Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
Obviously different. Lack of a profit motive.
How do you know? Most religious organisations aim to take a profit from use of their assets in order to support their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Phage
By implication therefore you're Ok with this form of discrmination ?
We're not talking about what we personally think is OK or not - the question is what is discriminated against in law or not, and that is what the court will be deciding on as well.
The law doesn't seem counter discrimination due to being unmarried. Therefore *if* the reason they are saying you can't share a double room is because they don't want to provide opportunities for fornication then it's not illegal. Just like it wouldn't be if they refused use of their property for filming an adult movie or had other rules like no smoking/pets etc. Whether you feel they have any right to add perfectly legal conditions to their use of the room is another matter - as they're not in a monopoly position I think there is probably justification for allowing different B&Bs to have different conditions if they want.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
patxi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willzzz
Actually if you actually read the law rather just Wikipedia you soon find out that this does not apply to provision of good or services.
He'd also find out that that legislation has been repealed in it's entirely .... by the Equality Act 2010. So to get current law, you need to apply that, not the '75 Act, and to apply all the amendments to it.
And that Act has a vast array of complex provisions. Fist, while "marriage" is a protected characteristic, it does not even apply to some large parts of the Act, like premises. Secondly, even if it does apply, there are a substantial list of qualifying criteria, and then a list of general exceptions, and a list of specific exceptions, and some of those apply specifically to religion. For example, religious organisations have some exceptions, religious ministers have some protections, and so do religious beliefs. See, for example, the exceptions in schedules 22 and 23.
And even if all that doesn't apply, what about when one law say "illegal" and another, like the HRA, protects freedom of religion and religious expression.
If things like this were as simple as one act says it's illegal, so it is, it'd never get to court. There'd be no point, except to waste money on lawyer's fees.
NO, this will always be about the exact meaning of provisions, whether they apply or not, when one provision appears to contradict another provision, and when one law says one thing and an other says the opposite.
Which is why we won't know what the law is on this until the current case, and any repeals that result from it, or future cases, are resolved. Law is not fixed in stone. It's constantly changing, evolving, and periodically, being dumped and started again.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
What about Article 14 as brought in by the Human Rights Act of 1998 ?
It seems that the 1975 Act did indeed cover goods and services and this area is now covered by the 1998 Act.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Article 14 says that the other rights in the convention cannot be subject to discrimination. So is it a human right to be offered a room in a B&B?
Article 14 is not a blanket ban on discrimination in any form, otherwise kids could use it to buy booze.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
"Discrimination" has its own meaning in Article 14 of the Convention, and thus in the Human Rights Act 1998. It means broadly "treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations" (quote from Kiyutin v Russia).
However, in more recent years 'discrimination' has also been held to go beyond this - see below on Indirect discrimination and Treating difference appropriately.
Justification
The justification must be objective and reasonable. In other words, it must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.
A quick cut and paste seems to answer that.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Sounds like the standard meaning of discrimination to me.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Now the court has ruled against the B&B in question, I still find it funny, in the strange sense, to read how its being reported.
The judge made note that the owners applied the same "no unmarried couples sharing a double bed" rule to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Yet, everyone keeps on about how the 2 guests were discriminated against because they were gay...
Illogical.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Surely you should be able to refuse anyone into your home, business or no business, plenty of restaurants out there who refuse to serve people but you never see them being taken to court. This case totally confused me why they were taken to court in the first place.
Maybe they had friends in high places or a very big wallet..
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Geoff I
Surely you should be able to refuse anyone into your home, business or no business, plenty of restaurants out there who refuse to serve people but you never see them being taken to court. This case totally confused me why they were taken to court in the first place.
Maybe they had friends in high places or a very big wallet..
It's because many people can't tell the difference between racial/sexual discrimination and plain old ordinary discrimination.
For those that are ignorant of the distinction, they often consider it 'safer' to take the side of the minority, otherwise they might be 'racist' or 'homophobic'.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willzzz
It's because many people can't tell the difference between racial/sexual discrimination and plain old ordinary discrimination.
