Is THIS acceptable then ?

The problem here is that people's religious beliefs seem to be allowed to take precedence over common sense (and often the law) in this country.

Well that's sort of the point isn't it, it's entirely the case that religious beliefs are not allowed to take precendence and you can't refuse goods or services to gay couples on the grounds of religious belief, hence why Catholic adoption services had to stop operating.

The more I think about it, the more I realise I am an atheist, but I also realise that the notion of 'equality' is a complete falsehood. We, that is society, have collectively deemed (or come to our senses if that's your view point) that one set of ideas need to be superceded by another. It's simply hegemony but it's not equality.

I think for the most part most people are OK with that shift in primacy but there are moments when I know I feel uncomfortable with it (this isn't one of them but same sex adoption certainly is, as is single parent adoption and adotion by couples over a certain age, but then I am very old fashioned in believing that kids need a mother AND a father).

It's in Australia – who cares?

I am very old fashioned in believing that kids need a mother AND a father).

How many children of single parent families have you met? And in what way would you describe them as deficient? I think kids need love, and probably that is optimally provided by a traditional family unit. Surely love provided by any of the examples you mention is preferable to being looked after by a government agency?

"Singletrack Police, rise to the bait again shocker"

Ha,ha

It's in Australia – who cares?

Australians ? and possibly anyone who is interested in things that happen beyond the end of their street. 🙄

Male/ Female is Good… anything else is wrong…… It`s BIBLICAL……argue with that ❗

I remember calling a guest house in Winsford a few years ago, for a mates wedding. Chap asked if I was booking for a man & woman, when I said yes he laughed & said they werent our sort of guest house.
I should have called the BBC. Or STW. 🙂

Mark Datz:
Wud of kild em cookd em an ate em

Now i know you're a computer programme.

what would I have done? As the homophobic old biddy?
Not been so bleeding uptight and daft I imagine.

As the gay couple that were refused accommodation?

Hmmm… difficult to say.. I've been refused services for many reasons in the past and just liberally accepted it and walked away with a shrug and a grin.. reasoning that if it is another human beings will to discriminate against me then as a broad minded person I should respect their wishes..

Other times I've wanted to set light to the narrow-minded fascists and laugh as their bigoted souls burn in the flames of their own intolerant fury..

She clearly should gave given them Both a damn good seeing to, to show them the error of their ways.

out of interest – would this also apply to lodgers, if you rented out your spare room? Or as that's not a business transaction (rather, a private one) does the law not apply?

just wondering where the line is drawn

5lab – Member

out of interest – would this also apply to lodgers, if you rented out your spare room? Or as that's not a business transaction (rather, a private one) does the law not apply?

just wondering where the line is drawn

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of where and how it happens. And generally speaking, if you offer to let someone stay in your room and they agree to pay you rent for the priviledge, you have all the ingredients for a legal and binding contract/business transaction.

i'd have taken their money, amazingly it's worth the same as heterosexuals cash! who'd have thought it eh?

Actually, the pink pound tends to be very sought after. Some of my gay colleagues spend it like it's going out of fashion.

Yet again The Daily Mash does it better.

I think I am also niave enough to believe, that the following may make the world nicer and more cuddly ….

"nor suffer disadvantage by reason of:
age;
class;
ethnic origin, nationality (or statelessness)
or race;
gender;
marital or sexual status;
mental or physical ability;
political or religious belief."

I don't know anything about this woman, but I feel rather sorry for her, and indeed anyone else who gets a bit left behind by what's going on around them. Almost no sane adult of my generation has the slightest difficulty with this sort of thing, but that simply wasn't true really quite recently and it must be a little alarming to say the least.

Imagine, for a moment, if you lived somewhere where the majority of people had decided within your lifetime that women should not longer be allowed to wear trousers in public. You feel strongly that they should, but you are in a dwindling minority and it has recently been made illegal. 😕

[/quote]How many children of single parent families have you met? And in what way would you describe them as deficient?

Richpenny – it's a valid question but I will answer it. I used to do voluntary work with kids aged 6-15 in and around South London – the Heygate Estate to be precise, the area being one of the most deprived in the UK.

