h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Are you saying, Otto, that such organisations can refuse bookings from anyone for any reason?
My village hall is secular, but we might for instance decide to refuse a National Front event, a lap dancing stag night, regular meetings of some extremist religious group. How is it different for a group which is a charity, with costs to meet, from someone running a business like a B & B?

Well the reason that B&Bs want exemption is because of the sex not the homosexuality (allegedly). I dont know of any halls, church or otherwise that would be prosecuted for not letting there hall out for ANY sex acts. Though if you are allowing stag nights with strppers you'd have to allow them for all and any loegal orietation.

Morning Otto,

Your description is bang on, and yes, I can speak for myself.

My point as originally stated is that legislation to protect minorities is right and proper. Nobody should be discriminated against on the grounds of race creed or colour. What people could, and should be discriminated against is on the grounds of behaviour.

I have no feeling about homosexuals in any way. What they get up to in private is their own business, and I certainly don't object to it on religious or christian grounds.

However, probably because of my age I found the idea of teenage daughters copulating with boyfriens in my house unnacceptable ( laugh if you wish SoRB ) and I would similarly find myself very unhappy with homosexual practices in my B&B ( if I had one ).

I have no case I can argue, this just how I feel, and I think that I am entitled to my feelings in the same way as ( for example) homosexuals are , or any other group which has preferred forms of behaviour.

As far as I am concerned folk can do what they like as long as it is not openly offensive, and doesn't 'frighten the horses'. It isn't necessary for me to shout my feelings from the rooftops, nor to decry people whose activities and proclivities I find hard to accept.

Novo
(blackcat>

>>"I have no feeling about homosexuals in any way. What they get up to in private is their own business, and I certainly don't object to it on religious or christian grounds."

Thing is, a room in a hotel *is* 'private'. Privacy is one of the things that people pay for. Neither the owner nor anyone else has the right to install peepholes or video cameras to watch what people are doing.

Whatever their orientation and whatever they are doing, as long as they aren't being noisy or leaving the room in unusual disarray, what they do in there is their business.

>>I would similarly find myself very unhappy with homosexual practices in my B&B ( if I had one ).<< Novo

But which homosexual practices Novo. There is as much variety in these as in heterosexual practices. And are you talking about both male and female homosexuals? And what are your objections to homosexual practices as opposed to heterosexual practices in this hypothetical B&B of yours?

<>
<<...I would similarly find myself very unhappy with homosexual practices in my B&B ( if I had one ).>> (Novo)

What homosexuals 'get up to' in a B&B or hotel room *is* actually done in private.

The only way a B&B owner might guess what any of their paying guests are 'getting up to' in their rooms would be if they were making an exceptional amount of noise whilst *doing it*.

<> (Novo)

So a homosexual couple can book into a country B&B, have a nice romantic dinner together, followed by a romantic night in their room and no pasa nada ...

az

Teasswill, I'm not qualified to give legal advice, but my understanding is that is illegal to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or religion - though not age, I don't think. Political views aren't covered, so I think it would be okay not to hire a hall to the NF, but this might depend on whether it was privately or publicly owned building. Basically, er.... dunno.

On religion, paragraph 16 of the legislation lists the exceptions that are allowed for religious groups [edited for clarity]
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2006/20060439.htm#16

a) if it is necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation; or
(b) so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religions followers.

[then a religious group is entitled...]

(a) to restrict membership of the organisation;
(b) to restrict participation in activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices;
(c) to restrict the provision of goods, facilities and services in the course of activities undertaken by the organisation or on its behalf or under its auspices; or
(d) to restrict the use or disposal of premises owned or controlled by the organisation

On the B&B issue, I think it would probably be legal for a B&B owner to only make double rooms available to married couples or couples in a civil partnership. As UK law treats marriage and civil partnerships identically (as far as I know), then there would be no issue of discrimination here on grounds of sexuality, but on grounds of martial/civil partnership status which is not illegal.

Novo, I think it's reasonable to feel a bit... queasy about certain sexual practices (and I know gay people who have similar feelings about heterosexual practices), but what's at stake here is equality and dignity. Thought experiments tend to take the form of one person and his small B&B, but the vast majority of businesses that are now legally prohibited from discriminatory behaviour are not hotels, and of those that are, the vast majority are commercial businesses, not one person or family run concerns. So much so that I'd be tempted to say that anyone who felt so strongly about the issue should find another job.

And it's important to consider the net effect of lots of individual decisions. I could take my partner to pretty much any hotel or B&B without a second thought because I'm straight. Gay couples would either have to research beforehand to find a gay friendly hotel, or have the stress and worry of facing embarrassment or rejection if their booking is not accepted and so on. They might find their choice of hotels and locations to be restricted to major cities, and so would be deprived of the opportunity to take certain kinds of holidays and leisure trips.

Hello Fanny

I have already said that I have no rational argument. The same goes for Az's post.

We all have our own feelings about what is acceptable and what is not. They are usually irrational and as such are not up for debte, or even rxplanation.

For example I find spitting in the street unnacceptable, and I don't care for the F word either, but I will not be drawn to defend what I know is probably undefendable.

You leave me to my preferences and I'll leave you to yours, further, won't question yours anyway.


Novo

Hi Blicky

,, Novo, your example is fine (in that it does not affect you) but what if you were disabled and were unfortunate enough to have booked a room in place run by strict fundamentalist Hindus. You might think that you deserve decent treament but they show you to the coal bunker because their religion says your disability shows you have sinned in a previous life and do not deserve the same treatment as decent people.>>

I have learned something here . I was not aware of this Hindu attitude but IF I waere disabled I guess I would have checked the available facilities before booking, so both I and the proprietor would be aware of the situation , presumably.

