"Your honor, these people refuse to make a profit off of my partner and me. We're humiliated! I insist that you force them to take our money."

:yh_youkid

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:30 pm

Gay hotels investigated for breaching equality laws - Telegraph

I think the above is fair. And although the article points out that no-one has complained about gay only hotels, I think this is my point...why bother to complain about the restrictions in Christian run or gay hotels? If I was booking a room in a hotel I wouldn't choose either...for me, I would choose a hotel that provided the facilities I wanted.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:35 am

If it matters that much to them they should have had it prominently displayed on the website and not tucked away anywhere. If they had it's doubtful the two men would have made the booking in the first place. Two different surnames should have been a good clue that they weren't married never mind male forenames. Even if booked by phone the simple question are you a married couple would have left this a non issue. Every hotelier has the right to refuse a booking without giving a reason it's the fact, I think, they accepted the booking in good faith ( no pun intended) and should have honoured it. This buggered up the two men's holiday (no pun intended)

Gay hotels don't actively discriminate against heterosexual couples so far as I know - it might feel uncomfortable at breakfast if you had been unaware before booking but that's up to you. Come to think of it gay bars and restaurants don't discriminate either.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:23 am

theia;1387428 wrote: Gay hotels investigated for breaching equality laws - Telegraph

I think the above is fair.I don't. Two wrongs don't make right. If a business wants to voluntarily cut off a major source of revenue, who are we to stop them?

theia;1387428 wrote: And although the article points out that no-one has complained about gay only hotels, I think this is my point...why bother to complain about the restrictions in Christian run or gay hotels? If I was booking a room in a hotel I wouldn't choose either...for me, I would choose a hotel that provided the facilities I wanted.Precisely. If a hotel doesn't have what you are looking for, then keep looking. Forcing bigots to profit off of those they hate is ludicrous.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:36 am

Accountable;1387444 wrote: If a business wants to voluntarily cut off a major source of revenue, who are we to stop them?

What if it was racially motivated ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:47 pm

Bruv;1387460 wrote: What if it was racially motivated ?Makes no difference at all, in my book. Either the business owner owns the business or he doesn't. If he does, he should be allowed to run it into the ground however he sees fit without anyone stepping in and forcing him to run it more wisely.

Why should a bigot be forced to make a profit off of someone he hates? Why would a person want to force a person who hates him to take his money? It makes no sense.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:43 pm

So.....we should still be able to post notices outside our businesses "No Blacks, Gypsies,or dogs" ?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:14 pm

Bruv;1387472 wrote: So.....we should still be able to post notices outside our businesses "No Blacks, Gypsies,or dogs" ?

Good point.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:20 pm

Bruv;1387472 wrote: So.....we should still be able to post notices outside our businesses "No Blacks, Gypsies,or dogs" ?
Yes. If a place in your neighborhood posted such a notice, would you just shrug - not being black, gypsy, nor canine - and go inside to shop?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:49 pm

So accountable are you for segregation of the community?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:25 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387509 wrote: So accountable are you for segregation of the community?
Not at all. If you'd read my posts in this thread you'd realize that.

eta: Not for nuthin' but I've asked 6 questions and nobody's attempted to answer any of them.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:48 pm

I can't see six questions lad.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:59 pm

Accountable;1387462 wrote: Makes no difference at all, in my book. Either the business owner owns the business or he doesn't. If he does, he should be allowed to run it into the ground however he sees fit without anyone stepping in and forcing him to run it more wisely.

Why should a bigot be forced to make a profit off of someone he hates? Why would a person want to force a person who hates him to take his money? It makes no sense.

Doesn't matter if you own the business or not you are part of a wider community with expectations and morals and anyone who pays taxes into that community must abide by the standards set.

There are also fair trade laws which have to be abided by, and there is recourse if you are discriminated against under vilification laws whether it be a business, private person, or large company.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:02 pm

Accountable;1387489 wrote: Yes. If a place in your neighborhood posted such a notice, would you just shrug - not being black, gypsy, nor canine - and go inside to shop?

No I wouldn't I would probably fire bomb it. Because I would detest a business owner bringing that kind of thing into my community ...we have businesess up in outback Queensland with the sanction of their own minister that wont allow aboriginals to buy from them . it's totally disgusting .

