Apologies for the daily fail link, but this prompted vastly different responses between me and my dear Mum, so I thought I'd find what Hexites think... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-room-B-B.html
Printable View
Apologies for the daily fail link, but this prompted vastly different responses between me and my dear Mum, so I thought I'd find what Hexites think... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-room-B-B.html
Yes, I believe they should.
It's their homes, and their business.
If I didn't want you in my shop, I'd turf you out... same rules for B&B's.. the REASON is not material....
(I've deliberately NOT clicked the link, as I bet it's either anti gay or anti race rejection )
No - either you're open to the public or you're not. Do we really want to go back to No Irish, No blacks, No pets ?
<shudder>
Don't want certain people in your home ? Don't open it to the public. Simples.
I am bit mixed on this , my thoughts are any one should be " considered " but not necessarily allowed if they dont feel comfortable ( for any reason ) .
My reason being quite simply it avoids potential problems without playing the race card or making someone feel discriminated against .
Although I do tend to lean more towards Phages dont start something you cant finish, there are also other factors too ( for example background checks bringing up history ) etc
m
Egads !
No, No, No.
It is never OK to discriminate on the basis of sex, race etc in a business sense. Moreover it's illegal.
You can refuse people on the basis of their dress, their behaviour or any reason other than the one's above.
Oh but it so is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak33
If the REASON happens to be that you're black / white / Chinese / whatever presumably you'd have no problem with that either then?
Well they wont know unless you tell them , and even if someone says they wont it doesnt mean they will , as they say old habbits die hard..Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
You cant change how people react to something they dislike even if their forced too - I know I've seen this many time in the past with my disability and other things.
If its just room where you dont interact much - no problem , but more awkward if their playing hosts when you obviously know they dont like you.
M
Yes they will. As you have obviously done yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
Sure. But this is why we have laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
We can try. If they're in business, they have a duty to act fairly to all. Or suffer the consequences of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by melon
I don't know the laws surrounding B&Bs, but I am inclined to think it's their house, if they don't want them staying then fair enough.
I don't considering in the same way as I would a hotel etc.
Regardless of whether it was right or wrong, the reaction in terms of the death threats etc is just disgusting.
Dont follow , if the law allowed for refusal under any conditions you just refuse them - you dont need to say whyQuote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Aye, but someone can obey the laws and still be awkward and nasty as they please about it, as many are i.e. disability hate being an exampleQuote:
Sure. But this is why we have laws.
Tell that to numerous bus drivers I used to deal with- not all - but mostQuote:
We can try. If they're in business, they have a duty to act fairly to all. Or suffer the consequences of the law.
Generally speaking the more out of character / effort someone has to display, the more pizzed off they get ( esp if its in their own homes )
m
But they weren't refused on the basis of either sex, race or even sexual preference. They were refused on the basis of behaviour, that being an unmarried couple sharing a bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
So it's worth noting that they have said they have no problem with gay people staying, and would have offered separate rooms if they had them, but they didn't. And that they have refused rooms in the past to heterosexual couples that were clearly unmarried.
And their policy is determined by their religious beliefs, that being that sex between unmarried people is a sin in the eyes of God.
It's all about whether people should be allowed exceptions to the law on the basis if their religious beliefs, and whatever the rights or wrongs of this particular situation, the law is absolutely rife with exceptions on the basis of religious belief.
An example would be the exception allowing Sikhs to ride motorbikes with a crash helmet, or to carry a weapon, a kirpan, that would otherwise be considered an offensive weapon, and carry serious penalties.
As per the above example, it's not necessarily illegal to discriminate, and I could give you quite a few more exceptions to various laws, including race discrimination laws, on that sort of basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
As I said, they weren't refused because they were gay, but because they were unmarried and wanting to share a bed, in direct contravention of the owner's religious beliefs.
Now personally, I'd rather see absolutely no exceptions to laws that apply to most of us being given religious exemptions. But the law is what it is and it's rife with exeptions .... except, it seems, if you happen to be white, straight and Christian, in which case your religious beliefs appear to carry no merit in the eyes of the law.
Either we respect religious beliefs and permit exceptions, or we don't. Personally, I'd rather it was "don't", but that ain't where we are.
Interesting - I was under the impression that you were not to discriminate on the basis of marital status either ? Therefore discriminating on the basis of being unmarried and sharing a bed is also illegal ?
No problem with gay people staying so long as they don't share a room. Unbeliveably crass thing for them to say. Still clearly discrimination.