For those that are ignorant of the distinction, they often consider it 'safer' to take the side of the minority, otherwise they might be 'racist' or 'homophobic'.
It is a sorry old world when thing come down to this and I feel sorry for people on both sides, but me and the wife were drawn in once for being racist towards someone and there colour was never brought into it, they were down right rude to my wife and as soon as the word racist was brought up we just walked away very stunned, and we questioned ourselves how it all came about and for what reason the person would say that to us.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
This shouldnt be any different from a shop or a pub.
They have a right to either serve or no......"Management Reserve The Right To Refuse".
Why should the law on a B&B be any different?
The people that refused entry were also not letting the gay fellas in because it is their home. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial.
Maybe the owners over-reacted, but their belief is that they do not want gas staying under their roof, and being THEIR home, and THEIR business, they should have the right to impose that.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BobF64
Now the court has ruled against the B&B in question, I still find it funny, in the strange sense, to read how its being reported.
The judge made note that the owners applied the same "no unmarried couples sharing a double bed" rule to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Yet, everyone keeps on about how the 2 guests were discriminated against because they were gay...
Illogical.
Gay is a more powerful word than un-married when you try to sell papers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitzen
This shouldnt be any different from a shop or a pub.
They have a right to either serve or no......"Management Reserve The Right To Refuse".
Why should the law on a B&B be any different?
.
I totally agree
This thread has been a very interesting read and there has been some valid points on both sides. However Christian or not, if the B&B owners refused an un-married couple the right to sleep in a double bed in THEIR establishment, then what is wrong with that. Would this case have been so well publised if it was a non religious couple who owned the B&B? What would the gay couple have done if it was a Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/couple who refused them a double bed?
As a Christian, the bible teaches me how to live my life. The B&B owners are living there lives and running there buisness how there faith teaches them too.
Whats wrong with that?
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitzen
This shouldnt be any different from a shop or a pub.
They have a right to either serve or no......"Management Reserve The Right To Refuse".
Why should the law on a B&B be any different?
It isn't, but if a shop refused to server someone simply because they were gay then this would be discrimination.
In this case it was deemed that they had been "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances". It appeared to be a very fine line between the owners upholding their beliefs regarding unmarried couples and whether the gay couple were treated differently (which is why there are so many conflicting views on it), the court found the latter true.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitzen
This shouldnt be any different from a shop or a pub.
They have a right to either serve or no......"Management Reserve The Right To Refuse".
Why should the law on a B&B be any different?
The people that refused entry were also not letting the gay fellas in because it is their home. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial.
Maybe the owners over-reacted, but their belief is that they do not want gas staying under their roof, and being THEIR home, and THEIR business, they should have the right to impose that.
that sign would have little to no legal meaning. it wouldn't let you illegally discriminate. you can discriminate on a number of reasons legally, such as if someone is fat/think or tall/short, but not age/sex/race/disability for example
if the couple with the b&b didn't want certain people staying in their home, opening it up as a b&b wasn't perhaps the best choice of business to operate
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unique
that sign would have little to no legal meaning. it wouldn't let you illegally discriminate. you can discriminate on a number of reasons legally, such as if someone is fat/think or tall/short, but not age/sex/race/disability for example
if the couple with the b&b didn't want certain people staying in their home, opening it up as a b&b wasn't perhaps the best choice of business to operate
But you can legally discriminate on marital status.
If B&B owners weren't allowed to refuse any guests for any reason then an awful lot of people would have to rethink.
Re: Should B&Bs be allowed to discriminate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willzzz
But you can legally discriminate on marital status.
And in this case the court found that this wasn't the case, it found that they were treated differently because they were gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Willzzz
If B&B owners weren't allowed to refuse any guests for any reason then an awful lot of people would have to rethink.
They are still allowed to refuse guests for any lawful reason. In doubt seek legal advice...