Militant gay couple win £1,800 each in damages

[-:Undertaker:-]

What a way to run a business. I never said anything or gay rights etc, just that it's unfair on them (regardless of their sexuality).

Running a business is dealing with the public, running a household is private and entirely up to you. If they privately hold these views then by all means conduct them privately, but don't just randomly accept bookings from members of the public and then enforce your private views on them. Private and Public shouldn't be mixed. They've been messed around tbh and had every right to go to court, just as much as an unmarried straight couple.

What on earth is a free country anyway? That's just utopia.

Why should they conduct them privately? it is their own private business.

As for utopia, no I think you'll find these PC-laws are only a recent trend.

Expressing your views and refusing a service because of those things are two different things under the law.

Both are linked, private property and private business are direct links of freedom of thought, speech and view.

The state shouldn't discriminate at all as the state is there for everybody and is owned by everybody, a private business on the other hand is different - it is private property and is not owned by the state. It is like selling a car you've revamped yourself that you cherish, would you sell to somebody who is going to run riot with it and ruin it? no you wouldn't. That is a choice, just as this is a choice on religious grounds.

[Catzsy]

Where does it say they are a 'militant' gay couple, Dan? Just because they feel aggrieved doesn't make them 'militant'. This is difficult one though as the proprietors have their beliefs. From what I understand the ruling was because they did not advertise their restrictions as to who could have a double room in their establishment on the webiste and it was booked via that. On the other hand if they refused a couple based on the colour of their skin then it would be racist. I think this one will run and run tbh.

[Technologic]

Why should they conduct them privately? it is their own private business.

As for utopia, no I think you'll find these PC-laws are only a recent trend.



Both are linked, private property and private business are direct links of freedom of thought, speech and view.

The state shouldn't discriminate at all as the state is there for everybody and is owned by everybody, a private business on the other hand is different - it is private property and is not owned by the state.

So in your perfect world people could put signs up in the windows of their businesses informing the public of their preferred Clientele?

Segregation was sooooo 50s

[-:Undertaker:-]

Where does it say they are a 'militant' gay couple, Dan? Just because they feel aggrieved doesn't make them 'militant'. This is difficult one though as the proprietors have their beliefs. From what I understand the ruling was because they did not advertise their restrictions as to who could have a double room in their establishment on the webiste and it was booked via that. On the other hand if they refused a couple based on the colour of their skin then it would be racist. I think this one will run and run tbh.

It doesn't say militant anywhere because you've obviously read it and come to the conclusion that I added the word militant, which I did - which they are. This gay couple have links with Stonewall it appears (could even have been a setup) and seemingly cannot accept that some people do not agree with their lifestyle. I don't agree with the Christian couple, but its their opinion and their choice and they have a right to it.

So in your perfect world people could put signs up in the windows of their businesses informing the public of their preferred Clientele?

Segregation was sooooo 50s

You really think people would do that do you? I doubt it very much, and many would boycott businesses if they did so. But yeah, if people/a business did wish to bar people from their premises then thats correct - if somebody refuses me service because i'm gay or have black hair then i'm perfectly fine with that. I might not agree with them, but they own the business and they have a right to that viewpoint.

[Catzsy]

It doesn't say militant anywhere because you've obviously read it and come to the conclusion that I added the word militant, which I did - which they are. This gay couple have links with Stonewall it appears (could even have been a setup) and seemingly cannot accept that some people do not agree with their lifestyle. I don't agree with the Christian couple, but its their opinion and their choice and they have a right to it.



You really think people would do that do you? I doubt it very much, and many would boycott businesses if they did so. But yeah, if people/a business did wish to bar people from their premises then thats correct - if somebody refuses me service because i'm gay or have black hair then i'm perfectly fine with that. I might not agree with them, but they own the business and they have a right to that viewpoint.

Well you did add the word 'militant' then Well in that case we could call the proprietors 'miltant' Christians, could we not? So why not say that? It does make it a little less inflamatory.

[Inseriousity.]

If I booked a holiday, paid money for that holiday then got to the hotel where they refused to serve me, I'd take them to court too. If however they informed me of their conditions before I booked and I booked anyway then that'd be my responsibility. It sounds to me like they did not do the latter and therefore they are at fault imo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well you did add the word 'militant' then Well in that case we could call the proprietors 'miltant' Christians, could we not? So why not say that? It does make it a little less inflamatory.

You could, but I don't see the Christian imposing their views on others - other than on their own property.

If a Christian couple went to a hotel owned by a gay couple and the gay couple had a sign reading 'only gay couples can share beds' - and the Christians took them to court, then i'd call the Christian couple a militant couple also as it would show they cant accept the views of other people.

I call a spade a spade and just because its a touchy feely subject doesn't mean i'll shy away from it.

If I booked a holiday, paid money for that holiday then got to the hotel where they refused to serve me, I'd take them to court too. If however they informed me of their conditions before I booked and I booked anyway then that'd be my responsibility. It sounds to me like they did not do the latter and therefore they are at fault imo.

If they did not inform then they are at fault, but not on grounds of discrimination.

[FlyingJesus]

Both are linked, private property and private business are direct links of freedom of thought, speech and view.

Actually when it comes to a business that deals with members of the public it's not just expression through thought, it's quite clearly in deed as well

[Ajthedragon]

Frankly some people might find gay people in their homes offensive, so surely this works both ways?

For example, Muslims disagree with homosexuality, so having them allowed to stay in their business by law would surely offend them.

As usual, only one view is ever taken into account, and taxpayers pay a cruel price.

[Technologic]

Frankly some people might find gay people in their homes offensive, so surely this works both ways?

For example, Muslims disagree with homosexuality, so having them allowed to stay in their business by law would surely offend them.

As usual, only one view is ever taken into account, and taxpayers pay a cruel price.

Views don't change this though, the b&b owners breached the law when they refused a room on the grounds of sexual orientation.