This is just silly, it stops being someone's home as soon as someone pays money. Want to have complete control over your guests don't become a business, simple.
AFAIK the law doesn't mind discrimination on a whole bunch of things, especially those you theoretically have some control over. But race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and now age in most circumstances are illegal to discriminate against.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
A quick Google confirms that it is illegal to discrminate on the basis of marital status.
Looks like full list of protected characteristics is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Race
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
Note that marriage/partnership can't be discriminated against, but singledom can - it's not state of marriage, but you can't be discriminated against just because you are married.
Quote:
A person has the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership if the person is married or is a civil partner.
(2)In relation to the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is married or is a civil partner;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are married or are civil partners.
OK, but where is the line?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
If I rent out my spare room am I suddenly a business?
Not illegal, at least, not that I'm aware of. If it is, about half of society are offenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
But it is against religious beliefs .... and not just, as I understand it, of Christians.
My point was, when long-established and sincerely held religious beliefs conflict directly with law, what bends or gives? IMHO, it ought to be the beliefs, but it patently isn't always so.
Whatever we do, though, ought to be consistent.
Erm, no, it doesn't. There's a grey area. For example, you are (or were) allowed to rent out a room in your home, (or were, last time I looked) tax-free on the rental income, with the specific criteria that it is in your home. And you can still determine rules and standards expected in your home, because it is still your home.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
That, if you like, is one step between a fully private residence and a hotel. The next step is to rent out more than one room, or room and part board (i.e. B&B) as a business. And, clearly, at the far end is a fully commercial hotel .... even though some staff, and maybe the owners, live on the premises.
The rules that apply vary, just as they vary between you renting out a house you don't live in to a family, compared to dividing it into an HMO, possibly even if you do live in it. And for any US readers of this, I mean a UK House in Multiple Occupation, not a medical organisation in the US.
It's a spectrum of situations, rather than a black-white issue.
The court found that it was sexual preference that was the discrimination:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
"Michael and John’s claim (funded by Liberty) was made under the new Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 and argued that it was unlawful for a person providing services to the public to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation."
However, this is old news. The reason the Daily fail are looking at it is that they are (fairly sensibly, surprisingly) pointing out the hypocracy of a couple being targeted for abuse due to their beliefs which themselves caused them to judge other people.
If we say that it is wrong for a couple to discriminate on sexual preferences, then should we not also say that they should not be a target of abuse for their beliefs? Said beliefs are also the subject of protected characteristics, so those discriminating against them are guilty of the same thing they are in contention with the couple about.
No. Or rather, not necessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
HMRC's Rent-A-Room scheme lets you receive up to £4,250 a year tax-free from a lodger. It isn't even necessarily just a room you rent, as it can be more than that. But it does have to be (the actual definition is a little more convoluted) in your "home". It does not apply if you buy a property to let, or as an investment, and it isn't your "home".
And that scheme can also apply is you also run a B&B in your home, though the tax certainly gets trickier. And there's a downside, in relation to claiming for expenses, like heat, repairs, etc, because you aren't running a business in rooms used under that scheme, because it's part of your home.
It is, if you like, specifically designed to allow a small annual amount of income from rental, and to provide some amount of extra lodging across the nation, without getting the "landlord" into all the complexities involved in being a proper landlord, or of running a business. A lot of people would consider the prospect of renting a room, particularly if they could do with the income, but would rule it out if it involves the usual substantial hassle and paperwork of running a business. It just isn't, for many people, worth doing if that were the case. It's quite a clever scheme by HMRC.
No, it didn't. Or rather, hasn't yet. Read that para you quoted again, and then read the one before it ....Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
The bold, and bold coloured, emphasis is mine.Quote:
Meanwhile the wheels of justice ground on, all culminating in a court hearing this week at Reading County Court. The judgment is deferred for a couple of weeks.
Michael and John’s claim (funded by Liberty) was made under the new Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 and argued that it was unlawful for a person providing services to the public to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
....
What you quote as the ruling was in fact the basis of the claimant's claim. It has not yet been ruled on, or certainly hadn't at the point of that article, though it's imminent.
And, rather predictably, the claimant's claim puts the basis for the claimants legal argument.
That said, that may be what the judge rulers. If it does, it isn't necessarily definitive, though, is it. It may be appealed, and that may happen several times (Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, ECHR, etc). We may not have a definitive outcome for several years, if that happens.
Oops, I was getting ahead of myself and/or was confused with a similar story. But the point was that the claim was being made on sexual orientation grounds, not suspicion of fornication.