I knew a lot of kids from single parent families and saw first hand the difficulty of that set up. At it's most benign, the child suffers because bringing up kids is damn hard when there's two of you let alone when there's only one; the single parent just can't devote as much time to their child as two can. Almost uniformly they were worse of financially and many were living on or below the poverty line – I doubt I need to explain the negative impact that has on children. Many of them were living with their mums and didn't know or see their fathers very much. The lack of strong male role models meant a lot of them struggled with the notion of authority and the boys especially struggled with their sense of being a man. This meant that they became vulnerable to gang membership when they hit their mid teens.

Of course, non of these issues are exclusive to kids from single parent families, but they are, in my experience, exasperated by that set up.

Families break up, it happens and there is only a little we can do about it. But that's not the same as saying it's without consequence.

Not only did he post on the wrong forum, but the OP has been strangely silent since dropping this one in…

I always manage to press 'send post' before realising its on the bike forum… and not silent, just off-line.

TBH what pisses me off about this story is the two gays going to the press, when they should have just 'lived' with it. But then one of them is the leader of a council, where I'm sure they are fully complient…

I would also agree, that I'm slightly 😉 homophobic – and probably far worse since having worked for a gay boss who certainly 'promoted' the pretty-boys.

a Catholic Prime Minister is considered to be 'constitutionally awkward' since that office is involved in appointing senior members of the Church of England."

Still, I didn't even know it was 'constitutionally awkward', so you live and learn.

Well, yeah – this is why Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism immediately after leaving Number 10 was so outrageous. For someone that banged on so much about his faith and values while in office, he certainly didn't mention that he wasn't a Prod any more … because, perhaps, he realised that would out him in the weird position of being a Catholic who could appoint Prod officeholders in the established Church, and he wanted to hang onto the power.

Of course, to most people, the right way to resolve the absurdity would be make sure that the people responsible for choosing church officeholders should be members and officers of that church, and not Prime Ministers (of any stripe). Prime Ministers should keep their focus on legitimate government issues, which doesn't include appointing the representatives on earth of God, Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I would also agree, that I'm slightly homophobic

And as ugly as a hat full of monkey's bums as well? Being judged for
something you have no choice over is horrible isn't it?

This and the PC thread have really made me laugh.
It's all about manners really isn't it?

Back in, what I'm sure the OP would call the 'Good Old Days' bigotry against those of a different gender, sexuality or race was endemic and deeply engrained into our society.
Thankfully, we've evolved slightly in the last hundred years or so and started judging people on the things they have control over, rather than those they don't.

Most people, those who have brought about this change by their inclusive thoughts and behaviour have adapted their language to suit – manners suitable for 1913 no longer apply in 2010 and phrases in common usage then may now be thought offensive.

Sadly, some people paddling in the shallow end of human development still feel the need to belittle people for their intrinsic characteristics, presumably to reassure themselves regarding some inherent personality flaw or weakness.

We call these people bigots, and they can be identified by their lack of manners and excessive use of the ironic winking emoticon.

what pisses me off about this story is the two gays going to the press, when they should have just 'lived' with it.

"No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs". Is that also acceptable then?

Why the **** should they "just live with it"??

Can we get a bigot emoticon now? 😉

Wow, I must live in a noce cosy world, it would be incomprehensible to me for my fiends to spout the homophobia and idiocy like b r, project etc.

I'm not sure they actually legally HAVE to rent the room out, regardless of what their reasons are. It's not illegal, AFAIK, to dislike homosexuality, and it's not against the law to tell people you don't want them staying in your B&B regardless of reason.

On a similar note, I had to talk at length to a couple in Edinburgh who were running a B&B but who didn't like me and my other half (a non-married couple) sharing a room and were considering turning us away. While I was annoyed, at the end of the day I accepted that it was their business to run as they liked. I didn't go to the police claiming legal-status discrimination. Maybe I should have. Discrimination is not much fun in any situation, but I'm also not sure you can curtail peoples right to believe things are wrong in that sense either.

Also

"B&B denies gay couple double room" (Scotland, June 2004)

"Gays? Not in my guest house" (Northern Ireland, December 2006)

I've been turned away from B&Bs in the past for not being married

I've also been turned away because I turned up on a motorbike

Life's too short to worry about it, someone round the corner will always take your money

TBH what pisses me off about this story is the two gays going to the press, when they should have just 'lived' with it.

