Gay-Only Hotels To Be Investigated for Disciminating Against Straights

[RetiredTrotskyite]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is to investigate gay-only hotels for possible breaches of equality law.

The body said it needed to establish an “objective balance” after investigating Christian-run hotels which bar gay couples.

Last month, a couple who own a hotel in Cornwall were ordered to pay £3,600 to a gay couple they refused a double room to.

The EHRC says it has not received any complaints over gay-only hotels but is looking for evidence of potential discrimination.

Two gay hotel owners told the Daily Telegraph that being forced to accept straight people would damage their businesses.

John Bellamy, who runs the gay-only Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth, said that equality legislation was a “double-edged sword” and claimed that forcing gay bars and hotels to accept straight people was killing gay culture.

Mark Hurst, a gay-only guesthouse owner from Brighton, said his customers felt more comfortable in gay-only atmospheres.

The EHRC said: “As discriminatory issues concerning ‘Christian’ bed and breakfast establishments and hotels have been officially brought to our attention, and as we are testing the law in this area, there is a need for the Commission to establish an ‘objective balance’.

“We are, therefore, looking in to the matter of ‘gay-only’ hotels’/B&B establishments and the potentially discriminatory policies towards heterosexual couples that some of those ‘gay-only’ establishments may hold.”

The EHRC funded the case against Christian hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull.

A judge at Bristol crown court ruled that the Bulls had directly discriminated against civil partners Martin Hall and Stephen Preddy on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

Mr and Mrs Bull argued that they barred all unmarried couples from sharing rooms but the gay couple claimed that a straight couple could pretend to be married.

The Bulls are now set to appeal the ruling, with the financial backing of the Christian Institute

Sounds like the Christians are out for vengence. Cause, yanno, they're so persecuted.



http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/21/gay-only-hotels-to-be-investigated-for-discriminating-against-straights/

[petronius]

1. I have to wonder, if the initial complaint had been against a gay-owned hotel,

if the EHRC would have gone questing for discriminatory Christians in some misguided need for 'balance'...

[RetiredTrotskyite]

2. My Guess Is Not....

Interestingly EHRC has received no complaints of discrimination. This is just tit-for-tat.

[dickthegrouch]

3. I agree that it is utterly specious without a complaint

But this does fall into the bucket of "Be careful what you wish for".

Another thing for the legal mavens to ponder is whether my 15 year same-sex relationship became a common-law marriage during the time that marriages were legal in California. And, if so, what status does it have now?

(Whether accurate or not, one of the reasons given for Tom Cruise separating from his almost 10 year relationship was that it would become a common-law marriage at 10 years.)

[dsc]

4. I highly doubt it would have

since neither of you could have foreseen that marriage would become legal during the 15 years you were together.

[TheWraith]

14. I'm not so sure about that.

Traditionally, ignorance is not defined as a defense in law. You may receive leniency for it from, say, the police, if you accidentally violate a traffic law. But in court, it's not considered an excuse. So not being able to foresee that your relationship could me a marriage might not make the cut if you took it to court.

Of course, there's the question about the wording of CA's common-law marriage statute. For instance, if it uses gender-specific terms, it might exclude gay people even with gay marriage being legal at the time, at least until such time as it's amended by the legislature, or ordered amended by the courts.

That said, the determination of "common law" marriages usually only happens when/if one of the partners goes to court, so most likely it would be defined (or not) based on what laws were operable at the time the significant other decided to sue your ass.

Whatever way you slice it, it's an interesting legal question.

[FreeState]

5. Apples and oranges

Gay Only Hotel = Hotel that is advertised as gay destination, usually will allow gay friendly straight people to stay, knowing what kind of hotel it is.

Hotel open to the public = advertised to everyone as a hotel. It is not advertised as a "Christian" destination. The owners are using their faith to justify discrimination.

[foxeyes2]

6. It's only fair

Discrimination is discrimination whether it is christians against gays or gays against straights. To say that allowing straight folks to stay at a gay hotel is destroying gay culture is insane. How by allowing them to do so is going to bring down Sappho and Michaelangelo and all the art, music, poetry, music, Stonewall and all the other things that comprise gay culture? It won't have any adverse affect on gay culture on my life or anyone else. It is a good thing to have gay friendly straight people around us. To not allow them to stay in a hotel is wrong.

[queerart]

7. Lets Be Sure To Keep Our Focus.....

PINPOINTED on the fact that we are talking about hotels in the UK..... NOT the United States......


As the Christian Terrorists are going to run with this story, and distort the facts in a New York minute.....


Frankly, I can't imagine what is on the minds of the Gay Hoteliers, as if someone is friendly, and means you no harm... then I don't understand the stress.....


But if someone was going to come for a stay at their establishment, and started proselytizing to other patrons about how they were going to Hell... (which I'm sure is their end goal).... (and I'd bet money that their religious right to do so would be upheld in the Human rights court in Europe)... then yes, without a doubt, it would destroy the Gay Hotels... and the zealots know it.


It's called: "Death By A Thousand Cuts"..... doesn't matter how you kill it, as after the fact.... it's still dead......

[closeupready]

8. Fishing expedition.

:mad:

[Hosnon]

9. If Curves can exist legally, so can gay hotels. nt.

[FreeState]

10. m not sure they have Curves in Great Britain n/t

[Hosnon]

12. Yeah... totally missed that crucial bit of info. nt.

[Diabolita23]

11. Against the LAW!

Wow. I can't believe that gay-owned hotels are throwing out the baby with the bathwater that way. I work with a gay hotel (the East Canyon Hotel + Spa - the only NON clothing optional gay property in Palm Springs, CA: http://www.eastcanyonps.com and we are absolutely welcoming to customers of all sexual orientations.

[TheWraith]

15. Yeah, it's simply reckless and lawsuit bait.

Legally you can cater to a given demographic, but you can't legally decline to serve someone based on their sexual orientation. So, say, you could have a "gay oriented" hotel with lots of gay-friendly services--gay porn on the TV, muscle-bound Swedish massage specialists, exceptional color coordination, whatever. But you can't refuse a straight person a room simply because they're straight.

[mitchtv]

13. we had a lawsuit like that here in Palm Springs

a couple of years ago, They were professional litigants.I don't remember it getting anywhere

[alltherage]

16. Typical Retaliation

The other side always has to be the perpetual victim.

[Ian David]

17. You can't bar straight people from gay hotels, or they'll have nowhere to hide from the mafia...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075144/