Understood, but the response is that they have no problem with gay people in single rooms, and have the same problem with straight people that aren't married in double rooms, but not single rooms, and that their objection, therefore, isn't that they are gay but were sharing a bed while unmarried. And apparently, not in a civil partnership either.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
That being the case, it's not that they were gay that got them refused, per se, but that they were not "married", and that the same restriction would have, and had previously been, applied to straight but unmarried couples.
I can see both sides of this, and it'll be interesting to see how the judge does eventually rule, and whether it gets challenged or not.
I have another question though.
If they object because of unmarried people having sex being a sin in the eyes of God, and refuse because of that, then does not the Bible say that homosexuality if an abhorrence, or some such?
So, would they refuse on the basis of one 'serious' sin, but not on the basis of another? A somewhat inconsistent, to say the least, approach to one's religion, if I understand the biblical definitions correctly.
One wonders, therefore, how much of the "unmarried" thing is mere sophistry.
All of it. And illegal to discriminate on the basis of it anyway.
I don't think I quite get your point - are you saying that because they are Christians they *should* refuse on the grounds of homosexuality and therefore they would be illegally discriminatory, even if on this and other occasions they claim to be discriminating in order to prevent fornication?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
If so, I think that's a dangerous line to go down, interpreting someone's religion for them and refusing them the opportunity to practise in line with the laws of the land - if that were followed to its conclusion you would outlaw all religion that in anyway had the potential to be contrary to the law of the land, regardless of how it was practised.
No, not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
My point was that they say they refused not because the couple were gay, but because they were unmarried, and that that is a sin. But surely, the bible regards homosexuality as a sin?
So, if they would refuse on the basis of one sin (unmarried) surely their beliefs would require them to refuse on the basis of another sin (namely homosexuality) in the event that the gay would were "married".
In other words, is it not sophistry on their part to say they didn't refuse because of homosexuality but because being unmarried, because if that couple had gone away, got married (or civil ceremony, or whatever) and come back, then they're still homosexual but now married, yet those same religious beliefs would still regard that as a sin, despite being married, and therefore, grounds for refusal by their standards.
I'm not saying that they "should" refuse gays, married or not, or that it would be right. I'm saying that as homosexuality, by their standards is as much of a sin as being unmarried, they'd have refused on the basis of homosexuality even if they were married, so the marriage status made no difference to whether they'd have refused or not.
In other words, it rather smacks of a potentially legally plausible get-out, from what otherwise might well be a very clear case. Whether it works or not remains to be seen.
IMO a B&B should be able to decide who they accept as customers without having to give a reason.
Works with pubs.
ON the first, quite possibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
On the second, maybe. But I've not seen anything that suggests that refusing a double bed to unmarried folk is necessarily discriminatory on a basis with legal force, and even if it is, it remains to be seen if religious belief trumps that, because as I said some time back, it does on a number of other issues. We'll need the resolution of at least this court, and perhaps more, to know if it's illegal or not.
No, no it doesn't if the pub discriminates on the basis of Black/Irish/Catholic/Unmarried/whatever - it's illegal. If you think you've been barred for any of these reasons, bring an action. Most training for bar staff and management is VERY clear on issues like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Can't speak for the UK but the Aus law is fairly clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Where the treatment is 'unfair', ie refusing a double bed, where one is available, to an unmarried couple, it's illegal.
Since when has it been illegal to discriminate against unmarried people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Their house, their rules.
Also all the people who have been sending them hate mail, calls and what not, what sort of people do this? Would YOU do that?
Personally, I think they are scum.
Isn't the reverse question to the OP also applicable: Should people adhering to a religion be discriminated against and forced to ignore their own beliefs in contravention to the Human Rights Act? The owners believe in the union of man and woman within marriage only and would like within their home to have that respected. Now a tolerant society, you would think, would respect that.
I don't think the bible particularly calls on people to dictate how someone else should live. To anyone who isn't claiming to be Christian it actually expects them to live how they please, and only gives its instruction to live differently to Christians - and the ability to do so is only by God working within to change them. It does explicitly state a few things to Christians though: 1) wherever possible live peacefully 2) do not go against your conscience when it is something required by your faith (and note the required - it also encourages people to look carefully at what actually is required) 3) live according to the laws of the land, so far as they do not force you to go against God.
With this in mind, going back to the couple: According to the bible they do not really have the right to say to others how they should live generally, and I don't think they have been doing so. They have not been stirring up civil unrest, but have had it bought to them. At present the couple feel they are currently within their legal rights to request certain behaviour in accordance with their beliefs in their home - and the legal case will test this. Again, I would think that a tolerant society would respect the beliefs of people to ask for certain tolerance of their beliefs within their home.
