If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Everyone should agree with me;)
I have no doubt that the man his a homophobe, he made that quite clear, but there is also concern that this story hit the media before he had actually been abusive...
Interestingly the B&B owner broke no laws. It is within his rights to refuse a double room if he wants.
The reason that his details have been removed by the Tourist Board is because of the offensive nature of his e-mails to the customer. These were apparently sent after the B&B owner had recieved several abusive e-mails from the "customer's" friends and enquiries from the media about his "refusal" to let a room.
As it should be.
If he doesn't want a cack-pipe cosmonaut in his hotel, then let him rant and rave about shit stabbers, benders and queers.
Freedom, innit?
Absolutely.
He wasn't refusing them a room, he was refusing them a double bed. There was nothing to stop them from accepting that.
But no, instead we have a media story which just created more animosity.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to run it. But clearly his B & B deserved no praise or promotion from an official agency such as the Scottish Tourism Board. Removing him from the 'recommended' list was a bit of a no-brainer IMO.
definitely.
But I don't see why there is such a media furore.
I'd go and stop at his B&B just to spite the litte turds who leaked the story.
It was a no-brainer because of the offensive way in which he expressed his views.
I cannot fault him for not wanting homosexuals to share a bed in his house. I can fault him for referring to is refusal as "not condone such perversions", because that is a different tact.
The man is an idiot though, single beds don't stop people having sex. If I had been them I would have taken up the offer of two single beds, and then had the noisyest sex possible...
I don't particularly like people in the BNP.
However if I were this bloke, under your same views it would be illegal for me to not allow someone who is in the BNP from entering my premises.
What if I were Asian? Could I face having my buisness black listed because I barred people who's views were completely alien to me?
If you think in those situations the Asian would be perfectly entitled to bar a BNP member, then you can't take the moral highground on this issue. The white, middle aged owner is just as entitled to bar people if their views don't fit his own.
Not so very relevant here, no particular sexual predilections it reveals a minor obsession perhaps?
I do dislike bigotted scum. Oh well.
Where does it all end?
In the US, you can be a Neo-Nazi and speak your views, but don't be surprised when people speak their views back to you and call you putrid degenerate with oatmeal masquerading as brain matter. :rolleyes:
And I'm asking the question, if he were black and did exactly the same thing and wouldn't allow someone from a white supremeist organisation into his hotel would you be saying the same thing?
However, I do NOT think the black guy should allowed to ban the person from staying at his hotel. I don't think it is equitable; although I do understand why he would feel that way.
The reason that we have the right to free speech in the United States, which is upheld by our Constitution, is to protect even the upopular voices from speaking and that would include White Supremists. I think their views such raw eggs, but I don't think they should have their voices squelched, and they should not be discriminated against in hiring practice, or logding, or else, we would return to the days of racial/religious segregation that is sanctioned by law. In both cases, a person is denying another person services based on a dislike of his/her belief system.
Let's take your example and extend it....What if grocery stores decided that they would deny selling food to White Supremists? Well, one might argue that this is ok, because the grocery store is a "private business." However, some products are NECESSITIES and to deny access to them by a company is to step on the rights of the White Supremist.
As for your example, you realize that it is unlikely that the black guy's complaint against the White Supremist, will result in his getting "black listed" because many people detest racial bigotry these days. So in that respect, the society polices itself. Laws are created when the society is not doing its job properly in policing itself.
I'm not 100% sure, but in the USA, I think that to deny a person logding based on gender, sex, religion, etc is grounds for a civil suit for damages (I think). So if a company (like a hotel) is denying people services based on being a White Supremist OR on being homosexual, then that would be a potentially unethical and illegal business practice. In that case, they have the right to blacklist that person in order to maintain their own reputation.
So in other words, I don't have a double standard as far as how I think the two situations should be handled (the White Supremist and the homosexual incident). Although my personal beliefs may differ with respect to my OPINION of the White Supremist, I still think both the homosexual and the White Supremist deserve access to services. The Supremists should not be discriminated against based on their rather odious philosophical beliefs.
Absurd argument really. People choose to be coppers. People don't choose to be gay/black/asian etc
If the B & B owner is a prejudiced bigoted moron then it is his problem not other people's. He is free to run a B & B but clearly he's not very well suited for such job, and his bigoted stance certainly deserves no support or recognition from an official tourism board.
The B&B owner shouldn't be accredited, but that's where it should stop. The couple shouldn't have gone to media, and shouldn't have started harassing the owner. I have a lot of sympathy with the owner, because of these two people thinking that they own the place.
It's strange how they wouldn't complain if the B&B owner turned away a family because it was "no children".
It does make me wonder, why are they so desperate to stop in a place owned by a bigot anyway?
And frankly I would've been royally pissed off myself if I were them... Why have they acted like spoilt little twats? Because they reacted to coming across a nasty little bigoted homophobe who discriminated against them on the basis of their sexual orientation?
I think their reaction has been quite mild if you ask me. I'd be planning to book the entire B & B with gays and lesbians posing as straight couples and then having a massive same-sex orgy on this good man's B & B if I were them.
Who knows, the owner might see the error of his ways and join in the "perversion" he so despises. :rolleyes:
I agree with your other points, i wasn't accusing just asking.
I did however like what you wrote here. I thought one of Bush's plans was to eliminate sexual/religious discrimination from law, making it very difficult for someone to sue a company that discriminates against them for something like sexual orientation or gender.
According to things I've read he is systematically removing all liberal judges from the courts and "recommending" the places be filled with republican sympathisers.
But as other posters have said, does his morals extend to unmarried straight couples that enjoy anal sex?
If he has these views, he ought to include it in his advertising like people put 'no children' or 'no dogs allowed'. And if his views are not in line with the Scottish Tourism Board, he should not be a member.
Not quite true to be honest. I might have a factory and your saying I can let who I want in ? If I refuse to employ a gay person then I could be taken to a tribunial, so your theory aint right.
People can not be allowed to be predjudiced against others, the same as we are with regards to race/colour etc. No kind of discrimination should be acceptable.
i agree with that he shouldnt be a member if isnt in line with the tourist boards view
but the owner wasnt offended by what theyd do, like as you know not all gay couples have anal sex, but he just didnt believe in gay people involving themselves in sexual activity UNDER HIS ROOF!
personally just to piss him off i'd organise a big gay/lesbian orgy
what about if you discriminate against intelligence or attitude or ability in a job
ie not taking someone cause they lack initiative or have it?
I would have thought there's an act out to protect homosexuals from prejudice.
Anyway, the guy's in the Uk... when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
If you think what I think you mean, then that is a silly point.
the gays were in his hotel, so they should respect the owner's wishes, however bigoted.
if you can't see how fallacious your argument is, i'd start worrying
i live under my parent's roof and even if my mums rules seem strange sometimes i have to obide by them even if they are kind of stupid, like she wont let a girl sleep in my bedroom, even if i decided i was gay!!! and her reason is 'just cause' and i respect even though im an adult.