Novo

Yes but I am still curious to know which homosexual practices you have an irrational feeling against?

Maybe I could help you out with an example then Novo. Say for example in your hypothetical B&B, you had two gay women staying, and they were in bed together, naked, and quietly tenderly, passionatly kissing one another. I think by anyone's interpretaion this could be described as a homosexual practice. Would you object to this?

I think this does go to the heart of the matter as many people have prejudices full stop, against certain people. It has nothing to do with what they happen to be doing. And no-one is objecting to someone feeling a certain distaste for it because we all have different emotional likes and dislikes. It's about trying to understand why someone feels so strongly about something that they could not even bear such people to be in their vicinity, even spending the night in a B&B, hypothetical or otherwise, minding their own business and not hurting anybody else.

Fanny - I think you're assuming that people see male homosexuality as dirty but lesbianism as sexy. Which porn sites and magazines would seem to confirm. I don't see either as sexy.

I don't wish to see hetrosexual couples snogging in my dining room, never mind any other sexual orientation.

Anyway what's all this bias against bestiality - why's that still outlawed ?

If we're going to have sexual freedom, then lets have sexual freedom.

>>Fanny - I think you're assuming that people see male homosexuality as dirty but lesbianism as sexy.<<

Er no, McKay, absolutely no idea where you got that from.

"Isn't it odd, though, that the UK is perhaps one of the most secular countries in the West, while the one with the clearest separation of church and state (the US) is the most religious?"

Not really. America was settled by various christian sects fleeing persecution in England and wider Europe and who formed their own communities (mormon, baptist etc). The American revolution was lead by liberal radicals who opposed not only monarchism and aristcracy but also the link between the church and state. Whilst many of the revolutionaries were not especially religious (Thomas Paine, for example) many of them were but believed in the separation of church and state as part of a committment to religious freedom *not* an anti-religious standpoint. The point wasn't "America is a country where the religious are kept out of power" but "America is a country where no church can dominate another and the church is kept out of affairs of state". So, it's perfectly possible for America to be a largely-religious country and yet keep church and state separate.

The UK, on the other hand, has the link between church and state going back to Henry VIII and the establishment of the Anglican church to replace the influence of Rome. Whilst the two have been linked since (bar the republican period from 1649-1660 when the Anglican church lost its influence under Cromwell's puritan rule) the British people have become increasingly areligious, especially in the last fifty years.

"Anyway what's all this bias against bestiality - why's that still outlawed ?

If we're going to have sexual freedom, then lets have sexual freedom."

You've confused the rights of consenting adults with the right to abuse an animal incapable of consenting.

It's not the same, at least not to anyone with a basic grasp of morality.

Aaah morality.

So consenting adults is OK ?

However what about indoctrination ? Most of the anti-homosexual lobby are being claimed as being religous - surely the clearest case of indoctrination there is.

What about pornography, the majority of which features women working against their will to earn meagre wages selling the only asset they posess - they consent to it, but only because they have no choice.

Sexual freedom is not just consenting adults in private is it ?

I work because I have no other way of getting food apart from begging or going through bins.

So that's not an argument against pornography. Also where do you draw the line. Many music videos are overtly sexual does that mean that showing women as sex objects is OK and not exploitaive as long as the actual sex act is not depicted? Pornstars earn more than dancers.

I think we have to draw the line at informed consent. Wheres else is sensible?

Sweat shops and starvation wages are exploitation but then so are most labour/money exchanges even decent wages mean that the company can afford to pay more while exploiting peoples need to earn money.

Getting back to Faithers, I think I have a solution. They can live amongst and keep to their religion strictly if they want but they must take the rough with the smooth.

Christians by all means exclude, jews, people in mixed fibre clothes and homs, but you must not work on Sundays ifyou wan your business run on Christian rules do so. Lets see how long you stay in business on that basis.

Novo you have a point regarding that it is worth disabled people checking if a service they are going to use is accessible. However its only Christians and small minded people who are to my knowledge kicking up a moral fuss. I dont know of any Hindu business owners hwo complained about similar laws recently introduce that say where reasonable business have to make themselves accessible to the disabled.

one love

So was that yet another unecessary law from this legislation obsessed government ?

Hi Fanny,

Could you explain your curiosity. You and I might disagree on a number of things, but I don't think I would ask you to 'explain', I would argue a case with you, but at the end of the day you are entitled to your preferences, and I to mine.

I do not understand homosexuality. I have always been fully hetero myself, so it is unchartered waters. Thatos why I cannot answer your question. Since I know so little about the emotion ( though I can perhaps grasp that) I know too little of the practices to answer you.

Novo

The reason I am curious Novo is because you said,

>>I would similarly find myself very unhappy with homosexual practices in my B&B ( if I had one ).<<

I can fully understand and respect you having a personal distaste for homosexuality. But what I don't understand is that you would go so far as to not want them in your hypothetical B&B. You have two people behind closed doors, showing love/sex for one another, they just happen to be the same sex, not hurting anyone else. As much as I get irritated by relgious types for objecting to this, at least there is a kind of mad rationality to it, because they think it goes against their religion. You however just don't want such people in your B&B because you just have an irrational objection to it, full stop, no more argument about it. Well it utterly mystifies me that an intelligent person can say that, full stop. But as you say that's your view I will accept it. It's obvious the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere.

Except to say you say, 'You don't understand homosexuality'. Well there's lots of things I don't understand, but if consenting adults want to do them in private, not affecting or hurting anyone else, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they did them in my hypothetical B&B. I suppose we're just different sorts of people.