Tolerance, if that is the aim, is saying "you think one thing, I think another, fair enough. I'll respect your views, you respect mine, and now let's get on with life."
Tolerance is not "you think one thing, I disagree and so I'm going to restrict your freedom to live according to that."
There are some things which are clearly better for society at large - I don't care how much someone wants to think murder is ok, I think most of us would agree that society works better when we all agree murder is a no-no. But is someone asking for respect of their belief within their home really on that scale? Surely this is a time for live and let live. The people wanting to stay there could have found alternative accommodation.
I have a friend who doesn't use the local butcher. They're not comfortable eating halal. Do they take legal action because they have to walk a bit further and shop elsewhere and because the butcher shop won't sell non-halal meat? No, they respect the difference of beliefs and walk a bit further to where they feel happier shopping. It would be somewhat rude to say "you're running a butchers and I want to buy meet so sell it to me on my terms...." Think carefully and this accommodation saga in this post isn't really that much different.
Yes it is. It's analogous to me walking in off the street and the butcher saying, "Get out I'm not serving you, you're not married, muslim, white" etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
What you're suggesting is the seller is not supplying something that your friend wants to buy ie. "I want a room with a waterbed. Not the same thing at all."
"I'd like some pork please mate."Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
"Sorry it's against my religion to sell that here. Have you tried the supermarket up the road?"
"I'd like a room for me and my partner."
"Sorry, we only give doubles to married couples. I can offer you two singles but on a different night."
Hardly screaming get out get out get out is it?
I wonder if the next line was "seems a bit harsh mate, what gives"
"sorry religious belief - gotta stick with my conscience on this one when it's under my roof. Not particularly happy about it, but that's what I believe I'm called to do. Know a guy up the road he might be able to help...?"
Who's being the more intolerant here?
1975Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
It's still not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
"I'd like some pork please mate."
"Sorry we don't sell pork."
"I'd like a room for me and my partner."
"Sorry we...... ummm"
If your hypothetical butcher sold pork, but just not to a particular subsection of the populace you might have a valid argument.
Exactly, it's we don't sell pork to people like you.
We don't offer double beds to people like you.
I think that's kind of what I thought you were saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
That's where there's still some debate in various denominations. Some believe that homosexuality is in itself a sin, others that it's merely sexual conduct outside of marriage, which therefore precluded gay people because they couldn't get married (its usually mentioned alongside other sexual sins most to do with outside of marriage stuff). Now the question of gay marriage comes up and it's become rather interesting for those of the second viewpoint - is legal marriage going to be the same thing as a church marriage? Is it the same in the eyes of God? If so, then that objection to homosexuality disappears. To others, it's not, but even in the worst of cases it's never seen as any more sinful than all the other things we are of a nature to incline towards that are sinful - pride etc., that is, they are more openings to draw us away from God, and no doubt at least partially steeped in the culture of the times.Quote:
In other words, is it not sophistry on their part to say they didn't refuse because of homosexuality but because being unmarried, because if that couple had gone away, got married (or civil ceremony, or whatever) and come back, then they're still homosexual but now married, yet those same religious beliefs would still regard that as a sin, despite being married, and therefore, grounds for refusal by their standards.
Is it anyone's right to stop someone opening themselves up to be drawn away from God? Not usually, unless you are the parent of a child I suppose, but they might believe that they also have a duty not to provide additional opportunities for it - hence the application to all possible sexual encounters outside of marriage in this case it seems.
link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Dis...ation_Act_1975Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...9750065_en.pdf
What the Act says is you cannot treat people differently based upon whether they are married or not married.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by patxi
I believe the bible is against sex for fun as well. IIRC it's only allowed if it's purely for procreation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Short of being fundamentalists, any religious person picks and chooses which parts of their religion to follow.
On this issue, I'd say that is someone is advertising for a lodger - one that will be staying for a decent length of time, then it is their business who they let in.
If, however the service provided is anything more than that - for example, food as well, then it is a business and those rules apply. You can't refuse someone service or a job based on marital status (or indeed, sexual orientation, which is more than likely what this was really about).
If the couple don't like that, then stop offering a B&B service. Lets hope our court system sees sense.
I see this issue as being a little different to Sikhs wearing the crash helmet as - correct me if I'm wrong - all Sikhs stick to that and it's pretty fundamental to their religion. Gay bashing isn't fundamental to Christianity.