Wow. 😐

I guess there were people saying similar about Rosa Parks – she should have just given her seat to the white passenger and STFU instead of engaging in all that civil rights nonsense.

It always amuses me that religous people want the right to discriminate but imagine if we started putting up signs everywhere saying no catholics, no jews etc we would see that they suddenly wanted to have their minority rights protected despite the majority not sharing their world view.
I think it is despicable to discriminate on these kinds of grounds, the woman broke the law she should pay the price. One equal all equal innit. If she does not like this then she should start another business no other businesses can pick and choose what laws they obey

Ok, Uplink, and this'll strike a chord with b r!,
If for some reason you'd booked a room in my hypothetical guesthouse and on arrival, I told you sharply "Nae English!" you would just leave it at that?
I'd be surprised if you'd let that go. ( I wouldn't)
I've been turned away from places for being a cyclist, and cos the owner 'just didn't like the look of me', but these things are not illegal (and hard to prove)
This one is clearly illegal though..

The next word, of course, is "take"…

As a side point. It must be well weird having a B&B in the first place. You must constantly have strange and annoying people in your house, and at least a small proportion of them must have really, really loud and prolonged sex and shout things suggestive of all sorts of freakyness.

I wonder how many times a year your average B&B owner wakes with a start to the horrible realisation that in the next room someone is yelling "tighter you bastard, I can still breathe!", or "I want that parrot in my ass NOW!!!!" while the furniture shakes so badly that the small china cat on a lace doily is edging closer to the edge of the dressing-table with every hammering thrust. And three hours later you've got to serve them breakfast regardless. 🙂

The Flying Ox – Member

5lab – Member

out of interest – would this also apply to lodgers, if you rented out your spare room? Or as that's not a business transaction (rather, a private one) does the law not apply?

just wondering where the line is drawn

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of where and how it happens. And generally speaking, if you offer to let someone stay in your room and they agree to pay you rent for the priviledge, you have all the ingredients for a legal and binding contract/business transaction.

true, it would still be discrimination (not arguing that) but would it be illegal? discrimination itself isn't illegal – for instance if I like to hold a door open for a hot girl, but not a bloke, that's entirely up to me, and not illegal (in fact, it'd not even be frowned upon). But quite a lot of ads for rooms to rent say stuff like 'girl wanted for house full of girls', or words to that effect. Its discrimination, but as neither party is a business, is it illegal?

If for some reason you'd booked a room in my hypothetical guesthouse and on arrival, I told you sharply "Nae English!" you would just leave it at that?

I'd probably tell you what I thought & then left it

I'm not really sure why you're asking me, I simply re-countered what has happened to me in the past
Are you taking that as me [somehow] mitigating what the B&B owner did?

If this is genuinely illegal, how do campsites stand with regards to terms & conditions that often say "no all-male groups"?? I have never seen the same terms & conditions that say 'no all-female groups'.

Can they legally refuse to accept 'all male' groups, but presumaly accept 'all female'?

We had a nightmare trying to find a campsite in Newquay that would accept our small group of four blokes..

we managed to persuade one campsite owner after a while using charm and wit and good old fashioned decency..
to be fair though.. by the morning… we understood the policy completely.

The only thing that really surprises me in this thread is that many of the posts made seem to be based on the notion that there is an absolute sense of 'equality' and it's just not the case.

We live in a pluralistic society, which by definition means that there is more than one right idea, which means that there is more than one notion of equality, which means that equality is a falsehood, QED (I feel a babel fish moment coming on!)

There are only ever dominant and subserviant interest groups and the tension beteen those groups is negotiated and ever changing. There are interest groups whose interests have been unfairly subjugated in favour of another's and that balance has now been redressed at other group's expense.

No, uplink, I'm explaining that you would be right in being p**sed off, and I would understand if you took it further.

I think she did the right thing its her business and she didnt want their money – fair do's.

IIRC discrimination law exists viz a viz employment relationships (for race, sex, sexual orientation?) and access to services (DDA), not sure for latter re orientation, certianly not single-sex groups.