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:08 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387515 wrote: No I wouldn't I would probably fire bomb it. Because I would detest a business owner bringing that kind of thing into my community ...we have businesess up in outback Queensland with the sanction of their own minister that wont allow aboriginals to buy from them . it's totally disgusting .
Okay, first, I think you're exaggerating about what you would do. But if you say you'd firebomb the place, it's a safe bet that the place would definitely not get your business. I'm willing to bet that lots, maybe most, of your neighbors would behave likewise. They may even protest against the place. The businessman would have to change his practices or close his business. It would be his decision, no legislation would be necessary, and no one's rights have been violated, including the businessman's right to run his private business as he chooses.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:12 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387515 wrote: we have businesess up in outback Queensland with the sanction of their own minister that wont allow aboriginals to buy from them .
1. Does "sanction of their own minister" mean it would be illegal to picket them or otherwise make their lives, um, uncomfortable?

2. Would you rather see the bigots forced to make a profit off the aboriginals? Wouldn't it be better to run him out of business?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:16 pm

wow I say I'll fire bomb it, which basically meant exactly what you've just written in 500 words oo less lol lol lol

Okay this is a bit more closer to home and this is one for Bruv as well . When Oscar was goign to begin her restaraunt she stated that there would be no halal meat. Is that discimination?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:22 pm

Accountable;1387518 wrote: 1. Does "sanction of their own minister" mean it would be illegal to picket them or otherwise make their lives, um, uncomfortable?

2. Would you rather see the bigots forced to make a profit off the aboriginals? Wouldn't it be better to run him out of business?

1 the MP is a man by the name of Bob Katter and he was elected on this premise as well as the no gay 'marriage bill'

2 we are talking "sanction " as in many businesses support this . and it's not my town so I can't do a thing about it, others in other states (with similar problems ) have taken up the fight though. It's called aboriginal intervention. something the federal government brought in during the howard days.

It wouldn't be illegal but I don't like your chances of leaving the town in one piece.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:25 pm

And I suppose the aboriginals wouldn't like you picketing because it would suddenly make their lives very very uncomfortable

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:28 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387520 wrote: wow I say I'll fire bomb it, which basically meant exactly what you've just written in 500 words oo less lol lol lol

Okay this is a bit more closer to home and this is one for Bruv as well . When Oscar was goign to begin her restaraunt she stated that there would be no halal meat. Is that discimination?I take it that you mean some kind of legal definition of discrimination equating to racial discrimination?

I haven't a clue what halal meat is, but I don't see how being discriminating in what you would sell could be called "discrimination".

It's odd that you would even ask me that question, though, since it's pretty clear I don't agree with laws against discrimination.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:34 pm

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:37 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387523 wrote: And I suppose the aboriginals wouldn't like you picketing because it would suddenly make their lives very very uncomfortableThe gov't has to be brought into line before you can do anything else. Otherwise you'll have crap like we had in the '60s

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:43 pm

You're a Texan I believe you.

halal meat is meat that is eaten by Muslims . What Oscar was essentially doing was making sure that no muslim could eat meat at her restaraunt.

Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة)is a prescribed method of ritual animal slaughter; it does not apply to most aquatic animals. The animal must be slaughtered by a Muslim or by one of the People of the Book, generally speaking, a Christian or a Jew, while mentioning the name of God (Allah in Arabic). According to some fatwas, the animal must be slaughtered specifically by a Muslim, however, other fatwas dispute this, ruling that, according to verse 5:5 of the Qur'an, an animal properly slaughtered by People of the Book is halal. Although kosher meat or jewish meat is slaughtered the same, muslims cannot eat kosher meat because it's not blessed by a muslim so is still considered haram.

Islamic dietary laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:50 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1387527 wrote: You're a Texan I believe you.

halal meat is meat that is eaten by Muslims . What Oscar was essentially doing was making sure that no muslim could eat meat at her restaraunt.

Islamic dietary laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI don't see how not selling something could be called racial discrimination. Observant Jews have to hunt to find kosher restaurants all the time.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:53 pm

Accountable;1387526 wrote: The gov't has to be brought into line before you can do anything else. Otherwise you'll have crap like we had in the '60s

It's changing ...it's been changing since the early seventies ...you see the thing is though while we're still under the commonwealth others will always have a say in any matter .australians wanted to give Aborriginals landrights, and equal pay and etc etc ....but the government that kick started that was booted out by the governer general .....(the queens man and very much a republican) No matter that the Whitlam government was elected by the people. We have here the racists...are primarily equivalent to your republicans or Britains tories.. Mainly nationals and liberals.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:57 pm

Accountable;1387528 wrote: I don't see how not selling something could be called racial discrimination. Observant Jews have to hunt to find kosher restaurants all the time.