That's not how I read it. Which bit were you reading that gave you that idea? I think the bible says sex is great, just that it's at its best within a marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Nope, quite the opposite. Sex is to be enjoyed but is to be between a man and woman and only within marriage. It's a gift from even before the symbolic fall, there is nothing inherently wrong or sinful about sex itself within the context it is intended for. There are whole chunks, an entire book no less, dedicated to the expression of joy with sexual union between a couple [Song of Songs] and clear teaching that married couples are to enjoy it, and do it often. 1 Corinthians 6-7 for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
You either believe in Christ and live for him or you don't. If you believe the bible is God's word then it's not something you can pick and choose from. That said, you do need to make sure you're actually understanding what it says in the first place. There are a lot of folk with a grudge to bear who convince themselves that one verse taken grossly out of context justifies their stance (and conveniently ignoring the several other places it clearly contradicts them elsewhere.) Thos folks aren't fundamentalists, they are at best misguided, and some are downright deceivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
You assume, but on the basis of???Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Yes quite, let's hope it rules in the spirit of tolerance and fairness for all - including those who might happen to hold religious beliefs that are not harmful to others.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
And again, you are quick to assume that this is about gay bashing. What's your basis for saying this? Evidence please! And as an aside, it is quite different for someone to hold the view that sex is to be between a man and a woman within marriage, and ask others to respect that under their roof, than it is to go gay-bashing which implies direct persecution and bigoted hatred of someone over their sexual preference. The two are very very different and it is wrong to leap from one to the other. In fact, it is entirely the sort of intolerance that I hope the courts see through when assessing the FACTS of this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
BUT, when you are in the business of running a business. It ceases to be your own roof and becomes a place of business, and different rules apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3gMDJCZ-4
Sums up the problem I have with people who quote the bible as a source of what's right and wrong.
<is fed up not having proper internet.> can anyone summarise what the clip shows? If it's what I imagine it will be it will be some nut, probably with a southern US accent going off on one as to why so and so should be shot and how the klan is god's will... If it is then I share your sentiment. Can I point out again that Christians are called to measure THEMSELVES and those in the church (ie claiming to be followers of Christ) by the bible. People who don't fall under that header are NOT expected to live in the same way, in fact the bible says expect them to live differently, anyone would - it's inevitable without God at work in them. There simply is not scope for some nut using the bible as justification for hatred, persecution of others, or stirring up dissension. Anyone who does these things only demonstrates their entire lack of understanding, and probably also their entire lack of actual relationship with Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
For what it's worth, I am inclined to agree that in general it is not right for a business to be perimitted to discriminate. However there are cases where a "black and white" law might just balls' things up. EG, a synagogue should be at liberty to decline to hold a Hindu wedding. That would be inappropriate. A Catholic nurse ought to be able to request not to have to work on the abortion ward for reasons of belief.
I would also argue the call for no discrimination swings the other way too. Adoption agencies currently don't let Christian parents adopt if they state they would raise the child in accordance with their beliefs. Discrimination by a business on the basis of faith - contrary to the human rights act. Can I presume you would therefore like to see this redressed also?
So B&B owners are technically homeless?Quote:
Originally Posted by b0redom
Your home is always your home. In any cases businesses are still able to discriminate based on marital status.
Your home may also be a place of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Where in the act are you drawing your conclusion that it is OK to discriminate on that basis ? It specifically covers all aspects of Employment Law as well as the provision of Goods and Services. (Part III) (The 1975 Act was further strengthened and extended by precedent and the 2010 Act.)
More interestingly, why do you want it to be true ?
A Synagogue is not a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Possibly. But I personally don't agree. I always thought that the foundation of a helath service was equal access for all. How would you feel if the refused treatment to someone on the basis of their sexuality ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Again - adoption is not a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Management has the right to refuse service.
It's that simple if I run a business and for whatever reason I do not want your custom I can refuse you service. I do not even have to give a reason.
In the case of the linked story it is a matter of Christians refusing service to homosexuals. Since Homosexuality is against the christian belief they could just refuse them service on religious grounds and the law should protect them since nobody can be forced to do anything that is in direct violation of their religious beliefs (within reason)
Oh and they did not refuse to let them stay they just refused to let them stay in the same room.
But back to the question of what a business is. If a synagogue accepts money for holding weddings is that different from accepting money to allow someone to stay in your house?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Try actually reading the act and then tell me whether it is true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
Does the act also ban discrimination by age when providing goods and services?
Where does it say that? All I can find is the same thing we said before - you aren't allowed to treat people unfavourably because they are married, I couldn't see anything about discrimination because you were not married.Quote:
Originally Posted by patxi
I religiously believe black people are inferior, therefore I have the right to have "no coloured allowed" signs in my establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larkspeed
Seems reasonable?
Under the law if you are a member of a recognized religion where being colored is against your religion then under the current law structure yes. You cannot post openly discriminate signage but you are within your rights to refuse service.. However as far as I am aware there is no recognized religion that is anti black so that point is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Religious beliefs very often form the basis of exceptions to rules or laws.
The two that come to mind is the fact that in a lot of countries Sikh's are allowed to carry swords since they are classed as religious paraphernalia. And in Canada the long standing uniform code of the RCMP ended up being changed so that indian officers could wear turbans since it is against thier religion to remove them in public.
Different Act - the 2010 one I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
I was reading the Act hence my referece to part III. I'll ask again, what are you basing your opinion on ?
EDIT: Why so combative ?
Obviously different. Lack of a profit motive.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
By implication therefore you're Ok with this form of discrmination ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
The 2010 act does not ban discrimination on providing goods and services with respect to marital status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
The 1975 act is immaterial.
Are we not having a perfectly rational debate here, is that combative?
I'll ask again - what are you basing these statements on ? What are your references ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
Since you haven't put forward a single article or reference to back up you bald statements, other than "Try actually reading the Act", I'd say yes. Especially since you hadn't even heard of the either Act until they were pointed out to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
This part (provision of goods and services) does not apply to the protected characteristic of marriage:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/28
Repeal of Sex Discrimination Act 1975:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/27
Now really is there any reason you couldn't have just looked it up yourself?
Why do I have to provide references to an act that you have already referenced yourself?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phage
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patxi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Sounds like the standard meaning of discrimination to me.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff I
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
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.
Gay is a more powerful word than un-married when you try to sell papers!Quote:
Originally Posted by BobF64
I totally agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
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?
It isn't, but if a shop refused to server someone simply because they were gay then this would be discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
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.
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 exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unique
If B&B owners weren't allowed to refuse any guests for any reason then an awful lot of people would have to rethink.
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
They are still allowed to refuse guests for any lawful reason. In doubt seek legal advice...Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
You can get tax relief if you are married. This discriminates against non married people. All legal and above board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
You are suggesting every B&B should have a lawyer on call? Sounds expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
That's the key point here. They tried to argue that they were discriminating on marital status, but from what I can tell, they didn't try especially hard to assess marital status for straight people (often assumption that they were married), and made no attempt to assess marital status for the gay couple (100% assumption of unmarried - pop open one of the previous Hexus debate about civil partnership vs marriage, for interest). So while the judge noted their claimed intention, the court might have thought that they applied these intentions unequally between gay and straight people, hence discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
they should be aware of key legal issues from day one, with this policy being on in particular. however if they were members of the federation of small businesses, which would be at a very small fee for such a small company, they would have lawyers (not one, but many, specialising in many parts of business law, including employment law) on call at no additional charge, and in some cases at least they provide in addition some legal insurance if you follow their advice and it turns out further action is required, such as representation in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
thus, it's not expensive at all
but the fact remains that they didn't. they accepted the booking that was made in advance. they then turned away the couple when they turned up. they didn't have another room to offer them, so the couple weren't allowed to stay at allQuote:
Originally Posted by Willzzz
As long as you dont racially or religiously discriminate, I am OK with it.
i presume you forgot about sex and disability discrimination? but what about age discrimination? all are illegal in the UKQuote:
Originally Posted by OilSheikh
Married man's tax relief was abolished some years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by deejayburnout
but if you are over 77, and married before 2005 and still married, you can still take advantage of it. i'm sure there are hundreds of hexus members living it upQuote:
Originally Posted by peterb
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/married-allow.htm
but the reality is that most forms of discrimination are completely legal, only a few types are illegal in the UK. so if you have something against gingers, you don't need to employ them. if someone has a beard, you don't need to employ them. long haired hippy, that's ok, you don't need to employ them. squinty eyes? no problem, they probably couldn't even fill in the paperwork anyways
we don't have complete freedom of speech in the UK, as is the same in most countries, even though many think they do, and discrimination laws similarly have parts where it is legal to have different rules for men/women, straight/gay, race, age and disability. but that's the point, it's legal, and there are reasons behind it. it would be crazy to pay child allowance to a 70 year old, or disability allowance to a perfectly fit person