I wouldn't know about that because i grew up in the most diverse and cosmopolitan city in Australia, Melbourne. (an example of this is there were more Maltese in Melbourne at one point than in Malta. Jews, Greeks italians flooded here after WW2 as long as you were not black you were allowed in . Now we have muslims and africans all over the place .....there's some damn good eating in Melbourne.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:03 pm

Accountable;1387528 wrote: I don't see how not selling something could be called racial discrimination. Observant Jews have to hunt to find kosher restaurants all the time.

If you're a restaraunter and you refuse to sell a certain food you are essentially saying that those people who would eat that food are not welcome ...Oscar kind of made that clear.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:57 am

So a Chinese restaurant is racially discriminating against people who don't like Chinese food? Pffft

This is the sticky wicket you get into when you try to legislate thought. It would be better if we simply allowed businesses to exercise their property rights, allowed the people in the community to exercise their speech rights, and forced the government to serve and service all constituents equally.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:11 am

Accountable;1387489 wrote: Yes. If a place in your neighborhood posted such a notice, would you just shrug - not being black, gypsy, nor canine - and go inside to shop?

I would be enraged, and wouldn't go in there.

I know where you are going.

So what would YOUR consequences be if a black gypsy with his dog wanted something they sold ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:33 am

Bruv;1387538 wrote: I would be enraged, and wouldn't go in there.

I know where you are going.

So what would YOUR consequences be if a black gypsy with his dog wanted something they sold ?See, that's different than what if the shopkeeper didn't want to sell. If he wanted something they sold then I would suggest they do exactly what they would do if the store didn't exist: find a store that would sell it.

Of course now's your cue to drag this into the area of the unlikely. Ready - go!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:46 am

Accountable;1387540 wrote: See, that's different than what if the shopkeeper didn't want to sell. If he wanted something they sold then I would suggest they do exactly what they would do if the store didn't exist: find a store that would sell it.

Of course now's your cue to drag this into the area of the unlikely. Ready - go!

Why is it any different ?

I can paint a scenario for you if need be.

A Black Gypsy needs to refuel his car and buy his dog some food at an out of the way petrol station.

The sign clearly states "No Blacks, Gypsies or dogs allowed on these premises"

The illiterate black gypsy cannot read the sign and enters hoping to refuel both his vehicle and animal.

The shop makes a good living from the local population as it's the only store for miles. The car needs fuel to continue.

In a prefect world with perfect people your system might work, but that's not the world I live in.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:18 pm

I didn't realize that Kent was so far out in the frontier that illiterate black people couldn't find gas.

BTW, why does it matter whether the guy can read?

Now, let's make this scenario even more realistic. A black gypsie is driving his Citroen with his dog through the wilds of Kent and needs to refuel at one of Kent's more remote petrol stations. The station attendant doesn't like black people, doesn't like dogs, and really hates imports. He sees his only customer today roll up to the pump and decides to turn off the power, just for fun. The customer can't get the pump to work so comes inside, and immediately feels the chill in the air.

"I need petrol."

"The pumps out."

"Well how can I fuel my car?"

"Sorry," says the clearly unsympathetic attendant.

"I'll have a snack for me and my dog while I figure this out."

"Cash register's out, too," he says, leaning against the brightly lit machine.

"I could report you," says the angry customer.

"Sorry, phone's out, too. They might have one at the next station, though. It's just a few miles down the road."

If a bigot in a remote area wants to make life hard for someone, the law isn't going to stop him.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:45 pm

I think what you are leading to is that Laws cannot change attitudes, and that bigotry has to be changed by general consensus.

You are of course correct.

But......until that magical day comes, there needs to be some sort of carrot or stick to goad the buggers on the right path.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:34 pm

Bruv;1387548 wrote: I think what you are leading to is that Laws cannot change attitudes, and that bigotry has to be changed by general consensus.

You are of course correct.

But......until that magical day comes, there needs to be some sort of carrot or stick to goad the buggers on the right path.
Fine, but we don't have to resort to violating property rights - legislating the subjugation of one person's right to choose to another's - to do so. Information and exercising free speech rights is enough.